Talk:Spore (2008 video game)

Template:Cleanup taskforce notice

Archived

Because the talk page had hit 110kb, I archived the previous discussions, including the discussion about the protection 2 weeks ago. Because these next few sections are active discussions, I have left them unarchived. KiTA (talk) 14:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Spinoffs/Ports (Partially Archived to Archive 7)

They're not ports by definition in that they have their own development from the ground up. They're not being ported from anything. Period. JAF1970 (talk) 07:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Still doesn't make them spin-offs, and it still doesn't mean they've been instantly granted notability for separate articles. An example of a spin-off would be a game like MySims. Spore on DS/Mobile aren't direct ports no, but they're indirect ports (that the experience is being optimized for a different platform). Sillygostly (talk) 07:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I've been involved in the industry longer than you've been alive. A port is when someone takes the software of a problem and translates it to a different platform - see Miner 2049er. Please, stop insisting you're right and everyone else is wrong. JAF1970 (talk) 14:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Spore Creatures features giving the creature "Bio-Powers". More info comes in about the other two; they're games in their own right. JAF1970 (talk) 15:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I have implemented a simple solution: the word "version" does not imply they are as identical as a "port," nor that they are as far removed as a "spinoff." Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 19:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Merged

I have merged the Nintendo DS and Mobile articles into the main article, and made some minor edits throughout. This way all version-specific information is included neatly within the main article. And rather than proposing deletion of the DS/Mobile articles, I've redirected them to their respective sections within the main article. No information regarding the two versions has been removed (although some unencyclopedic info has been removed). Peace out. Sillygostly (talk) 08:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

And you've been reversed again, for making a bad faith edit. You've already been told no. Stop making edits on your own recognizance. For one, the Wii version is probably Spore Creatures as well - those articles will expand. That's not supposition - that's experience. You don't know what's going to happen between now and September, so lay off the sweeping chances. JAF1970 (talk) 14:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Probably? What you're saying is based purely on speculation. And all this talk of "spin-offs" is also based on speculation on your part. EA has never stated that the alternative versions as spin-offs. Referring to Spore on other platforms as different versions is more appropriate. Sillygostly (talk) 22:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit War

Lets be a bit calm going forward, everyone here has differing viewpoints, and it's important not to get into an edit war. (Again.)

I took the old version of the article's Wii information, which was better cited, and put it in under Console versions. Due to this section being removed previously, the "wiiwii" reference that was in the current Wii section was broken, and this fixes that as well.

I am not sure Console Versions fits as the DS -- yet alone a cellphone -- is not generally considered a "console" as much as a "handheld" (although this PoV is changing due to the DS's great commercial success). Perhaps "Other Versions" would be better?

As for the Port vs Spinoff debate, I am not sure. Although this is anticdotal evidence, most gamers I know of use the term "Port" to mean the full version of a game transposed to a different platform -- for example, moving Starcraft from the PC to the Nintendo 64, meaning that Starcraft 64 was a port. Spinoffs are generally considered to be inspired by the original game, and containing the same intellectual property, but not the same game -- For example, Assassin's Creed has a DS version, but it is not a port, it is a Spin-off, as the content in it changes dramatically. KiTA (talk) 14:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Sillygostly just wants it HIS way because he "knows" he's right, and no amount of discussion will change that. "Other versions" is vague, and says nothing. Spinoff is the proper term, period. JAF1970 (talk) 14:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

PS. Mobile phone games are not considered handheld games any more than iPod games are. Both have severe memory limitations. Neither uses a traditional control scheme either (mobiles use a number keypad, iPods use a touch wheel.) JAF1970 (talk) 14:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

JAF, I do not mean to be rude, but I would ask you this -- how is Sillygostly's "[wanting] it HIS way because he "knows" he's right" any different than you repeatedly nuking any mentioning of the upcoming Wii version, or reverting the changes to the Wii version that include more information and references? We need to reach a consensus on this, reverting each other is NOT productive. KiTA (talk) 14:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

That was a mistake. Was just reverting to the version before the edits he made. Your version is fine. JAF1970 (talk) 14:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I have reports that the edit war is still going on. As such, I have protected this page for three months. That's obviously too long for no edits to take place so I'm hoping any remaining issues can be resolved. Once a consensus is reached here, please let me or any other admin know so the page can be unprotected. Thanks! --Yamla (talk) 14:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Yamla. JAF1970 (talk) 14:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

