Talk:Spore (2008 video game)/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Archived

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

Spinoffs/Ports (Partially Archived to Archive 7)

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

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

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

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

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

It should certainly not be called a port. Version sounds fine by me. They also warrant their own article because they are different games. Note 'The Urbz: Sims in the City' which is also a different game from 'The Sims 2' has it's own article. Wikipedia has been pretty consistent in this regard. VIABellum (talk) 05:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Merged

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

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

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

Genre

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thus the player, by definition, is taking the role of a god. JAF1970 (talk) 17:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Did you read the second sentence? If there is no god then how does the player take the role of god. Is there some god inside us all the time? If there is how can we control ourselves, in an evolutionary way? Skele (talk) 21:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Skele, the genre "god game" has been around for many years. The fact that the word "god" is not capitalised means that this is not a theological debate, but a genre that is well established in tits definition. In this game, you don't take the role of "God" (capital G Yahweh God), but you take the role of a god (small g, non-specific, non-Christian). Please just get over the fact that whilst you may not believe in "God", the genre "god game" is not making links to "God". --Samtheboy ^(t/c) 22:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I know the difference between god and God. I wrote Spore in google in the search of what genre it is listed in. ( http://pc.ign.com/objects/735/735340.html http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/spore/index.html http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/spore/ ) The sites I picked up on the first 5 pages list spore as something else than god game and actually found it only once mentioned god game. Skele (talk) 23:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Uh, huh. Except EA and Will Wright both call it a god game... ON THE OFFICIAL SITE! (rolling eyes) And The Long Zoom at the New York Times, Business Week, The Inquirer, and about 100 other articles. (laugh) What kind of search did you do?! (Oh, by the way, GameSpot et al don't have subsets of genres as categories.) JAF1970 (talk) 23:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I still proved that it should be named with two genres and what i have seen in wikipedia: everything cited is true. Skele (talk) 11:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

And JAF1970 that kind of attitude and language is used on chat rooms. This is no chat room, this is a discussion room where we discuss like civilized people. Skele (talk) 12:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

You didn't "prove" anything. Putting the main genre category with the subset is superfluous. Would you put something like "sports car / automobile" for a Porsche? JAF1970 (talk) 14:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't put any genre on a car they are all cars. But is it so hard to put one word that is cited on an article. Skele (talk) 19:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Spore is NOT a strategy game, turn-based or RTS. Spore is not a life simulation - SimEarth and SimLife are. In those games, you don't directly control the creatures. You change the conditions of the biosphere. In Spore, you directly control your creatures, you directly make editor changes, and you can also edit flora, vehicles, buildings, everything. It's a god game, check the god game article. JAF1970 (talk) 08:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Spore Could Be the Greatest God Game Ever, Inquirer, Hands-On with Will Wright's "Spore", BusinessWeek, Game Master, The New Yorker, GameSpot's "god game" metatag, St. Louis Today, etc, etc, etc. It's a god game. JAF1970 (talk) 09:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

PLEASE read the article life simulation game. Spore is a life simulation game. Many other wikipedias have agreed to that. Skele (talk) 09:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I did. No, it is not. Spore is by definition a god game, and referred to as such by Will Wright himself. Period. You seem to have theological issues with the term "god game". Also, do not remove a genre with 3 citations attached to it, which prove beyond a shadow of a doubt of its veracity. SimLife is a life sim. Spore (video game) is a god game. JAF1970 (talk) 09:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Based on my reading of life simulation game, I'd have to say that Spore could be classified as both god game and life simulation game. They're not mutually exclusive. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 09:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Some more: ..."The "God game" is one of the few in its genre to arrive on Mac.", ..." about Will Wright's upcoming god game, Spore.". The Long Zoom article refers to it as a god game as well. How many more references do you need?!?!?. JAF1970 (talk) 09:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

"Biological simulations may allow the player to expermient with genetics, survival or ecosystems, often in the form of an educational package. Evolution simulations are a sub-genre of this type of game."-life simulation game-. Did you even listen to the other things your citations have said about spore or did you just write "god" in your search and pressed enter and thought thats that? They have also said its a strategy, evolution or life simulation game. Skele (talk) 09:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Ignoring the hard evidence of everyone and their mother calling Spore a god game, eh? And furthermore, you might notice that that definition of life simulation says nothing of taking control of the creatures. Spore is not a strategy game any more than Populous is, the first god game. Saying Spore is an "evolution game" says nothing. It's just descriptive. And life simulations are SimLife and SimEarth.

And you still haven't addressed the fact Will Wright calls it a god game, as well as EA, every article about Spore ever written, etc. And almost none of them call it a "life simulation". JAF1970 (talk) 09:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's the thing - you're focusing on early stages of Spore. Is Spore a "life simulation" during the civ phase, for example? What part of "life sim" has the cities declaring war on each other at your behest? Wright refers to the tide pool phase as Pac-Man and the creature phase as Diablo. That's not very life sim. The editors alone prove it's NOT a life simulation, because you're not allowing true evolution to occur. If anything, it's an intelligent design game. JAF1970 (talk) 09:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's the thing, Part II: Spore contains many "lite" elements of genres - lite arcade, lite-RTS, etc. Can you imagine trying to fit every single genre Spore has some slight resemblance to? There's one overriding genre that Spore fits into - god game. You can't call Spore a life simulation/real-time strategy game/civilization game/arcade game/social simulation/city management/roleplaying game/god game, and everything it might even do lightly almost as a minigame. JAF1970 (talk) 10:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Compromise: I included the lite life simulation elements in the Gameplay section. That way, the life sim and some of the lite-RTS gameplay will be acknowledged explicitly. But the genre in the info box must remain as brief as possible. JAF1970 (talk) 10:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

In phase 1 Spore allows the player to use genetics and survival. In phase 2 Spore allows the player to use genetics and survival. In phase 3 Spore allows the player to use genetics and survival. In phase 4 Spore allows the player to use survival and genetics. And finally in the last phase Spore allows the player to experiment with the ecosystem. These all were mentioned to be aspects of life simulation game. I am saying that it should be called god game/life simulation game as said in some of your newspaper articles. It seems that you are trying to be against many other wikipedias and also against other people in this wikipedia. Skele (talk) 15:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

In Phase 1, you're playing Pac-Man. In Phase 2, you're playing Diablo. In Phase 3, you're playing Populous. etc. Get it? These are WILL WRIGHT'S DEFINITIONS. JAF1970 (talk) 16:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, when did you get to play Spore? I'm going by official statements, hands-on previews, etc. You seem to be going by hands-on experience... or speculation. JAF1970 (talk) 16:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Again you are going into personal things, that's your second warning. I think, that's how I know. All you need to do is watch the E3 2005 video a couple of times and you will know enough. And I have played cellular cell spore so I know phase 1, you play pac-man and evolve. Diablo is a bad description of phase 2 but hey there still EVOLVING. Phase 3 and 4 are quite the same and there you evolve as Will Wright has said about the whole game. On phase 5 he showed how you can experiment with the ecosystem. This whole cycle is about their life. Am I making myself clear. Skele (talk) 16:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Personal? No. And I don't care if Wright was hopped on on goofballs. He's played the game. You haven't. Check Wikipedia policy on speculation and original research. How do you know Wright's description of gameplay isn't spot-on? HE'S PLAYED IT. YOU HAVEN'T. PERIOD. END OF STORY. JAF1970 (talk) 17:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes I know he has played the game, I know I haven't played the whole game just cellular cell spore which Will Wright used as a base for phase 1. But here comes the question have you played Spore or have you even played cellular cell spore? Spore has the aspects of a life simulation game and therefore should be named as one. One genre gives a bad image for a game, like in this article, and I am saying it should be named with two (god game/life simulation) for those two are the major genres of Spore. But you just keep saying it is only one genre even thou I am trying to show you my and many others POVs to you. And once more this is not a chat room where you use caps lock whenever you want and end the conversation whenever you want and unpolitely. Skele (talk) 20:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

"On phase 5 he showed how you can experiment with the ecosystem." - I hate to tell you Skele, but you shot yourself in the foot with this comment... experimenting on ecosystems really does sound more like a god game than a true life sim. That being said, there do seem to be parts of the game which bear little or no resemblance to a god game, and so I do believe that god game should not be the only genre stated. Perhaps a new short sections entitled "Genre" with a link to it from the infobox. In this section say that due to the nature of the game, there are a wide range of genres ranging from god game, to RTS, to RPG, to life sim... sound like a plan? Good! --Samtheboy ^(t/c) 20:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

We're trying to streamline the article, not fatten it. The brief mention in gameplay is enough to denote the fact that the game has variety in style. JAF1970 (talk) 21:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

No you shot yourself in the leg. As I showed you before "Biological simulations may allow the player to expermient with genetics, survival or ecosystems, often in the form of an educational package."-life simulation game-. And again god game is not a main genre its a simulation genre sub-category and so is life simulation game. Is it so hard to understand that. So maybe we should name it a simulation game. Skele (talk) 22:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we are coming to a conclusion. From the start you said Spore should be only a god game and I said it should be named with two genres (life simulation game/god game because I think god game doesn't describe it well enough. Then a long proving section and then you say: if we would name it with two genres then we would have to name it with all the genres it is. And after that I did some research and found out that life simulation game and god game are both sub-genres for simulation genre. So if we would name it a simulation game it would describe Spore as wide as it is and still have an accurate description. Phase 1 is of genres god game and life simulation game. Phase 2 is also of genres god game and life simulation game and even dating simulation. Phase 3 is of genres mild city-building, god game and life simulation game. Phase 4 is of life simulation game, god game and very strongly of city-building and mildly of goverment simulation game genres. Phase 5 is of god game and very strongly of life simulation game genres. All of the above genres are sub-genres for simulation game genre. I will wait for a while for everyones POV in this on my suggestion of conclusion and if no one has anything against it I will put it on the article and I may also make a citation to this debate for it covers almost every citation needed. Skele (talk) 18:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

(ahem) EVERY single phase you're allowed to edit. You can edit the plants. You can edit the creatures. You can edit buildings. You can edit vehicles. There is NO PART OF THE GAME that you can't play with and edit if you wish to do. That is a god game. And furthermore, once again, you refuse to acknowledge Electronic Arts, Will Wright, every press article, every media article, every fan site, etc stating unequivocably it's a god game, pure and simple. It's more real-time strategy in the mode of SimCity and a real-time Civ than it is a "life simulation". Where is the "life sim" in Phase 3, 4, and 5? You're concentrating on less than HALF the game (Phase 1 and 2) When you're dropping monoliths on planets to make creatures sapient, or splicing their DNA with other creatures. hmmm. Sounds like a GOD GAME to me! There's very little "life sim" in the game - face it, it's an intelligent design game. You've already shown that your issue is not with the fact it's a god game, but you have theological problems with it (check the archives). Please, no subjectives - only objectives. And you have yet to produce a single article that backs your claim. JAF1970 (talk) 19:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I already mentioned the life simulation and RTS aspects of the game under Gameplay, so why are you still upset? The infobox should be as concise as possible, and life simulation isn't concise to what this game is. In every phase of the game, it's a god game. It's a "life sim"-lite in Phase 1 or 2. And it's just a lite sim. It's not exactly in depth. As I said, every single article calls it a god game. It's genre-busting enough that it touches on other genres, but while there's a Civ phase, no one is going to call Spore a "civilization game". PS. What is the genre of Spore Creatures. Get back to me. You'll notice it's appropriate there. Not here. JAF1970 (talk) 20:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

You have not even read a single word I have written and citated, you haven't even fully read your own citations and you haven't even had a thought that even Will Wright could be wrong about his naming of genre. Electronic Arts only uses Will Wrights sayings. Even some of your press articles and media state that it is also a life sim and you haven't even citated a single fan site saying it's ONLY a god game. You are even speaking against yourself. And again I have to show you this: "Biological simulations may allow the player to expermient with genetics, survival or ecosystems, often in the form of an educational package."-life simulation game-, this means that phase 5 is highly much like life simulation game genre. Even on phases 3 and 4 the creatures are evolving, thus making it a life sim. I have no theological problem. And stop using caps lock, when it isn't needed. Skele (talk) 20:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

