Talk:Spore (2008 video game)

Template:Cleanup taskforce notice

Release Date

http://totalspore.com/articles/official-spore-news/spore-release-date-official/

Please see WP:RS. This is not a reliable source. --Yamla 16:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Internet access

Will this be simalar to a MMORPG or will internet access be needed only be needed for downloads etc. I've only got about 30Kbps internet access and have never been able to play any games online. Will I be able to play this? also, please leave the answer on my talk page - Wardhog 17:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

It's in the article. You only need the internet to download other player models that they've uploaded. So your friend can upload a civilization on the net, you can download it and play against it.

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 (talk) 05:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Citations way out of whack

Looking at the references section - definitely need to clean it up and make all the references uniform. JAF1970 19:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the citation #42 that used to point to Sean O'Neil's personal website now points to a standard godaddy 'for sale' page.

66.36.151.175 21:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Citation #29 link is broken and as far as I know, there is no offical creature called Screeble Simsarmy 14:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it is an official creature. The link is broken because SporeWiki changed the site format. JAF1970 05:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Fixed the links to SporeWiki's Screeble and Willosaur pages. Anyway, by "out of whack", I meant they weren't in uniform format. I'll see if I can make them more uniform. JAF1970 05:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Fixed all the broken SporeWiki links. But the references need to be made uniform. JAF1970 05:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

A technical point, but is SporeWiki is considered a "reliable publisher" as per WP:V? In order to be reliable it should have a reputation for fact-checking and editorial oversight, and for most fan-sites, blogs and wikis that's not the case because anybody can publish anything they want with little oversight. If I'm right about that, the references to SporeWiki should be replaced with better references, most likely the references SporeWiki itself is using for its information. Dugwiki 17:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

"is SporeWiki is considered a "reliable publisher" as per WP:V" I believe so. So there's no problems there. They're less active right now because, let's face it, there's not much new information about Spore right now. JAF1970 18:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

EVO: Search for Eden

E.V.O.: Search for Eden is a fantasy game in which you start out as a primitive life form and then evolve into a human so that you can enter the Garden of Eden. I think it should be mentioned in the article for its similarity to Spore. --Safe-Keeper 23:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is a video from the game. It looks very, very, very similar. --Safe-Keeper 00:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

EVO had more in common with Street Fighter than Spore. Any similarity is far too tenuous to warrant comparison. --Monotonehell 03:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

EVO was all about creature evolution. It's not like there's any of that in Spore! MDWilder 20:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

There are some similarities, but not enough to make a comparison. It is like comparing battlefield to GTA because they both involve guns...

Fair use rationale for Image:SPORE.EA.jpg

Image:SPORE.EA.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Done! Mrmoocow 06:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

External links

Can we review the current list of links? I think it's possible that some of them are in violation of WP:EL but I don't want to remove them without consensus and start an edit war. --Monotonehell 22:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The current set of external links is as follows:

• Official Spore website

Official website stays, per policy. That one's obvious.

• Spore presentation at South by Southwest 2007 - a collection of screenshots, videos, and articles from the South by Southwest conference.
• Spore presentation at TED
• Spore presentation at The New Yorker's "2012: Stories from the Near Future" series of symposiums

These three are presentations: perhaps requiring discussion? I'm not sure.

• Gaming Steve Spore Forums - A popular Spore forum.

GamingSteve has been an undisputed link since the beginnings of the article, and though for some reason WP:EL doesn't actually mention criteria for fansites it is notable within the community, contains content unavailable elsewhere, is used to reference content in this article and generally fits the criteria for a useful external link - amongst other reasons.

• Sporewiki - A wiki dedicated to all topics related to Spore.

Wikipedia often links to other wikis, Sporewiki is the primary one (and is also on wikia). Should probably be linked to because it's stable (per the guidelines) and contains useful content not available here or elsewhere.

• Hooked on Spore - An active Spore fansite.

Newly added, no consensus to my mind. Doesn't appear to contribute anything.

See also Talk:Spore_(video_game)/External_Link_Discussions_and_Disputes for more details of the history of this article's external links. For now, I'm going to remove the Hooked On Spore link until we can achieve consensus. --87.114.0.92 12:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Very good. :) --Monotonehell 13:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Good Article Nomination

I've nominated this article for GA status, as I think it meets all the specified criteria. References have been fixed since the last nomination, as well as the other improvements suggested. --87.114.0.92 13:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, this is an impressive article, and it improved a lot since the last nom; however, there are no references for the cellular, creature, civilisation and space phases nor in the Editor and rewers sections, a fact tag under flying, a lot of unnecessary (well inconsistant) boldening, and a very long bullet point list.