It is heartening to see the two of you (KiTa, JAF1970) immediately start working so well on resolving these disputes. I hope Sillygostly can participate as well. --Yamla (talk) 15:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with KiTA that the Spore DS/Mobile versions could be considered "ports", however since they are technically not direct ports of the PC game, it would make more sense to refer to Spore on other platforms as different "versions". Not even EA refers to other versions of the game as "spin-offs", so any talk of other versions of the game being "spin-offs" is unsubstantiated. I mean, what's Spore being spun-off from? Spore? All four games are being released simulatenously and have no linkage to any other video game (apart from the Sim series, given Will Wright's involvement), so there's no way that any of these games could have been spun-off. An example of a spin-off would be a game like MySims (a Japanese inspired game based on The Sims), or The Sims Carnival (puzzle games based on The Sims franchise).

I still don't think the DS/Mobile versions should be separated into their own articles. The content lacks notability and there's very little information to justify separate articles for these versions of the game. Even if more info becomes available, there is very little that would be relevant to the article given that Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for gameplay "tips". I am however in favour of a separate article dedicated to console versions of the game (DS/Mobile/Wii etc.), but given that most video game articles contain version-specific information within the single article (or a secondary "console" article), I don't see why Spore should be treated differently. A separate article for *every single* platform is unnecessary. Sillygostly (talk) 23:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

You don't think so, but others do. And those two articles are growing. You don't like them? Don't visit them. It's not even September yet (when the games are going to be released) and already you're making proclamations. What, is 6 months too long a wait?

It is also significant that 1. the Wii version may be Spore Creatures as well, and 2. Spore Creatures is being developed by another company. Furthermore, Spore Mobile is even more different and basically a Spore-themed flOw, not Spore. JAF1970 (talk) 23:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

This isn't about me "not liking them". The DS/Mobile articles contain very little information (only about 1-2 paragraphs of version-specific information apiece) which could easily be integrated into the main article. And the articles really can't expand much further in their current state given that Wikipedia is not a game guide (as any additional content regarding gameplay/reception would be limited). I am however in favour of a separate article for console versions of the game.

"May be Spore Creatures as well"? What you're saying is based purely on speculation and lacks credibility. I *know* that Spore Creatures is being developed by another company. The very same company developed the GBA/DS versions of The Sims Bustin' Out and The Urbz, however neither of those games were given separate articles despite being radically different from their home console counterparts. I have never denied that the various Spore games are different to one another, but it still doesn't justify giving them separate articles as any version-specific information could all be well contained within a single article as the products in question, rather than the games themselves share the same context (in terms of development/promotion etc). Sillygostly (talk) 23:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Now you're attacking my credibility? Dude, you're the one claiming no one is using the term spin-off. Furthermore, I'm not an idiot - you might notice my usage of the word may. However, it's more than likely, especially since the Wii lacks a hard drive. Please, don't insult my intelligence. JAF1970 (talk) 23:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't "attacking" you. I merely stated that your assumption that the Wii version will also be titled "Spore Creatures" is based purely on speculation. Besides, the DS is nowhere near as limited as the Wii version (so it could very well focus on more than one core aspect of the PC game), however that assumption too, is based on speculation. Furthermore, there are sources that refer to alternative versions of Spore as "ports"[1]. Different people will refer to other versions by a different term (be it "console version"/port/spin-off etc. regardless of whether or not the term is being used correctly). The term "version" is more suitable in this context as it is a more neutral/common term. Sillygostly (talk) 23:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Current Disputes

Here are the following current disputes with this article that need resolving. Please feel free to add any additional points of contention that may need changing.

Wii Version (Resolved)

Currently considered Resolved. The Wii version / port / spinoff / delicious cake / etc will stay in the other sections area, next to Spore Creatures and Spore Mobile, until more information can be gained about it.

May be resolved. JAF1970 believes that the publisher should release a press release before the Wii version is added to the article proper. KiTA believes that the information currently available merits inclusion. Current version -- with the Wii mentioned under the "Console Versions" section -- seems to be acceptable by both parties.

• May be resolved, as the current version contains this information, in the Spinoff/Console/Ports/etc section.

