Talk:Spore (2008 video game)

Template:Cleanup taskforce notice

Enough with the Dune references

Can we please stop inserting speculation about the origin of spice as the currency for civilisation/space phase? Yes, it could be a Frank Herbert reference, but it could also be a reference to the fact that spices were a commonly traded commodity between real civilisations. Either way, it doesn't belong in the article. 2p0rk (talk) 16:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I have reason to believe it is a Dune reference, considering that there are many other pop culture references in the game already. Nonetheless, I note someone has added it again. Can we get a discussion on whether to keep this or not? Maybe, remove it for the time being until we get official confirmation from an interview or something?Avnas Ishtaroth (talk) 01:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it's very likely that it really is a reference to Dune. After all, Wright mentions 2001 and Star Trek as influences on the Space Phase. However, it's pure speculation and this article is waaaaaaaay too long already.

It probably does belong in the Development of Spore article though. 2p0rk (talk) 20:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it's glitterstim —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.106.104.40 (talk) 01:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

More DRM vagueness

"This is a change from the planned system which would have required authentication every ten days, a method which met with opposition from the public, and will allow gamers to play Spore without a disc." Does it mean that the new system will allow play without a disk? The old system? Does it have nothing to do with either and should be moved to another section? My internet is filtered so I can't follow the reference myself, so I'd like to see the section re-written. --162.39.93.10 (talk) 14:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit should suffice. JAF1970 (talk) 21:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

A random IP added the now-discredited rumor that you can only install Spore 3 times to the article, I have reverted it due to no references. KiTA (talk) 13:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you please link to the place that discredits the 3 install limit? I can not find that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.98.129.16 (talk) 03:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Well here is a message from one of the makers of Spore that states that you can install the game on different computers and no mentioning of install limit. Also if there is a limit its only on how many computers you can have the game active not how many times you can install it on one computer. http://mysporepage.com/article/article_15/ --80.221.239.213 (talk) 14:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

What about this link: http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/52618 . It says there is 3 installs only. is it creditable for you guys? 156.98.129.16 (talk) 21:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)DudeX

I read that article; it says install on 3 systems, not 3 installs. Which makes a lot more sense. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 02:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Tribal Phase video

YouTube. It more or less confirms the farming of animals, as another creature is in a pen. Other stuff, too. JAF1970 (talk) 07:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Man, that pen is way too small. Someone alert SCETOSC (Spore Creatures for the Ethical Treatment of Other Spore Creatures)! Tritium h3 (talk) 21:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Aw, c'mon. That's how you make veal. :p (This is bordering on Forum talk, so let's end this discussion here. heh) JAF1970 (talk) 18:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Digital Rights Management

The Digital Rights Management has changed on Spore. There will no longer be as intensive DRM; players will authenticate their CD-key on installation instead of every 10 days as previously stated. Source: DRM Changes for Spore and Mass Effect PC TheTrueHeadfoot (talk) 18:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Er, um, that was posted weeks ago. JAF1970 (talk) 18:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Also it says that it authenticates the game everytime they download new connection so in Spore it means almost every time you play it as it downloads contect from the server almost every playing time. So in reality it will authenticate the game more often it would have on the other authenticate method. Still to me its right to do so as it will discourage piracy. --80.221.239.213 (talk) 05:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

they can dress it up any way they like and argue about eulas till they're blue in the face i still wont buy it if its full of drm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.46.178 (talk) 16:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

"Also, players will not have to start at the tide pool phase, but can simply jump in to any phase."

Anyone have a reference for this? I know it's been said, but I do not know which video and/or interview it's mentioned in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KiTA (talk • contribs) 14:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

It was mentioned in one of the videos made out some convention event if I remember correctly. Still it seems more that you first have to play the phase once trough before you can choose to start from that phase as they had also mentioned that the individual parts of the creatures have to be found in the game. So you won't start with the whole set of arms and other organs but you have to either take them by force from other creatures or with social interaction. --80.221.239.213 (talk) 23:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that both those bear mentioning in the article, if they're not already there and we can cite references. The "you have to earn your parts" adds a new spin to the creature section, definitely. There are also interesting connotations -- what if you randomly end up on a planet missing some of the weirder arms and legs? Will "DNA Hunting" be part of the Space game? KiTA (talk) 01:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Will Wright stated "Also, players will not have to start at the tide pool phase, but can simply jump in to any phase." in the GDC 2005 video and several E3 videos. JAF1970 (talk) 03:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Well that he did say but I remember someone else or him saying that "You have to first clear the previos stage before you can go the next" or close to that in one of the vidoes. I would think both of those statements are right but after you have once cleared the stage you can freely choose what stage you want to start in. So you have to clear tribal phase so you can choose the civilization phase and so for but you could still choose creature phase if you don't want to go forward yet. --80.221.239.213 (talk) 13:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