I didn't really take agood look at the article; please adress these points GA review can happen.--SidiLemine 14:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and the ref N°9 doesn't prove anything: It only says the show exists, not that it discussed anything repeatedly.--SidiLemine 15:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of July 21, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: in depth without being too meticulous, pass.

2. Factually accurate?: most statements are sourced, however the references should all be in proper format, especially web links: see {{Template:Cite web}} for full docs; if you want to see what properly formatted refs look like, take a gander at Iridion 3D.

3. Broad in coverage?: pass.

4. Neutral point of view?: pass.

5. Article stability? this is the crux here. It's an unreleased video game, so how can it be stable since the content could very well change with one announcement from the developer? I suppose if all the other issues were addressed, I could give it GA class, however it would require a review once the video game came out.

6. Images?: all need additional fair use rationale. See the pictures in Halo 2 for an example.

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. — David Fuchs ^(talk) 15:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Dave, I'll try to unify the reference link style this coming week. JAF1970 08:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I have made the references all use {{Template:cite web}}. Sdornan 14:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I was about to say - you beat me to it. :p Though... not comletely. Still have URLs instead of article titles in a few of them. JAF1970 14:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Fixed a bunch more references and added details. The pictures just need fair-use rationale now. I did one here, so use that as a template with Template:Non-free media rationale. Sdornan 17:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to interrupt, but I still think that several sections heavily lack references. I'm just saying because I know that most articles that achieve GA with this problem end up ar GA/R, and by then everyone has moved on to something else, or is too discouraged to come back and fix it. --SidiLemine 18:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The game isn't even out yet. By the time it is, the page will be completely different anyway. Sdornan 19:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Added rationales for a bunch of pics. JAF1970 22:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if at least some of the information is gathered from the video clips from E3, et. al. Not sure how you'd source those if that's the case. Dansiman 03:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Condensation

I condensed the Space phrase - and frankly I can't see how the article could be condensed without omitting relevent information at this point. Spore is a big game in terms of scope. From a gameplay and a technical standpoint. JAF1970 20:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

TED 2007 stuff

Okay, added a bunch of content based on the 2007 TED conference video. JAF1970 08:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Updating screenshots

Updated some old screenshots with new versions. JAF1970 17:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Good job. Where did you get them? Some video? Care to share a link?--Viridis^{talk|contributions} 03:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

My pics have their sources listed. JAF1970 21:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Burrowing

Burrowing is the main mode of transportation for over half the land animal population. It's absence is enough to be notable. JAF1970 18:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the above comment. If the implication is that it should be mentioned that burrowing might not be something included in the game, that isn't a "notable" fact unless you can show that it's been discussed by some reliable outside published source. There's lots of things that AREN'T in the game, after all, and there's nothing in the game that implies it's supposed to be a realistic real world evolution or biological simulation. So I would recommend not bothering include a mention of a lack of burrowing in the article. Dugwiki 18:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Train Simulator - it was noted there were no passengers visible. Same diff. JAF1970 21:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't find the "train simulator" quote you're talking about. Even if I could, though, I still don't see how a train simultation article making a mention of no visible passengers has anything to do with this article. Dugwiki 23:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

That comment is basically saying if we included all the things that aren't in there then every article would be billions of pages long... It's like saying in a song article, "This song doesn't use a B note at all" or in someone's biography saying, "It's interesting to note that this person's name doesn't have the letters a,b,e,l and m in it" Basically, having information that is NOT included is superficial and pointless. --Samtheboy ^(t/c) 08:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Um, no. That's not a parallel. It's more like having a horse racing game with no betting, for example. JAF1970 01:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

This whole discussion is neither here nor there. This is not a general discussion forum for the game. Unless lots of people have come forward and expressed their dismay that burrowing is a non-show so far, it doesn't merit mentioning (forget notability, gimme sources). There are so many aspects of life, society and civilization that Spore will not (and cannot) include that it's not even funny, and the game isn't even finished yet. As far as I'm aware, nobody's ever said the final version will not have burrowing. 82.95.254.249 20:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

