Jump to content

Talk:Spore (2008 video game)/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

Release Date

The page currently says that release date is late 2007, but amazon.co.uk says that it will be released in the UK on March 30th. Should this be looked into? http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B000FN7K2S/ref=amb_link_38111365_6/026-7489691-7319601

  • Retailers often include tentative release dates in their catalogs that are their "best guess" as to when the product will be released. However, these dates are often incorrect so shouldn't be used for verification purposes for this article. Dugwiki 20:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Yep - in fact, Amazon.co.uk was quoting Jan 2007 until recently - and had been since they were taking pre-orders for this more than 6 months prior. We need an official release date from EA (the publisher). So far all they've given out to the public was the Q2 2007 info as part of a fiscal statement months ago. Robovski 02:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Amazon UK have now pushed their "release date" guestimate back until the end of June 07. Looks like they're not acting on much firmer information than the rest of us have access to. Until word comes from EA i'd say all talk of release dates is best left to those with bigger crystal balls than us. 2p0rk 22:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Popular Science listed spore as comming out in november 2007, as part of an article of next gen things coming out in 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.155.37.204 (talk) 15:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC).


The Release date has been edited from 2007 to October 1st 2007, I may be missing it but i can not find any documentation or corroborating evidence in the article, nor was a link provided to any outside article that reflects this as an official position. Could someone please provide the link to show where EA has stated the release date, or failing that, should it be edited back to 2007. Thank-you for your time --Biteland 06:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I reverted the release date to 2007 since no official published reference was provided for the October 1st date. Dugwiki 16:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Changed release date to second half of 2007, as Will Wright himself took no objection to "being commited to ship in the second half of 2007."

http://www.popsci.com/popsci/technology/f1a18906612a0110vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd/8.html Shralla 04:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/09/1221239 Release date is first quarter of 2008
Ebgames just emailed everyone who requested email notification on news about Spore with a new release date of March 1st 2008. I have edited the release date with this new information. 70.92.89.170 04:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
New email and new date for release is Feb 18, 2008 24.208.63.70 04:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Gamespot.com is listing as Q1 2008 [1] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rage italic (talk • contribs) 14:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

I just watched 2012 from the new yorker online site and will wright said at the end of the year , around xmas of 2007

The following site: http://kotaku.com/gaming/pc/spore-slip-sliding-away-270324.php has stated that the Spore release has once again been pushed back further into the future until 2009. I can't see anything definate though or any sources. Skyrail 13:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Another article stating the same thing: http://www.3dgamers.com/news/more/1096487294/ STLocutus 06:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Both articles are quoting Game Informer, who are the only source for this claim. There's no verification from a reliable source. --Monotonehell 08:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Game Over?

While there is no real way to 'win' at Spore, is there a way to lose? Is it possible for a player to create such a poor species that it is wiped out in the first few stages? If so, does anyone know what will happen? PrinceMyshkin 22:00 2 December 2006 (UTC)0

Undoubtedly. Even in the first demonstration video there were bad things to avoid. Else there'd be no challenge. — Saxifrage ✎ 05:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
This isn't the place for this. Talk pages on Wikipedia are only for discussing changes to the article...not general chat about the article itself. Wikipedia isn't a chat site. RobJ1981 23:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
On the other hand, understanding the subject of the article better makes it much easier to write about, right? Limited discussion of the subject for clarification purposes is okay, as far as I know. --Masamage 23:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I suppose you have a point. RobJ1981 00:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I saw in a video demonstration that if you die you just go back to the creature level before you died, so if you made a really bad decision in the creature editor that caused you to die you can undo it. So yes, you can die, just as you can die in any other game, but you can just go back to the level you were at right before you died.Sam 21:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Would it be possible, you think, to create a creature so aggressive and intelligent that once it is upload for other players, it would simply annihilate all life in other players universe?155.232.128.10 06:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

No, it looks like there's a limit on the creature editor of how aggressive it can be, as well as things like how carniverous it can be, how good its senses are, etc. So unless you can make it more agressive than is possible... no. ~ Ghelæ talkcontribs 08:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Fan Sites, and some other changes

Alright, I deleted the French fansite that was added, as well as reverted some of the information that was in the creature phase, and made some spelling corrections. As this was my first contribution on wikipedia, I hope it was ok. Xorgthezombie 14:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Xorg. I think I speak for all of us when I wish you a happy and productive time editing wikipedia. On a side note, I've removed a review site (topsporesites, or somesuch) which has been repeatedly added without justification. --163.1.165.116 21:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for not adding justification for topsporesites.com. This site is a good site that will allow your visitors to rate and review the top spore sites. Eventually once it gets more rates and views it will become a valuable source.