So now, your argument is "Will Wright is wrong and I'm right! Um, okay. Of course, Wright's actually played the game (let alone designed it). Have you? JAF1970 (talk) 20:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we can all agree that "god game" is a major element of the genre. I think "life simulation" might be considered a major element as well. The following quote has been cited as roughly defining life sim: "Biological simulations may allow the player to expermient with genetics, survival or ecosystems." I'm not sure how much of the first two are really present. Sure you get to change the appearance and traits of a creature, but you do this in an editor, not in a way that simulates genetics at all. Yes, your goal is to keep your species surviving, but I don't really think there's much sitting back and letting them go to watch which creatures survive and die. Perhaps the ecosystem experimentation is present in the later gameplay, but I don't know how in depth that will really be. It may just be "make planet X habitable." So while I certainly agree that "life simulation" is an element of the genre, I am uncertain whether it should be considered a major element. Only if it is a major element would I support listing it along with "god game" in the main "genre" heading at the top. Nanobri (talk) 20:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, you only play as a creature for the first two phases. The third phase is basically SimCity/Populous. The fourth phase is a RTS civ phase, like SimCity and Age of Empires. The 5th phase is outright a god game and a sandbox. The thing is, these elements are acknowledged in the Gameplay section. It's not for the infobox. JAF1970 (talk) 21:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not saying Will Wright is wrong. I'm saying there's a possibility that he understands the consept "god game" differently than the english wikipedia says and I think he doesn't have time to think those kind of things. Nanobri, that's not the only aspect of life simulation game genre there is on the life simulation game genre article. And the "sitting back and letting them go to watch which creatures survive and die" thing is on phase 5, that Will Wright explained at the E3 in 2005 and he also said there that you can go back to any of the phases from there so that you can start making (or changing) a race, go to another and let the one you just started making live on its own and come back later to see how it's doing. I am still saying it should be named simulation game, because life simulation game and god game genres are its sub-genres. Skele (talk) 22:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Trust me, Will Wright knows game genres. He's one of the smartest persons in the world, much less game industry. He's well aware of terminology. JAF1970 (talk) 22:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure he's one of the smartest people in the world, have you checked his IQ and most importantly have you checked yours? If you have not checked his IQ then it is only your opinion and is not verified. But yes he might be very smart, I haven't gotten to know him and if I did then I couldn't be able to verify his smartness. And hey can you remember this "The game focuses on survival, which includes finding food and eventually a mate". You wrote that and one of life simulation games aspects is survival. Skele (talk) 07:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but that's an irrelevent point - let's get back to the main issue that you're saying he doesn't know what he's doing or know anything about computer game genres... JAF1970 (talk) 16:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Well then let's talk about it I have nothing to continue with so maybe you might want to say something or perhaps someone else. Skele (talk) 20:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I've already made a satisfactory compromise and mentioned the life sim and RTS elements under the Gameplay section. JAF1970 (talk) 20:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, with satisfactory you mean satisfactory to yourself, not much anyone else. You just think that you are the only one who has the right to edit this article, no one else, including hundreds and thousands maybe over tens of thousands of other wikipedians. Yeap, only you. You just don't read the rules do you. Please, go and read the rules. Skele (talk) 22:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Nanobri seems to agree. And you've been obstinate and don't much listen to anything anyone has to say. I made the concession that made sense, and even though you've been proven wrong by me AND others, you have no intention to compromise. Don't like it? WP:DISPUTE. JAF1970 (talk) 22:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

How do you know he agrees. He hasn't said anything after his last words. And I listen to every word everyone has to say as you saw when I answered to Nanobri. And what did you concede? I don't recall you proving anything wrong. And what I said to you also refers to me and everyone else. You nor I nor anybody else can make a compromise without other peoples POVs. Skele (talk) 05:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

So I'm not sure what it is I'm said to be in agreement with. I'll explain where I stand and hopefully that'll clarify matters. My position right now is that Spore is a game with a very large scope that has elements of a number of different genres. To list at the top ALL possible genres the game might be considered to contain would look rather sloppy in my opinion. I DO think that they should be mentioned as appropriate throughout the article though, as the wide array of genres the game touches is one of the things that makes it so interesting and unique. (I'll have to re-read the article to make sure, but JAF1970 seems to indicate that genres have been given fair mention in the body of the article.) I am of the opinion that the MAJOR genre (or genres) should be listed at the top of the article. I think "god game" is definitely a major genre in the game, and possibly "life simulation". Because I am unsure how realistic and how in depth the "life simulation" elements are in the game, like "genetics, survival and ecosystems", I am uncertain whether I think "life simulation" should be concidered a MAJOR genre of the game. I'd like to hear discussion of why "life simulation" should or should not be considered a major genre of the game. I feel if this question is adequately addressed then it should be a simple decision as to whether or not "life simulation" should be added to the genre listing at the top of the article. Nanobri (talk) 06:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Nanobri for your POV. This discussion hasn't gone anywhere till now. I agree that Spore has many possible genres and already have mentioned a possible solution: Naming it a simulation game. Life simulation game and god game genres are both sub-genres to it and it has other genres that may be possible aspects of Spore. Ofcourse that's not Nanobri wants to discuss about. But since I can't come up with anything right now of why life simulation genre should or should not be named in the infobox, I just mentioned it because I would just forget it. But please could someone give a statement why life sim should or should not be mentioned in the infobox. Skele (talk) 14:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Once again, life sim only somewhat describes Phase 1 and 2. To put it in the infobox is like saying Citizen Kane is a comedy. There are comedic elements in Citizen Kane, but you could hardly call it a comedy. JAF1970 (talk) 15:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I think one could make a case for phase 5 having life sim elements if you consider "experimenting with ecosystems". Do you disagree? If so, why? Also, the life sim page talks about developing sentience. Phase 3 and 4 might be considered the progression through "limited sentience" and "robust sentience." Also, social sim is under the heading of life sim as well. Phase 3 and 4 might be considered to have some social sim elements and thus might be considered life sim from that perspective. Could you explain your position as to why you don't think life sim is present in phases 3, 4, and 5 of the game? Does anyone else have thoughts on how/if life sim is an element in the various phases? Nanobri (talk) 16:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Sandbox play >< life sim. You're basically editing the universe. And once again, the other phases are life sims like a tricycle is a car. Phase 3 and 4, you're playing SimCity, basically. You're no longer controlling your species evolution - they're set. Phase 5, you're in Sandbox mode, and by definition a God Mode. And even phase 1 and 2, the evolution is directed by the player - it's being a god doing intelligent design.

Something else to consider: is Moby Dick about whaling? JAF1970 (talk) 17:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Under the "Gameplay" section, the first sentence reads: "Spore will be a simulation that "ranges from the cellular phase to the galactic phase."[13] It will consist of several long phases, each with its own style of play, with a range of gameplay styles, including elements of life simulation and real-time strategy." Would you not agree that is satisfactory, that it covers what you're trying to say? WHY do you have to include a subelement of gameplay in the infobox? JAF1970 (talk) 17:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

What I think is in question is whether "life sim" is a sub-element or a major element, I'm trying to lead the discussion so that it settles that issue. If it IS a major element then I think it needs to be included in the info box, if it IS NOT a major element then i think it should not be included in the info box. Nanobri (talk) 17:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

(I was making a response to what you said before, but you added more before I could, so here it is here) So would the following be a fair summary of your argument? (1) Controlling the evolution of species is a necessary condition for "life sim" play, and phases 3 and 4 fail to meet this criteria. (2) The presence of sandbox play precludes the possibility of "life sim" play. Do other people agree with these arguments? As far as (1) I think other elements such as development of sentience or social interaction might also constitute "life sim" play and should be considered before phases 3 and 4 are said to not contain "life sim" play. As far as (2) I think the presence of sandbox play merely means that "god game" play IS present, and does not mean that play from any other genre is excluded. As far as the Moby Dick thing, too many of the discussions on this page have gotten muddled and confused by debating in metaphor and off topic comparisions. I'd prefer we discuss the issues directly instead of going off on distracting tangents. Are there any other strong opinions on the stature of the "life sim" genre in the game? Discussion here tends to be dominatied by one or two debaters and I think outside opinions would help. Nanobri (talk) 17:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Putting "life simulation" in the infobox would distort what the game is. It's just as much a real-time strategy and economic sim as well, as well as other genres. The only overriding genre is god game. JAF1970 (talk) 18:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It isn't universally agreed that "god game" is the overriding genre. There is also a position that "life simulation" and "god game" are equally important (or if not equally at least both majorly important). Skele seems to support this position and I am undecided on it and would like more discussion, which I've been trying to foster. We've established that you don't think "life sim" is as predominant a genre for the game as "god game". I think you may have a point, but I'm not yet entirely convinced. Might the development of sentience or social interaction constitute "life sim" play? Why does the presence of sandbox play exclude the possibility of "life sim" play? Nanobri (talk) 20:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Well about phases 3 and 4. As I mentioned earlier Will Wright said (at the E3 on 2005) that you can go back to any of the phases from phase 5 so that you can start making (or changing) a race, go to another and let the one you just started making (or changing) live on its own for a while and come back later to see how it's doing(or in other words surviving). So according to it phases 3 and 4 can be named as life simulation game genres. Skele (talk) 22:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

(cough) What in the world are you talking about? Now you're arguing that the god mode IS the life simulation mode. That is about as confused a statement from you as I've seen. Your cred is about zilch at this point, especially since Wright said no such thing. He stated you can play any phase you like at any time, as in, you don't have to play all five phases in succession. JAF1970 (talk) 22:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Skele, I think this might support the idea that the last phase contains "life sim" elements, but I am unsure how you think this supports the idea that phase 3 and 4 contain "life sim". Nanobri (talk) 22:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Jaf1970 your cred has been zilch from the point you shot your leg, so I wouldn't be saying anything like that. But he did say that. Belive me, I've already watched that video 3 times and wasn't life sim about survival that is survival. Skele (talk) 05:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

And I have it on my iPod and watched it dozens. What's your point? You still haven't proven your point. And according to you, Will Wright knows nothing about life simulations, god games or Spore. JAF1970 (talk) 05:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

We're getting off topic again. Skele, JAF1970 disputes that Will said what you claim, can you verify that Will said this? Also, I don't think Will talking about things in phase 5 is really relevant to the genres represented in phases 3 and 4. Can you provide any other rationale for these phases strongly involving "life sim" elements? JAF1970, do you have a response to the questions I asked earlier? (Might the development of sentience or social interaction constitute "life sim" play? Why does the presence of sandbox play exclude the possibility of "life sim" play?) Nanobri (talk) 06:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you consider Civilization and SimCity "life sims"? You're not controlling creatures anymore in those modes. If you extend the definition far enough, every game is a "life sim" (in DOOM, you're controlling a human creature through survival!) JAF1970 (talk) 16:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

PS. In the GDC 2005 video, Wright mostly talks about procedural generation, ie. how the computer automatically decides how a creature walks, acts, etc, by how its limbs are placed, and how you can combine verbs (ie. look, if you combine "eat" with "move", the creature drags the food), and how expansive a game can be using proc. gen., using the demoscene as an example, etc, etc. Most of it is showing of WHAT he can do with proc. gen., not about Spore the game itself. JAF1970 (talk) 16:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

So JAF1970's argument against "life sim" as an element of stages 3 and 4 as I understand it now is that the play so loosely fits the definition of "life sim" that if those elements were considered sufficent to constitute a "life sim" then a broad class of games not typically considered "life sim" would fit as well. I think I would agree with this argument. Skele, (or anyone else), can you demonstrate that stages 3 and 4 involve non-trivial "life sim" elements? Though phase 5 certaintly gives ultimate control over everything, (one of the defining features of "god game" play), it also has features like terraforming and making planets habitable as well as Skele's (disputed) claim that Will has said you will be able to create creatues, leave, and see how they are doing later. This might be considered "experimenting with ecosystems", one of the defining characteristics of "life sim" play. Considering these points, do you have a rationale for "life sim" not being a major element of phase 5? Nanobri (talk) 16:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

In Phase 5, you can do your own little DNA experiments as a god-like figure, but you also can affect everything, not just life. You can blow up rocky planets in space. You can explore the galaxy. You can see what happens when you try to enter a black hole. You can carve your initials on the surface of Venus. In other words, you're Q. JAF1970 (talk) 17:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