It still needs to be discussed whether it should be included or not. It's now been discussed. JAF1970 20:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Could you explain your "over half" figure? Aren't the majority of burrowing animals insects? Or other invertebrates? It's popular understanding that trains carry passengers, but as a non-biologist, if I exclude invertebrates I can think of far more flying/crawling animals than I can ones that use burrowing as their "main mode of transportation". Perhaps that points to a more significant omission, as I think all of the land-based animals we've seen in the game have been vertebrate. 69.95.50.15 14:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It would probably be difficult to tell the difference in this game between vertebrate and invertebrate since the creatures are actually just basically animated models. It seems to me that simply by changing the skin texture on a creature from "fleshy" to "chitin" you end up turning a model that looks like an invertebrate creature with an internal skeleton into a model that looks like an insect with an external skeleton. Also, just a technical point, the game does clearly have some invertebrates because all the creatures in the cellular stage would be in that category. Dugwiki 15:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

edit to spore release date

according to GAMEINFORMER issue 171 (and i quote) 'Electronic Arts' CEO John Riccitiello claims that spore may have been delayed INDEFINITELY'

is this true or did gameinformer just hear wrong????? --Wolfdog1dmn 02:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Please read all the other comments on this page about Spore being delayed indefinitely and say whether this is the same information or not. --Samtheboy ^(t/c) 16:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

what other comments about spore being delayed i read through before i posted this section and saw none then i read after you posted that and i still see none --Wolfdog1dmn 05:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at Archive 4 --Samtheboy ^(t/c) 07:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, keep in mind that as a print magazine GAMEINFORMER is writing its articles a couple months in advance. Since there are more recent cited quotes in the release section that seem to verify the game is still going to be released, (there's one from July 2007 talking about a multiplatform release, for instance) my guess is that the quote you're talking about is either outdated or incorrect. Dugwiki 20:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Also keep in mind it's spelled "release". JAF1970 01:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

EB Games is releasing the game March 3, 2008. I know this for a fact, I just pre-ordered it. Therefore, Spore has NOT been delayed indefinitely. 70.48.247.7 22:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

EB Games is also a retailer, who will bullshit release dates to encourage pre-orders.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 22:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeap, EB Games almost always gets release dates incorrect when they are this far out. --Yamla 22:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Alright, there is no proof that it was delayed indefinatly, and recently ea said they would release it their fiscal 09 year, which is spring 08 to spring 09.

just saying you saw something in game informer doesn't make it true, only trust the actual company that is publishing the game, not the paparazzi

Release date released today on Amazon, you can preorder it and it says the date is March 3rd, 2008. Bobthepyro 21:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:RS. --Yamla 21:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Space phase fixed

Removed the list form of the Space Phase to a more focused, coherent regular paragraph-style section. JAF1970 01:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Replacing Gamingsteve link with xSpore

I'm from xSpore and I think it would only make sense to remove the gaming steve "A popular spore forum" now since xSpore is hands down *the* most popular. With around 4,032 members, 83,494 posts (several hundred new posts per day which makes us far more active than gamingsteve), our rate of growth and activity stumps any other spore community. Also with over 50 content editors, our site now breaks the latest news quicker than any other site. I'm just saying, if you're going to list a site because it has "popular spore forums", you might as well list the one with the *most* popular forum. I won't replace it out of no where, I want to see what you other people have to say about it.

Makes sense, I agree... If there is going to be a forum connected to the Spore page, then it should be the most popular Simsarmy 16:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree too. But who I am to change this giant? --213.190.195.101 16:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I have added xSpore, if anyone has a problem with that, then contact me. Simsarmy 16:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Someone is changing the link... I think it is a troll. Someone can investigate. I'm Le***** from xSpore (Who is from there know who I am) --213.190.195.101 17:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that, it probably should be linked with the most popular site. --Dspa01

I've reverted it -- At this point only one established member has actually supported the change. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 18:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with it being reverted, I'd like to hear the position of the regular editors of this wiki regarding my initial reasoning (I started this section).

Obviously TheSeer is a troll so I fixed his changes. - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.164.111.30 (talk • contribs).

Neither are appropriate, see WP:EL. Forums should not be linked to. --Yamla 19:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I can live with that Yamla. I was just making the case, no sense in linking to a forum that is clearly not the most popular. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.185.145.22 (talk • contribs) 20:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I've stated this before but the weight of support contrary to WP:EL has seen the forum links remain. Linking to one forum over another will always lead to struggle. We should not link to any. --Monotonehell 11:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Aye. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 22:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

xSpore should obviously not be linked, per established consensus. See the External Links disputes. GamingSteve has consensus (see that same page). This appears to be yet another attempt by a minority to force through xSpore as a link. --81.77.138.192 16:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Uh I don't know who you are, but GamingSteve "PER ESTABLISHED CONSENSUS" should NOT be linked. See *this very topic*. The External Links topic notes GamingSteve as having content unavailable elsewhere? While that might have been true back in 2005, that is not the case anymore, and hasn't been for well over a year and a half. Everyone knows now that the latest breaking news almost always comes from xSpore - as it has over 60 content editors, and the biggest and most active forums. I'm not saying this because I'm some xSpore fan boy, but just because it's true. If xSpore doesn't deserve to be linked, certainly no other external source should be linked either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.185.145.22 (talk • contribs)