I've removed the link again (about the third time I've removed it I think). If it's not a good site now then there is no reason now to put a link to it. That's ignoring the fact a topsite for Spore sites doesn't really serve much purpose as the various Spore sites all offer virtually identical services and comparing or helping people find other Spore sites is not particularly useful. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 10:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Is sporewiki.net still a real fansite that should be included? For some time now it has been infrequently updated (they are still running on 6 phases) and it's devolved into nothing more then a place for uses to show off the content that they have created. Re-reading what I've written, it sounds very one sided, but thats honestly all htat seams to happen there

The only problem is, without another fan site other than GamingSteve (which offers completely different services than all the other fan sites [which all appear to offer the same]) others will probably think that there is now a "slot" open and ... the link war will reignite. Granted that shouldn't hamper removing it... just a point to consider if it is to be removed. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 10:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm a member of sporewiki.net, and the reason it is rarely updated anymore is because there isn't much more info to add. This will certainly be fixed as soon (well, not it won't be released anytime soon anyway) as it is released.Brandonrc2 02:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Windows/Mac?

Will Spore be available for Macs, or is it Windows only?Tcpekin 18:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Officially, there is no word. Unofficially, it is likely, as all the sims games (and sim city I believe) eventually made it there. Chris M. 04:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
There is also the fact that EA appeared in the WWDC, promoting game development for Macs. 82.29.250.53 23:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
And Spore was not listed among the games. SO you'll have to wait for official announcement. JAF1970 06:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Removed Wii as platform pending confirmation

FYI, I removed a listing of Wii as one of the platforms for Spore as no cited sources are included to verify that information. Mind you, it would be interesting if the game is released for the Wii, but without a referenced source that's just a rumor and can't appear in the article. Dugwiki 17:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, Will Wright said that he wanted to release Spore on as many platforms as possible (or something similar). So now we have the rumor that it'll be basically everywhere without any confirmation whatsoever. --Conti|✉ 18:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Not quite - I believe Windows is confirmed. But yeah, I think any other platform at this point is speculation. Dugwiki 18:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Sandbox and Space mode, the same thing?

I am not a spore expert, but from what I have read, it appears that the space mode and sandbox mode are two different things in the game. The space mode seemed to me the time when you fly around with the UFO, contact people, fight, learn languages, etc, while the sandbox mode was the time when you could go back to the other game modes, and have an even more unpresedented level of control and freedom. Has anyone heard that spacemode is the same as sandbox? I have not heard anything either way, but it seemed from how it was presented that these two aspects of the game were separate parts. DerwinUMD 10:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Well. When you reach the space mode you actually get unrestricted access (your level of technology has advanced significantly) to the previous editors. Whether or not you get infinite points to spent in replaying previous modes I can't say. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 11:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
From what I understood, "sandbox mode" referred to the part of terraforming other moons/planets which could be considered a sort of sub-mode of space mode. Not necesarily the "vertical axis" of the UFO flight nor getting unlimited points.200.44.6.18 04:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
The sandbox mode is in space, but space isn't the sandbox mode. You have to earn that level of power before the galaxy virtually becomes your sandbox. JAF1970 21:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

A Sandbox game is anytime you play a game where your goal is undefined, and you can do basically whatever you want to. The Grand Theft Auto games are sandbox games. There are missions to perform, but you don't have to do them if you don't want to. You can just drive around the city, doing whatever.

