Austin360 blogs > Digital Savant > Archives > 2008 > October > 06 > Entry
‘Spore’: the full review
(This a follow-up to a “Spore” first-impressions piece I wrote last month.)
Perhaps it was a bit too much to ask.
Should my expectations been a little lower? I only wanted “Spore” to be the greatest computer game ever created. I didn’t think that was too much to expect from game guru Will Wright, the creator of “SimCity” and “The Sims,” the bestselling PC game of all time.
The concept was simple, but mind-blowing: “Spore” would allow you to create a creature and evolve it from the cellular stage, through evolving onto land, into tribal warfare and, finally, into space. When Will Wright presented the game in its incomplete form at South by Southwest Interactive 2007, a year and a half before its release, there was no doubt among attendees that Wright was going to deliver something miraculous.
Is “Spore” a miracle?
I’m conflicted. On one hand, “Spore” is a brilliant technical achievement. The tools it gives players to create, mold, animate and play with a mind-boggling array of creatures deserve admiration. At every stage of the game, whether you’re adding tiny fins to a microscopic creature or adjusting the fins of a giant spacecraft, you’re in Ultimate Sandbox territory. Putting the kinds of design and engineering power into the hands of casual gamers is incredibly empowering. Almost 34 million creations have been posted to the online “Sporepedia” in the month the game has been available.
But as a game? “Spore” looks back as much as it pushes the medium forward, incorporating elements of games like “Pac-Man,” “fl0w,” “Civilization” and “Warcraft” to varying effect. The five stages that make up the game end up being far less than the sum of their parts. The middle chunk of the game, which incorporates tribal life and city building felt like a chore. They played like lazy, uninspired versions of far superior real-time strategy games. The micromanaging in the Civilization stage becomes unnecessarily stressful. It was a chore to get through it.
If I’d been playing the game merely to play it, unaware that a rewarding “Space” stage was waiting for me later, I might have stopped playing. Even after I’ve played all five stages of the game, I’m in no rush to go back to “Spore” and play through it again or to create more creatures.
Yet, “Spore” is still a brilliant game for a certain audience that would rather build than level-up. As a casual game for the Nintendo Wii generation, “Spore” succeeds brilliantly. Tinkering, exploring, sharing — “Spore” excels in these areas even if it feels like a huge disappointment to the kind of gamer who grew up on Will Wright’s past games.
“Spore” does break new ground in a few areas in addition to being slickly produced. The way the game allows players to share their creations online, to bring in civilizations from other online players and to create “Sporecasts” is a smart way of building on the popularity of social networking.
And though I have to finally admit that maybe “Spore” simply isn’t the kind of game I’m interested in playing, I did have a blast playing the final Space section of the game. As your civilization makes the great leap into space, you zoom around solar systems, befriending or fighting against other species, trading loot and discovering new tools. Zooming in and out of the orbit of planets is exhilarating in “Spore” and the game mechanics (which will remind old-schools of games like “Privateer”) wear their welcome much less than the less-inspired Tribal and Civilization stages.
It made me wonder how many gamers won’t bother to plug through those middle chapters to get to the excellent gameplay of this last chunk.
“Spore” is an example of a well-made, brilliantly executed video game that I have no desire to play. The game has already found a willing audience, but those who crave fun gameplay instead of inspiring tools may be left feeling less than wowed by Will Wright’s game.
“Spore”
$50, for Mac and Windows PCs
Rated E-10, for Everyone 10+
Permalink | Comments (3) | Post your comment Categories: Internet, Videogames
Comments
Click here to report comment abuse.
By Omar Gallaga
October 7, 2008 10:33 AM | Link to this
I'm actually sort of impressed with the technology -- I think the engineering involved in the creature creator is fantastic. And the game runs remarkably well on a good variety of PC/Mac systems.
I know people who are so enamored of the creature creator that that's where they're spending most of their time.
New York Times review pegged it best, I think, when they said that collectively, "Spore" is a remarkable toy, but not much of a game.
I do think there'll be expansion packs and I'm hoping those are more gameplay-centric than just packs of additional creature options like a lot of the "Sims" packs.
By Dave
October 7, 2008 6:27 AM | Link to this
Omar (or anyone else): Spore doesn't really appeal to me for the reasons you've laid out - there are games that execute each genre better.
My question is, how does the "casual" gamer feel about Spore? Someone who would never have played Civilization, Warcraft, etc....Would they find it more engaging than someone who would compare Spore to their experience with the other games?
By Julie Gomoll
October 6, 2008 5:02 PM | Link to this
I would be a gamer who never made it past the middle stages. I adore Sim City, and I like The Sims a lot. I eagerly awaited Spore since I first heard of it. I bought Creature Creator when it came out, and contributed my share of creatures to Sporepedia. I bought the Galactic version (which has stunning packaging and a worthless game guide) and put my first evening of gameplay on my calendar.
What a disappointment. Given you're review, I might go back and plod through the tribal & civilization stages, but I don't know. I never made it through tribal. I totally lost interest.
Too bad. Like you said, there's much to love about the execution of the game. They just didn't make it a *game*.
Maybe it's simply a bit too ambitious for today's technology.