• It's resolved. It seems the Wii version will probably not be the same game as the main version - it's actually probably going to be Spore Creatures, which is another reason to keep that article intact. Incidentally, this is why I didn't allow the Wii version to be under platforms in the first place. It was probably that the Wii would not be able to handle the scope of the full game. For one, the Wii has no hard drive. JAF1970 (talk) 15:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• I concur, the current version of the Wii mention seems acceptable, and it's highly likely that the "Spore Wii" version of the game will go out under the Spore Creatures title. Anyone else agree/disagree? KiTA (talk) 15:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• I think the current mention of the Wii is fine. I just hope it doesn't get bloated with speculation and every mention of it in an interview. (Unless of course, substantial info is released about it.) Nanobri (talk) 15:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• It's fine as is. It satisfies the desire for some contributors to acknowledge explicitly a Wii version, but also keeps it off to the side til something definitive occurs. JAF1970 (talk) 16:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Lets call this one resolved unless someone else has an objection. KiTA (talk) 19:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Spore Creatures / Spore Mobile Merger (Resolved)

Ongoing. JAF1970 believes that these belong in secondary, external articles. Sillygostly believes that these should be merged into the main article, with redirects for the secondary articles.

• Idea for resolution: What does official Wikipedia policy say about such sub-articles?

• There's no need to do anything about it. Just added new information about Spore Creatures as it grows. Same will happen with Spore (mobile). And if the Wii version is indeed Spore Creatures... JAF1970 (talk) 15:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Incidentally, all of my work in the last 18 months has been to keep Spore a candidate as a good article. Fattening it with all the stuff now in Spore Creatures and Spore (mobile) would ruin that - and lead to - guess what? - new article creation. The article AS IT IS is already pushing the "too long" article limit, and it's fat-free. So either have them as seperate articles NOW, or do it later. It's that simple. JAF1970 (talk) 15:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• I oppose a merger. I think there is sufficent information already to warrant the articles being separate, and I think more information is likely to come out as well. Nanobri (talk) 16:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• I also oppose a merger, whether or not those two articles need to be merged into a single article, however, will need to be discussed closer to release time on the appropriate pages! --Samtheboy ^(t/c) 20:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Why? Those articles are seperate and very different games. JAF1970 (talk) 22:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

RESOLVED (24 hours passed.) JAF1970 (talk) 06:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• I think it's best if Sillygostly agrees before we consider this resolved. He's in an active discussion with you above about it. KiTA (talk) 19:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Er... even if Sillygostly votes for, it's 3 to 1 against. And there was 48 hours to respond. It's resolved. JAF1970 (talk) 23:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Let me make this easy: 1. You can't merge them with Spore. Look at the articles. You run with the old problem of Spore being way too big. Plus, they're completely different from Spore. 2. You can't merge THEM together. Same reason. 3. You can't remove them via AfD - they're too important. 4. There's rumbling that the Wii version of Spore will be a more advanced version of Spore Creatures (no hard drive on the Wii, after all), so you'll end up having a DS and Wii game that's its own spinoff genre from Spore. 5. Both games are already their own articles in the Video Game Wikiproject. I do things for a very good reason.

This issue is resolved - 36-48 hours of agreement. JAF1970 (talk) 23:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Purple Planet (Resolved)

Currently considered resolved. A small mention of the purple highlighter will remain, with the note that the significance of such is currently unknown. KiTA (talk) 19:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Minor dispute. Several previews have mentioned that the last thing you do as a terrestrial creature is spray a purple light all over your planet. The significance of this is unknown. This may be you adding your home planet to the Sporeopedia, the purple light may be a scanner of some kind?

• Isn't it obvious? In order to leave your planet, you must prove that you have explored the entire planet. It's probably also part of a tutorial on how to use the UFO (movement, etc.) JAF1970 (talk) 15:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• KiTA: I vote to leave this out of the article for now, until more information can be gotten. Perhaps until post-release.