I don't belive that there is a "Sandbox mode", per se. It's more to the fact that once you reach a certain level of sophistication, it becomes a sandbox game, where you can spend your time terraforming, or colonizing, or forming alliances, or acting militaristicly. You can even spend all your time going back into the other editors, designing new species, buildings, and vehicles. Or whatever else you want to do. Your options are pretty limitless.67.53.85.231 20:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Creature Editor will be released before the game

I spoke to Will Wright at a conference where he said, "Not many people know this but the creature editor will be released two months prior to the game for free. ... You'll be able to purchase the game from within the demo." Obviously, I cannot prove he said this but its what he told me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.49.138.253 (talk • contribs)

I think we can disregard this since there's no way we could verify it. --163.1.165.116 22:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. While it would certainly be cool if this were true, unless it's confirmed by a published source it can't go in the article. Dugwiki 17:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I concur - this would fall under original research. What we would need is a good published source. Robovski 02:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
"Not many people know this", now that sounds suspicious. Why would Will Wright talk like that? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.38.99.188 (talk) 01:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC).
Has anyone noticed that this is the guys first edit. if this guy knew the script code and it was his first edit... no offense, but it seems highly unlikely that this guy is genuine. i could accept the fact that he was sitting in front of a differnt machine in a demo, but not signing in? i dont know, but mabey this is a case of sockpupetry. Sorry if this is offensive, but it seems a little suspisious...Wikiencyclopedia.com 21:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I'm the guy that posted this back in March. I was at POP!Tech in Camden, ME, Oct 17 when Will gave his presentation. I found myself siting next to Will fiancée (Kim Edwards) [2], a very attractive blond who used to be a game journalist. We were sitting somewhere from the 3rd to the 5th row on the right as you look at the stage. I was in the isle seat she was sitting next to me. Will gave me a look a few times as I spoke to her while he was sitting to the right of the stage during another speakers talk. I think it was Brian Eno. Anyhow, he sat down next to be putting himself in between his fiancée and me. As a gamer, his presentation was the one I was most interested in so I took the opportunity to speak with him. I spoke to him on and off during the session. Of course I asked him when the game was coming out. He said they didn't have a release date then he threw me a bone -- "Not many people know this but the creature editor will be released two months prior to the game for free. ... You'll be able to purchase the game from within the demo." I'm not asking you to add this to the article. When it happens, make sure to come back and reread this message. Here is the video of the presentation he gave before sitting next to me. (http://www.poptech.org/popcasts/PopCasts.aspx?viewcastid=33) Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.181.140.175 (talk • contribs) 01:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The seperate release of the creature editor as a demo has been confirmed by Maxis's Vice President of Marketing Patrick Buechner in an interview with IGN.com . The interview can be found here http://uk.pc.ign.com/articles/802/802448p1.html .CalWalker 13:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I forgot to add that - even though I'd seen that vid last week. JAF1970 14:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Spore Release Date is set back

I'm not adding this to the actual article because it is hear-say, but a friend of my brother work for Spore, and has told him that they are being forced to delay the game from this summer to late autumn. Hey, if it makes the game better, I think it is well worth the added time. Sorry that I have no way to verify this, guys, but I just thought you would like to know. Xorgthezombie 19:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Technically this wouldn't alter the article, even if your brother's friend could be considered a citable source. There is no official release date yet, other than maybe "2007". So there's no date to change in the article even assuming your info is correct. Dugwiki 18:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Amazon UK is stating March 2008 as the release date http://www.amazon.co.uk/Electronic-Arts-Spore-PC/dp/B000FN7K2S it's maddening, but I guess it's closer to the truth. Sceasary 14:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Underwater Creatures being Cut

I took out the statement saying that the underwater phase was going to be cut. First of all, it was referencing underwater creatures, not the tide pool phase. Secondly, it hasn't been confirmed yet, so it doesn't belong in the wiki. Thirdly, you did your citation wrong (and I wasn't quite sure how to fix it.) Perhaps if the original can explain it a bit more, and integrate more into the "Creature's Phase" paragraph it could work, but I still think it is speculation, and not fact.

