Spore video

[Love_In_Rio]

Very original:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8372603330420559198&q=spore

Enjoy!

 

[DudeMiester]

That's cool, but also very old (in internet years that is). :smile:

 

[nintenho]

I don't mean to be pessimistic, but this doesn't seem to fun.

Also, I'm worried that the gameplay will end up becoming to straighforward and unbalanced.

 

[Eagle-Vision]

Finally it can be downloaded

 

[Shark Sandwich]

If this is the video I'm thinking of (sorry I can't check, my firewall at work forbids streaming media), it's just a clip of Will Wright's presentation at last year's GDC. While it's VERY cool, I highly recommend tracking down the full video of his GDC presentation. It was fascinating to hear him talk about some of the ideas he put into Spore.

For example, he talks about how he discovered that, in The Sims, people loved designing their own items. To the gamer, the perceived value of developer-created content doesn't scale very well with the increasing costs of developing that content. However, the perceived value of content the player creates him/herself is very high. Spore basically takes that to an extreme. . . everything in the game is stuff that was created by the gamer, or created by other gamers.

Anyway, it's worth watching the full presentation. I would be glad to track it down when I get home later today. However, if someone else finds it, please share! I originally found it on the official GDC webpage, which requires (free) registration.

 

[winstonsmith1978]

I'm not going to lie, this game has got me really excited. I've wanted a game that focused on evolution for a long time. Although my dream evolution game would be a game that gave you control over everything except the actual lifeforms.

So, you would have control over the weather, the planet, the environment, the physics, the atmosphere, moons, sun, water, mountains, etc. Then you just sit back and watch how life evolves. This would take some amazing AI and simulation, but i would love to see a game that could be used as a teaching device and also be fun.

But Spore will be great for the time being.

 

[GwymWeepa]

I'm not going to lie, this game has got me really excited. I've wanted a game that focused on evolution for a long time. Although my dream evolution game would be a game that gave you control over everything except the actual lifeforms.

So, you would have control over the weather, the planet, the environment, the physics, the atmosphere, moons, sun, water, mountains, etc. Then you just sit back and watch how life evolves. This would take some amazing AI and simulation, but i would love to see a game that could be used as a teaching device and also be fun.

But Spore will be great for the time being.

Same sentiment to the game, and I've had the same sort of game in mind. BUT there was not control solely on the environment, but you could make modest changes to a creature and see how it further evolves. Something like spore doesn't really involve natural evolution at all, you totall control what your creature will look like.

 

[Fruitfrenzy]

It didn't occur to me but my wife pointed out (while I was watching the video) that this game basically adheres to the intelligent design philosophy. I wonder if that was their intention.

 

[aaaaa00]

It didn't occur to me but my wife pointed out (while I was watching the video) that this game basically adheres to the intelligent design philosophy. I wonder if that was their intention.

Duh, cause a game where you only have indirect control and non-interactively watch your creature evolve over millions of years is probably much harder to write and not as much fun to play as one where you get to design everything yourself.

A game is usually just a game and not a statement on philisophy or religion.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Plus random mutations are invariably damaging or at least not-beneficial. It may not be an Intelligent Design philosophy but could embrace a more open attitude to evolution than Genetic Darwinism, such as LeMarckism.

Or it's just a game...

 

[nintenho]

It didn't occur to me but my wife pointed out (while I was watching the video) that this game basically adheres to the intelligent design philosophy. I wonder if that was their intention.

Well, you could have homosexual relationships in the sims......

I really hope they include the "mental development" that they had in the Sims 2 where if you were traumatized as a child, then you cry randomly as an adult. Maybe not quite to that extent, but I hope you can make your species' actual instincts evolve and give benefits and challenges to how you play the game.

 

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

It didn't occur to me but my wife pointed out (while I was watching the video) that this game basically adheres to the intelligent design philosophy. I wonder if that was their intention.

If you listen to the video, Wright tells you what his influences are. Not intelligent design, it's sci-fi, TV shows, monkeys with guns, astronomy, etc. Of course you get to design your own creatures in the early part of the game - there wouldn't be much for the player to do if you didn't get to choose how to build stuff!

 

[Fruitfrenzy]

I wasn't meaning to suggest that it was a propoganda piece for ID or anyting like that. I was just amused at how similar the conepts ended up being.

I quite agree that sitting watching natural evolution wouldn't be much fun though I suppose you could influence the environment and see the results on the evolution of the life forms.

I think it looks like a good game though I haven't seen any reference to which platforms it is destined for. Is that information available somewhere ?

 

[winstonsmith1978]

It didn't occur to me but my wife pointed out (while I was watching the video) that this game basically adheres to the intelligent design philosophy. I wonder if that was their intention.

This is my only turn off for the game but as others have already said, it's just a game. Plus, in order to create a game that truelly reflects natural selection and evolution, you would probably need a simulation that recreates the real world down to atoms and molecules. so basically, this isn't going to happen any time soon.

I just get the funny feeling that the creationist and ID people will use Spore as a tool for their faith. but the game looks fantastic. i can't wait.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

It strikes me as very hypocritical of people to talk up natural evolution and criticise ID or other theories, when there are holes in the Genetic Darwinism theory bigger than that which sunk the Titanic! They're all theories at the moment. None is proven, and treating either or as false is acting on faith (belief in a theory, not religious faith) rather than science. Saying Spore should or shouldn't represent 'real' evolution would need absolute confirmation of what 'real' evolution is, and no-one actually has that yet. Genetic Darwinism is being preached like many a religion, like many scientific theories of the past, without any real proof. How long did humanity endure Greecian Elemental Science (Four Humours medicine) before they finally reevaluated their theories and found a better explanation? How many black people suffered because evolutionary science scientifically explained negroids were inferior on the evolutionary ladder based on measurements and observations of anatomy? I can show you an article from a 1920's encyclopaedia saying 'Men of science' know the world is becoming a tetrahedron, citing observational evidence, and also giving scientific reasons why space travel is impossible!