• Um... why? Several HANDS-ON previews talk about this. This isn't something that's invented by some guy. (I understand the worrisomeness of speculation there...but ignoring it won't make it go away.) JAF1970 (talk) 15:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Because it is a gameplay feature, which we have little or no information on. Why purple? Why the whole planet? Why not just part of it? Is this a "debug thing" that's only there because the real gameplay feature it's simulating doesn't exist yet? It belongs in a gameplay section for the end of the civilization phase / start of the space phase, but we don't really have enough information to go on yet. KiTA (talk) 15:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Wright and the previews already stated it's a part of the game. It's not a debug, it's a part of gameplay. JAF1970 (talk) 16:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Hm, good point, but there's precious little info on that part, and it might be too specific until more detailed gameplay information is available (i.e., a Demo, a complete playthrough video, etc). KiTA (talk) 16:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• I vote leave it out as well. It's not like painting a planet purple is a feature anyone cares about in and of itself (unlike flying creatures, or underwater civilizations). If new information comes out that better explains the reason for it, then maybe it should be included then, but not now. Nanobri (talk) 16:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Whoa, whoa... hold on a second. You can't say people don't care about this information. A lot do. It's a part of gameplay - heck, it's more than just a part. Did you read the previews?: you can't enter the space phase without doing it. It's an actual condition towards moving towards the space phase. JAF1970 (talk) 16:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, but we do not know much about it yet... I'd like to see more information, perhaps it in a demo to the press, or Will mentioning how it works, before it gets more than a passing mention. I mean, we know you highlight the planet purple, but why? Is it for the Sporeopedia? Is it some form of defensive measure? Etc, etc. KiTA (talk) 16:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Problem is, it's a condition to reaching the space phase - so by definition, it has to be mentioned. If it weren't a critical condition in the game, we could ignore it. But it is, so we can't. JAF1970 (talk) 17:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Perhaps mentioning it, but mentioning it with the caveat of "The current use of this purple color is unknown"... which is remarkably similar to what we already have. Huh. KiTA (talk) 19:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Or just say the player must paint the planet purple before moving on to the space phase, period. JAF1970 (talk) 19:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way, the planet doesn't remain purple. (chuckle) JAF1970 (talk) 18:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion: mention the planet being painted, but add, ", the purpose of this is as of yet speculative." until harder evidence is made known. JAF1970 (talk) 00:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Terminology: Ports vs Spin-Offs vs "Console Versions" (Resolved)

We should review Porting vs Spin-off_(media) and decide what better fits.

• It's obvious. There's no porting going on with Spore mobile and Spore Creatures. They're being built from the ground up. No one took code from Spore to create those games. They're SPINOFFS. And by the way, Spinoff is not a development design - it's an intellectual property design. Like The Facts of Life are a spinoff of Diff'rent Strokes - same characters in each, but a different show. JAF1970 (talk) 15:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• I like "spin-off" better than "port", but I think both of them have the connotation of an established existing game being the source. Spin-off fits better in the sense that it implies that the new version is drasticly different from the original version. Unless something better is proposed (i.e. a term that doesn't imply an established game as the source), then I say we call them spin-offs. Nanobri (talk) 16:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Port is completely inaccurate. The Mac OS X version of Spore is a port. Spore Creatures and Spore Mobile are not. JAF1970 (talk) 16:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• I propose "Other Versions", which is neutral about the whole affair. KiTA (talk) 16:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Except that's vague, uninformative and looks really bad. When you say "other versions", it could mean anything. "Spinoff" is more direct, and also a single-word description. JAF1970 (talk)

EA (nor anybody else apart from JAF) has referring to alternative versions of the same as spin-offs. I propose that we refer to them as different versions. And I have no problem with a separate article for all non-PC/Mac versions of the game, however, creating separate articles for EVERY single version of the game is unnecessary. Sillygostly (talk) 22:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Do they need to refer to it as a spinoff? Used to be you'd get fired from a daytime drama if you called it a soap. No one from the network ever said The Facts of Life was a spinoff. Doesn't mean they aren't. PS. You're wrong. JAF1970 (talk) 22:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

“ EA also hopes to release expansion packs, or add-ons to the existing game that could extend the story line, and spin off versions of Spore for mobile and casual games to attract more users and sustain the franchise. ”

More spin-off references:

“ Asked if it would be close to the scope of the PC and Mac game, or a more limited spin-off like the DS version, ”

(Tons more references to them being a spin off not posted.) Are you satisfied? They're spin-offs. JAF1970 (talk) 22:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Well, I think right now it is between spin-offs and other versions. I think all the arguments for both have been put out on the table, so I say we bring it to a vote and resolve this issue.