"Considering these points, do you have a rationale for "life sim" not being a major element of phase 5? " See my analogy: Citizen Kane has very funny moments - it's still not a comedy. JAF1970 (talk) 17:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

OK. So if you leave your monster/creature there it evolves by itself. Evolving is a aspect of evolution game, which then again is a sub-genre to life simulation game. Next Will did not say straitly that it is a life simulation game, but many of those things he mentioned at E3 2005 reflect some other simulation game sub-genre other than god game. No, I don't consider Civilization or Simcity a life simulation game nor I don't consider them a god game, I consider them as construction and management simulations which again is a sub-genre for simulation game. Jaf1970 if YOU extend the definition far enough of god game far enough every game by your definition is a god game. Will Wright also told a lot more things about Spore at E3 2005, other than procedural generation. Well my first words explained why phases 3 and 4 have life sim in them. And the Q thing. What I have understood Q is a man controlling a space ship and he is some sort of a commander and in the last phase in Spore control a space ship and you are like a commander. Get it maybe, we should name it commander game genre, just kidding. But well the last thing I ain't trying to say Spore should be named life simulation game. I'm saying it should be named simulation game. Anyone saying something against these or does anyone have more POVs. Skele (talk) 21:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

More (for quick editing)

The real question is, what is wrong with the compromise? Life sim doesn't belong in the infobox, but it is mentioned in the gameplay section. JAF1970 (talk) 17:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

So your argument for phase 5 is that non-"life sim" elements dominate the game play, correct? Well, I think we should give some time for other editors to directly address the arguments made and take it from there. And the reason I am not ok just settling for a compromise is because I want this issue totally settled. I think clear and explicit arguements for and against the matter, with both sides considering the arguments might actually lead to a real consensus. (i.e. we might ALL agree if we really examine the issue thoroughly.) I don't think a thorough consideration of the arguments involved took place with the "spin-off/version/port" debate, and as a consequence I don't think anyone's mind has changed since the beginning of that debate. Maybe this won't work either, but I'm hoping that if people can look back and clearly see why a decision was made with the genre issue then arguments won't keep flaring up in the future. Nanobri (talk) 17:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

1. I provided hard evidence in which Spore was referred to as a god game. Never in any of them was it EVER referred to as a "life sim". There's elements of life sim, but there's elements of RTS, economic sim, roleplaying games, etc. If you put life sim in the infobox, you have to include RTS/Eco sim/RPG/etc. Get it? JAF1970 (talk) 18:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Other people referring to the game as a god game does support the idea of it being a major genre of the game, but a number of the editors, me included, do not feel that that fact alone is sufficient to disregard the possibilty of another genre being equally important to the game. If "god game" really is the only dominating genre of the game, then there should be plenty of ways to support that position. I think there's a more convinsing case for the "god game only" argument now that we've examined the issue in detail. To actually have people agree with you, you have to specificly address their concerns, not just state over and over a single arguement that people don't consider convinsing. As we've seen, not listening and responding to each other's concerns with a given position leads to heated arguements, edit wars, etc. Nanobri (talk) 18:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Except a life sim is a subset of a god game. By definition, a god game encompasses life sim. Would you call a Toyota a car/Japanese car? Putting god game/life simulation is kind of, and sorry for the harsh language, idiotic. I've already included life sim (and RTS) in the Gameplay section. That should be enough.

Furthermore, once again, for the umpteenth time: I've found hard evidence of it being a god game, and there's been no articles that have described it as a pure life simulation. See: Hard evidence below. JAF1970 (talk) 18:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Let me repeat again: tell me if this sounds intelligent in the least: god game/life simulation. How about calling the Xbox 360 a console/Microsoft console? JAF1970 (talk) 19:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you disagree with why I want to have a thorough discussion? Nanobri (talk) 19:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand, but this is being dragged out. Now, I'm trying to sing My Heart Will Go On on Karaoke Rev:AI Encore. :p JAF1970 (talk) 19:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, where should I start. Well life simulation game is not a subset for god game, see simulation game. Second I did not suggest that Spore should be named "life simulation game/god game" in the infobox (only in the beginning but I changed my opinion on that), I said it should be named simulation game for life sim and god game are sub-genres for it and also for many other genres that describe Spore. Third Jaf1970 you weren't thinking when you wrote the doom thing. Fourth you have not found hard evidence for it being a god game. Many of your citations are flawed. Skele (talk) 23:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it is. And incidentally, there ain't much simulation in the game, either. You're directly affecting your creature, rather than circumstances affecting it. It's more roleplaying game than sim. Either way, "god game/life simulation"... that phrase makes no sense. JAF1970 (talk) 01:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, what part of Phase 5's grand strategy game when you're dealing with alien races through conquering or diplomacy... a la Master of Orion... is a life sim? You never lose the god game aspect (editor, etc), but... JAF1970 (talk) 02:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Well if there ain't much simulation game in Spore then there's even less god game in it. And phase 5's conquering and diplomacy aspects can be explained with construction and management simulation games genre, which also happen's to be a sub-genre to simulation game Skele (talk) 11:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

EA, Will Wright, the media, the press, and fans beg to differ. Already posted a bunch of articles explicitly calling Spore a god game that you claim don't. Including one that says it in the title. (sigh) Now you're making personal attacks on me, which to me says that you're losing the argument. JAF1970 (talk) 18:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Now I should laugh, but I won't because this is a public debate. I haven't "claimed" that they don't call Spore a god game. I "claimed" they call Spore god game and something else. And your saying you were losing to me a week ago. I'm trying to keep this a debate. It seems your trying to make this an argument. Skele (talk) 19:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Since Will Wright was one of the creators of the "God Game" genre, and Will Wright calls it a "God Game", it is therefore a "God Game". If Spore does not fit under the Wikipedia definition of "God Game", then the Wikipedia definition of "God Game" is wrong. However, as the Wikipedia definition seems to use Spore as an up-and-coming example of the genre, I do not think that is the case.23:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.60.183.14 (talk)

That was a very good point(better than any of jaf1970's), I would almost shake your hand for it, but I'm very far from you. Still the aspects of simulation game are very strongly seen in Spore. So I wouldn't name it a god game yet, even thou that really is the strongest point I've seen since now. I think it needs a bit more, to prove it being only a god game. Ofcourse, that's my point of view. Skele (talk) 01:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Because the life sim elements are weak in Spore. Check Spore Creatures for a true life simulation. JAF1970 (talk) 02:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Again you are going out of subject. I know Spore Creatures is a life simulation game. We were talking about Spore being named simulation game. And the again, the life sim elements are not weak in Spore as we have debated about it many times. Skele (talk) 10:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, you refuse to listen to Wright, EA, media, etc. You keep talking but provide no evidence to back up your statements. Just personal subjective feelings. Oh, and checking the archives, personal bias against the term "god game". JAF1970 (talk) 18:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I back up my statements with your citations, if you haven't yet noticed that. Those things that EA and the media says are a part of the words Wright has said. And again what "etc."?. You haven't cited to anything else but media article's and Wright's statements and GameSpot which I ran down immediately. I once cited to the other wikipedia's claiming that it is not just a god game and you still haven't said anything against it. Skele (talk) 20:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm backed up by 15,900 articles stating the words "Spore" and "god game". JAF1970 (talk) 05:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

No your not backed up by 15.900 articles. Those 15,900 asticles also include forum sites where people debate about it being a god game and articles that state it's not only a god game but something more. I ran the search with "Spore"+"simulation game" and came up with 31,100 articles. Skele (talk) 05:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

You dismissed the examples I showed that explicitly discussed Wright and his latest, greatet god game, and you ignore everything else I've said, including showing what a life sim is like Spore Creatures in which you remain in control of the creature the entire time. I don't expect you to listen to anything I say - it's like talking to a brick wall. JAF1970 (talk) 05:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I am listening to what you're saying, but your not listening to what I'm saying. Wright has said it's a god game, but his words also reflect a huge number of other genres, strongly including life simulation game and simulation game. You are the one being a brick wall here. Skele (talk) 08:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Let me explain this as simply as I can:

The game does indeed start off with life simulation elements, but those soon give way to real-time strategy and economic sims such as SimCity and Civilization, before giving way to grand tactical strategy. However, you never lose sight of the fact it's a god game. In every phase, you're not behaving like a creature, you're performing acts of godhood, especially when you revisit previous phases. In even simpler terms, it's a god game, even while it's behaving like other genres. That's why god game, and only god game, is in the infobox. The other genre elements are under gameplay because, quite simply, that's all they are: gameplay elements.

I hope this is definitive enough for you. JAF1970 (talk) 18:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I still see a bit narrow-mindedness, but you said a few magic words that again support simulation game. I agree it starts off with life simulation game elements, I agree that at some point economic sim has a big part in it and I agree it has god game in it. But all of those are mixed in there and them being all sub-genres to simulation game. I would still(almost sadly) name it a simulation game. Skele (talk) 21:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know where you're getting that from. Can you read? There are elements of life simulation, but Spore is a life simulation like Spore is a strategy game. I already mentioned it in gameplay, but it does not belong in the Infobox. You still have not proved your point like I have. I've stated objective reasons. Yours remain opinions based on personal bias (as demonstrated in the archives). JAF1970 (talk) 18:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Personal bias? I'm talking on the behalf of many people. Yes and god game is there as much as simulation game and many other genre and therefore it should be named simulation game. I agree that life simulation game doesn't "belong" in the infobox, but I also say that god game doesn't "belong" in the infobox. I'm saying that simulation game should belong in the infobox, because it would be wide enough to enlist all the genres that Spore has in itself, but still be accurate enough. Oh and one more thing Spore won the prize of Best Simulation Game. Skele (talk) 21:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't belong? I'm sorry, but you're completely off base there. Or didn't you notice the citations there? Now your argument is "life simulation doesn't belong there, and neither does god game"? Oh, boy... JAF1970 (talk) 18:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes I know. I've been trying to tell you that for a week already, but you haven't listened. Yes I have noticed the citations and I've already replied to them. They are not good enough. Many of them say that Spore is more than a god game. Even the other wikipedias don't say anything about Spore being a god game. Spore should be named a simulation game. That's what I've been trying to tell you. Skele (talk) 22:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Personally I see things a bit mixed. I agree that the genre in the title box should be labeled god game because that is how it is known and how its creator refers to it. But I also feel that that description is not accurate. I think the only part of this game that seems "God" like is the fact that you can edit your creature and flora. If you feel that aliens coming from another planet and destroying your city is an act of "God" then you might want to reevaluate your opinion on "God". And if you think being able to design your building, vehicles, space crafts, and so forth make you "God" then you might want to talk to the people in real life who do that, I can guarantee they are not "God". Further more each stage is largely a different kind of simulation game. This game seems to be and is stated to be like many games in one. I believe the only true classification that works for the game is Simulation Game, because undoubtedly in ever aspect of the game you are simulating something, weather it be simulating life, simulating the construction of tribes and cities, simulating what it would be like to be an all powerful alien race taking over the universe, or simulating what it would be like to choose to sprout horns the next day to make your race stronger, you are still at the end of the day no matter where you are in the game simulating something, but at no time is one of its subcategories constantly present and that includes god game. When you are a single cell organism floating around longing to be something more you are not "God". When you are a simple animal looking for a mate you are not "God". When you are hunting with your tribe for food you are not "God". When you are building new homes in your city you are not "God". When you are stealing alien races for your galactic zoo planet you are not "God". So I don’t believe any title but Simulation Game fits completely enough for the game, but if the creator categorizes it as a god game then the info bar should reflect that. But that’s just my two cents. RaderZer0 (talk) 17:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I think that got us VERY far. I agree with everything. But now that that's been said, are there any disagreements or other POVs. Skele (talk) 18:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, let's expand the definition of "simulation" - DOOM is a simulation of a space marine in Hell. You always portray a God in the game. I didn't say that, RaderZer0 - Will Wright did. You know, the lead developer? Check the article god game, please. Spore fits both categories of god game. Your definition of god game is profoundly... well, to be nice, ignorant. IT'S NOT A SIMULATION. Period. (And if it's a "simulation" (laugh), why does no article call it one.) For example, just because a game has a plane in it does not make it a flight simulation. Just because Grand Theft Auto IV has driving in it does not make it a racing simulation. In fact, Burnout Paradise is not a racing simulation.

