Talk:Spore (video game)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Spore (video game) article.
Famicom style controller This article is part of WikiProject Computer and video games, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Portal:CVG
 CVG Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Low This article is on a subject of low priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
CVG To-do:

To-do list for Spore (video game):

 edit - history - watch - refresh
  • In line citation system for references
  • Filter out redundant information
Spore (video game) is a former good article candidate. There are suggestions below for which areas need improvement to satisfy the good article criteria. Once the objections are addressed, the article can be renominated as a good article. If you disagree with the objections, you can seek a review.

Date of review: 11 October 2006
Archive
Archives
  1. April 2005 – May 2006
  2. May 2006 – July 2006

Contents

[edit] Game inspiration stories and marketing

Seeing the progress of techniques for skeletal animation, free-form deformation and the early editors - it seems pretty convincing that a lot of inspiration for the Spore game came from this work. Wavelets, subdivision volumes and FFD using forces and time also belong to the procedural generation camp. Seeing the cucumber animation video (amongst others) on the work by Steve Capell et al easily associates with amoebas and so on. One can animate anything pretty convincingly. Illusion and a great story seems central in Will Wright's works - just as in his 2005 http://AAIDE.org Spore presentation [1] . Marketing and selling a great story gives meaning to customers and extra depth to the gameplay experience. I just hope someone gets the theoretic information they need and open-souce some animation editor and perhaps make some common object format for it so we could all have some fun editing and creating funny creatures and animation tidbits. Maybe even pitting the creatures against each other in some kind of gladiatoresque arena. http://www.Roboforge.net/ ring a bell ? --Scierguy 15:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, this is all very interesting, but what point are you making exactly? Do you have a suggestion for the article? — Saxifrage ✎ 00:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I am interested in some of the more scientific sides of the game engine being used and am doing some research on this. It's the first time I have seen such a seemingly accomplished and advanced 3D simulation engine used in a game. The proliferation of information about the techniques might also have some effects of helping others continue develop the techniques and similar games. Sadly, many academic institutions are now patenting their visualization techniques (eg. Caltech-developed multiresolution methods). --Scierguy 01:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough; it does sound like fascinating work. What I mean though is, beyond what you've added to the article already, what does this discussion on the Talk page have to do with Wikipedia? Some forum-like chat is tolerated on article Talk pages, but their purpose is actually for editorial discussion and collaboration regarding the article, not the subject of the article. — Saxifrage ✎ 03:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Sure, and the heading with the comment was meant as a lead to others who might have similar interests and perhaps add to the article in some way. The rather bad choice and use of some adjectives I used in the early version of the section I added to the main article probably did not help in any favourable ad-hominem way, but thanks for cleaning it up - I'm just a clueless n00b here anyways and could use all the help thrown at me. Will Smith has talked about Spore users being capable of sharing creations, though - and there will probably be a fair amount of attempts of reverse engineering of formats etc. and this is quite interesting for some. --Scierguy 04:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Now, the game is supposed to procedurally figure out animations and the like on the fly, using some pre-defined rules. (The whole game has been likened to the work of the Demoscene, and the coders may be from there.) The chance of any of that being open sourced, or accessible externally without a great deal of hackery, seems incredibly unlikely. EA, as far as I know, has never been open about any of its works. Very little of this pertains to the article, though. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 07:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Given the fact how very mathematically and scientifically advanced the animation component seemingly is, using common sense it's unlikely that someone from the demoscene has contributed any central part therein. Sure, MSc and PhD students have taken part of demoscene, and even C64 democoders did 3D vector transformations and other amazing stuff back then. Some great energetic youngsters come from the demoscene - and game developers like EA have always fancied anyone who can work 7 days per week and enjoy themselves at the same time. There are many sides to a story, and some common sense along with good references goes a long way. I find some of the Spore marketing story speculative, unplausible or incomplete - but that's the way any good story goes - and it's the official one. Game production nowadays involves a lot of different types of professionals, and storybuilding is an integral part. Parametric functions and procedural generation is very common in modern computer animation, and linking it connotationally with gaming greats like Elite makes a good story. However, neither critique of game or production is the subject of the article, but they are still associated with researching the game, production, technologies involved and so on. I am so fresh at contributing on Wikipedia that I take some time to get used to it all, and would rather spend my time learning from all that you guys have put in as content or content you keep caring for. Thanks. --Scierguy 19:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References for Expanded Universe Section