• I vote spin off based on the evidence JAF1970 provided that people are calling it that, and also based on the the fact that I think the definition matches closely. Even though the main version is not an established game in the sense that it has been released, it IS an established game in the sense that the idea and development had been laid down and the other versions are off-shoots from it (thus spin-off is an appropriate term). Nanobri (talk) 00:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Furthermore, "other version of Spore" is technically incorrect. These games are not Spore. Incidentally, the Wii version will be a spinoff. If they're drafting all-new plans for that version, by definition, it's a spin-off. JAF1970 (talk) 00:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• I think a mixture of spin off, version and game would be best, to repeatedly say "spin off" in an article is unimaginative and boring and therefore a mixture of vocab would be best. --Samtheboy ^(t/c) 06:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• "Mixture"? Mixing right and wrong terminology doesn't help. And the word "spin-off" is only being used a few times. It's fine. JAF1970 (talk) 07:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• All the three words I used were actually correct terminology JAF, Spore Creatures is a Game, it is a Spin-off, and it is a Version (just like how there are different versions of the films Psycho, Halloween et al, they all are very different but are based on the same starting point). Spore Creatures and Spore Mobile are versions of Spore, insofar as they are all created from the idea of Spore but in different ways and manners! I'm happy that we use Spin-off however, just so long as the word isn't over-used and thus becomes unimaginative! --Samtheboy ^(t/c) 21:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Except EA, the media, and fans are all calling them "spinoffs". That's pretty definitive. JAF1970 (talk) 20:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Resolved (spin-off) (24 hour timer) JAF1970 (talk) 16:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• I would like to get more opinions on this first, before calling it resolved. It seems to be a real point of contention in the industry. What constitutes a port? How different does something have to be to be a spinoff? Etc Etc. Are there any "official" regulated definitions of them? Does the ESRB have a stance on the matter? What about the ol' Dictionary? KiTA (talk) 19:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • In the industry? No. Here? Yes. The industry calls spinoffs spin-offs, or didn't you notice the EA VP Mark Buechner calling Spore Mobile a spin-off. If EA is calling these games spin-offs, they're spin-offs. The industry developers and publishers are calling them spin-offs. The fan forums are calling them spin-offs. The publications are calling them spin-offs. Why can't you? JAF1970 (talk) 20:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I completely agree here that these games are most definitely NOT ports. For starters, they are not even using the same graphics engines, therefore they can't even start to be considered ports! --Samtheboy ^(t/c) 21:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Didn't know much about Spore when I wrote that, but you're right; Spore Creatures is more of a spinoff Emma Hordika (talk) 19:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)Emma Hordika —Preceding unsigned comment added by JAF1970 (talk • contribs)

Resolved (36 hours passed). JAF1970 (talk) 23:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Please feel free to make any changes or edits to this list. KiTA (talk) 15:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed "spinoffs" to "versions" before looking at the discussion page, simply because upon reading the article, "spinoff" just didn't seem appropriate. See Spin-off (media)#In video games. Spinoff typically refers to something, made later, that takes an element of the original product and expands upon it by adding new original content to it. Angel is a spinoff of Buffy, retaining the characters Angel, Cordelia, and Wesley, and the general setting of the Buffyverse, and adding several new characters, a new setting (L.A.), and a largely unrelated plot. The Sims could be considered a spinoff of Simcity, but The Sims 2 (console game) is not a spinoff of The Sims 2. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 20:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Spinoff is entirely appropriate, since Electronic Arts uses the term, the media uses the term, and even fansites use the term. A spinoff is exactly what those are, since they're based on the game. And I'll restate - if EA (Buechner, et al) calls them spinoffs, they're spinoffs. (See quotes above as evidence. And there's more where that came from.)

And these are spinoffs by your definition - they retain aspects of the main game (Spore Creatures the creature phase, and much of the mechanics, such as the Creature Editor), and Spore Mobile retains the tide pool phase as well as the Creature editor. They're all using the Spore licensed brand name as well. To say they're "versions" of Spore is inaccurate because that implies they have the same structure, and that isn't true. Would you say The Facts of Life are a "version" of Diff'rent Strokes, or Mork and Mindy is a "version" of Happy Days? JAF1970 (talk) 20:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't agree with the "my definition" statement, as while they do retain aspects of the main game, they don't (to my knowledge) expand upon those aspects with new elements. I don't doubt that EA calls them spinoffs, but I do doubt that EA uses the term spinoff correctly, and by Wikipedia policy, if EA calls them spinoffs, they're spinoffs if EA calls them spinoffs, EA calls them spinoffs. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 21:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

And the press. And the fans. It's an accurate description. And by the way, if the publisher states they're spinoffs, and they own the frickin' license, who are you to contradict them? Love that ego! JAF1970 (talk) 21:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Some more for you.