On an unrelated note, I removed the sentence about the release date being in September, as it wasn't cited and was overly redundant. Xorgthezombie 13:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems the Underwater Creatures will remain. Check out the opening movie for the Spore site - clearly defining an underwater phase. However, it's merged as part of the entire Creature phase. JAF1970 18:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Just as I note on this, PC Gamer Magazine did a preview of Spore a few months ago in which they not only mention that there will be underwater creatures, but they said you will be able to develop an Underwater civilization with your creature, without having to evolve onto the land at all. I don’t know if I can find the source that says it online, but anyone with that issue should be able to confirm that they said it. I don't know exactly which month it was (maybe 3 or 4 issues back) and I don't have it with me right now, but tomorrow I'll try to find it in one of the old issues I have lying somewhere. --Hibernian 07:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Terraform, Galactic

I split all the Space phase references where relevent to indicate the new phases borne from it, but only in terms of category. I left the space phase references alone where it is relevent, when discussing the meta-space phase as a whole. When the game is released, I'm sure that the article will be more refined in making those two phases completely seperate. The info I used from the original Spore video (ie. the Close Encounters and 2001 references he made) and the current video from DICE.

I also did a little cleanup with each section, making sure the name of the phase in the description text was bolded. Makes it look cleaner and more organized. JAF1970 18:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Phase Transition

How do you suppose will one phase move into another phase? Will the phase end suddenly and the next one starts? Or will there be a gradual change to one phase to another? 155.232.128.10 07:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

We'll just have to wait for the release. Besides, speculation isn't what talk pages are for. ~ Ghelæ talkcontribs 07:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
To answer the question - there's no transition at all. No cutscene, no fade out/in, etc. JAF1970 22:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup with a view to GA renomination

I've submitted this to the cleanup taskforce to get all the inline citations fixed with a view towards resubmitting this for GA candidacy when it's done. Unfortunately I can't create the subpage - if someone else can do it, please do (red link in the template at the top). Also, would someone be kind enough to point me in the direction of a place where I can learn to do inline citations myself? Thanks. --163.1.165.116 18:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Inline citations in the form of <ref>...</ref>? There is some mention of the syntax over at WP:FOOT, and there's a list of citation templates (to make things prettier/more manageable) over at WP:CITET. --GargoyleMT 21:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much - I've run through them all quickly, but I'll need to come back to it later (or someone else could do it for me) to name them, detail them and weed out the duplicates. --163.1.165.116 03:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Sim Everything - Original Title?

I don't see the relevance of having Sim Everything in the introduction. It was never a serious title but having moved the lengthy paragraph detailing it down to the development section someone moved a reference back up suggesting that it "must be in the introduction". I'm not sure why this should be the case - the introduction is crowded enough as it is, and a speculative and unused title is not notable enough to take up space there (especially given that a note is made later in the article on it). I just wanted to see what other editors thought before I removed it.

As a side note, we should really start cutting down on some of the stuff in this article. My initial focus was the introduction because it really is very long, but if we're looking for GA we'll need to trim all of the sections, per the previous review. --163.1.165.116 08:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, after a week with no thoughts on this I'm going to remove the note in the introduction. --163.1.165.116 17:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Huh? Naming discussion belongs in the intro. A three-para intro is fine for the current article length. Moving the paragraph down below a header doesn't help the article length at all. Chris Cunningham 09:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
It's trivia. It's irrelevant to the article as a whole, and even to the name. It's not the actual name, and never was (except for a very brief period during development, pre-alpha). I'd take it out if space was an issue, but Wikipedia isn't a paper encyclopaedia and trivia is interesting. But, per the manual of style, it's not relevant to a summary of the article. I'll shortly move it back unless you object to this. --163.1.165.116 15:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Whatever. I happen to think that minor naming discussion is best discussed in the intro to an article, but I'm not about to get into an edit war over a future product article. Chris Cunningham 15:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
That's fair enough. Any more input from other editors? --163.1.165.116 23:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure it's entirely necessary to have that paragraph in the introduction. It's not overly relevant to the game, certainly. --84.66.160.38 00:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm just going to be bold since there doesn't seem to be much interest in this minor point. I've put it back. --163.1.165.116 05:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Molecular Phase (à la Tetris)

The only primary source I can find for this is that single slide from DICE. All the wild speculation about what function it may serve seems to have been generated by review sites and forum participants. It occurs to me that if Wright had decided to make a switch from six to eight phases public (note that the slide also includes a division of the final phase into two sections), he would have done so openly rather than subtly in a single slide of a presentation. The fact that there is no other official source of information on this when most of the aspects of the developing game have been widely acclaimed suggests to me that something is amiss. Yet when I tried to put words to this effect into the article, they were almost immediately deleted.

