←Backlink to Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-03-17 Spore (video game)‎

Genre, text only

Spore has influences from so many other genre-defining games that it doesn't fall neatly into any single genre. While the game's creators and several media sources describe it as a god game,^{[6][7][8][9][10][11]} other journalists also describe it as a real-time strategy game^{[12][13][14][15][16][17][18]} and life simulation game.^{[19][20][21][22][23][24][25]}

Genre, with table

Spore is a multi-genre game, with each part of the game (called "phases" by the designers, as in the "Tide pool phase" or "Civilization phase") unveiling more of the UI, and thus changing the genre slightly. There are a total of five phases, each with a different game that the developers have mentioned that they were inspired by, and thus, a different genre.

Unlisted references

Life simulation

• Spore reviews and sources
• Spore GDC 2008
• Spore still evolving, but it's worth the wait

Real-time strategy

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]
• [4]
• [5]
• [6]
• [7]
• [8]
• [9]
• [10]
• [11]

References

Looks great

That should do it. JAF1970 (talk) 22:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with JAF1970. Their ain't that many phases, but still the idea of a list is great. Skele (talk) 05:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I meant the stuff on the main page. That chart on this page looks horrible. It's already mentioned in gameplay. JAF1970 (talk) 05:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Incivility

One thing I will not tolerate as a mediator is incivility. This is bordering on incivil. Please keep cool, and don't revert others edits without proper justification. Cheers, Steve Crossin (talk to me) 05:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• I do not think reverting what amounts to a deletion is incivil, but, I only reverted it to move it to a proper sub-page, and cleaned up after myself.  :) No worries, every thing seems to be fine. JAF1970 is even contributing to that version of the page now, too.  :) KiTA (talk) 07:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Fixed the weasel word

Saying what "people" "describe" is too much of a weasel word. Fixed it so it's less so. JAF1970 (talk) 21:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

"Describe" is not a weasel word. See WP:AWW. "People" would be, but that word wasn't even used. That being said, I don't have any problem with your change, just with your justification of it. Please don't back up your edits with policy when the policy doesn't apply. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 22:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Approve/Not Approve

• Approve: the way it looks right now seems and feels right. JAF1970 (talk) 21:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• Disapprove: it needs to be expanded. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 22:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think it's too soon to even be considering any kind of vote. It needs so much more work. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 22:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• Disapprove: It looks good but it still should be RTS not strategy. If that would be different then I would propably approve it. Skele (talk) 22:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It's strategy - because RTS is a specific type of strategy game. In addition, there's SimCitye-style strategy and 4X strategy. No one calls The Sims an RTS either. JAF1970 (talk) 23:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

As I said before the only difference between RTS and strategy is that RTS specifies that the game is real-time. Skele (talk) 17:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

No Table

We don't need the table - it's already present. Kind of overkill, if you ask me. Simplicity = better. And I don't want to seem uncivil, but there's too much analysis paralysis going on. JAF1970 (talk) 23:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

If you don't think the table should go in anyway, why do you keep reverting my improvements to it? Your efforts would be far better spent expanding the text-only version, so it has a chance of being selected, if that's what you want. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 01:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Because if people DO want to add the table, it should be correct. JAF1970 (talk) 01:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

But that's why we're working in a sandbox. Give the others a chance to see the changes before you revert them. We've got six people contributing to this discussion; if my changes are "incorrect," others will revert them too. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 01:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Dansiman. JAF you need to stop doing things only your own way. Skele (talk) 17:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Um, I'm suggesting things because there's two ways to do it - the wrong way, and the right way, and there's already a table with citations that's fine the way it is. And the fact is that this is the main problem: analysis paralysis (and "Too many cooks..."). What people tend to do, and I'm forced to constantly clean up is: 1. wrong information, 2. too much information, 3. verbosity, 4. opinion driven statements. The problem that seems to be here is that you two have set opinion when there's no place for opinion in Wikipedia. Just facts. There are some things you don't vote on. You don't vote where to drill an oil well - you hire a geological expert. I'm a video game journalist for 15 years, and have dealt with video games for the last 25 in some form or another. As an expert, I know what genres and merchandising and product categorization is in this industry. I don't go by my opinion, I go by what magazines have done since before a lot of you were born. (Sorry if that sounds harsh, but it's true.) At some point, voting ends and expertise begins. For example, there will never be a port of Spore to the Wii because it requires hardware the Wii simply does not have - it'll be a spinoff just like the DS and mobile phone versions - or a seriously gimped version (which would still be a spinoff of sorts since they're building it from stratch.) In fact, at some point, a separate Spore (Wii) article will be made when there's more info on it. When videogame voting comes around in magazines and professional VG sites, Spore will be categorized in the Best Strategy Game awards, not Simulation (which something like Steel Beasts 2 will be nominated for.) God game is a subgenre of strategy games (see The Sims, Populous, Black & White, etc.) And by the way, expert opinion IS something that's a WP subject. The other issue is that when I do concede - and I do this a lot, by the way - the "give an inch, take a foot" thing comes up. I compromise when there's room for it - others don't. I included already the notes on strategy and simulation elements, but that just gives certain people the idea that it means that they are 100% right and the article should be changed - it doesn't help when they flipflop around the subject, stating one thing, contracting themselves the next, and basically throw tantrums. This my main rant about this subject. JAF1970 (talk) 18:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