“ Spore Spin-off Release Date & Its On DS! - 16 Feb 08

After much speculation the release date for the Life Simulation, RPG, Spore Creatures is 7 September 2008 (Europe). Spore Creatures is a spin-off of the god game Spore. The game will mainly follow a story, over 12 levels. You will be able to go online via Nintendo Wi-Fi and is one of the few DS games where you can opt-out of the Friend Code system.

”

JAF1970 (talk) 20:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

For starters, I'm not the first person here to disagree with the term "spinoff." Would you call the console version of The Sims 2 a spinoff of the PC version? Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 21:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

"they don't (to my knowledge) expand upon those aspects with new elements." They don't? Didn't read either article, did you?

“ The game focuses on survival, which includes finding food and eventually a mate, with mini-games such as singing and dancing for friend-making.[5] A large part of the game involves collecting items, allowing players to earn 60 badges based on game moments and actions. The players can also perform side quests and play mini-games to unlock skills and 280 hidden creature parts, which are given to the player by other friendly creatures, akin to Animal Crossing.[3][5] Some parts grant "Bio-Powers", such as a quick healing ability.[5] ”

Sounds an awful lot like expansion to the Creature phase, huh? As for Spore (mobile):

“ After every 3 upgrades to the creature, a "superpart" is awarded.[3] After the player completes the single player game, they can engage in wireless battles with other players' completed creatures as well.[4] ”

Oh, and an FYI - both games feature direct multiplayer. Spore does not. I'd say adding multiplayer to a single player game is an expansion, wouldn't you?

They're spinoffs. By my, your, EA's AND Wikipedia's definition. (rolling eyes) Please, move on. JAF1970 (talk) 21:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Genre

Someone should change the genre to 'god game/evolution game(or life simulation game)' for this would be more neutral to all. Skele (talk) 16:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

It isn't god game already? (Checked) It is. What's the prob? JAF1970 (talk) 16:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Skele, could you explain on how you think the genre is not neutral? Is it the classification of 'god game' that you are opposed to? Nanobri (talk) 20:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

If the game was built to replicate evolution, then shouldn't it be an evolution game? I myself am almost terrified at it being called a god game and I think other people are not happy for it being called a god game. Ofcourse if we would name it only an evolution game then ofcourse it would upset some other people. Those are the main reasons why i think it should be called an evolution/god game. Skele (talk) 23:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Skele, though I can can see how the label "god game" might be perceived as striking up a creationism vs evolution debate, in this context "god game" is the actual name of the genre of games where the player is in a position of large scale control. (Check the God game article for more info.) As "evolution game" isn't an established genre, I don't think adding that would be appropriate. "Simulation" or "life simulation" might be appropriate, but I would want a consensus before adding those. (Also as an aside, the changes in Spore are not a process of mutation and natural selection as is proposed by the Theory of Evolution, but instead are purposefully chosen by an intelligent designer, i.e. the player. So the game is most definitely not built to replicate evolution, and in fact relies on a mechanism fundamentally opposed to evolution. I'm not saying that's how it works in real life though. :-P ) Nanobri (talk) 00:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Spore Creatures is a life simulation. Spore is a god game, like Populous. I've already explained this to Skele a while ago - "god game" has no theological context. It's just a gameplay style. If you're an atheist and are offended by the genre nomenclature "god game"... JAF1970 (talk) 00:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I have a theory. There are two "possible" ways that life was built, through evolution or through god. Lets say that there was no god in the first place, so that there would be only the evolutionary way. So how did we develope ourselves to this state that we are now? Evolution uses needs. if a creature needs something, for example scales, it would develope scales. In Spore the player is the need and therefore if the player sees that his creature needs scales then he will develope his creature scales. Skele (talk) 09:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Locating Earth