Your views? Robin S 00:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

My view is that DICE as a primary source is the most recent indication we have. If an official release contradicts it, then we can remove the reference but until then it's the best reference we have to work with - speculative notes on its ephemeral nature aren't suitable for the article. As for the section, it's pretty much impossible to write something that isn't speculative or OR, so it doesn't need to be expanded beyond the "this was shown on a slide at DICE and compared to Tetris" summary until we get something better. --163.1.165.116 03:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
In the keynote Will Wright gave at SXSW, he briefly demoed Spore and there was no indication of a molecular phase. cf. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KueIjw53B-A Noah Tye 01:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I just added a note to that affect, while leaving both avenues of speculation in. Also made a note that the whole section is speculation. This article really shouldn't exist in this form until the thing is released, but there's no way on a wiki that we can hold all editors to Wikipedia's rules on this. --Monotonehell 02:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
The Demo from E3 2007 clearly contains the molecular phase, and the demo from E3 2005 clearly contains the tidepool phase - clearly they are separate phases with separate (although similar) elements -- 8 May 2007. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.10.111.38 (talk) 10:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

Unfortunately the Molecular phase has been removed from the game due to it's similarity to the tidepool phase. ( http://www.spore.com/about.php )as the official spore site has been updated since the presentation which included a slide of the molecular, terraform and city stages we can assume that it has been removed, or merged with the tidepool phase.

Kleomenes 20:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can see on the homepage there is no date on the data. I think either the reference for the entire section with phases should be updated to the homepage (i.e. without molecular) or else it should be used from the DICE show (including the molecular phase). As far as I can recall the page on the homepage with only 5 phases was there before I saw the DICE thing with the extra sixth phase...but my memory is spotty so if someone can remember it more precisely please do so. KingCarrot 16:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Once again I state that I am okay with a revision, i.e. removal of the Molecular phase. But only if the entire section is updated. Currently the 2007 DICE show is used as a reference and there is a picture from the DICE 2007 show that clearly states that there is a molecular phase. If someone really wants to remove the molecular phse please find a newer source than the DICE show and maybe even remove the picture. KingCarrot 10:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
The E3 2007 video acts as a source for the stages and the official website wasn't updated with the newest screenshots, stages or video. Arnoox 18:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
All right. Cool. So I'll just gently and quietly remove the edit I made since the change I was asking for had apparently already been made. Oops, must have slept when I checked the edits. KingCarrot 19:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Release Date Contradiction

The January 2007 edition of PC Gamer magazine contains an interview with Morgan Roarty, senior producer on the game, including information about the vehicle editor. It lists the current release date as the second quarter of 2007, which falls between April and June 2007. EA released a statement with current release dates for their games, the current release date in this report is Q3 2007. Q3 in terms of the U.S fiscal year is between April and June. This would certainly be in keeping with Roarty's prediction in PC Gamer.

Firstly, the second fiscal quarter is not April to June, that's the third quarter (As affirmed later in the quoted paragraph). Secondly, the interview is about the vehicle editor and does not contain any information on release date, unless I missed that (I may have). I don't want to edit the paragraph though because I lack the proper information from the Roarty interview. Anyone? --Scorpios 05:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, EA's fiscal year starts April 1st. The first quarter would be April-June, second quarter would be July-September. Robovski 02:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I've redacted the section down to its basic facts, removed the speculative parts, letting readers draw their own conclusions. I've also mentioned the confusion over the Q3 dates and emailed the author of that article who will hopefully clear up the definition. Note however, that their list seems to be in date order putting the Spore entry into the 3rd calendar quarter. --Monotonehell 10:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Image

The image at the top looks fan-made and created from a screenshot. I vote for removal.--Viridis 03:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you refering to the box-cover style image? It is from Amazon.com, though they probably generated it themselves from a screenshot from the official website. I think it accurately portrays the feel of the game, though it may be misleading since there is no official box art released. I'd say replace it with the spore logo anyhow, since we don't know if it will be what the actual box cover looks like.Dudecon 20:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I say we revert to the logo and place more screenshots further down in the article to keep the "feel"--Viridis 20:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of images, the game's look has been changed again and it needs new screenshots. See here for an E3 2007 video.--Arnoox 22:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Article cleanup

Per the TODO list, I cleaned up the article up through the beginning of Creature phase (I left a HTML comment there). If someone else doesn't pick this back up in 3 days, I will return to it. --Otheus 13:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The whole article is concept, and while interesting not proven. I wonder if programers worked on it...it's a little like an advertisement isn't it?