So according to experts DOOM is a simulation? I'm still laughing at it. But seriously. We are not saying that you are not an expert, but you really need to discuss in a civil way before you go changing things other people have wrote, unless it's completely wrong. And there's one thing I know: Dansiman doesn't write wrong info. And I'm not saying your writing wrong info, I'm saying that we all have different sources we get our info and every different source might be right even thou they are in conflict with eachother. That's why we need to discuss first. And why do people who have been longer in the gaming industry have given Spore The Best Simulation Game award? And why was god game under simulation game about two or three weeks ago? Maybe that's a good example of the different sources issue. And none of us has played the Windows and Wii versions/spinoffs of Spore that's why we can't say almost anything about them right now. We just have to go along with the citations. Skele (talk) 23:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

No, according to your definition, DOOM is a simulation. That was the point I was making. You keep expanding the definition of "simulation" to include everything and anything on a computer since everything is a computer simulation, technically. JAF1970 (talk) 18:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

So you were being sarcastic? I don't expand the defintion of "simulation". I have not said anything about any other game being a "simulation". Skele (talk) 20:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if you were being sarcastic or not, JAF1970, but any time that you do, and this goes for everyone else too, please make sure to explicitly say so. It's often hard or even impossible to tell when reading something if sarcasm was intended, so a simple (sarcasm) near a sarcastic comment, for example, alleviates any possible confusion. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 05:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, let's just use the table-less version. JAF1970 (talk) 02:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

RTS vs. Strategy

Skele, do you know what a real-time strategy is? Hint: Command & Conquer is a strategy game. The Sims and SimCity are not. Real-time strategy games have a specific resource gathering/building/conflict structure. A game that runs in real-time ≠ real-time strategy game. The Sims won Best Strategy Game of 2000 from major pubs like Computer Gaming World. Ditto SimCity. JAF1970 (talk) 03:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Command & Conquer is a strategy game, specifically a real-time strategy game. The Sims is a Strategy game because it has major time-stop elements in it. And yes I know what is real-time strategy. Skele (talk) 04:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, SOMEone keeps posting its an RTS. >:( JAF1970 (talk) 16:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, what can I do about it? Skele (talk) 21:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

And yet like a robot you post "RTS" because some article mentioned RTS elements? Changed it to the GameSpot profile page. JAF1970 (talk) 22:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

How many sources exactly are we talking about that support inclusion of RTS? Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 02:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Just check the table to see that the strategy genre is represented by many types of strategy. JAF1970 (talk) 02:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

That's not what I asked. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 02:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's a few, the first one might be a bit agitating for JAF(The list does not include god game) http://www.maclife.com/article/spore_preview?page=0%2C1 http://uk.videogames.games.yahoo.com/pc/previews/spore-3a6ef1.html (yes, this one says it's strategy but read the whole article) http://thephil.nerdyblog.com/?p=10 http://nerdyblog.com/2008/02/19/in-depth-preview-what-is-spore/ That's only the first page of 66 pages in google. Skele (talk) 04:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether the nerdyblog.com pages will pass WP:RS or not, but the maclife.com article looks like a terrific reference for the genre table as a whole. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 05:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• WP:RS states that:

As such, blogs can't be used as sources. Steve Crossin (talk to me) 05:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok. But there are many sites that call Spore a RTS. Skele (talk) 18:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

WRONG. They say that the TRibal phase resembles an RTS, as Wright did in the 2005 GDC. Saying Spore is an RTS is plain wrong. JAF1970 (talk) 21:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Well then start proving that it is wrong. You can start by telling me what's the difference between RTS and strategy. Skele (talk) 09:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Read the table. (rolling eyes) JAF1970 (talk) 14:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Which one? Skele (talk) 18:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Deleting references

JAF1970 keeps deleting references and changing information. I'm just trying to add information based on reliable research, verify it, and avoid original research. JAF1970, what are you trying to accomplish by changing RTS to strategy, and deleting the references that say it's an RTS? Randomran (talk) 01:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Because

1. You don't need that many.
2. Only one phase has been described as an RTS. Stop calling Spore an RTS. It plain is not an RTS. A real-time strategy is a specific type of strategy game. All real-time strategy games are strategy games in real-time, but not all strategy games with a real-time element are RTS's. JUST STOP IT! It is absoutely incorrect. JAF1970 (talk) 02:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Example: Monopoly Tycoon is not an RTS - but has real-time strategy. SimCity is not an RTS. NFL Head Coach 2009 is not an RTS. The Sims (Winner of CGW's Best Strategy Game of 2000) is not an RTS. All of those games have real-time passage and employ strategy game elements. JAF1970 (talk) 02:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

2: that's original research. 1: obviously I need that many, to prevent you from engaging in original research. Randomran (talk) 02:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

No it isn't. For one, let's go back to the 2005 GDC speech, shall we? Next, Wright's TED conference. All are noted in the original Spore article. In addition, this is not "opinion". This is fact. JAF1970 (talk) 02:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I have about 8 references that say you're wrong. Randomran (talk) 02:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Those references are referring to one phase of gameplay. Read the f'ing table. I'm going to meet some people as press at Comic Con '08 from the Maxis team, and THEY will tell me it's not an RTS. Period. End of story. Besides which, name one single way any of the other phases than Tribal are like an RTS. I defy you. It's not "original research" because it's an article in Wikipedia. JAF1970 (talk) 02:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

That's not what the references say. A few say the game itself has aspects of RTS. A few others say that the game transitions between RTS and simulation gameplay. The game designer is only a primary source. Secondary sources are just as valuable, especially as new genres are established to define previously undefined games. I don't have to explain how the game is an RTS: the references do it for me. It's not our job to categorize games by genre. That's what reliable research is for. And you haven't found reliable research that invalidates the numerous references in the article -- the references you keep deleting. Randomran (talk) 05:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• Civilization SimCity, Civilization, Risk Strategy game, god game
• Space Master Of Orion, Destroy All Humans!, SimEarth 4x strategy game, action, life simulation, god game

And you're going to say the entire game is "RTS"? Lunacy. Especially when you're going against what Will Wright, the creator of the game says about it. JAF1970 (talk) 02:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Not my lunacy. The references. Please don't personally attack me for simply quoting the research. And primary sources are not more authoritative than secondary sources. We don't categorize the USSR based on what Stalin said it was. We use reliable research. Familiarize yourself with the WP:RS policy. Randomran (talk) 05:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Monopoly tycoon, Simcity, NFL Headcoach 2009 and The Sims all have major time-stop elements in them and thus can not be named RTS. Skele (talk) 13:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

SO DOES SPORE. My God, do you people actually know a SINGLE THING ABOUT SPORE? Will Wright added The Sims controls to Spore. Not to mention you can control the passage of time from freeze to millions of years at a time. You both are proving you don't know a single thing about the game. Not only have I been doing this article for the past 2 years, but I've also actually had hands-on experience with the game. JAF1970 (talk) 14:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Wait a minute... are you saying YOU CAN'T PAUSE IN A REAL-TIME STRATEGY? ARE YOU F'ING NUTS?!?!?!?!?? Do either or you even know what you're talking about half the time? JAF1970 (talk) 15:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

When you play The Sims or Simcity you can stop time and do in-game changes such as start building houses, buy stuff for your sim and other thing like that. It's like Might and Magic or Icewind Dale where you can stop time whenever you want and do a command. I have not seen any time-stop elements of this kind in Spore and you are not even giving us citations about them. So start proving with citations or take a break from this discussion. Note: You have been reported to Steve Crossin for your bad behaviour. Skele (talk) 15:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

All this stuff about what is or isn't a strategy game or RTS is moot. That's original research. It's our personal educated opinions about video game genres. Me personally, I don't think this is a strategy game at all. But what I think doesn't matter. I have a bunch of references that say it's an RTS. You have to pass a very high threshold to invalidate a bunch of references. And you know what I think would help you pass that high threshold? References. Randomran (talk) 15:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, is there a single RS that says "Spore is not a RTS"? I suspect not. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 12:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Incivility, again...