I don't know how this could get edited into the article, or if you all would actually think it noteworthy, but Will Wright has revealed a rather huge easter egg. Of the multitudes of stars in the Spore universe, if you happen to go to the right one in the exact right place, you'll stumble upon a very familiar planet to all of us, Earth. You can then colonize and terraform Mars, Venus, what have you. Check out this video, around minute 13 for more details. http://blip.tv/file/652152 enjoy. PlatypusToby (talk) 19:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

It's interesting, but it's trivia/strat guide sort of stuff. JAF1970 (talk) 22:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

more ports

It's being relaesed on Wii and Ds in the spring? EuphoriaEmma Hordika (talk) 21:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)Emma Hordika

See above for the discussion on this. --Samtheboy ^(t/c) 22:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

And they're not ports :p JAF1970 (talk) 00:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Unprotected

From what I can see, the disputes have been resolved. Anyone who wishes to change information against the consensuses (consensii?) here is expected to bring it up here first and achieve a consensus for the change. I will go and unprotect the page now. --Yamla (talk) 23:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Yamla. The plural of consensus is the same as the singular, by the way. JAF1970 (talk) 23:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Consensus

Please note that now that consensus has been reached on most points of contention, editors are expected to abide by that consensus. You may disagree! The consensus may be wrong! But if that's the case, please bring it up for discussion here on the discussion page, and convince other people that your point is valid, rather than changing the article. Direct edits to the article against consensus may be considered vandalism. I want to be clear, I am absolutely not saying that nobody can override the established consensus. Heck, consensus right now is that the version of Spore for the Wii is almost certainly going to be substantially different than the version for the PC. If EA later announces that in fact it is exactly the same, the article should clearly be changed. If KiTA and Nanobri and JAF1970 claim that EA's new hypothetical announcement is somehow a pun, and particularly if they have a reliable source confirming this strange sense of humour, consensus should stand. Your best bet is to follow WP:DISPUTE if you are unable to convince them otherwise here. The whole point of achieving consensus here is to avoid edit wars on the main article. Edit warring against consensus, and particularly with no significant effort to resolve the dispute, may very quickly lead to a block. --Yamla (talk) 22:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Consensus Can Change

A small group of editors can reach a consensual decision, but when the article gains wider attention, others may then disagree. The original group should not block further change on grounds that they already have made a decision.

...

Wikipedia's decisions are ever-changing, because new people visit every day, and through new information and new ideas, we may gain insights we did not have previously. It is important that there is a way to challenge past decisions, however these decisions were reached. Decisions should therefore practically never be "binding" in the sense that the decision cannot be taken back.

(Emphasis added)

Also see the flowchart at that page, particularly the first two boxes. I came across the article that was in a previous consensus, and made a change. That should not, no, can not be considered vandalism, it is part of the process. Dansiman (talk|Contribs)

---

Furthermore, I'm not actually convinced consensus has been reached here, with regard to the port/spinoff/version/other-term debate. From what I can tell by going through all the comments here, JAF1970 strongly believes that "spinoff" is the only acceptable term; KiTA "isn't sure" but believes "port" is definitely not the right term, and leans slightly toward "other versions"; Sillygostly, myself, and at least one unsigned comment all believe that "spinoff" is not appropriate and that "version" should be chosen as, while less specific, is not inaccurate by any interpretation; Nanobri supports "spinoff" but feels there might be some other, better term nobody has thought of; Samtheboy believes that a variety of terms should be used; Emma Hordika votes for "spinoff."

So out of eight contributors, we have one very strong supporter of "spinoff", two more moderate supporters of "spinoff", three supporters of "version" (and one "slight support") and one supporter of "all of the above."

So I have two questions,

1. Have I summarized everyone's position accurately?
2. Is there really a consensus here? (I don't think there is, yet)

Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 16:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

That's nice, but you're still just a vocal, and quite annoying, minority. I've already proven stuff to you on your OWN terms, so please, go with the rest of the group til the game is released in September. Enough is enough.

Please listen to the administrator and if you have a serious edit dispute, have it moderated.

The fact that you are campaigning, yes, CAMPAIGNING for your point of view after the issues are resolved is bad form. Oh, and by the way, just a hint here: Wiki doesn't tolerate sock puppets. You know what I mean.

JAF1970 (talk) 16:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)