No, most recently the messaging has been that they will have some pre-created creatures to jump right into the other stages out of the box. I don't have access to the videos right now to confirm, however, I think it was the Interview with N'Gai Croal or whatever his name is that he said it? Or the one with the producer right after that? IIRC it was the one where they first mentiond work on Spore Wii. KiTA (talk) 14:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Sys req

Posted the system requirements. JAF1970 (talk) 02:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Game box

The game box I posted is the OFFICIAL box. I'm looking for it from the EA press releases, but it's now been adopted by resellers (ie. GameStop. The other box that was up was from THREE years ago. JAF1970 (talk) 19:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Here it is on the official Spore site: Official box JAF1970 (talk) 19:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Still can't find a 256px version, tho. (sigh) JAF1970 (talk) 19:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's not distort the image for a blurry 256px shot, MrStalker. JAF1970 (talk) 21:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Leak

There's a leak of the C.C now. Oh boy! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.49.114 (talk) 09:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. Should we mention it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.46.106.122 (talk) 12:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

First of all its not a leak. Free edition of the Creatures Editor was published with one british computer magazine. Its not a leak when they intentionally allowed the magazine to give the game to those who order the magazine or buy it before it comes available online. Leak would mean someone gave the game out without permission and in this case they had permission. --80.221.239.213 (talk) 14:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Buechner told me it was pirated. Regardless, it happens to every game. It's not noteworthy. JAF1970 (talk) 23:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

It's actually on this months PC Zone UK, which flopped onto my doormat yesterday. I suspect a postman or news agent opened a copy at night and uploaded it. edit: Anyway its about as much as a leak as a radio station playing a song on the radio before the single is released TheGreatZorko (talk) 10:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Spore CC leak

The leak is not relevent to the Spore (video game) page. It's been moved to Development of Spore, which deals with that sort of history. JAF1970 (talk) 07:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Disagreeing, unless it receives broad coverage, it is not notable. Leaks occurs every day (images, specifications, price, etc). But unless well referenced by multiple sources, we don't care about that. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 07:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Every game gets pirated, I know. But if it IS notable, it's not for the Spore page - it's for the Development of Spore page. JAF1970 (talk) 07:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

New box art coming

New box art is coming, I've been told. JAF1970 (talk) 23:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Well on the get Spore page of sppore.com (http://www.spore.com/getSpore) they do show a different one. 71.181.174.148 (talk) 12:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

How creatures are stored

The creatures are stored as PNG files, specifically as 32 bit (RGBA) 128x128 png file. The creature content is apparently stored using the least significant bits of all four color channels. This means that the creature data itself is no larger than: 128*128*4/8 or 8 kB (4 bits per pixel, (one for each channel), but 8 bits per byte).

Determining that all 4 channels' LSBs are used is my own Original research, this probably should not yet be integrated into the article. However, the fact that the alpha channel's least significant bit is used can be found in many different locations (including slashdot comments and the following blog post: [1]. The fact that the creatures are stored as PNG's can be found in many different places, but a good citation would be [2]. 24.185.237.31 (talk) 00:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not salient to the article, however. JAF1970 (talk) 23:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, storing non-image game information in the form of an image that also graphically represents the content of the file is a very uncommon feature, and is probably worth of a mention if better citation information can be obtained than what the original commenter could find. However, until such a citation could be found, adding this information to the article or one of its sub-articles would not be appropriate. Tacvek (talk) 16:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

On the sporepedia section of the spore website it stated that a creature from sporepedia can be downloaded by saving the icon of the picture and then dragging the image into the game editor. The picture is in PNG format and does represent the image of the creature as said by the original commenter. I think this should be added to the article as it is now verifiable directly by the developers. - Anonymous 10:27, 17 June 2008 (BST)

Creature Creator Release Date!

I have read in many sources that the creature creator release date has been moved back to the 18th of June and, indeed, when I look at the EA store for the US I see that they have updated the page to display the new release date. But, when I look at the UK EA store I see that they are still displaying the release date as the 17th so it seems that the change in release date doesn't apply to all territories. Is this worth mentioning or should I wait till the 17th to see if this is correct and add it to the page then?--CalWalker (talk) 09:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit: on further inspection the release date varies from the 17th to 19th in various countries and so the 18th should be shown to be the release date in the US and Canada as it is clearly not a worldwide release date. Also I have removed the mention of the price of the game as I feel it is not relevant to the article and as the game goes on worldwide release it will be sold in different currencies.--CalWalker (talk) 09:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I belive taht has to do with the time diffrence. Could be wrong though. Pseudoserpent (talk) 09:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it has anything to do with time difference. I have just discovered that the Republic of Ireland don't get the creature creator till the 23rd!--CalWalker (talk) 09:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The release date for the CC has been pushed from the 18th to the 22nd now. If you have pre-ordered the game then you will have recieved an email notifying you about this. An insider from EA has told us that their servers have been brought down. This is because too many people registered with the leaked demo (it WAS technically leaked because people without the magazine HAVE copies of the CC due to the magazines releasing it too early.) and the servers weren't ready for the very high (10,000 + connections) traffic. They also have to sort out a youtube video limit because youtube have complained that most of their bandwidth is being sucked by thousands of people uploading spore creatures. -- Anonymous 11:43, 16 June 2008 (BST)