Since I don't know how to reference printed publications, I will just give the references here and hopefully someone else can update it.

The figurines were confirmed in the August Issue of Discover magazine. See this thread at GamingSteve: [2], with an example picture here: [3] (there are many other pics on the GS forums if you want to search for them, but I assure you they print them out with 3D printers).

The Sporepedia is referenced in the September issue of Edge: [4].

--81.77.108.98 17:54, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Release Date (2)

I actually know the release date: I reserved a copy of Spore at GameStop and the clerk told me that the release date is June 2, 2007. I know my word is not reliable, but it is the best we can get. So, therfore I'm deleteing the Release date section and adding this date to the infobox. Thank you for not reverting it.

70.37.169.101 00:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


I heard that Spore is being pushed back to Fall 2007.

User:MonJoe 20:58, 12 August 2006 (CST)

Retail stores are not a reliable source for video game release dates. The gamestop clerk was guessing as the myriad of game pre-order websites have (almost all showing their own "release date"). June 2nd is by know means "confirmed" because a gamestop clerk said so. We link to the section explaining all the discussion regarding the release date because there has been no official date given. Wikipedia is not for original research, and picking the likely date out of the options is original research. We simply supply all the information, but thanks for your contributions, and I didn't know they were reserving copies yet, I'll be reserving mine soon :). Chris M. 04:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. Amazon.co.uk has been accepting pre-orders for months (at a discount and I have placed mine) with a release date listed of January 2007, and still was as of this morning. The latest interview I read at Gamespot had WW putting release in the second half of 2007, which doesn't conflict with anything else he's said since E3 or with a press release given by EA before that this year. So when is it going to be released? Who knows, but not anytime soon, so give the info so people can make up thier own minds and we remain compliant with Wiki terms. Robovski 04:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

It is important to note that the most recent mention of a "late 2007" release date is from a statement that was qualified twice - so that statement is almost useless as a citation. I dont remember the specific wording - but Wright distinctly used these two qualifiers "right now" he is "saying" late 2007. That makes it so plausibly deniable as to make the statement completely worthless. There is almost no point listing a release date of any sort on this page.

The reason to provide information re: a release date is because it is a very prominent piece of information that someone comming to the article right now will want. We cannot provide a specific date and still abide by Wiki terms of synthesis and original research, so that leaves us with the option of laying out all of the information we have and letting the reader draw a conclusion (avoiding synthesis) or we can have nothing and have even more people adding release dates as they visit while failing to provide information on a very relevant topic (the release of the game itself). And please folks, sign your posts. Robovski 01:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I think you're agreeing with each other. :-) — Saxifrage ✎ 21:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Simearth

This game looks like a combination and revamp of Simearth and Civilization_(computer_game). Maybe it should be mentioned somewhere that it might be?

Although both this game and Simearth have "evolution" as a theme, that's about where the similarity ends. Aside from the vague notion that creatures change over the course of play I don't see any connection between the two games.
Now Civilization, on the other hand, does possibly bear a resemblence to the final phases of Spore. However, it's really just speculation how closely related the two are, so it would be premature to mention the Civilization computer game in this article. Therefore I would suggest not yet mentioning the computer game Civilization in this article, and would leave out Simearth altogether. Dugwiki 16:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Vapourware