For one, simulations have some basis in realism, by definition. Let me know what part of Spore is realistic. Like when you're plonking a Monolith on a world to cause the creatures to become sapient. Would love to know what you're simulating.

Please, for the love of God, learn genres.

Spore.

Is.

Not.

A

Simulation.

Saying it's a simulation is like saying Call of Duty is a "war simulation". It's as stupid as when reporters called first person shooters "murder simulators". JAF1970 (talk) 06:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Jaf the only one sounding ignorant is you, I was not saying we need to reclassify Spore, in fact I said the complete opposite. I said in my opinion I believe that description does not completely fit, and it doesn't. And you need to get your facts straight, show me one article that has Will Wright expressly saying "You are God at all times in this game" because I have never read that any where. Yes he does call it a god game, but he never says you are god in the whole game. On the other hand he does state many times you are a developing single cell organism. You are a multi cell race trying to survive and hunt. You are making your tribe grow. You are building your city and interacting with other cities. In fact if you were a god in all parts of this game you wouldn't need to make war or peace you could just zap them off your planet, or never have created them to begin with, but as far as I know those functions don't exist, and the only time they do in some form is when your race develops the technology to have UFOs and certain tools. Are you saying its "God"-like to develop new machinery to simulate acts of "God"? And your other point is correct I would not say those games are simulations because a more accurate definition applies to them. But no definition applies to Spore because it is multiple games in one, if you took the 5 phases of Spore and made them 5 different games you would have a classification for each one, you even made that point yourself, but here you do not because it is packaged into one game, it is like a compilation of arcade games you don't call the whole set first person shooters because one or more of the games may have that aspect, you call the package something generic. But as I stated before if Will Wright the creator calls it that so be it and leave the info bar that way, I just have a different opinion on it and I expressed it.RaderZer0 (talk) 10:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

This is not a matter of "opinion". Don't insult me, too. There's no "simulation" going on. For one, you're acting changing everything in the game, and CAN DO SO IN EVERY PHASE. Just check Wright from the 2005 GDC to present. And by the way, you can indeeed change the game any way you like at any time you like - Wright specifically stated so. Furthermore, the entire war in the tribal phase and civ phase? They're handled as real-time strategy games. The intergalactic war? Grand strategy games.

Furthermore, how come Wright calls it a god game, EA calls it a god game, sites like GameSpot put it in the God Game category, media calls it a god game, Wikipedia god game article calls it a god game of both categories (which I'm willing to bet you haven't even checked the god game article), fansites call it a god game. And I've been in the VG industry for over 2 decades, writing professionally for them for over a decade. If you want to debate this face-to-face, I'm covering Comic Con 2008 as a press member. I never called you ignorant, just your definition of it. Don't make personal attacks. You just joined Wikipedia (in fact, your entire contribution ever to Wiki are those two comments.) JAF1970 (talk) 14:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Isn't "god game" a subset of "simulation game"? If so then "simulation game" cannot be said to be a misnomer by any of the arguements above. It can only be said to be less specific. Nanobri (talk) 15:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not. That's a mistake that should be corrected. if you're going to tell me Populous is a simulation... JAF1970 (talk) 15:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Again you are saying something that everyone should follow. You're saying Spore should have not earned The Best Simulation Game award in 2005 and 2006. If Spore is not a simulation game then it isn't a god game, because god game IS a sub-genre for simulation game(see simulation game, wheter you like it or not. Gamespot didn't put it in god game category, because any one can register in there and tag any game they want and when you go see the page about the game it says "Spore is a simulation game created by Will Wright that allows players to control various life forms from the cellular to the galactic level." Phases 3 and 4 are mildly of goverment simulation game, which also is a sub-genre for simulation game. and again EA mantions it being a god game while mentioning also that it is of many other genres and EA says what wright says. Every other wikipedia calls it something else than god game(not sure about russia, greek or asian wikipedias). Again you say that Doom is a simulation game, that shows your inexperience with game genres. You say this ain't a matter of opinion and yet you spread your opinions over and over again. And lastly even I could make a game and name it's genre "Skele genre" even if it would fully reflect another genre from within it. Would you call it a "Skele genre" or would you call it that genre it really is? Skele (talk) 16:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

"Again you are saying something that everyone should follow. You're saying Spore should have not earned The Best Simulation Game award in 2005 and 2006." From the same people who called "Wii Sports" a strategy game?

Let's say that god game = simulation. You still haven't proven Spore is not a god game. (rolling eyes) Furthermore, you still haven't disproved Will Wright's statement that Spore is a god game. Nor EA. Nor the media. Your arguments are flat either way. And if you want to know what a simulation is, Falcon 4.0 is a flight simulation. Check every computer gaming magazine and developer from 1980 til present, the simulation genre is very specific. JAF1970 (talk) 18:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, you honestly believe Spore is a simulation (chuckle), you get your way, since calling it a god game in your eyes would be acknowledging it's a sim. So I don't know why you're upset. (laugh) Any way you want to tackle it - from YOUR perspective, from my perspectiive, from Will Wright's perspective, from everyone else's perspective, it's a god game, and the citations are there to prove it. Please, stop debating an undebatable point. You just seem to want to argue rather than debate, and are unwilling to accept the fact that even by your weird terms, Spore is a god game. Don't like it? WP:DISPUTE. JAF1970 (talk) 18:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

So you agree with me when I said you didn't want them to earn The Best Simulation Game award. OK, that's your opinion. I haven't said at any point that Spore is not a god game. The media's and EA's writings are based upon Will Wright's words. They do not think they just write. "From everyone else's perspective" now I should laugh. The citations again prove that Spore is more than a god game, but you wouldn't know that because you haven't read them. I debate and you argue. I have read the terms of debate and I am going according to them. Skele (talk) 20:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course it's "more" than a god game - it has RTS elements, etc. But it's a god game with extra elements (which are mentioned in Gameplay) Period. JAF1970 (talk) 22:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

So it's a simulation game. According to E3, according to the other Wikipedia's, according to Gamespot, according to some fansites, according to 30 900 articles from Google and according to(this I haven't mentioned yet) some of the EA sites. Skele (talk) 23:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok I never argued with you, all I stated were the facts that the game is not just a god game but it is more. And in my opinion it doesn't fit in that category because of all the different features. Calling it a god game is shorter and more descriptive then simulation but it is less specific at the same time. I never said it isn't a god game so stop being so defensive and getting heated and saying repeatedly "It is a god game" of course it is, but that’s not all it is. That’s like calling Grand Theft Auto IV an Action game when in fact it is labeled Action Adventure to be more specific, or getting away from games it’s like calling the new Movie Doomsday an Adventure movie when it is classified as Action/Adventure to be more specific. I think that to be specific you need more then just god game because it doesn't describe enough of Spore as a whole, and it would be ridiculous to state everything spore is, but since all the pieces that make up Spore are sub-categories of Simulation game then it would in fact be more accurate. And stop trying start something with people, I have read the articles and for this game god game is not specific enough to work as a whole. And don't get on to someone for making personal attacks when you expressly state that I have only made these 3 posts to try and discredit me. Just because I have chosen not to join until I found a subject I truly have a meaningful opinion on doesn't mean I don't know what I am talking about and is my own business and not yours. And before you start trying to argue again I have already stated that we should keep the info bar as is. So you are in fact arguing with someone who is telling you "You are right" but just adding that it isn't specific enough and should be noted which it already is. RaderZer0 (talk) 23:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I know you haven't argued with me and you aren't arguing with me right now, you are debating that's good. I am not making personal attacks JAF1970 is and he is getting on my nerve, that's why it might seem I'm making them. I neither said it's not a god game. I'm saying it would be better to mention Simulation game in the infobar and the god game in the gameplay section or somewhere else. When someone comes to see what genre is Spore they only read the infobar. They see "god game" and get the wrong idea of how wide it really is. That should be corrected by naming it a simulation game. Skele (talk) 12:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you have failed to provide any evidence supporting your claim - and I have. Your argument to my evidence is, "Will Wright is WRONG!!!! EA is WRONG!!!! The media is WRONG!!!! The fans are WRONG!!!" Don't like it? You can always apply for moderation at WP:DISPUTE. JAF1970 (talk) 16:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll say it again: "According to E3, according to the other Wikipedia's, according to Gamespot, according to some fansites, according to 30 900 articles from Google and according to(this I haven't mentioned yet) some of the EA sites.". Do you need need citations ok. http://www.google.fi/search?q=%22Spore%22%2B%22simulation+game%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=com.ubuntu:fi-FI:official&client=firefox-a http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/spore/index.html http://www.suomi.ea.com/spore/News.aspx http://www.electronicarts.se/spore/News.aspx http://www1.electronic-arts.de/games/12348,pc/ and lastly check the other language wikipedias. I think that will satisfy your thirst for now. Skele (talk) 20:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you mistook my last comment Skele, it was intended for JAF not you. Jaf your complete last statement was wrong, I'm so tired of you saying he has provided no evidence, when in fact he has cited as much as you, if he has failed to provide some then so have you. You both have cited different things to prove your claim and I'm tired of you ignoring them and not even commenting back to his proof. And what more you have also been filling both our mouths with your words; neither of us has said anyone is wrong besides you. The only one arguing to someone's evidence is you, all I or Skele has tried to do is debate, but all you have done is said "You are Wrong" or "You have failed" I have yet to see you actually make a comment to try and disprove one of Skele's citations, where as he has read yours and made statements (which is what debating is) all you are doing is arguing with him and me. Honestly we know your point of view and we have seen your citations, so I suggest if you want to debate give new evidence and make addresses to evidence others have given, or stop arguing because that’s all you have done for most of your recent comments and this is not the place for that. And if your next comment has something to do with, oh I don't know, "I'm right because it is what Will Wright said!" then don't bother it has already been written more then is necessary for a debate. In a debate you produce evidence and show purpose, you don't repeat your self again and again hoping by some miracle you convince someone this go around that wasn't convinced last round, all that does is show you have a lack of evidence to support your claim. RaderZer0 (talk) 01:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I mistook it. I'm also sorry. But back to Jaf's actions. Jaf, RaderZer0 is completely right. You need to start listening what other people have to say. If you keep going like this, you'll get yourself banned or even possibly kicked out of wikipedia and ofcourse none of us want that. So please, give some clear evidence of your statements and everyone else will give theirs and we'll see what happens after that. Skele (talk) 12:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm correct because it's what the citations and many others say. God game is the consensus around the world for the game, including its creator. And by the way, RaderZer0 is a strongly suspected sock puppet, since that "user" has made no contributions save this talk page. You have yet to prove your point. Do you need more god game references? Are you going to dispute, for instance, the memorable "The Long Zoom" article by the New York Times? Or Wright's many convention statements? I also have also spoken to Wright personally, and he unequivocably says it's a god game - but that's not usable since it's "personal research" according to Wiki. I'm a longtime veteran in the industry. Please. Stop it. I know what I'm talking about. I'm not going to say Wii Sports is a Strategy and a Simulation like another clueless company said. JAF1970 (talk) 16:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I ain't gonna say it either, because Wii Sports is a sports game that is propably the clearest definition for it. But back to now. You are questioning RaderZer0 in a way you shouldn't. Stop it. And even I have had enough about you saying "I have talked to Wright and he says it's a god game". You are repeating yourself like you should not do and that is not enough. You HAVEN'T given us clear evidence of a site that calls Spore ONLY a god game. And as I showed you back there with my citations that many people say it's more than a god game. So give us more citations and we will judge them, but if you don't then prove it with you words and experience that it is almost fully a god game and very little a simulation game. Skele (talk) 19:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Skele, and I appreciate it, and Jaf, the next time you want to make an accusation fess up and make it your self instead of saying "is a strongly suspected sock puppet", making it seem others think so when it is only you, and Jaf if you want to question me do it in another location other then here. Just because I happen to agree with some things Skele is saying and I like the way he debates doesn't mean I am any less of a real person with my own thoughts on the subject. And the truth is I also agree with some of what you are saying, just not all of it, but I don't agree with how you argue instead of debate. And I have already told you that I chose not to join until now, and that’s my business, we all got to start somewhere and I chose something I have a strong opinion on. And when I asked for evidence I didn’t mean a statement you "say" was given by Wright in a personal conversation, and I bet in that conversation, whether it be true or fiction, he probably also mentioned how different and various all of Spore is, which again is my whole point, Spore is to various to pin down with such a limited title. RaderZer0 (talk) 20:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Mutual Admiration Society aside, you're not exactly helping your case as being a sock puppet. You've contributed nothing to Wikipedia save this talk page, either as a sock puppet or a recruit. Take it up with WP:DISPUTE. JAF1970 (talk) 21:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Again you are going out of subject and insulting other people without a reason. Skele (talk) 22:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