Do you have a source for this? I find no such information on the Spore website. There are a lot of rumors floating around, please don't add any information without citing a reliable source. Tritium h3 (talk) 13:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I have edited this section to clarify the release date as whoever undid the change of date entered the incorrect information for the context of the sentence. Could people please read through the section they wish to edit thoroughly and read the discussion on the subject before making changes.--CalWalker (talk) 14:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I also recieved an email stating that the date was changed to the 22nd, but this was only applicable for the UK release, not the US & Canada. I believe the information provided by anonymous is incorrect. Nonetheless I recieved another email stating that the release date has been changed back to the 17th as originally intended -- Another Anonymous 16:32, 16 June 2008 (BST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.68.155.229 (talk)

Also heres your proof on Spore European site says it comes out tomorrow and the news that says it was posted today so I think this will end this depate once and for all. http://eu.spore.com/whatisspore/article.cfm?id=23803 --80.221.239.213 (talk) 16:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The US release date is the 18th. JAF1970 (talk) 20:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

So what the release date to Europe is 17th its even posted on the Official Finnish Spore site and the Official Great Britain site as new news article that came out today. That US site was updated later than this so I know it will be tomorrow but if you still want to deny it then do. We will see tomorrow some time at morning GTM time when it will be released as that is the real release date. --80.221.239.213 (talk) 20:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

UK date, the 17th By the way, this is dangerously turning into a forum. JAF1970 (talk) 07:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The 17th as the release date for Europe is incorrect, some countries don't get it until the 19th and, as I said, Ireland doesn't get it until the 23rd. Is Ireland somehow not in Europe any more? The date varies, as I have clearly stated!--CalWalker (talk) 15:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

UK hasn't got it, although Spore site (and indeed the EA Store) say it's released on the 17th. Wolfun (talk) 21:59, 17 June 2008

Creature Creator in Australia

Are Australians even getting the SCC in-stores?

Not a forum. JAF1970 (talk) 07:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I've been all over google and not one big name store has so much as mentioned it in their future. - Razorthe6249th (talk) 09:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but as far as I can see the creature creator is only being released in stores in the US and Canada, elsewhere it is available via the EA store as a paid direct download. This is certainly the case in the UK, but I would have to find references to this.--CalWalker (talk) 09:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, that sucks. Thanks for the info, though. - Razorthe6249th (talk) 10:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't know about the UK or Australia but [3]. And no, I don't think this is a grey market/parallel import since [4] Nil Einne (talk) 13:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The Other 'Spore' Game (Commodore 64)

This page should be disambiguated. There are (at least) two video games called Spore. There's also one for the [Commodore 64].

[5]

I'll make a Spore page for the C-64 version later. JAF1970 (talk) 20:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing the appropriate titles would then be Spore (1987 video game) and Spore (2008 video game)? Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 07:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

No, there's no reason to change this article's name. The C-64 Spore is sort of obscure. JAF1970 (talk) 20:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Spore (1987 video game) article created. JAF1970 (talk) 20:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Creature creator RELEASE DATE?

If it's only being released tomorrow, why is youtube full of giant dancing penises and monsters with giant breasts? Where did these people get the creature creator then?

-G — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.151.96 (talk)

You would have got your answer if you would have read this discussion page but no you had to ask it even if it was already answered. --80.221.239.213 (talk) 18:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Then add it to the article.

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.150.41 (talk) 16:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

-G Don't forget the goatse monster :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.106.104.40 (talk) 03:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Demo: 17th, Full: 18th

Seems like the Demo is the 17th, with the Full version following on the 18th. JAF1970 (talk) 04:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Unless you have a reliable source, it shouldn't be in the article. RobJ1981 (talk) 04:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The reliable source is Electronic Arts and Maxis. Spore.com says the free trial is on the 17th, and the EA Store lists the complete as the 18th. Go check for yourself. JAF1970 (talk) 07:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. No source don't add. Simple has that. --SkyWalker (talk) 04:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It can't be the 18th, it still says the 17th at EA store. Unfortunatelly, they've failed to notice that it's been the 17th for quite a few hours now. --81.156.244.63 (talk) 06:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the website it says the 18th now but surely they would've sent emails notifying like with the last change? - Anon 07:26, 17 June 2008 (BST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.70.225.195 (talk) Edit: An unverified source from xspore tells me the release is will be synched with PST which means 30 minutes until we get our copies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.70.225.195 (talk) 06:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, 30 mins is good. :) But where does it say the 18th? [6] --81.156.244.63 (talk) 06:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Reference 41 on the main page. Edit: Not reference 41.