Somebody removed my insertion of category:vaporware. If it's not widely considered vapourware yet, then how long should we wait until it becomes more obviously vapourware, and we can re-add the category? There is a lot of talk and hype about this game, but release date is still very nebulous. Should we wait another year?--Sonjaaa 18:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

A nebulous release date does not qualify a game as vaporware. In fact, almost all major computer games do not have set release dates until within a couple of months of going gold, if that. Spore is expected to be roughly a 2007 release, and so it will almost certainly be quite a while before a release date is set.
The Wiki article definition of vaporware is "software or hardware which is announced by a developer well in advance of release, but which then fails to emerge, either with or without a protracted development cycle. The term implies unwarranted optimism, or sometimes even deception; that is, it implies that the announcer knows that product development is in too early a stage to support responsible statements about its completion date, feature set, or even feasibility."
In this case Spore has not "failed to emerge". A set release date was never announced, but all the speculation has been something in 2007. Detailed gameplay videos have been demonstrated at E3 and elsewhere, and there have been no indications of the project being cancelled. In fact, given the amount of time and money and effort put into this particular game, it would be a major shock if the game is never released.
For a game to verifiably qualify as vaporware, it has to become obvious that the game will never be released. Either the game has to be officially cancelled, or a period of at least a year or more should go by beyond any reasonable release date in which there has been no new news from the developers about the game. If either of those things ever happens to Spore, then it would probably be reasonable to reinsert the vaporware tag.
Hope that helps clarify the difference between "vaporware" and "release date not yet set". Dugwiki 18:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree - you don't usually see public demos of software in the vaporware catagory. Spore had the creature designer open to the public at the Leipzig games expo last week. There is a lot of evidence of actual functioning software here as opposed to say, Duke Nukem Forever. Robovski 01:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Hehe, more like "Duke Nukem Never", if you ask me. :) Dugwiki 15:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, yes, well done, very witty. But we've all heard the DNF jokes before. --maru (talk) contribs 15:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
It belongs in a "long time in development" video game category. Mathiastck 11:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Why? Most games take more than a year to develop, usually closer to two or three. — Saxifrage ✎ 21:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
In the first vids I saw about the game, Will Wrights 30 min + gdc presentation, Will Wright talked about how this was game he'd already been tooling around for years, but it just wasn't technically possible. A year later there appeared to be no new developments. The purpose of the presentations seemed to be to generate buzz about the game. This is 2 or so years later, usually people aren't deliberately creating that far in advance of a release, just so it won't appear to be vaporware. What happened? Is there evidence the game has progressed? Mathiastck 23:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually, he said that before it wasn't technically feasible. It seemed clear to me that the "now" of the video was quite a bit later than the "before" of the not-technically-feasible time. The purpose of the presentation was both to generate buzz, and to talk about the untapped potential of generated content. Very much of the speech dealt with the advantages of generated content and the current trouble in the games industry with creating content, as the amount of necessary content was increasing logarithmically while the talent pool and time available was not increasing. — Saxifrage ✎ 01:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Modern games can take 5 years or more to develop, particularly if they have a new gaming engine. It's really only sequals and fairly basic games that have year or so development cycles. vortex
I'm sure there are alot of popular games out now that where in development for long periods of time, like five years. A game like spore is actually going along quite quickly, for a game of it's anticipated magnitude. Not that we know how far along it is. It's being as silent as a North Korean missile silo. 72.1.206.17 20:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)Specusci

[edit] Spore Beta

I don't see any invitation on the spore Beta? At the very least there is an online petition. http://www.petitiononline.com/SPORECEB/ Mathiastck 11:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by "invitation"? — Saxifrage ✎ 02:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I have no idea what I meant. That word seems random. Probably I meant mention? The first thing many people care about when discussing a pre released PC game is.... details about a beta, or lack thereof. Mathiastck 23:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Lack of details usually means no mention at Wikipedia. If we can't cite something, editorial guidelines direct us to not bother putting it in the article at all. — Saxifrage ✎ 01:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any Maxis/Will Wright games having a public Beta phase- the Sims arrived 'fully formed' as far as I know. Ok, even Microsoft are doing public betas but there is no evidence that we'll get one for Spore (sigh) --Peterleroux 09:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New fansite addition - awaiting approval

I see the fansite I added was removed. Sorry about adding it, I didn't see the notice until it was too late and decided to just leave it. Here was the fansite I supplied:

Sporeum - A Spore news source and forum by the creators of Simtropolis, a Sim City 4 fansite.