More, Part II

From original Spore article, moved to Development of Spore:

“ At first glance, Spore is a teleological evolution game, or a god game. The player molds and guides a species across many generations, growing it from a single-celled organism into a more complex animal. Eventually, the species becomes sapient. The player then begins molding and guiding this species' society, developing it into a space-faring civilization, at which point they can explore the galaxy in a space ship. Spore's main innovation is the use of procedural generation for many of the components of the game, providing vast scope and open-endedness. ”

Maybe I should put it back. JAF1970 (talk) 21:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

PS. You still haven't proven it's

1. not a god game
2. it's a sim and not a strategy game in later phases

Until you do, you're just restating the same ideology. JAF1970 (talk) 21:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

You just showed it. It says "Spore is a teleological evolution game". Evolution game is a sub-genre for life simulation game, which then again is a sub-genre for simulation game. And again none of us has the goal to prove that Spore is not a god game. And none of us has said it's a strategy game in the later phases. Skele (talk) 22:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Teleological evolution is another way of saying intelligent design. Both terms are not mutually exclusive. Furthermore, that's muddying the waters. JAF1970 (talk) 02:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Dude if all you are going to do is insult those who try to voice an opinion against yours, then you really need some help. All it does is hurt your case if all you can do is try and discredit others instead of credit yourself. Ok back to topic, the quote you just produced put god game second, which is a serious hurt to your point not help. If the quote said god game or teleological evolution game then your cause would be more just, but instead god game came second which proves that’s not all this game is. And as an FYI restating ideology is the point of a debate, it helps to provide knowledge of where you stand while coming up with more ways to convince others to stand the same, restating the same facts is useless, might want to be more familiar with which is which. RaderZer0 (talk) 03:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Nobody's trying to prove it's not a god game, just that it's not only a god game, which we all know is the case. You yourself have used the rationale that it doesn't fall entirely within any of the other genres, JAF1970, while ignoring the fact that it doesn't fall entirely within the god game genre either. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 09:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Insult? What insult? I'm stating the facts quite plainly. Furthermore, I've supplied proof left and right from official sources, and I've made the concession of including the ELEMENTS of gameplay in Gameplay. JAF1970 (talk) 02:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

So I don't think the argument that "god-game" is a subset of "simulation game" has been adequately addressed. All that was said (unless I missed something) is the following: "It's not. That's a mistake that should be corrected. if you're going to tell me Populous is a simulation..." So, ok, I think a god-game would be a subset of management simulation (how it's listed on at Simulation game and Video game genres). And management sim is a subset of "simulation." So is the argument that god-game is not simulation game that it is a super-genre of it's own, or rather a sub-genre of something else? Or perhaps something else I haven't thought of? Nanobri (talk) 03:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Muddying the waters? So your saying that an official statement is wrong, am I correct? Skele (talk) 06:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, muddying the waters. I did a Google search for Spore and Strategy, and got 533,000. Spore is a STRATEGY GAME, according to you. RIGHT? Simulation can mean a LOT of things - by the way, so is spore. Reading some articles, they discussed actual spores and how they simulate various functions in the body, or are under the subject of PC simulation on how they work, etc. However, when you READ THE ARTICLES I put as citations, they clearly discuss Spore and its role as a god game, how Will Wright discussed it to them as "the ultimate god game", etc, etc, etc, etc. JAF1970 (talk) 16:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's call Tom Clancy's Endwar a "strategy game", too. That covers real-time strategies, right? JAF1970 (talk) 16:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Well yes it does but then again Tom Clancy's Endwar isn't any of the other sub-genres in stategy game except real-time strategy. So it's a real-time strategy. And again you are going out of subject. Skele (talk) 16:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes I have read the articles and I have seen that NONE of them say Spore is ONLY a god game. And your "Long Zoom" article that you have used as a citation doesn't say "god game" even once and it also says "As you begin playing Spore, you take on the role of a single-celled organism, swimming in a sea of nutrients and tiny predators.", you do not take the role of any higher power. And yes Spore has strategy game elements in it but they can be explained by naming spore a simulation game. Skele (talk) 16:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Locating Earth

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

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

more ports

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

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

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

Unprotected

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

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

Consensus

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

Consensus Can Change

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

...

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

(Emphasis added)

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

---

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

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

So I have two questions,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pardon me, but it appears you're being far more vocal than I am on this matter. And you haven't proven anything to me. The only way you can be said to have proven something to me is if I am conviced of it. And, by "the rest of the group," you really mean "you," right?

I think we're all capable of discussing this without needing moderation.

I don't agree that the issues are resolved. And how am I "campaigning?" I'm trying to facilitate reasonable discussion of the issue, as opposed to your unilateral declaration of "this is the way it is." And if you're going to accuse me of sockpuppetry, you'd better have some hard evidence to back that up (hint: there isn't any), as that's a serious accusation. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 17:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I notice you haven't debated my statements of fact, so I must assume you agree with my proving that they're spinoffs by your definition. JAF1970 (talk) 19:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

That would be a ridiculous assumption, considering I just asserted my disagreement. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 20:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Or, to put it another way, I noticed you haven't answered my question about whether The Sims 2 for consoles should be considered a spinoff of the PC version, so I must assume that you wouldn't, and therefore ask: what's the major difference between the two cases? Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 20:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Spore >< The Sims 2. That argument is baseless. Furthermore, you haven't addressed the vast amount of articles referring to Spore Creates and Spore Mobile as spinoffs. Including EA, Will Wright, fans, and the media.

Here's a phrase you need to learn to use: "You're right, I'm wrong." JAF1970 (talk) 23:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

But I have addressed that. You, however, haven't addressed my questions of: A) Why do you say that I am "campaigning"? B) Why are you accusing me of sockpuppetry? And It seems to me that you're the one with the right/wrong attitude, e.g., claim to have "proven" the correctness of your opinion, declaring issues "resolved," and particularly, "The problem here is Dansiman is refusing to admit he's wrong."

In fact, you seem to be taking a confrontational stance all over this talk page. Declaring a discussion "resolved" because a 24 hour timer has passed? That may be acceptable for a talk page with several dozen active participants, but there are only a handful here, including myself, who came across it after this had happened. I had only been looking at this article about once a month or so until recently, on account of the release date being so far off, and new information coming out about it rather gradually. You've verbally rolled your eyes at myself and Skele, whom you also laughed at; "Love that ego!" ... "Sillygostly just wants it HIS way because he "knows" he's right ... proper term, period." ... "Please, stop insisting you're right and everyone else is wrong." ... "You don't like them? Don't visit them." ... "PS. You're wrong." ... "Please, move on." etc., etc., etc. Dansiman (talk|Contribs)

Dansiman is correct that consensus can be changed. I noted here how to go about accomplishing that. --Yamla (talk) 16:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:DISPUTE. But the problem is that I've already proven on Danisman's own definition that it's a spinoff, in addition to EA clearly stating they are spinoffs, following the Wikipedia definition of spinoffs AND the popular definition of spinoffs. The problem here is Dansiman is refusing to admit he's wrong.

This is by definition troll behavior. JAF1970 (talk) 17:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I checked WP:TROLL and couldn't find "refusing to admit being wrong." (And no, that's not an admission of wrongness, though I expect if I hadn't said anything you'd have claimed it was.) However, I did find this:

Genuine dissent is not trolling. Biased editing, even if defended aggressively, is in itself not trolling.... They are only trolling when they are motivated by a program of malice rather than ignorance or bias.

Do you really seriously consider me a troll? Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 06:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't mind him. JAF1970 called me a troll due to the fact that I'm a "sunken chested Muslim". Sillygostly (talk) 06:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

You call yourself that on your user page, kid. JAF1970 (talk) 06:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Is that so? For starters, I didn't call myself a "troll", nor have I ever referred to myself as "sunken chested". Besides, how does my religion or physique have any bearing on my online contributions? And stop calling me "kid". Sillygostly (talk) 06:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not the only one. The fact is, you're ignoring everything said, dismissing evidence, and have been basically beligerent and unwilling to even concede the point that everyone else says the world is round while you're claiming it's flat. You've done nothing to prove you're even interested in discussion. I've already proved under your parameters that they're Spinoffs. You keep ignoring the fact that EA, Wright, media/press, fans, Wikipedia ALL state that these are spinoffs. EA even called them a spinoff in a press release. You've done nothing but glom up the talk page, which seems to have been your purpose in the first place. You even ignored an admin's directive: if you have problems with this, WP:DISPUTE. You have done no such thing. I suspect it's because you know that having someone moderate will end your argument rather quickly. Especially since it's such a small part of the article. Refusing an admin's directive is by definition troll behavior. JAF1970 (talk) 06:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Who else do you claim considers me a troll?

I haven't ignored anything.

I don't need to "prove" anything.

I definitely haven't been "beligerent."

I haven't claimed the world flat; in fact there are many screenshots illustrating the opposite :)

I haven't ignored or refused any admin directive, though I did point out one element of an admin's comment that differs from Wikipedia policy. By the way, admins don't have ultimate authority on Wikipedia. They aren't "above" other editors. They merely have been entrusted with certain tools that they have demonstrated the ability to use responsibly.

And if you're so convinced that moderation will solve this quickly, you're more than welcome to request it yourself. I haven't done it because I want to give other editors a chance to weigh in on the issue. But I think nobody's willing to contribute to the discussion anymore, because they know you'll have a colorful metaphor for everything. I notice you're the first to respond to almost every single comment by any other editor. The short list of quotes from you that I posted above illustrates what I believe are your efforts to discourage discussion. And you say I glom up the talk page?

Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 07:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

No, it is YOU who must request moderation, because it was resolved. If you want to prove otherwise, you have to go to WP:DISPUTE. End of story. And you STILL, STILL, STILL haven't acknowledged the other sources. (rolling eyes)JAF1970 (talk) 08:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I do apologize about that last part, I had written a comment that, among other things, addressed those sources but it was lost due to a browser malfunction. I tried to retype it from memory, but I guess I accidentally left that part of it out. And here I was thinking you just missed it, whoops! What I said, or intended to say and am saying now, is that it would help your case to add those sources to the article's References section. Again, sorry about that. (P.S. This comment was typed while you were editing, so I copied your signature from the following line, which I hadn't read before typing this post, to the above section, which I am responding to. I hope you don't mind.) Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 08:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

It would be nice if you put your comments in order, so this would make more chronological sense. Added citations. I can add more if needed. JAF1970 (talk) 14:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

It would be nice if you indented your comments appropriately so people can tell who's responding to what. I checked those citations. Yes, they do contain the language "spinoff," but it looks like it's the writers of the articles, and not the individuals being interviewed, who chose that word. You said you have a source with someone from EA calling it a spinoff? Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 15:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

All these reams and reams of irrelevent commentary by you, and you still have yet to acknowledge your arguments were countered.JAF1970 (talk) 08:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

You have yet to state I or these sources are wrong. Therefore, it must be correct, no? JAF1970 (talk) 08:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I really like your idea that if I'm not watching this page like a hawk and post a response within a certain timeframe, it means I agree with you. (laughs) Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 15:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, consensus is meaningless here. It's like voting where to drill an oil well, rather than consult geographical charts. EA calls them spinoffs. The press calls them spinoffs. Wright calls them spinoffs. Fans call them spinoffs. Wikipedia definition calls them spinoffs. Even your definition calls them spinoffs. This is a lot of wasted space on a settled issue; your only purpose seems to be to chat endlessly about how 2+2=5. JAF1970 (talk) 06:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's return to your insistance on what a spinoff is:

Some more for you.