That's the American site --81.156.244.63 (talk) 07:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Reference: Trial, Full version. JAF1970 (talk) 07:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

UK Spore website has updated allowing you to BUY and DOWNLOAD both editions of spore.

Whoops, I must've been on the US one by accident. Score! Thanks guys :D! EDIT: Oh wait, nevermind, EA still wants a preorder, lame. --81.156.244.63 (talk) 07:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Not a forum. JAF1970 (talk) 07:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The UK site has the demo for download right now. The US does not. JAF1970 (talk) 07:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

US demo is now available. JAF1970 (talk) 10:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The above comment wasn't a forum post. RobJ1981 (talk) 14:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

No, it wasn't. It's for article accuracy. JAF1970 (talk) 16:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't in reference to your post, I was in reference to the post by the IP editor...which you yelled "Not a forum" afterwards. RobJ1981 (talk) 19:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Please thread your posts so we can avoid confusing exchanges like this one. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 02:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Windows 2000

It says Vista and XP are required, but the free trial of creatures at least works on my windows 2000. Almost all software that runs on XP runs on 2000, even when they don't say it will. Not sure if it should be put in though, any ideas? -OOPSIE- (talk) 12:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course it might work on older operating systems. Only reason why they don't list them is because they don't vouch that it will work on those operating systems. For example they aren't making the game for Windows 2000 and aren't even testing how it works on it. Still even if the game works on those operating systems there might be bugs just because its not the tested operating system and the game company isn't going to fix bugs that might be on the game when you play it on different operating system. --80.221.239.213 (talk) 14:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

We only list that which the game is recommended for by the manufacturer. JAF1970 (talk) 16:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

But, in the info box it says system REQUIREMENTS. But you don't require XP or Vista -OOPSIE- (talk) 02:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

They're the system requirements provided by EA. Most software can be made to run on a system tht doesn't exactly meet the requirements; in fact you could probably get it to run on linux with a fair amount of effort. But to list every situation where one could conceivably run the software would be cumbersome at best, unachievable at worst. While it may work for you on Win2K, it may not work for the next guy with a different configuration. So, for consistency, we list the requirements obtained from the manufacturer. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 02:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

When I made a game article, someone stuck a big warning box on it saying "Primary sources and sources affiliated with the subject of the article are generally not sufficient for a Wikipedia article." -OOPSIE- (talk) 08:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't put any weight behind EA's 'requirements'. Every time I've had a problem with sys reqs, its been an EA thing. Stuff like printing "Supports ATI Radeon 8900 or higher" on the box, the game doesn't work, you email them (including a scan of the box) and they send you specs saying "ATI Radeon 8900, 9100, 9200, 9300 or higher". So while they say it requires something, it's probably wrong.

Yet another Spore

An MS-DOS game from 1991. Time to create yet another article :p JAF1970 (talk) 20:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Spore (1991 video game) created. JAF1970 (talk) 21:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Spore (video game) or Spore (2008 video game)

OK, I'm of two minds on this - I could go either way. Anyone want to vote on whether to use Spore (video game) or Spore (2008 video game). I'm leaning towards the latter, but could go either way. JAF1970 (talk) 21:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking (2008 video game) for consistency, and redirect (video game) to it; then change the hatnote to "Spore (video game) redirects here; for the 1987 video game..." Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 23:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Spore (video game) as a disamb? Sounds good. JAF1970 (talk) 02:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Spore (2008 video game) seems better to me (for the same reason stated by Danisman). Pseudoserpent (talk) 06:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that Dansiman ment that Spore (video game) would be redirected to Spore (2008 video game) and then put the note that for the 1987 Commandore 64 game go (the link to the 1987 game). There is no need to make Spore (video game) page to disambiguation page. You can list both games on Spore disambiguation page. --80.221.239.213 (talk) 07:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

It will probably be more accurate to call it Spore (2012 video game). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.186.190.202 (talk) 19:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant. Full summary of my proposal:

1. Have Spore (video game) redirect to Spore (2008 video game) (this article's new title).
2. Place hatnote at the top of this article, informing visitors of the other two games with the same name. This code would do it:

   {{Redirect6|Spore (video game)|the Commodore 64 game|Spore (1987 video game)|the MS-DOS game|Spore (1991 video game)}}

   which produces: Template:Redirect6

3. All three games can then be listed on Spore (disambiguation).

Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 21:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm for the status quo, considering that Spore (1987 video game) and Spore (1991 video game) look like marginally notable games to me, while Spore is one of the most hyped games in recent gaming history. I'm pretty sure that 99,9% of all people will associate "Spore" and "video game" with this game, and not the other two. --Conti|✉ 19:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but Spore (video game) would be better as a disambig page. Besides, when people enter "Spore" into Wiki, they get spore, not the game anyway. JAF1970 (talk) 20:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Why? We usually don't create disambiguation pages when one term is quite clearly the most popular. And when it comes to video games, this game beats the other two hands down. --Conti|✉ 20:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

There's a Spore disambig anyway. And as I just say, when people enter "Spore", they don't get Spore (video game) anyway. JAF1970 (talk) 21:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

My point is this: What would people expect when they click on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spore_(video_game), or Spore (video game)? If the answer is "Some would expect to see this game called Spore, some would expect to see that game called Spore", we should have a disambiguation page. If the answer is "Nearly everyone would expect to see this game called Spore", then this game called Spore should be at Spore (video game). That's how we disambiguate pages (or not) usually. --Conti|✉ 21:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

What harm would it do to say Spore (2008 video game)? No one enters Spore (video game) anyway. And are people going to be confused if they google and get Spore (2008 video game)? JAF1970 (talk) 23:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I type Spore (video game). :-p Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 04:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

What harm would it do to keep the things as they are? I just don't see much of a reason to change things, but in the end it's no biggie either way. --Conti|✉ 12:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

See Gumshoe for a great example of a redirect to the most popular term, with a hatnote to more obsure terms. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 04:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I like Dansiman's proposal. I think it addresses the issue of the other games without creating problems for the main more notable game.Nanobri (talk) 04:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

And the other games that are called spore should't be blocked out. So I'd also go for Dansiman's proposal. Skele (talk) 14:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

So far, that's 4 for, 1 against. JAF1970 (talk) 18:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and did the move, since consensus appears to have been reached here. I updated the hatnote and am now updating incoming redirects and so forth. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 00:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I turned Spore (video game) into a disambiguation page. JAF1970 (talk) 00:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

That's fine too. I've updated all the redirects to (video game) to now redirect to (2008 video game), and the fair use rationales for all images currently on the article. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 00:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Someone might want to fix these links, and these redirects (Well, most of them, anyways). --Conti|✉ 01:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with those redirects? Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 21:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Most should redirect to Spore (video game), since that's a disambiguation page now. I fixed those now, anyhow. The links still need to be done, tho. --Conti|✉ 22:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Why should Spore (video game) be a disambig instead of a redirect, when there seems to be a consensus that when someone is talking about a video game called Spore, it's almost always going to be the 2008 version? Making Spore (video game) a disambig totally ignores the logic of Dansiman's proposal above. Propaniac (talk) 14:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I didn't see a reason to move this article to Spore (2008 video game) in the first place. Making Spore (video game) a disambiguation page just makes sense then, tho, otherwise the move would've been pretty pointless, wouldn't it? --Conti|✉ 14:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Wrong about creature editor

The paid version of the creature creator contains 100% of the parts, not 50-75% —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.129.15.93 (talk) 23:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Creature Creator Easter Egg

Not sure if this should go into the article or not, but if from the main menu of the creature editor, you click on "View galaxy" (it's between and slightly above the edit and create buttons), you are taken to a more zoomed out view of the galaxy that you can manipulate the same way as the creature editor dais. If you spin the galaxy very quickly, Will Wright's head emerges from it. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 23:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

No. It's not relevent. JAF1970 (talk) 03:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, though I foresee the possibility of people randomly adding it in, thinking they are the first to tell Wikipedia about it because they don't see it. If that happens I think it'd probably be better to put a well written bit about it to prevent stuff like "OOO aand Willz head cOmEs if you do TH1S!!!1!" Nanobri (talk) 04:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

(shrug) It's strategy guide stuff. JAF1970 (talk) 06:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Gameplay

Let's try to add some more details about game play and game dynamics. for example, one Windows Games magazine article mentioned what happens if a species fails; the player reverts to the previous level, or an intermediate point. how is "failure" defined? what are some of the impacts? Feel free to leave some replies here. also, let's try to write some more about this. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

In cell and creature phase when your creature dies. You will start with the earlier generation of the creture so you lose the new edits made to the creature. In the other phases I think you will fail if you tribe is destroyed or your civilization is destroyed. That creature thing was mentioned by Will on some video anyway so it wasn't anything new. --80.221.239.213 (talk) 09:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

New box is up

As Patrick promised, the new box art is up. I'll try to get a 256px version. JAF1970 (talk) 03:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Creature Editor Picture

Seeing as the official editor has been released I think the picture should change to a screenshot of the official release. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.155.75 (talk) 20:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

No. Besides, the Creature Creator box is at the editor (just click "show") JAF1970 (talk) 21:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