It's a great site, with a large community. It seems quite up on the latest news and has good features (such as "Splogs") for when the game actually releases. If this site is approved, I'll add it again or someone can do it for me.

69.11.23.13 07:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

While your site is much better then some of the other sites that tried to muscle in their links several months ago with only 532 forum members I don't think at the time it'd be very suitable to be linked from the Spore article. TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 10:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I think you're putting quantity over quality here. You said yourself it's better than other sites that tried to get on here, and yet you dismiss it because of the low member count. I find it odd that GamingSteve's forum got accepted, considering there really is no site to speak of. (Also, it's not my site. I'm just a member of the community) 69.11.23.13 20:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, GamingSteve is there because all early news about Spore was broken by Steve.
The thing about fansites is that Wikipedia:External links says to have one fansite, and we already have two. GamingSteve is there for an exceptional reason, and it's complemented by the very good SporeWiki. There would have to be a very convincing reason to switch to some new fansite. There has to be more reason than "this fansite exists and isn't bad", at least. — Saxifrage ✎ 21:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I can see what you mean. I still believe that people who take the time to look up a video game on Wikipedia over a dedicated gaming website do so in order to get every last bit of information in one place, including any and all applicable external links.
But I guess the Wikipedia standard is to have as few fansites as possible, and I respect that. — 69.11.23.13 21:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
In general, the standard is to have as few external links as possible. In order to be successful at what it does Wikipedia has had to define what it's not, and a search-engine replacement and links directory are two things that it's been decided would get in the way of being a good encyclopedia.
On that note, though, a wiki that does try to have all information possible on Spore is SporeWiki itself. They have articles and links to every fansite known, but I don't see one for Sporeum yet. They'd probably be very happy to see an article created on it with a link to the site. — Saxifrage ✎ 22:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Sporeum added on SporeWiki, it has it's own page, a reviews page, and I also added it to the links and affiliates page. Chris M. 02:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fansites

I see xSpore is back in the fansite list. Previous consensus was that this didn't warrant inclusion. I haven't simply removed the link again as I'm willing to see what general opinion is at now on the inclusion of other fansites. My opinion is basically unchanged - xSpore isn't a bad site. That said, it isn't as busy as GamingSteve, and I don't want this to become a link depository. Robovski 23:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

xSpore offers nothing useful that and the ones already linked don't already provide as far as I know. Unless it offers a unique and useful service or is particularly notable (which I don't think it is) I don't think it needs to be linked to. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 00:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, that's a day later, I'm going to remove it. If anyone thinks they have a good reason to include it or some other link, please speak up here before putting it in the article. Robovski 22:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Government in Civ phase?

Can you change the levels of Political, Personal and Economic freedoms in the civ mode. can you create a unique or known governments?NicholasPrakash 22:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

There has been no evidence for this either way. Chris M. 00:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another screen?