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

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

”

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

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

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

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

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

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

They're spinoffs. By my, your, EA's AND Wikipedia's definition. JAF1970 (talk) 08:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Port/Spinoff/Other

I think at this point there is no true consensus on Port / Spinoff / Other versions, and that further discussion is needed on it. It seems to be the biggest sticking point for the article at this point, which is silly, as it appears to be such a minor issue.

However, we all really need to take a breather and remember Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Assume good faith here. People on both sides are coming across as extremely blunt, which could be interpreted as rudeness to some.

For the record, my opinion of the matter, not in this specific case but as a definition of the term, is that a Port is a transliteration(?) of a specific program to a different platform, for example, PC to MacOS, or PC to Console. This differs to a Spin-off, wherein what is essentially a different game is created using the same IP. I shall quote the entry to Porting and Spin-off_(media) here:

In computer science, porting is the process of adapting software so that an executable program can be created for a computing environment that is different from the one for which it was originally designed (e.g. different CPU, operating system, or third party library). The term is also used in a general way to refer to the changing of software/hardware to make them usable in different environments.

And:

Media spin-off is the process of deriving new radio or television programs from existing ones (see list of television spin-offs). Spin-offs work with varying degrees of success. Some become very popular and last for a number of seasons, whereas others exceed the popularity of the forebearing show and others are poorly received and have considerably shorter life spans.

In genre fiction, the term parallels the usage in television; it is usually meant to indicate a substantial change in narrative viewpoint and activity from that (previous) storyline based around the activities of the series' principal protagonist(s) and so is a shift to that action and overall narrative thread of some other protagonist(s), which now becomes the central or main thread (storyline) of the new sub-series. The new protagonist generally appears first as a minor or supporting character in the main story line within a given milieu, and it is very common for the previous protagonist to have a supporting or cameo role, at the least as a historical mention, in the new sub-series.

Spin-offs also occur in video games. For example, the Wario Land series began as a spin-off from the Super Mario Land series (Wario Land: Super Mario Land 3), which was itself a spin-off of the Super Mario Bros. video game series, which in turn was a spin-off from Donkey Kong.

For example, based on these definitions, the Mac version of Spore is a Port. The Wii version of Sims, MySims, is a Spinoff, as are the other console versions. (The Wii version is still up in the air, although given the history of Wii/DS and Gamecube/GBA games it's highly likely it will be an extended version of Spore Creatures for the DS.)

Personally, I prefer the term "Other versions" as they avoid the debate entirely, and that appears to be what other Wikipedia entries use. KiTA (talk) 17:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Except the Wii cannot be a port of Spore - they're building a new version from the ground up, based on the Spore concept, rather than game. By definition - a spinoff. JAF1970 (talk) 18:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, you make a compelling argument, JAF. Sillygostly (talk) 00:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, "version" is inaccurate, because that impies the same gameplay. The DS and mobile version have a specific beginning, middle and end, and feature online play. They use the Spore license but feature completely different gameplay. By definition, a spinoff, which EA, Wright, fans, press etc. use. JAF1970 (talk) 00:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, spinoffs is th best term to describe the other games. Fans call them spinoffs, Will Wright does, as well as online gaming forums/gaming newspapers like gamespot and gamespy. Pseudoserpent (talk) 00:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

(from the dictionary) Version - A particular form or variation of an earlier or original type; An adaptation of a work of art or literature into another medium or style. Based on this definition, I think I would disagree with using the term version. Similar to what JAF1970 said, I think it implies that the games have the same "spirit" but have some differences. In reality it seems to me like the games are quite different and wouldn't even be the same genre really. (The DS one seems more like a rpg almost.) I think in the text the word version can be used, i.e. "The DS version focuses solely on the creature phase and has more of a storyline." However, I think the heading itself should say "Spin-off". Nanobri (talk) 01:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

"version"... impies the same gameplay.

According to who? You? Version is a common term used in computing in order to differentiate between software that may share certain core elements (example, Windows Vista Home Edition and Windows Vista Ultimate would be considered different "versions" of the one product, similarly to how EA is treating Spore). Nobody has denied that the DS/Mobile versions will be completely different in terms of gameplay; of course they would be. I'm yet to see a single DS/PSP/Mobile/GBA game that is a perfect emulation of it's console/PC counterpart (as games on these platforms are more often than not completely overhauled in order to cater to the limitations of these less powerful systems), however that still doesn't make them spin-offs. MySims (The Sims), Mario (Donkey Kong), Kingdom Hearts (Final Fantasy & the Disney franchise) can all be considered spin-offs. Remind me what Spore is being spun off of again? Spore?

The DS and mobile version have...

Whoa, hold up. Even you've even referred to the DS/Mobile games as being different "versions". So remind me again why we're having this discussion. The term "version" is neutral, and applies within the context of the article (considering that the article is describing different versions of gaming software). The only thing that Spore *could* be considered a spin-off of is the Sim franchise (considering Will Wright's role in the project), which not even EA has acknowledged. Sillygostly (talk) 01:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

In reality it seems to me like the games are quite different and wouldn't even be the same genre really. (The DS one seems more like a rpg almost.)

The Sims 2 on consoles were exactly the same. The PC version was a "god game", the PS2/GC/Xbox versions were "Adventure" games, the PSP/DS/GBA versions were all "RPG" games and the Mobile version was similar to the "virtual pet" genre. However, they are all widely considered to be different "versions" of the one game. Sillygostly (talk) 01:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Spore >< The Sims. And you missed the point. As usual. EA, Wright, media, press, fans all call them spinoffs. Period. End of story. Debate over.

All of this AFTER the resolution - this isn't the 2000 Election and you're not going to pull out hanging chads. JAF1970 (talk) 01:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

"Spore >< The Sims?" Please explain. Sillygostly (talk) 01:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a mathematical symbol. Spore is not equal to The Sims. JAF1970 (talk) 01:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Is that the best you've got? I know the two games aren't "equal". But what exactly makes the DS/Mobile versions of Spore "spin-offs" and not the PS2/Xbox/GC/DS/GBA/PSP/Mobile versions of The Sims 2? Sillygostly (talk) 01:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you on "spin off" JAF, but I do think the discussion was closed prematurely so I'm glad we're talking about it now. Sillygostly, using your Sims 2 example, do you think it would be incorrect to use the label "spin off" for the different versions of the game that don't share the same genre as the original? I think spin off would fit there. If you disagree could you try to explain why you don't think "spin off" is appropriate? Nanobri (talk) 01:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Tell me what Spore is being spun off of. Spore? Yes, Spore could be considered a spin-off of the Sim franchise (SimCity, SimEarth etc.), but a different version of a game just that, a different version, not a spin-off. I understand that an appropriate terminology for this sort of cross-platform game is nonexistent, which is why I'm in favour of the term "version", as the article is describing different versions of software. In order for a game to be a spin-off, it needs to be spun-off of something. Sillygostly (talk) 01:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Spore is a franchise, according to EA (check Development of Spore for their statement) - they call it their biggest gamble. Spore Creatures is based on the Creature phase, expands it, adds RPG and multiplayer. Spore (mobile) takes the tide pool phase, and expands it with new gameplay and multiplayer. They're built from the ground up for different systems. Furthermore, EA, Wright, and the press all say these are spinoffs. And those two games are spun off of Spore. I don't understand your argument. Happy Days is spun off Love, American Style, and is based on a single episode. Mork and Mindy is based off a single episode of Happy Days. They're spinoffs. And for the umpteenth time, EA, Wright, the media, etc. all state (correctly) they are spinoffs. JAF1970 (talk) 01:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

"Tell me what Spore is being spun off of." Spore Creatures and Spore (mobile) are spun off the Spore PC game concept. :-p Now can you answer my question, because I really think it's the core of why we are disagreeing and I'd like to understand your PoV. Why don't you think the term "spin off" applies to the console versions of Sims 2? Nanobri (talk) 01:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

He's too busy posting on my User Talk page to reply to you. JAF1970 (talk) 02:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Nanobri, in response to your question about The Sims 2, I think "spinoff" would actually be more likely to apply to The Sims 2's console versions than to Spore's, because for Sims, the console version was released a full year later, rather than simultaneously, as in Spore's case.

On the other hand, by sharing the same title, I think that's a point in favor of "version" over "spinoff," because I don't know of any examples of an (undisputed) spinoff that has the same name as what it's spun off from. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 10:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you think the term "spin off" applies to the console versions of Sims 2?

That's what I've been asking JAF1970 this whole time. Sillygostly (talk) 02:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Why would I comment on an article I have not worked on, nor will work on? JAF1970 (talk) 03:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

That's not what we asked. Sillygostly (talk) 03:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I have little practical experience with the console versions of The Sims. There are others who are better equipped to debate it on the respective talk page. If EA says those are spinoffs - and I believe they do - then they are. My Sims is definitely a spinoff, tho. "1Up, An up-close look at EA's adorable new Sims spin-off." JAF1970 (talk) 03:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

"MySims is a spinoff of the popular Sims franchise that is heading to the Wii" "As you will no-doubt know heard by now, MySims is a spin-off of the life-simulating Sims franchise, made famous on PC." "Gamepro", etc, etc. JAF1970 (talk) 03:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I repeat my question from before: I checked [the citations you added to the article]. Yes, they do contain the language "spinoff," but it looks like it's the writers of the articles, and not the individuals being interviewed, who chose that word. You said you have a source with someone from EA calling [a version of Spore] a spinoff?" Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 19:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you check the interviews I posted with EA who specifically called it a spinoff, number one. Number 2, Wright and other EA people were talking about them as spinoffs during GDC '08. This is getting pretty old. I keep giving reams of evidence and you act like I just gave you a blank sheet of paper. What do you want me to do - contact Maxis, get Wright on the line, have him say they're spinoffs, then post it on a site? I will do that if necessary - I have the access. Of course, it would hurt me because it's frivolous to do that. It's like calling up Bill Gates to make a quote about a feature of Vista. JAF1970 (talk) 22:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you know what's really annoying? Sillygostly says, "EA doesn't count". You say "EA counts!" I post quotes. They're dismissed. This is SERIOUSLY going NOWHERE. The fact is, I did everything to prove they're spinoffs, and you just don't want to acknowledge it. JAF1970 (talk) 22:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I just checked, and can't seem to find the interview you're referring to. Where can I find this link? Maybe I'm just blind, perhaps you could provide that link here? Sorry if this annoys you, I just want to see this source. And could you maybe tone down the sarcasm a bit? Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 10:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I posted it back there, but here's a quick reference to the interview with EA (It's not the only one, just the one I can pull out fastest.):

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

I can supply others, but it's extremely late here and I need sleep.