DS Version

If we're not going to have the DS version in the main platforms (Despite the fact that it is advertised by EA alongside the 'full' versions on PC and Mac), perhaps there should be a small section in the main article dealing with the DS version? PlasticFork (talk) 21:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

So? What does that have to do anything? Spore is a franchise, and the DS version is Spore Creatures. JAF1970 (talk) 00:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Still its not the same game as this. That game will be adventure based game where your creature is abducted to alien planet and then the story beguns. I would not say that game that doesn't have the same content than the PC and MAC versions can be said to be version of that game. Still the DS version is mentioned on the article, given short description and its also linked to its separate article as its separate game. Also sites can advertise spinoff games on the same site as the main game but it doesn't make the spinoff game version of the original game. Also to add that the DS version is not named "Spore" its named "Spore Creatures" and its content is not same as on the original game. --80.221.239.213 (talk) 22:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

1000000

Worth mentioning that CC had 1 mill creatures uploaded in 1 week after release, or too trivia-ish? --Samtheboy ^(t/c) 22:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

It's already mentioned here at the end of the section. But I guess it could be added to this article as well. (RCX (talk) 01:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC))

The entire Creature Creator was moved to Development of Spore. JAF1970 (talk) 03:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Very impressive. Btw why must everything go to Development of Spore?. It seems to be getting smaller. --SkyWalker (talk) 06:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Mostly, the DoSpore article exists so people can banish edits they don't like to it. It should be merged with the main Spore article. KiTA (talk) 18:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I think once the game comes out and everything stabalizes we ought to extremely trim down the development article and merge them. Until then this looks to be the best solution though. Chuy1530 (talk) 18:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

No. Development of Spore exists because Spore is for the game, and Dev of Spore is for the long 4 year history of the game. Like it or not, 1,000,000 creatures created by the Spore Creature Creator has nothing - or extremely tangentially -- to do with the gameplay. Spore is for the game. Dev of Spore is for the development of how Spore came to be. (Have you actually read the Dev of Spore article? It's not a repository of trivia.) JAF1970 (talk) 19:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Spore CC

I moved Spore Creature Creator to Development of Spore because it's more part of the marketing and development of Spore than the game itself. When the game is released, the Spore CC will be about as relevent as the Starmaker was to The Movies and the Facemaker was to The Sims 2. Besides, there was too much duplication of information, and stuff like sporn and the 1M creatures is more Spore's history than the game itself. JAF1970 (talk) 03:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

basic game structure

I think I'm still missing some basic facts. This is an MMORPG. yet there are references to setting one's "difficulty level" and other details which work only in single-player games. I'm aware that this game will function as a single-player game in some phases, and as an MMORPG in other. I think we need to be clearer on this.

I know this is a basic function of the game which others here may already know about, and which I simply am personally not aware of. how does this work? do players simply play on their own, then upload their creations into the shared universe/server? or does all gameplay take place on the server. (I think I read a bit about this somewhere, but not sure.) thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh wait, it's in "community" section. ok, I'm working to absorb this. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I moved some sections around to reflect this. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The basic idea is that everyone plays their own game and things that you make get uploaded to everyone elses game. When they get uploaded, though, you lose all control over them. You could play the game without anyone else playing and never know the difference, since you never come in to direct contact with them. To try and make an analogy with another game you may be familiar with, let's say you're playing Sim City 4. You create a couple cities on the game. Those cities are sent to a server where they are downloaded to other people's regions instead of computer generated cities. It's a bit confusing at first but once you grasp the concept it's pretty simple. Chuy1530 (talk) 17:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

This isn't an MMORPG, it's a massively SINGLE online game (not even RPG). Each player plays their own game as an individual, but content that they make gets used in other people's games. --Samtheboy ^(t/c) 18:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, you get reports on how your stuff is doing in other people's games (ie. how many people decided to blow up your species' planet from the face of the Earth. hehe) Not a forum, tho. JAF1970 (talk) 02:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Can we get a final answer on aquatic creatures?

Ok, I though all of the spore creatures were terrestrial, but I saw what I believe to be a recent demo where the player was playing the creature phase underwater (His creature had fins and could swim pretty fast), then gave his creature 3 legs and walked out onto the land. The demo then went on to discuss the remaining phases of the game. The video was about 30 minutes long and I believe it was secretly leaked from a an apple store. Other highlights including the creatures jumping up and down with excitement whenever an item was purchased in the tribal stage and the player losing a war in the civilization stage but still skipping ahead to space. 208.106.104.40 (talk) 01:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

There's no underwater phase, period. JAF1970 (talk) 06:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Except for the tidal pool phase, right? Or did that get changed? It still appears in the game summary. Chuy1530 (talk) 12:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Cell phase >< Underwater phase. JAF1970 (talk) 22:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Somewhere I read that you can build civilisations in bubbles underwater, I think it was in this article. Can we get a citation on this?Avnas Ishtaroth (talk) 03:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