Partial GA Review

I'm not intending to fully review the article, but after a quick glace through it, the only problem I have is with your reference style. There are a couple that are pretty messed up, and several that don't use citation templates. Particularly, see #1, #7, #10, #36. Also, per MOS, you need to swap the section titles of "References" and "Notes."—Disavian (talk/contribs) 18:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Failed GA

This article has failed the stability criteria of the GA criteria as it is a unreleased product. It also lacks a criticisms and reviews section to make this article NPOV. If you feel that this review was in error feel free to take it to WP:GA/R. Tarret 23:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I will take this to review. None of those things should be causes to fail under the GA criteria. --163.1.165.116 22:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Title graphics?

Just wondering, if Maxis decides to keep the name Sim Everything, what are the chances they'll use the old Sim logo, a la the titles from the 90's, with "Sim" set off from the rest of the title? ataricom 04:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this isn't the place for speculation, it's for talking about improving the article. Go find a forum.--Viridis 06:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I didn't post this out of speculation, but to bring up the idea for research into the game. I don't know where to look myself, but someone else may. ataricom 15:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
It is speculation. There is no indication that they are going to use the name "Sim Anything". It's been called "Spore" ever since word of it was publicly released. To change the name this late in the game would be an extremely stupid thing for EA to do.67.53.85.231 20:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Orphan references

The following references are outside the footnote system used on this article and have been orphaned from their text. I've moved them here so that they can be identified and reinserted into the article's body within the appropriate <ref> tags.

Orphans

Will the DS Version be like this?

After reading this article, it makes me think that hte DS version will have Wi-Fi. Is that going to happen?74.225.143.232 23:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Certainly possible, but there's no concrete information on that so far. --163.1.165.116 23:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to ask users removing the link to GamingSteve to stop, please. The link has consensus of editors (read the archives) for a number of reasons. See here for its section, where it's a pretty much undisputed link.

For the record, I'd like to apologise to Thumperward (I messed up when reading the diffs).

Thanks, --163.1.165.116 23:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

Here's a link to the cleanup page. Summarised on that page are a number of identified points to be tackled for improving the article. If you feel you can help on one or more, please do so. Cheers, --84.71.123.157 01:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Cleanup_Taskforce/Spore_(video_game)

While a bit of planning is in order, it's probably better to wait until after the game is released. As for some time after that, this article will probably see hundreds of fan-cruft type entries. All our good work will go out the window (I believe) --Monotonehell 01:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

"Size" of the colonies/cities

In the demonstration video(S). He has never stated anything of the fact. --68.209.227.3 06:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, he did in the original gameplay video. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Noah Tye (talk • contribs) 06:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

Tide pool Phase Screenshot

Perhaps someone would like to replace the current screen shot of the tide pool phase with a more recent one? The phase has obviously been developed much further as seen in demonstrations such as Austin's South by South West.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Taken By Robots (talk • contribs) 19:34, 7 April 2007

Disagree with this - it would seem that the current 'tide pool' is actually the molecular phase - and the current image on the wiki page is from the actual tide-pool phase. -- 8 May 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.10.111.38 (talk) 10:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

Possible conflict of interest

139.142.43.199 added "The game will also download creatures in relation to how strong the player's creature is. If the player creates a bigger, tougher, creature, the predators that are downloaded will, like-wise, be stronger than average predators." and "In the E3 2006 demo, Will Wright explained that there would be over half a million different stars, each one having it's own planets, more then anyone could visit in a lifetime." and 3 out of 4 of his/her's last edits were on this article, it doesn't look that bad but there are no references so I thought I should report it. Jeffrey.Kleykamp 12:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

These have both been explained by Will Wright himself in the original Spore video, which is cited in the page (not necessarily on those specific statements). I don't think there's a problem. Noah Tye 17:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Soren Johnson

Should it be noted that Soren Johnson is now working on this? A quick google will show multiple articles about this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.27.188.108 (talk • contribs) 08:48, 22 April 2007

vapourware?