Okay, this is the wrong place for such a discussion, but anyone wanting to be intelligent rather than sound intelligent, should understand the difference between theory and fact, and anyone wanting to talk in scientific terms needs to appreciate the essential requirement for experimental observation supporting theories. Modern science has a practice of relying on theories without the actual fundamental scientific support needed for it to class as real science and not just theory, conjecture, and belief. It builds theories upon theories, which the media and ultimately the general public accept unquestioningly, and that only serves to inhibit human learning as much as any doctrinal religious teachings can.

[/rant]

 

[winstonsmith1978]

Well, the reason why ID is not science nor is it a theory, is because it's unfalsifiable. ID basically says that life is to complex and hence Darwinism doesn’t answer the question but that in it's self doesn't answer anything nor does it question anything nor is it even possible to test such an idea.

And as far as comparing facts with theories, you have to realize that science doesn’t actually prove anything as being a fact. Science simply proves a theory to be wrong or not wrong. That’s what the scientific method is. (Karl Popper?)

Darwinism is not wrong and ID doesn't even exist in the realm of rational thought

Have you heard of those things called fossils, they’re a pretty good example of scientific proof for evolution? Do you have your kids vaccinated every year for the flu? ---- That’s because the flu is constantly changing, mutating and evolving every year. How bout molecular biology, another great way to show how all life on earth is connected.

I compare Darwinism and evolution to the big bang theory. Both concepts have a lot of evidence to support both theories. But neither have shown how life or how the universe got started in the first place. Evolution is the only explanation for life after self-replication got going. The question now becomes -- how does self-replication naturally happen not whether evolution is real.

This is why ID is constantly being thrown out of biology class, because it's not science. But the fact that some are spending lots of time and energy on trying to put ID in school is scary.

Lets move on before this post gets locked. It’s my fault for starting the debate about evolution and for that I apologize.

One last thing, holding up ID as being equal to Evolution is like saying that Alchemy is just as viable as chemistry or that Astrology is equal to Astronomy.

Ok, I feel better.

 

[PeterT]

Plus random mutations are invariably damaging or at least not-beneficial.

That's a very strange assertion to make.

It strikes me as very hypocritical of people to talk up natural evolution and criticise ID or other theories, when there are holes in the Genetic Darwinism theory bigger than that which sunk the Titanic! They're all theories at the moment. None is proven, and treating either or as false is acting on faith (belief in a theory, not religious faith) rather than science.[/rant]

The thing is, you can't even treat ID as false in a scientific sense, as it is not falsifiable. So, while you are right in so far as evolution is "just" a theory (like, for example, the theory of electromagnetism), saying "ID or other theories" dangerously intermingles the colloquial and scientific definition of the word theory.
​

And you don't have to believe in any scientific theories at all - their worth is determined strictly by two factors: They have to explain the observations made in the real world, and they have to provide the ability to make useful predictions.
Anyway, I always find it baffling how otherwise reasonable people are easily fooled by creationist reasoning just because it appeals to their anti-authoritarian streak. I even met one person here in europe recently that parroted the "it's only a theory!" line. Strange times...

Back on topic:
The game looks very interesting - though not completely game-like. It reminds me of Second Life somewhat in its focus on player-created content and editing tools. It will be interesting to see if they can actually make it entertaining as well as novel.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Anyway, I always find it baffling how otherwise reasonable people are easily fooled by creationist reasoning just because it appeals to their anti-authoritarian streak. I even met one person here in europe recently that parroted the "it's only a theory!" line. Strange times...

This'll be my last post on the matter 'coz it's way off topic but it needs to be made to clear this point up before the mods chop this all out. I wasn't arguing for or against Evolutionary Theory, nor Creationlism, nor Intelligent Design, but the premature acceptance of theories as facts. Teaching Genetic Darwinism as fact, as it is done now, is no different to the teaching of many, many theories throughout history that have later been proven to be wrong, some of which I gave examples. It's also strange that the moment someone suggets Genetic Darwinsim isn't a sufficiently proven theory to be accepted as fact, they are assumed to be a Creationalist! Asking questions of something doesn't mean you believe the opposite. But I guess this is the same human nature that sees fans of one console assuming anyone questioning their points in favour of their console must be fans of the other brands.

 

[PeterT]

Teaching Genetic Darwinism as fact, as it is done now, is no different to the teaching of many, many theories throughout history that have later been proven to be wrong, some of which I gave examples.

Then we actually agree. No theory should be taught as a fact, and scientific theories are only useful as long as they're not proven wrong. Evolution has not been, yet it is being derided in public. In contrast, classical mechanics are in fact wrong (in some cases) as some smart people discovered around the beginning of the last century. Yet they are still taught and there is no great public outrage - I wonder why?

[edit]Sorry again for the OT-ness, perhaps a thread split is needed.

 

[winstonsmith1978]

i think we can all agree that the controversy that will most likely surround this game will = huge sales.:smile:

PeterT has also done a better job at explaining what i was trying to also explain. great job.