You can have bubbled cities in an unhospitable environment (ie. vacuum of space). IT's not the same thing as living underwater. JAF1970 (talk) 04:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The creature phase does give you the opportunity to have a creature that swims underwater but you can't go to tribal phase from there. And when you put leg/legs on the creature it goes to land. That was on the E3 2006 video and I think they wouldn't just leave it from the game because it's a pretty huge thing. Skele (talk) 08:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Well you should read the news as its many times stated that they dropped sea phase and made tidepool to go straight to land. If you would look some newer videos you would have seen and heard them saying that after tidepool your creature will come to land. Also you don't need legs to move on land so adding legs is not needed before you have already gone to land. --80.221.239.213 (talk) 09:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I believe you. That was the answer I needed. Skele (talk) 11:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Isn't this an advert?

ive quoted this from the article :

"The full version of the game is due to be released on September 5, 2008 in Europe,[3] and September 7, 2008 in North America and other territories.[4] Spore will also be available for direct download from Electronic Arts on September 7.[7] A special edition game, Spore: Galactic Edition, is priced at $79.99 USD, and will include a "Making of Spore" DVD video, "How to Build a Better Being" DVD video by National Geographic Channel, "The Art of Spore" hardback mini-book, a fold-out Spore poster and a 100-page Galactic Handbook.[8]"

couldnt this be considered an Advert, even if it is factual? Im new to discussing on wiki, but I always thought that encyclopedias should be factual in past tense. Surely future tense is an advert, no?Leafblade (talk) 12:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

It's slightly adverty, yup, however not everything can be discussed in the past tense as this game isn't even out for another couple of months! --Samtheboy ^(t/c) 13:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

see also section

JAF1970, why did you delete the See also section? Just a bit puzzled. could you please explain? --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 01:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone know why JAF1970 made these edits? thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 01:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Disregard. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 18:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Gamespot wikia page?

Why does the Gamespot wikia page deserve its own blurb in the community section? Unless someone can clarify what separates the Gamespot page from all of the other fan sites, I'd like to remove its mention from the article Poobslag (talk) 17:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Article deleted

WTF? JAF1970 (talk) 15:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I AGREE. What the heck just happened? What should we do now. let's start putting in complaints and Administrator's Noticeboard, etc. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

{{hangon}}

This isn't a case of speedy deletion. And I'm trying to incorporate new information from the GameSpy and GameSpot hands-on previews... JAF1970 (talk) 15:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

JAF, you're right. I agree. I have opened a deletion review in the following place:

• Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Spore_(2008_video_game). Thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Admins you better give a better reason why it was deleted first without no reason. A serious offense by the admin. --SkyWalker (talk) 15:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok. by the way, here are the log entries: click here. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Yup i checked that when i knew the article was deleted. Jacoplane better explain. He misused admins tools.--SkyWalker (talk) 15:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't rush at this. I noticed that Jacoplane created (sic) "Spore (2008 video game" (see the lack of closing paren). He may have been trying to delete that. I did restore the page, assuming the deletion was a mistake. --MASEM 16:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Right, it looks like a simple mistake. Let's not jump to conclusions on Jaco. Chuy1530 (talk) 17:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I still have doubts. If it was a mistake it is fine. Still it is better Jaco to explain it here. --SkyWalker (talk) 17:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I simply don't see any motivation he would have to delete the article. It isn't like this is an article who's existance is contested, and to my knowledge Jaco hasn't even had any arguments about it. Because of the other article (with the missing parenthesis) I strongly believe this is just a simple mistake. But yes, it would be nice to have Jaco come by and reassure us of that Chuy1530 (talk) 17:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Here you go Chuy. To Steve and SkyWalker: assume good faith in the future. Admins are people too.-Wafulz (talk) 19:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Wafulz. i agree with you. My comments here may have sounded indignant at first, but I tried to tone them down. anyway, thanks for your input. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

My only issue is that it came at the wrong possible time - there's a dozen Pre-E3 hands-on previews that have hot new info. JAF1970 (talk) 19:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Wafulz, I except admin to be good faith. This is not the first time iam seeing an admin deleting an page by "mistake". --SkyWalker (talk) 04:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you know what that means. Go and settle down, please. - A Link to the Past (talk) 15:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I missed this discussion until now. As I pointed out, this was just a dumb mistake, but apparently some people feel that I have some kind of ulterior motive for wanting to see the article deleted. Please note that as an admin I'm open to recall, so if anyone feels I'm not fit for the job feel free to nominate me for recall. JACOPLANE • 2008-07-9 16:15

I think the issue is over at this point. thanks for your open post anyway. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Article consolidation