And a big FYI - it's almost irrelevent. As I said, I posted tons of stuff stating it's a spinoff, from EA, from Wright, from the press, etc. Please, accept it's a spinoff. I'm tired of having to pull up article after article referring to these games as spinoffs. I already had to deal with Sillygostly claiming "no one" was using the term spin-off when everyone was using the term spin-off. JAF1970 (talk) 10:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, here's Buechner, and by the way, Sillygostly, here's where he says explicitly it's not a port:

“ Finally, Buechner confirmed that a Wii version of Spore is in the works at Maxis, but "it'll be some time". Asked if it would be close to the scope of the PC and Mac game, or a more limited spin-off like the DS version, he would only say, "We're not porting it over. You know, we're still so early in design and prototyping that I don't know where we're going to end up, so I don't want to lead you down one path. But suffice to say that it's being developed with the Wii controls and technology in mind." ”

So, this basically confirms that the Wii version is a spinoff - it's not a port of Spore, and it's being built from scratch. JAF1970 (talk) 10:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, yeah, I did read that article before, but it appears to be thestreet.com or possibly the article's author Priya Ganapati calling it a spinoff, rather than EA or Wright. As far as I can tell, all of the references you've given that say "spinoff" are the same case: the article's author uses the term, but not in a quotation. So I'll agree that the press calls it a spinoff, and you've said the fans call it a spinoff, which is fine, but as far as I can tell nobody in the development has actually used the term. That probably sounds nitpicky, but it's the difference between a primary and a secondary source, which is significant in an encyclopedia. And another point, which KiTA mentioned, is that other Wikipedia articles on video games use "Other Versions," and I think it's good to be consistent with them. I don't believe the word "version" is inaccurate, just less specific, but I don't believe it's as vague as you've asserted (you said something along the lines of "could mean anything"). That's why I think we should use "version." It's less contentious. Oh, and BTW, I agree with you 100% that they're not ports. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 10:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and thanks for being more civil. I really appreciate it. I'll admit I've lost my cool myself from time to time in this discussion, I just felt as if you were making it personal. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 10:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

"Less contentious"? That's not a reason to not call something by its accurate, correct term. I spoke to Wright personally, and he called it a spinoff (can't use - "original research"). The fact is every article about these games call them spinoffs. They don't call it "other version". The fact is this: they're not ports and have vastly different gameplay than the main game, but share the same licensing. By definition, that's a spinoff. I added those articles as citations to prove they're called spinoffs in the media. I can add a ton more, including more explicit articles with EA directly stating they're spinoffs, but am tired and I don't want to have a string of 100 numbers after it. JAF1970 (talk) 10:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

But you see, whether the term is accurate or not is exactly what is being contested! Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 22:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the citations answered that. JAF1970 (talk) 22:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I know you do. But I don't. The pooint is, several editors believe that spinoff is right, and several believe it's wrong. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 22:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Only 2 editors believe it is wrong. The others and, by the way, the rest of the world, say it's correct. Citations are there for a reason. I can add more if needed. If you still have problems, go to WP:DISPUTE. JAF1970 (talk) 23:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

"The rest of the world"? And you say I've got an ego! And just how many editors do you count as supporting spinoff? And I count 3 for "version." Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 23:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

"Version" is inaccurate. These games are not Spore - they use the license, that's it. And one of those people you claim wanted to call it a port. Furthermore, shall I post 30 articles all referring to them as spinoffs? JAF1970 (talk) 23:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

PS. "EA also hopes to release expansion packs, or add-ons to the existing game that could extend the story line, and spin off versions of Spore for mobile and casual games to attract more users and sustain the franchise." EA supplied the spinoff description to that. EA also calls it a franchise (see Development of Spore.) JAF1970 (talk) 10:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

One last note: if those two games had 5 phases and reasonably similar gameplay, but weren't ports, yes, they'd be other VERSIONS of Spore. But they are not Spore. JAF1970 (talk) 10:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
1. I've already shown a ton of articles that describe those games as spinoffs (of course, Skele refuses the validity of first hand evidence, since even Will Wright is mistaken about his own game according to Skele). 2. Danisman even admitted they are spinoffs, but doesn't want to call them that because they're somehow inflammatory. Who Danisman fears upsetting with the description, I don't know. But accuracy > safe nebulous descriptions, especially when the industry calls them as such. Or do I have to do the tedious work of showing more articles calling them spinoffs...? JAF1970 (talk) 05:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I haven't said anything about spinoffs versions or ports. So don't go saying that I have said something about them. Skele (talk) 18:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to you and your anti-god game position. JAF1970 (talk) 18:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Anti-god game? You really haven't listened to a single word I've said. I've said Spore is not only a god game but something more, specifically simulation game. Skele (talk) 20:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I never "admitted they are spinoffs," in fact I've been saying the opposite the whole time! You've said many times that I call them that, but in actuality it's just you. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 10:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Addendum

This discussion is not an "old, unupdated debate." It is an ongoing discussion, which I am taking a WP:BREAK from because it was getting too heated. We both need to give other editors a chance to weigh in rather than archiving it. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 00:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Funny, but you haven't answered any of my statements for days. JAF1970 (talk) 00:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Did you even read what I just posted? Dansiman (talk) 00:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

No, because you don't post at the bottom of the section. I'm not going to hunt for what you write. I've already proven my point with many articles I posted calling it a spinoff. And I can post dozens more if needed. JAF1970 (talk) 00:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[Slaps self on forehead] No, no, no, I'm talking about the post you just replied to.

↑         ←           This one. That's why I haven't answered any of your posts for days. Yeesh. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 01:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC) Now I'm going back to my wikibreak. Here's a suggestion I leave to you: If you're so sure you're right, and that everyone else backs you up, try not posting to this talk page for a week. If you're right, and everyone else really does back you, their posts will make that obvious. And, if not, it'll give them a chance to say so, without either of us jumping in after every post. I'm going to do exactly that, starting *right now*. In fact, I'm also not even going to look at this page for a week. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 01:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.113.145.116 (talk)

Um, what? JAF1970 (talk) 01:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I think he's trying to say that he thinks you are a vocal minority. Nanobri (talk) 02:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeap and I think your pretty much it. Skele (talk) 05:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Shall I post some MORE articles that state I'm correct? I'm not in the "minority" when you include the rest of the planet Earth. Unless you'd like to vote on whether the Earth is flat or round, too... JAF1970 (talk) 05:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeap you have an ego the size of the Earth. Skele (talk) 00:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Resorting to personal insults? JAF1970 (talk) 18:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm back, and yes, that's exactly my point. JAF1970 is, in my opinion, a vocal minority, and comes across as someone who wants to WP:OWN the article. But now that everyone's had time to cool off, perhaps we can all have a more reasonable discussion about the whole spinoff deal.

In particular, JAF1970, it would be very helpful if you could completely avoid using metaphor (such as comparing something to the shape of the earth) and exaggeration (for example, saying "the whole planet Earth" agrees with you) in your arguments. I'm not the first editor you've offended, but if you take a step back and read what you type before clicking Save a little more often, I could be the last. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 15:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand your being upset at "Spinoff" when it's the right term. You don't have a debate whether the Earth is round - just ask Copernicus. You say it's a "version" - what the hell does that mean? It's nondescriptive and misleading. I've already PROVEN by YOUR STANDARDS it is a spinoff, yet you don't listen.

Let me ask again - what would make you consider it a spinoff? You've already mentioned it - I've already told you - you haven't responded.

It's a spinoff. Why are you resisting it? "Minority"? Want me to bring in other Wikipedians to tell you it's a spinoff? JAF1970 (talk) 16:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

FURTHERMORE, I've provided EVIDENCE it's a spinoff, from external first party sources. Do you need me to bring in even MORE articles referring to Spore Creatures/Spore Mobile as spinoffs? Have you provided evidence supporting it's NOT a spinoff?

You have yet to support your point at all. Don't like it? WP:DISPUTE. I don't understand why you don't - because I will use it for moderation on the point. JAF1970 (talk) 16:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't have time right now to go into everything, but I'll respond to a couple of your points right now, and save the others for later.

"Version" - what the hell does that mean? Well you've called them "versions" too. I'm sure you don't need me to provide diffs where you've said things like "the Wii version" and "the DS version" so unless you often use words that you don't know the meaning of, I think you know exactly what version means, and you know that each platform has it's own version of the game, which are separate and different, and if you really thought the word "version" could not accurately describe them, you never would have used the word yourself.

What would make you consider it a spinoff? First of all, them, not it, because IIRC there are at least four versions, three of which are in question here. I would consider them spinoffs if development began on them only after the original product (PC Spore) was released and sold enough copies that then EA decided "Hey, this is doing really well, let's take this franchise in some other directions and see what happens" as opposed to all four being released simultaneously. All of the examples of other things which are undisputedly spinoffs had that in common: the spinoff came after the original product was not only released to the public, but also had an established track record of great success. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 16:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I already provided evidence that their development started long after Spore started in 2004 (the spinoffs began development in 2006). I've already shown how they differ. I've already showed them being referred to as spinoffs. Every single definition of "spinoff" you've given, I've answered, AND added external links. It's like you're still stating that man never walked on the moon after I've shown you photos, radio transmissions, etc of them doing so. Oh, and "spinoffs come out after the main product" - that's absolutely untrue.(In fact, once a spinoff came out BEFORE the main product.) Spinoffs come hand in hand with merchandising. EA knew Spore would be a smash hit, so they commissioned Maxis to hire additional developers to work on handheld versions. If Electronic Arts, Maxis, and press state unequivocably they're spinoffs as I do, why do you insist on otherwise?

However, the issue here is that you are providing your OWN definitions of "spinoff", and not the definition of spinoff. I've gone as far as to prove they're spinoffs by your own definitions, though your insistance that a spinoff can't come out on the same day as the main product is beyond wrong - it's insanely false. JAF1970 (talk) 16:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Already you return to using irrelevant metaphors. Please stop, that only clouds the real issues, which have absolutely nothing to do with man walking on the moon. Let's not use my definition. From Wiktionary: Spinoff: 1. Offshoot. 2. A television series where the protagonist was introduced on an earlier show. Emphasis on earlier. But that's about TV. So we have, from Wikipedia: Spin-off (media) Media spin-off is the process of deriving new radio or television programs from existing ones.... (emphasis added) In genre fiction, the term parallels the usage in television; it is usually meant to indicate a substantial change in narrative viewpoint and activity from that (previous) storyline based around the activities of the series' principal protagonist(s) and so is a shift to that action and overall narrative thread of some other protagonist(s), which now becomes the central or main thread (storyline) of the new sub-series. The new protagonist generally appears first as a minor or supporting character in the main story line within a given milieu, and it is very common for the previous protagonist to have a supporting or cameo role, at the least as a historical mention, in the new sub-series. In video games Spin-offs also occur in video games. For example, the Wario Land series began as a spin-off from the Super Mario Land series (Wario Land: Super Mario Land 3), which was itself a spin-off of the Super Mario Bros. video game series, which in turn was a spin-off from Donkey Kong. Viper Phase 1 began as a spin-off from the Raiden series. The Nina Williams game "Death by Degrees was a spin-off from the Tekken series. Freshly-Picked Tingle's Rosy Rupeeland and Tingle's Balloon Fight are spin-offs of The Legend of Zelda Series. The incredibly popular Kingdom Hearts series was a spin-off of Final Fantasy that combined Disney elements. Since a separate definition of spinoff is not given in the video game section, we must either adapt the lead paragraph's definition, or formulate a definition based on the video game examples (either of which might be considered OR, BTW). Now, you're right that development began later on the other platforms' versions than the PC's, however they are all scheduled to be released the same day. Furthermore, all the examples in Media spin-off were indeed produced later than their original counterparts, and they also feature a change in protagonist and viewpoint, as described under In genre fiction. In spore, the protagonist is different for every player, as each creature is custom-made, or one could say the protagonist is the same for every player in that it is always a player-created microorganism/creature/race/society/planet. The genre fiction definition also indicates that the plot itself occurs later on the in-universe timeline than the plot off from which it is spun, with the possible exception for a case where the plot involves time-travel. In cases where the events happen earlier and time travel is not involved, the preferred term is "prequel." Now that all this has been said, I have come to realize a new, perhaps more relevant point than all I've made previously, which is that the term "Spinoff" is perhaps not sufficiently well-defined in terms of video games for us to use it in this context. Version, however, is well-defined in broad enough terms that can easily include video games. From Wiktionary: Version: 1. A specific form or variation of something. 4. (computing): A number indicating which revision something is. (Software, firmware, CPUs, etc.) Well, definition 4 is obviously not what we're talking about here, but definition 1 certainly seems to apply, doesn't it? And we also have Variation: 3. (board games) a line of play that differs from the original I think we can safely apply that definition of variation to the context used in definition 1 of Version when referring to video games just as well as board games, can't we? Finally, other Wikipedia articles on video games use "versions." See, for example, Wheel of Fortune (video game), Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell (video game), Double Dragon (series), Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (video game), and many others. While I'm sure your next reply will be here within 15 minutes, I have some RL things to take care of, and I've already spent way too much time on this for today. So don't claim you've "won the argument" because I don't reply as quickly. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 18:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

How about we use the industry's definition, which is a lot more clear than Wikipedia's? And if you want, I can help out with the spinoff article and make sure it's as clear as the industry definition. Little hint: Wikipedia can be changed. The industry professionals? Not so much so. Someone can post that chocolate is made from sugar and honey on Wikipedia, too. It would be WRONG, but it's still there. Note: Wikipedia is not an infallible source of information. Please, don't have the tail wagging the dog. Wikipedia is supposed to adhere to real world concepts, not the other way around. I've already proven that the VG industry - and EA, and Wright - consider these games spinoffs. Sillygostly claimed that MySims wasn't a spinoff of The Sims, which is an outrageous statement since it's even more clear a spinoff. I've already catered to your parameters, except for the profoundly silly statement that a spinoff can't come out the same day. (Yes, it can, and has, many times.) JAF1970 (talk) 16:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

So, wait, you can use Wikiepedia's definition of god game to support your arguments about that issue, but I can't use Wikipedia's definition of spinoff to support my arguments about this issue? Talk about double standards. And if you edit the spinoff article now, you risk violating WP:POINT. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 11:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the Wiki definiition of god game is flawed, too. That article needs some touch ups. But Spore is a god game. JAF1970 (talk) 02:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Sillygostly claimed that MySims wasn't a spinoff of The Sims, which is an outrageous statement since it's even more clear a spinoff.