I have said it once, and I will say it again. I will not tolerate incivility. I shouldn't have to. I suggest everyone here, thats everyone, read WP:CIVIL. I as a mediator, and as a personal view, cannot and will not tolerate incivility, shouting, swearing, POV pushing, or deletion of content without discussion. JAF1970‎ was blocked for 12 hours, due to extreme incivility, however not by me, as I'm not an admin. I will create a new page, so each user can seperately add their versions of the article. There will be NO altering of other user's sections. Discussion will happen on a seperate page. And, everyone read WP:RS. Thanks. Steve Crossin (talk) (anon talk) 15:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The aformentioned proposals page has been created, it is here. Steve Crossin (talk) (anon talk) 15:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I've archived the previous discussion due to the uncivil remarks. Steve Crossin (talk) (anon talk) 13:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Notice

I will be on a break for a while due to a large number of exams. Will come back Thursday or possibly check in some day. Skele (talk) 17:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Me too. I might not have so much time to make major edits. This discussion went on longer than I expected it to. But I still want to give it the attention it deserves. Randomran (talk) 19:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm currently doing an interview with Patrick Buechner - the article will definitively back my statement. It's not "original research", either, since it's going to be a published article. :D JAF1970 (talk) 14:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not 100% positive, but I think it still qualifies as OR if you use it as a reference. But, as I understand the policy, you can post a link to it here or on Talk:Spore or wherever and let someone else — in fact pretty much anyone else — post it and that's fine. And if you can quote him saying something like "Spore is definitely not an RTS" I'll put it in myself. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 14:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Patrick will say what he always says: "Spore has many strategy elements - grand strategy, RTS, SimCity, 4X, you name it - Spore has it." There's a reason they hired Soren Johnson, ya know. JAF1970 (talk) 17:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Either way, the bar set is pretty high. It wouldn't be enough to have a primary source saying that it's strategy. We don't treat primary sources as more authoritative than third party scholars / analysts / journalists. (We don't rely exclusively on George Bush's assessment of Iraq.) It wouldn't be enough to say it's a strategy game, since articles that call it an RTS impliedly call it a strategy game as well. He'd have to say say "it has elements of all strategy games, not just RTS". Or "it's distinctly not an RTS", or "commonly mislabeled an RTS". If you can put him on record saying that, like Dansiman said, "I'll add the reference myself." This isn't about what I think the genre is (personally I don't think it's a strategy game at all), but what we can reliably show with references. Randomran (talk) 19:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Either way, the bar set is pretty high. It wouldn't be enough to have a primary source saying that it's strategy. Er, why not? And I already have websites that categorize it as "strategy". Shall I ask Jeff Green and Steve Bauman next? JAF1970 (talk) 22:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Because RTS is a subgenre of strategy. I mean, if someone called Starcraft a strategy game, they'd be correct. But one source calling Starcraft a strategy game isn't enough to say that Starcraft isn't an RTS. That's the standard I'd apply to any strategy game. BTW, it might be helpful to see the websites that call Spore a strategy game already. Perhaps they can shed some light on the issue. Feel free to post some links. Randomran (talk) 02:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

No. RTS is a specific form of strategy game, and again: real-time strategy games are strategies in real-time, but not all strategies in real-time are real-time strategy games. I find it interesting even when I have someone working on the game saying you're wrong, and magazine editors (and ex-editors) saying you're wrong, you refuse to admit you're wrong. JAF1970 (talk) 03:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

(1) I couldn't just show off a source calling Starcraft a strategy game to suddenly start removing references that say it's an RTS. (2) Primary sources (e.g.: the designer) don't invalidate secondary sources (e.g.: journalists). Besides, you haven't shown me your sources. Randomran (talk) 04:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