Whew, a ton of new info with all the hands-on time at Pre-E3. Can someone give the article the once-over to make sure there's no duplication of data? Just merge similar items. JAF1970 (talk) 19:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Spore box found

Found a large enough Spore box for the proper 256px. :p JAF1970 (talk) 02:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Is that the final boxshort?. --SkyWalker (talk) 04:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, according to Patrick. Well, erm, the final FINAL box will have the actual rating and not RP. But that's it. JAF1970 (talk) 14:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Leaked Info

This was originally unreleased information from the Creature Creator's files. http://spore.vg/dump/locale/ I have read through a lot of it, and seen some very important information in it. (How to domesticate creatures in the Tribal Phase, what purpose they serve, outfitting in tribal, food gathering methods, currency, and even confirmation of a planet editor. (or what seems like it))

Is this acceptable as a source for this page? (Some of it consists of unreadable data files, but most of it can be made out, if only with difficulty.) Brandonrc2 (talk) 22:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It does seem kosher. It's lifted from data files that shipped with the Creature Creator, so the source is Maxis themselves. 2p0rk (talk) 14:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Just 2 months away for game release. Iam sure we can wait till then to add all info. --SkyWalker (talk) 14:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Other versions

Please do not post the Wii, Xbox 360 or PS3 versions as platforms for Spore. For one, unless you can prove it'll even be the same game (ie. the DS version is Spore Creatures), especially since they said the Wii version would NOT be a port and would be something else (probably something that would deal with the lack of Wii storage capability for it.)JAF1970 (talk) 02:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Spore (mobile) now Spore Origins

If anyone sees any references to Spore (mobile), change it to Spore Origins. JAF1970 (talk) 00:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Spore_(mobile) --Per Abrahamsen (talk) 09:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Evisceration

Why is the article being eviscerated of links and information? The edits over the past 48 hours are not useful and reduce the quality of the article. JAF1970 (talk) 14:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Move back to Spore (video game)

I'm sorry, but this is silly. The other two games may be real, commercially-released games, but both lack anything to say that a good deal of people have even heard of them, at all, while Spore is a huge game that is being covered everywhere, by everyone, and has gotten great reception. The people who would come to Spore (video game) looking for either one of those articles combined is not even comparable to those who come looking for this one. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but rules are rules. I don't see why you're discommoded anyway, since Spore isn't Spore (2008 video game) anyway. JAF1970 (talk) 20:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

There's no rule that says that "if there's multiple things that use the same name, it has to be disambiged". Are you implying that Mario should be a disambig?

And what are you talking about? Spore has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. The discussion is between the three video games, two of them with low media coverage, and the other considered one of the biggest game of its generation. What reason do you have to say that the two other games are of comparable notability to this game? - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

It has everything to do with it. Think about it. Again, I don't see how people are discommoded. JAF1970 (talk) 01:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Would it kill you to respond to me, instead of creating a completely different tangent on a completely irrelevant subject? I'm talking about the disambig between three games. You may think that something that is blatantly obviously not a part of this, but I'm of the opinion that things that have nothing to do with this discussion in any way imaginable having nothing to do with this discussion in any way imaginable. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The reason it is there is for symmetry. You have yet to provide a valid reason for moving it back save WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. JAF1970 (talk) 05:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

...Huh. I didn't realize that "Spore for the PC is by and large infinitely more popular than both of those entries means you don't like something in a deletion discussion." Or maybe you're just applying an essay at random? That could be it. So, I guess I could do that too - so please stop violating WP:DOLT! - A Link to the Past (talk) 15:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

In general, when one topic is much more prominent than the others, it get the main name. It trumps arguments of symmetry. One could argue that this should extend to already disambiguated names, like "Spore (video game)". However the main reason for giving the main name to the prominent entry is to lead users directly to that entry. And since very few people are likely to look up "Spore (video game)" directly, that reaosn doesn't apply here. Thus, arguments for a preference of either name are very weak, and keeping status quo should win. It was a mistake to move to (2008 video game) and it would be a further mistake to move back again.--Per Abrahamsen (talk) 06:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing harmed in the act of moving back. It could be argued that it's fallen comfortably into stability, but not to the point where being moved would hurt that in any significant way. And some Wikipedians would search for Spore (video game) based on previous knowledge of the article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 15:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but this was voted on a while ago. Again, Spore (video game) is now diambiguation, and Spore (2008 video game) is more accurate. JAF1970 (talk) 16:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

And we still cannot discard the other two games that still exist. It also wouldn't hurt anyone to keep the Spore (2008 video game. And also while keeping it, it would encourage people to write about the other two games. Skele (talk) 16:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Spice and Sporebucks

Spice is the 'resource', which you mine, control and seize, but Sporebucks are like the actual currency. Heirware (talk) 00:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Source? JAF1970 (talk) 00:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)