Well, it had been established that we didn't need any link at all, but someone added the GS link back in. So yeah, no link to any forums. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 21:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand something, when you click on the wikipedia result when you search for "spore" on google, the GamingSteve link shows in the external link - but when you go to edit this page - it doesn't show. And then when you click back to the main page, it's gone. Doesn't make sense? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.185.145.22 (talk) 02:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

It's possible for 2 reasons, 1 someone edited it while you were on the page, 2 you were using a Google cache which was out of date. --Samtheboy ^(t/c) 05:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

No flOw references

Unless Wright or anyone else from the Spore team says it's like flOw, do not post it. Unless you've played Spore yourself... JAF1970 06:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

"Unless you've played Spore yourself..." Umm - no. Not even then. That would be Original Research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lasalle202 (talk • contribs)

Sam Kennedy's played it, and he seems to think it plays more like flOw than Pac-Man. [1] Pele Merengue 01:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The Software Wold For Ya

Only in softwareland could a product that doesn't even exist and has been delayed numerous times from its projected release date be the winner of an award! You can tell that software design came of age after the full development of marketing hype. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lasalle202 (talk • contribs)

New information from SIGGRAPH 2007 conference.

As I am new to the editing of Wikipedia, I am sorry if this is the wrong place to post this but:

There has been released new Spore-related information in a student-run conference: SIGGRAPH. Maxis was present and I believe there are some relevant "news" that can update the paragraph that mentions that conference.

I provide links to the videos in google with four sketches from the conference:

Creating Spherical Worlds: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2665884846240541669&hl=en

Player Driven Textures: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2330201030389333354&hl=en

Fast Object Distribution: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6932469206805009461&hl=en

Player Deformable Objects: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8791258027656488911&hl=en

And to the original source as well:

https://encore.siggraph.org/online/Siggraph/default.asp?selectedYearId=2007&selectedSessionTypeId=3&selectedTrackId=47&selectedPresentationId=221&selectedPresentationCode=SKT081#

Thank You! Lady Astor: "If I were your wife, I'd put poison in your coffee." Winston Churchill, "Nancy, if I were your husband, I would drink it." 16:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)Ashevm

Games Convention

Anyone know if there has been any new footages or presentations at Leipzig? I've been coming here everyday to see if there has, but nothing new has appeared. I thought Spore was featured though. Did I make a mistake? Pluvia 21:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

LGC07: Spore for consoles ... after PC, DS versions

Confirmed by joystiq and Maxis reaffirmed, that plans for spores on the console WILL be released , just not during the PC and DS launch http://www.joystiq.com/2007/08/24/lgc07-spore-for-consoles-after-pc-ds-versions/ - reference —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xoirun (talk • contribs) 04:52, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

Locomotion entries are NOT extrapolations

Please notice that these are SOURCED with RELEVENT articles from NEWS SOURCES. Do not remove entire sections out of hand because you think they're extrapolation. In fact, look up the word. When you SEE flying creatures in the videos - that's NOT AN EXTRAPOLATION. That's ACTUAL EVIDENCE.

ESPECIALLY swimming, since THERE WAS AN UNDERWATER PHASE DEVOTED TO IT. There's a ton of discussion over the fate of the underwater and swimming phase IN THE PRESS.

Furthermore, there have been notes from Wright on this subject as well.

Before you make a decision, please check the links to the references. They're there for a reason. JAF1970 04:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Release Date

Just recieved an Email from Amazon.com that Spore is now available for Pre-order. And will be released March 3, 2008.

ource: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000FKBCX4/ref=s9_asin_image_1/102-7936290-0959344?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=center-3&pf_rd_r=0ZQ7M4HDYMEYWKJ08MQK&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=278240801&pf_rd_i=507846

--198.254.16.200 14:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Amazon and all other online shopping outlets go on guesses until the date is confirmed, therefore it's not being added until it has been confirmed by a reliable source. --Samtheboy ^(t/c) 17:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Major edit

Okay, I've moved a great deal of development and technical items into a new article: Development of Spore. I figure that the Spore (video game) article should pertain only to the game and gameplay itself, while all of the development and technical aspects behind it should get its own article. Think of the Development of Spore the "Behind the Scenes"/"Making of Spore" article. That way, the Spore article shrinks, but nothing is lost because it's a part of a new article. JAF1970 21:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