As Randomran said: ..."it's distinctly not an RTS", or "commonly mislabeled an RTS". Those would be examples of, as JAF1970 said: "someone working on the game saying you're wrong," but "Spore is a strategy game" would not. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 10:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Put another way, to call Spore a strategy game does not automatically mean it's not an RTS any more than it means that it is an RTS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dansiman (talk • contribs) 10:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Saying it's a strategy game is correct. Labelling it an RTS in the infobox would be wrong. GameSpot, for instance, what genre is Spore labelled as? A strategy game. JAF1970 (talk) 14:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Both Starcraft and Civilization have won "Strategy Game" awards. It doesn't mean that Starcraft isn't an RTS, or that Civilization isn't a TBS. Right now, we have 7 references calling spore an RTS. It's possible that those 7 references are wrong. Or, at the very least, incomplete (it's RTS as well as TBS or what have you). But then you'd need to find a reference that says that specifically. Finding one or two resources that call it "strategy" is not enough. This is not about my personal opinion or your personal opinion. This is about basic standards on wikipedia. I personally don't even think the game is a strategy game of any kind, but I can't find a resource that says that. So be it. Randomran (talk) 18:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

JAF1970, your logic is flawed. Your most recent comment appears to be asserting that because GameSpot labels Spore a strategy game, it therefore can't be an RTS. Randomran's most recent comment shows the fallacy in this logic, by illustrating how, were we to apply this same logic to the article Starcraft, we would conclude that because Starcraft won a "strategy game" award, calling it an RTS in its infobox would be wrong. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 07:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Your logic is even MORE flawed, since the table clearly shows other strategy genres at work. In addition, you skirt around my main point, in that I have had contact with the people actually making the game - you know, the people who actually have PLAYED IT -- as well as mag editors who have had experience with it. Here's the deal - stop acting like you've played the game and have an informed opinion of what genre it is. You haven't, and you don't. I trust the opinions and statements of people actually working with it. I'm having direct contact with the game myself very soon. And for your info - in 2000, CGW had two strat categories for their awards: Best Strategy and Best RTS. The Sims won BEst Strategy (and GOTY, too). Don't remember what won RTS, I'll have to look it up. JAF1970 (talk) 15:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You're missing the point. This isn't about who YOU have had contact with and who YOU trust and what YOU know any more than it's about what any of us know. It's about references. Wikipedia is about reliable research. Randomran (talk) 16:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I looked at the table again (I'm assuming you're talking about the one on the Spore sandbox here, "the table" is a bit ambiguous so I had to use my best guess. Anyway, the table on User talk:Steve Crossin/Spore Sandbox shows only one other strategy type, 4X, and if you look at that article's lead paragraph, it's pretty clear that 4X strategy does not preclude turn-based strategy. Of course, JAF1970, you could have been talking about something else, it's hard to be sure. As to your other comment, stating that I'm "acting like you've played the game and have an informed opinion of what genre it is," you're again toeing the line on civility. (I have to assume that all instances of "you" and "your" in the post refer to me, since the first obviously does and there's no indication otherwise. It might be a good idea to address people by name if you're going to comment in such a way, just so there's no confusion.) Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 17:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, if you're going to claim my logic is flawed, it might help to cite the flaw in my logic (my comment didn't mention anything about what the table shows). Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 17:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm back. And the people JAF has interviewed have said what? That Spore is a strategy game? If so that still doesn't mean it's not an RTS. If Spore would have TBS in it then it cannot be labeled as an RTS. Then it would have to be named strategy. But JAF still hasn't shown us any proof that it has TBS in it. Skele (talk) 17:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Spoke to Buechner via email last night. More later. JAF1970 (talk) 15:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposal 1

Proposal 2

This article or section contains information about an unreleased video game. The content may change substantially as more information becomes available. Please do not add speculation to this article, and remember to cite a published source for details. Spore Developer(s) Maxis Publisher(s) Electronic Arts Games for Windows Designer(s) Will Wright Platform(s) Microsoft Windows[1], Mac OS X[2] Release date EU September 5, 2008[3] NA September 7, 2008[4] WEB Utility June 17, 2008[29] Genre(s) God game[30] Mode(s) Massively single player Rating(s) ESRB: RP (Rating Pending)[31]

Proposal 3