I added that Spore is vapourware but somebody removed it and accused me of vandalism. The date has been pushed back until 2009. Is that not a sign of vapourware? Or if not, is there a term for semi-vapourware? --Sonjaaa 18:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The date has not been pushed back to 2009, the citation you are adding states that it may not make fiscal 2008. April 2008 is fiscal 2009. And we have a policy against original research. Please find a reliable citation that meets WP:RS that states this product is vapourware. --Yamla 18:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
It's certainly looking like vapourware to the scores of eager fans, but until the time that it is officially abandoned and the project never restarted, we as an encyclopedia cannot make that call. At this point in time it would be opinion, not fact. --Monotonehell 03:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Half-life 2 was delayed too. Must also be vapourware. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 21:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Edit summary: "TheSeer (Talk | contribs) (→vapourware? - Yeah, I know its condescending.)" Was that condescending or condensing? ;) Thank you I'm here all night, try the veal... --Monotonehell 03:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at this link and tell me what you think - http://www.gamedaily.com/canvases/gd/_a/video-game-vaporware/20070625151509990001 155.238.19.121 06:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

It's pure speculation and theory, so sorry, that article holds no grounds with me. Also there was a clarification from EA that said that the game had only been pushed back to fiscal 2009 which means April 2008 --Samtheboy (t/c) 09:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Newer picture of cellular stage is needed

Cellular stage no longer looks like that; it is more cartoony and the creatures have googly eyes. Needs a more recent picture. Mrmoocow 06:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Where can we find such a picture? Joiz A. Shmo 02:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Screenshot recent videos (like Will Wright at the New Yorker Conference) or check gaming websites. Mrmoocow 06:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I added that -- and I didn't even look in talk. JAF1970 02:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Vapor Ware

How much longer till this counts as Vapor ware, and the article has to See Also Duke Nukem Forever? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathiastck (talk • contribs) 07:56, 15 June 2007

A while. Please keep commentary constructive, and sign your posts with ~~~~. Chris Cunningham 08:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Delayed Indefinitely?

According to Game Informer Issue 171 (July 2007), page 43, "EA's Spore has been delayed indefinitely..." A Google search showed nothing else apparently relevant for 'spore "delayed indefinitely"'. Is this just GI exaggerating, or is there independent confirmation of this that should be added to the article? 74.192.41.210 03:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Erm, it means they don't know when the game is coming out. JAF1970 04:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Let's not assume too much with print. I'm dropping the remark until we have a citation. It just sounds redundant otherwise. Brokenwit 22:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
All we can really rely on is any official word from EA. Scuttlebut in the media isn't generally a reliable source. --Monotonehell 12:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Besides, people just use whatever phrasing they want. "Canceled, Permanently put on hold, Indefinite Hiatus" and any combination of those words are used to say "canceled" even though they have various other meanings to be used. I think it'd an error that got printed, or GameInformer wants some easy publicity and they think publisihng this and saying it was a mistake will get them some attention. Until there's an official press release or Will Wright says it, I don't believe it. Pyrgus 23:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
And let's keep in mind the template above to avoid "speculation." Back when I actually had a passion for gaming, I didn't think of Game Informer as legit. I still don't. This is probable speculation at best. However, Pyrgus, keep in mind that EA has a say on these things too, so their word is on a level with Will's or official. Brokenwit 04:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It appears that the latest word from EA financial papers is that Spore is not going to make fiscal 08 [3]. John Riccitiello has said that the game will be out "almost immediately as soon as fiscal 2009 begins." I haven't added this to the article, though, since I'd prefer to use a cleaner reference. I'd suggest searching for "Spore delayed into fiscal 09". If someone could find a better reference and add the info to the release section of the article, that'd be great. Dugwiki 14:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Bear in mind, that's not news, since April 2008 is the beginning of Fiscal 09. JAF1970 18:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Locked

Enough is enough. I requested semi-protection. JAF1970 16:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spore_(2008_video_game)/Archive_4&oldid=1137199124"