PS. I did nothing with release or platforms, because those will all but disappear when the game is actually released. I did copy the Soren Johnson stuff to Development of Spore, tho. JAF1970 21:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Release dates, part 46

Once more - store release dates, ie. Amazon, GameStop, Best Buy, etc, etc. THOSE ARE NOT ANNOUNCED RELEASE DATES. Those are guesstimate release date placeholders. Only EA can officially announce a release date. Not even Maxis can. JAF1970 14:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Box Art, part 52

This is no official box art for Spore yet. Period. JAF1970 05:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Spore Release Date / Box art

Not sure if this warrants adding, but Amazon.com has a release date (March 4th, 2008) and box art:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000FKBCX4/

KiTA 00:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Aaand apparently I'm waaay late to the party here.

KiTA 00:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes you are.

1. AMAZON IS NOT ELECTRONIC ARTS. They do not design the box art. They do not make release dates. All they can do is use placeholders. JAF1970 15:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Though I understand the argument not to use the Amazon box placeholder, why not use the already released and EA approved logo for the game? It is certainly recognized both inside and outside the gaming community, and WP does have a policy of using logos when discussing products for critical review. --Knulclunk 02:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Why put anything? It's not necessary right now. JAF1970 05:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

It makes the page look better. Why not put it? Zavinout 10:09 26 September (GMT +1) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.110.137.15 (talk) 08:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

No it does not. It's disseminating false information. JAF1970 03:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

An EA approved logo is not false information. Zavinout 05 Oktober 2007 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 13:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

There's no box art yet. Period. End of story. And posting just a logo for a retail game isn't good. JAF1970 14:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Look, sorry if I am being rude, but a logo would be just fine in my opinion. If it can be legally used and all that, and is an actual logo that was made by EA, etc etc, it would be fine. Sorry to say this, but JAF1970 is being too controlling here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by F50 Man (talk • contribs) 20:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

No, you're right. I posted the official Spore logo, which can be found on Spore.com and other official press releases. That should suffice til the actual box is posted. JAF1970 21:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

No PSP version has been officially announced

Buechner specifically said three versions have been officially announced: PC, DS, mobile phones. That moldy PSP news is from E3 2006. That was pure speculation, and EA since squashed that. There are articles about Spore being for the Xbox 360, PS3, PS2, Xbox 1, etc. Notice that Wright says he WANTS to make additional versions, but those are not being developed yet. JAF1970 15:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Pacifically

I can't make an edit for some reason, but there is an invalid word in this article. "Pacifically" sounds like some young kid trying to say "specifically". The word you're looking for is "pacifistically", or perhaps just "in a pacifistic manner". 206.45.125.208 14:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC) Will Stanton

Pacifically is a real word meaning what it means here. --Samtheboy ^(t/c) 18:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

That word is fairly archiac. JAF1970 05:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Unmentioned source of inspiration?

Not that i'm crediting this as actually being a source, or anything the creators have mentioned before, but...

Came across the old game 'Eco' about a half hour ago whilst playing with a new Atari ST emulator, and was struck by a primitive similarity to the Creature phase. Check it out.. though it's probably not fit for mention in the main text, it could perhaps be worth a link in the related articles section (as it has it's own Wikipedia page): http://www.mobygames.com/game/eco/

Did give me pause for thought a bit that :) Especially as one of the developers is called 'Ocean', and it was released by Ocean games - is there a link? 82.46.180.56 02:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Eco is not quite the same as Spore, and Wright did not derive Spore from it, anyway. Wright derived Spore from his Sim games -- SimEarth and SimLife in particular. JAF1970 05:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and Powers of Ten was the other major influence on Wright. JAF1970 17:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Amazon is NOT Electronic Arts

Until Amazon buys Electronic Arts or Maxis, they are NOT an official source of information, nor are they even reliable. STOP USING THEM. JAF1970 18:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Shrinking the article

I don't think the article can be shrunk any more til actual release. When the game is released, a lot of the release date stuff will be moved to the Development of Spore article as a part of its dev history, and the speculative stuff will be removed. When the game is actually released, just the description of play for each phase will remain. JAF1970 22:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• Condense article - again, I think this is impossible to do til the actual game is released. 1/3 of the article is in a new article as it is. I think for a AAA major unreleased mega-title, the article is an appropriate size. JAF1970 17:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

CLean up

This article needs to be cleared and rewritten due to somones screw up with the html. The information is screwed up with the comments that people left as messages in the editing box refrain from doing so unless its completely nessacarry danieljackson 22:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)