I'm thinking about replacing the old tide pool image (from GDC '05) with a newer image of one of the other phases. But would replacing that one with two be too many? I'm thinking of adding a creature phase image and a space phase image (maybe even civ phase?) I'm not familiar enough with this policy to decide what to do with that, but I think removing the really old image is best at least. Chris M. 01:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

This article is actually fairly long, and only has two images. It can handle maybe four or five. Go ahead and add them! Try to make them alternate left and right, so that on larger resolutions (where the sections are "shorter") they don't run into each other. — Saxifrage ✎ 01:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Done, if you think there could be better images for this, you can take a look around sporewiki's image gallery. Chris M. 03:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Is there any chance we can get some images that are free use? The copyrighted images are nice but we should try to get images that are free to use in line with Wiki (not that I even know if any such images exsist at the moment). Robovski 21:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
It's pretty much impossible to get illustrative images about a video game that aren't fair use–only. There's just no way to get a screenshot that isn't encumbered by fair use doctrine. — Saxifrage ✎ 01:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, and what exactly is a non-fair use video game screenshot exactly? Aren't they by definition in fair use? Chris M. 22:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spore dolls

Didn't see any mention of this in the article, and didn't know if it really belonged here or not. I think it's rather interesting and unique, but I'm not sure if it should be included on the Spore page.
Desire Campbell 140.184.32.65 21:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

There is mention of the spore figurines later in the article, but as a general. They have made them for several people. Chris M. 22:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Theirs a whole squad of spore dolls on xspore, makes you wonder how they make them. Toxic Ninja 03:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
It's a 3D printer. The original threads collecting all the figurine pictures posted across the net and talking about how they were made (along with various speculation) are on GamingSteve, btw, if you want further reading on the Spore ones. --163.1.165.116 01:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Open Directory link

I just added a link to the Open Directory category Spore (looks like: Spore at the Open Directory Project ). My suggestion is to encourage people who want to link to their favourite fansite here to submit it to the Open Directory instead. Since Wikipedia isn't a links directory but Open Directory is, linking to them and having more fansites linked from there is a nice clean solution to our now-and-then linkspam problems. — Saxifrage ✎ 18:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan - I support this proposal. Robovski 23:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Logo

I recently changed the logo for Spore from a 22KB PNG to an 11KB SVG. If anyone has any objections to this, explaining them on my talk page would be great. The image may need to be cleaned up for use at extremely high resolution, but I think at most resolution it is presented at, I can't tell the difference. PirateMonkey 20:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA Failed

First, this article has an "A" class rating which is higher than GA, but that aside I still feel that it isn't up to GA standard and will consider dropping it to "B" class. There are still a few things scattered through out the article that need referencing, some still with {{fact}} tags. Also the gameplay modes or whatever is very long and in parts over detailed and a bit difficult to comprehend to a non-specialist reader. This is still a fine example of a quality article of a game that hasn't been released but not quite a GA, in my opinion

†he Bread 03:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

To be honest I'm suprised that we were ever up for GA in the first place. The article has come a long way though. Robovski 21:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fansites Again

OK, I deleted Spore Monsters from the fansites section. I believe we had considered the site before and rejected it, and I see no reseaon to reverse that now. Robovski 21:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tribal Stage Screenshot

Added a tribal phase picture for this article but it overlaps into the city phase explanation. Not too good with the Wikipedia editing so if anyone could fix that, it'd be helpfull. =) Metnik

[edit] Budget

How much money is being spent on this game? What's the budget? --216.232.97.145 22:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Sporewiki's page on Will Wright suggests $30 million USD. [5] --163.1.165.116 14:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

There's no way that's true.

EA's been putting alot of money into this project for the last 5 years. I don't know if it's 30 Million exactly, but it's definately in the double digit millions. I have no idea what they've been spending that budget on. Maybe lots of coffee and sweet laptops (has anyone seen Wright's laptop that he uses for demos? Top of the line ;)) --Numsgil 00:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I for one read that figure also in an article, but it was quite a while ago now. It seems entirely reasonable for EA to spend that much, considering how long this has been in development and the amount of work that's having to go into what will be one of their flagship games. --163.1.165.116 01:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm almost certain that figure is true, I read interviews and such that stated a figure around there. I don't have a source as of yet but if that's not right, it's damn close. Chris M. 17:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd have thought it would be higher. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 03:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, it's not uncommon for developers to pour millions into development of a game. I'd have thought that something like Spore might have been far more then 30 million, but I guess that isn't so. Specusci 18:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] EA countdown timer

