The consensus on Spore seems to be that it's an interesting - if imperfect - novelty, a collection of relatively simple editors and game play mechanics that ultimately adds up to more than the sum of its parts.

One of the consistent criticisms is aimed at the complexity of the game's various stages. Until you get into space the player's goals are straightforward and the game mechanics for accomplishing them are simple and fairly repetitive.

Based on statements from Will Wright regarding the vision for the game, I believe this was a deliberate choice rather than an oversight or flaw in the design. And while it may disappoint gamers expecting a deep and complex challenge, I think it was the right decision for the game.



Yesterday I was talking to my sister, who is definitely not a gamer. She mentioned the "cute spore game on the iPhone". I told her about the full game on the computer, and how I had recently gotten into the space space.

She said, "Oh, you mean the little spore goes into space? That's so cool."

So I explained to her how you get to evolve the creature from a cell, to a tribe, to a city, and all the different things that you can build and do along the way.

"That sounds great!" She said. "Could I get it for my computer?"

If she does go out and picks up Spore, I have a feeling she'll enjoy it. Like I said, she's no gamer, but certain types of game experiences like The Oregon Trail really appeal to her. I think Spore taps into a similar groove.

I think she will enjoy the fact that each phase of the game is comprised of a handful of relatively simple things to do and once you understand them you can be "good at the game" and move on relatively quickly. And if you make a mistake or die, that's okay.

If the game were extremely deep or complex in its early phases, it would turn her away. If the game had hard long-lasting consequences that made her feel apprehensive about her choices, it would turn her away. If the game focused strongly on reflexes or timing - in an RTS'y or arcadey way - it would turn her away.

Spore's gameplay won't turn her away. It will welcome her in.



Personally, I think a lot of great things are defined by what they choose to leave rather than what they choose to put in. The Wii and the iPod are great examples of this. Neither has the features of its competitors, but both provide such a pleasing experience that they welcome lots of people in and keep them coming back.

Similarly I think Spore is a very welcoming game. It's one that offers lots of opportunities to noodle around with your creatures and your universe and just have fun seeing what happens as a result. I feel the decision to scale back on complexity in the game mechanics in favor of creativity complexity in the editors was a good choice, and the right choice for the game.

Spore could have been more complex to satisfy core gamers' desire for that kind of challenge, but the cost would have been a less welcoming experience, one where non-gamers may often feel like they're "doing it wrong".

Perhaps sequels or expansions will introduce more depth without sacrificing the superficial simplicity of the experience - "easy to learn, hard to master" - that sort of thing. But for its initial outing Spore had to err on the side of being too inclusive or too exclusive, and considering the overwhelming number of moving parts in the universe, the fact that it's accessible at all is a triumph of good design.



I read the Destructoid review and I agree that if you were to review Spore as a game, it deserves something in the middle of the scale. Not especially great on any gameplay level, but there's fun to be had.

However I don't know if a game review is really the right format to evaluate Spore. I think it's less of a game and more of a toy, or an "entertainment" to put a broader label on it.

While I don't think the term "video game" fairly captures what Spore is, it wouldn't have been possible without the 30 years of video gaming that went before it. Yet as much as it owes a debt to that legacy, I think it's a branch off of gaming tradition rather than a continuation of it - more mutation than descendant.

In many ways Spore is simply raw simulation - a box of "what if" - which is a pretty compelling proposition even if there were no game mechanics at all. I find it interesting that the gist of many of the reviews boils down to: "a lot of little unremarkable systems that add up to an experience greater than the sum of its parts." It's almost as though they're describing emergence, but in terms of experience rather than behavior.

Anyway, in my opinion as that taken as a video game Spore is mediocre to good. As a piece of inclusive creative entertainment, a platform for experimentation and imagination with a low barrier to entry, it's not dumbed down at all - it's brilliant.