I can't find this countdown timer, where would I find it? Since there's no indication anywhere else of a January release date, I'd bet (assuming it exists) this is a relic from quite a while ago, and shouldn't be taken as a definitive release date. I would imagine if there's two months until this game is released we'd be seeing more from the main website, retailers, etc. --Numsgil 04:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The mention of that to see the counter requires logging in leads me to think that it is on the Australian EA site (something in the back of my head tells me this has come up before for something else) instead of the main site. I'll do some looking. Robovski 05:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
OK, spent a good while looking around and can't find anything (but can't get into the UK or the AU EA site either). I would imaging that the fan community would be abuzz if this was true, but I'm not finding any first-hand (or second-hand with a link for that matter) evidence. Worse yet, some people think wiki has this confirmed. This is going off right now, and staying off until we see a link. Robovski 05:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Have a look at www.ea.co.za under track games.
OK, I will. I'll have to do it from home as it's a flash-only site. And please, sign your posts. Robovski 03:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
OK, I've had a look. It's the South Africa site. There is a counter, and it currently says 59 Days and 14 hours ect... If you click on the picture for the title, you are carried to the article for the game which says "Early 2007" for release. Having a look at other flash versions of EA's websites, the UK one (http://uk.electronicarts.se/default.aspx) doesn't have the counter or any mention of Spore, and the search finds nothing under "Spore". EA Australia (http://www.electronicarts.com.au/en-au/) does have the same counter and information. Now what folks? Robovski 09:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Give the South Africa EA site the benefit of the doubt.  ;-) 155.238.8.119 10:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I think it's just a random date they made up probably several months ago. There would just be more buzz from every imaginable source if Spore were really that close to release. You'd see signs in Walmart ;) If it's included on the main page, I think you need to add the phrase "although this date is highly dubious" or something to that effect. Realistically I'll bet it's a June release at the earliest. --Numsgil 15:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I cleaned up the infobox

I removed the stupid "see below" note in release date, that's not needed. There is no set date, and all the information below is just speculation. I also cleaned up the platforms section: the creator hoping for it to be on systems should be listed in the article... but not in the infobx at all. I hope my changes don't get reverted, they helped the article out. RobJ1981 17:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Suspected use of Spore techniques in other Maxis games" Section

That whole section seems like OR to me. There's no citation given - can someone come up with one, since otherwise I think we should remove it. --163.1.165.116 01:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. --Masamage 01:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I've already nuked that section once before, so it seems someone is replacing it. It's pure speculation, and Wikipedia doesn't publish speculation. Feel free to remove on-sight. — Saxifrage ✎ 19:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Music

Is there any confirmation anywhere of the musical score being composed by Brian Eno? HorseloverFat 04:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Game Over?

While there is no real way to 'win' at Spore, is there a way to lose? Is it possible for a player to create such a poor species that it is wiped out in the first few stages? If so, does anyone know what will happen? PrinceMyshkin 22:00 2 December 2006 (UTC)0

Undoubtedly. Even in the first demonstration video there were bad things to avoid. Else there'd be no challenge. — Saxifrage ✎ 05:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
This isn't the place for this. Talk pages on Wikipedia are only for discussing changes to the article...not general chat about the article itself. Wikipedia isn't a chat site. RobJ1981 23:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
On the other hand, understanding the subject of the article better makes it much easier to write about, right? Limited discussion of the subject for clarification purposes is okay, as far as I know. --Masamage 23:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I suppose you have a point. RobJ1981 00:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fan Sites, and some other changes

Alright, I deleted the French fansite that was added, as well as reverted some of the information that was in the creature phase, and made some spelling corrections. As this was my first contribution on wikipedia, I hope it was ok. Xorgthezombie 14:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/p/o/Talk%7ESpore_%28video_game%29_57c1.html"