Excuse me? I've pointed out on numerous occassions that MySims is a spin-off of The Sims. As if it wasn't bad enough that you accused me of sockpuppetry, now you're blatantly making false claims on my behalf too? Sillygostly (talk) 05:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed solution

You're right that Spore is a god game. But I think some of the other editors are right that Spore is a simulation game, too. I agree with the assessment that "god game" is a sub-genre of "simulation." I think on both of these two issues that we need to stop arguing about what is "right" or "wrong" and instead focus on what is best for the article. As far as the genre issue, I think that either "god game" or "simulation" or even both would be acceptable for the infobox. Neither is wrong. As to "spinoff" vs. "version," I believe "spinoff" is a slightly inaccurate term, given that A) they're all being released the same day, and B) at least for the Wii version, we don't really know that it will be any different from the PC version; there's simply not enough information about it yet. I believe "version" does accurately describe all incarnations of the game. How about this for a compromise:

Other Versions On the same day as the PC version, Spore is also being released for the Nintendo DS and mobile phones, which includes the iPhone. Each focuses on a single phase of gameplay, and, unlike the PC game, features direct online multiplayer. Spore will also be simultaneously released on the Wii. “ Add a direct quote here from one of those articles, containing the word "spinoff." ” Spore Creatures Main article: Spore Creatures The Nintendo DS version is titled Spore Creatures, focusing on the Creature phase. The game will be a 2D story-based roleplaying game as the gamer plays a creature kidnapped by a UFO and forced to survive in a strange world, with elements of Nintendogs.[38] Spore Mobile Main article: Spore (mobile) The mobile phone/iPhone[39] version of Spore, as with the Nintendo DS version, will focus on a single phase of gameplay; in this case, the tide pool phase. The simplified game will allow players to try to survive as a multicellular organism in a tide pool, similar to flOw.[40] The iPhone version takes advantage of the device's touch capabilities and 3-axis accelerometer.[41] Wii A Wii version of the game has been mentioned by Will Wright several times, such as in his October 26, 2007 interview with the Guardian.[42] Buechner confirmed it, revealing that plans for the Wii were underway, and that the game would be built from the ground up and would take advantage of the Wii Remote, stating, "We're not porting it over. You know, we're still so early in design and prototyping that I don't know where we're going to end up, so I don't want to lead you down one path. But suffice to say that it's being developed with the Wii controls and technology in mind."[37]

Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 15:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, "versioins" is vague and undescriptive. You continue to ignore the articles showing EA and other industry professions calling them SPINOFFS. Why? JAF1970 (talk) 05:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

See definition of "Version" above. Seems pretty clear to me. And it's good enough for dozens (if not hundreds) of other Wikipedia articles on video games, so why not this one? And I'm not "ignoring" those articles, notice how I suggested including a {{cquote}}? I went ahead and moved it into the example itself to make that more apparent. I'd like to hear what other editors have to say about this proposal, too. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 07:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Once again, the real world definition of spinoff > Wikipedia definition of spinoff. You're letting the tail wag the dog. JAF1970 (talk) 14:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Hard evidence

I've come up with hard evidence that the game is primarily a god game, and that the industry (EA, Wright, press & media, fans) acknowledge the spinoffs as spinoffs. I've done my argument, especially since I've written for Computer Games Magazine and other publications in the past two decades, I have a fairly good grasp of the industry terminology. I have yet to see any compelling proof against them save ideological opinions.

If you have issues with this, once more: WP:DISPUTE. JAF1970 (talk) 05:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Well you fully havent't read even your own citations. Because even the articles that you citate say that Spore isn't only a god game and doesn't have only the aspects of god game. Skele (talk) 11:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I haven't fully read my own citations... like when in the article's header it says "WILL WRIGHT'S NEW GOD GAME"? Or when it says smack in the article about how it's a god game, etc? Samples from above: Spore Could Be the Greatest God Game Ever, Inquirer, Hands-On with Will Wright's "Spore", BusinessWeek, Game Master, The New Yorker, GameSpot's "god game" metatag, St. Louis Today, etc, etc, etc. JAF1970 (talk) 15:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

That's what I mean, you only read the header you don't read the contents. "Eventually, players are able to take their evolved creatures into space."(Evolved) and "Fans, meanwhile, refer to Spore as the "God game" or "Sim Everything"(Sim Everything refering to simulation game genre) -hands-on Will Wright's "Spore"-. In the newyorker article they say that Civilization is a god game(that's very interesting). OH this you didn't check at all "Spore is a simulation game created by Will Wright that allows players to control various life forms from the cellular to the galactic level."-gamespot-. And in the stltoday article they say your God himself, which you said before has nothing to do with Spore. Skele (talk) 15:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

All of them, all of them, talk about Spore being a "god game", using the reference a few times. Please read them yourself. (laughing) JAF1970 (talk) 18:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I read them. Did you? Laughing doesn't help. You should find better citations. Those really aren't good enough. And what about the "etc.etc.", show them if you have them, but remember to read them before you show them. Skele (talk) 19:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

"Results 1 - 10 of about 13,900 for Spore "god game". (0.34 seconds)" Is 13,900 articles enough? JAF1970 (talk) 02:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

You really don't know how google works or you haven't listened to me. Read the 13,900 articles and pick those articles that say it is only a god game. And yeah mostly that search includes forum sites where people debate about it being a god game. Skele (talk) 10:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I know how Google works. But you demanded more. I posted 10 articles that specifically refer to Spore as a god game, or in the case of GameSpot, categorize it as one. However, apparently, 10 isn't enough proof for you. How many would be proof? 30? 100? 1000? (rolling eyes) JAF1970 (talk) 18:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Posted 10 articles. Where? You showed me only 4 or 5 and I already answered to them. Or should I start showing articles to you that say Spore is more than a god game? Skele (talk) 21:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

10. Check the archives, too. And earlier in this post. And you once again avoid the question: how many makes it official? 5? 10? 20? 100? 1000? 15,900? You're not willing to acknowledge any of them as valid, therefore, your argument is baseless. JAF1970 (talk) 21:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I said I need more and you don't seem to notice that "Spore"+"Simulation Game" got twice the number of articles on google than Spore god game. That is 30 400 articles. Skele (talk) 22:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and? You can say "simulation" in an article and not be calling it the simulation genre. You can't refute god game because there's only one way to take that.

In addition, you say "simulation", which is a vague category. Apparently, you've dropped "life simulation". You keep changing your mind. First you say it's not a god game. Then you say it is. Then you say it isn't. It's a god game, pure and simple, wiith life simulation and RTS elements in various phases. JAF1970 (talk) 05:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, GameSpot and other publications have it under the god game category. Major publications such as the New York Times, The New Yorker, etc call it a "god game". All of them call it "The Ultimate God Game", or "Will Wright's Ambitious God Game", etc. Do any of those articles call it "Will Wright's Simulation Game"? JAF1970 (talk) 05:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been changing my POV. I said in the start that it has god game aspects in it, remember? No I haven't dropped the life sim because it is a sub-genre to simulation game. And as I stated before GameSpot doesn't call it a god game. GameSpot calls it a simulation game. "The Long Zoom" article doesn't say anything about it being a god game, but it says "As you begin playing Spore, you take on the role of a single-celled organism, swimming in a sea of nutrients and tiny predators.", not the role of any superior intelligence. And I've already checked those other articles and none of them say it's ONLY a god game. Skele (talk) 07:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the only true category would be 'spore like game' (laugh). But seriously, most people say it is a god game, but it is also a life simulator. Since you are not really controlling more creatures until tribal phase, and only control a single creature until then, I believe it is right to put for the genre: "God Game/Life Simulator" Pseudoserpent (talk) 07:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

BTW, it says Genre(s) for a reason... Pseudoserpent (talk) 07:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

BTW, it's as much a real-time strategy as it is a life simulation, since you only do life sim in 2 phases, and RTS in 3 phases. There's zero "life sim" in the other phases. It's economic sim, traditional civ-styled RTS, and grand tactical strategy game in the other phases. The life sim and strategic genres are mentioned as secondary genres in the Gameplay section, and the game never stops being a god game. JAF1970 (talk) 20:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

And yet again "Biological simulations may allow the player to expermient with genetics, survival or ecosystems, often in the form of an educational package." "Biological simulation" is a sub-genre for "life sim". This means that phase 5 has "life sim" in it. And ofcourse phases 1 and 2 have as much of "god game" in them as any other game. Skele (talk) 22:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

JAF1970, have you even read my post?? I said IT IS a god game. But the game is a life simulator too. Why should it be only a god game? Pseudoserpent (talk) 00:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Because that's not even 50% of the game. It's more real time strategy than life sim. Those are minor elements to the game. The aspects of life simulation and RTS are mentioned. But you can't post god game / life sim / real-time strategy / economic simulation / grand strategy game / etc. in the infobox. I don't understand what the complaints are - the minor life sim and RTS elements are acknowledged - but the game only uses those as elements, not as gameplay. After the creature phase, the game ceases to be a life sim. JAF1970 (talk) 02:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Release Date

Shouldn't we put the release date on this article, i read on their site that it will be sometime in September 2008

Sign your post with 4 ~, and the release date is right there in the infobox. I see what you mean, though, so I put the release date in the usual spot in/near the intro para. JAF1970 (talk) 01:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Tide pool phase

So in the second paragraph of the tide pool phase it says: "As the microbe gets larger, objects that are in the background move to the foreground, resulting in Will's microbe being eaten by a much more massive microbe which had previously been swimming in the background." Is there a reason for a direct reference to "Will's microbe" here? I think the sentence should be rewritten so that it speaks more generally instead of using specifics from some unmentioned demo. Or if nothing else, the demo event should be mentioned so we know why we're talking about "Will's microbe" instead of microbes in the tide pool phase in general. Perhaps this would work: As the microbe gets larger, objects that are in the background move to the foreground, which can result in one's microbe being eaten by a much more massive microbe that had previously been swimming in the background. If no one seems to care I'll go ahead and change that tomorrow. Nanobri (talk) 07:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead and make the change. JAF1970 (talk) 07:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

iPhone version

...is exactly like the mobile phone version. Merged. JAF1970 (talk) 19:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It says under "platforms" that the iPhone version is the full version??? This has to be wrong. Nanobri (talk) 02:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Tremendously wrong. Same 18 level game as the normal mobile phone version. Removed. JAF1970 (talk) 02:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

So, it makes sense that iSpore would be the same as Spore mobile, but has anyone actually said this or is that just based on the screen shots from the cited reference? Nanobri (talk) 02:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The features of the iPhone version are the same (18 stages, etc, etc.) JAF1970 (talk) 02:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Right, but where are you getting this info from? I didn't see it in the source. Nanobri (talk) 02:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Arstechnica article. The Kotaku report is completely wrong. (laugh)

“ We have all 18 levels up and running, a full editor

-Spore for iPhone has "evolution editor" that lets user add all sorts of things to personalize a spore "takes advantage of touchscreen fun" -"Given that we only had 2 weeks, we wanted to take advantage of all the different features" -created Spore

”

JAF1970 (talk) 02:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, perhaps this article should be the one listed as the reference then. (Though it's obnoxiously hard to read, so I dunno) Nanobri (talk) 02:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, it is already there, I just missed it I guess. Nanobri (talk) 02:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe somwhere actually said that it was full. I'll post it later. 68.10.120.201 (talk) 17:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)Amohield

It's not. Kotaku misreported it. There's 18 levels, first phase, etc. If you believe the iPhone can handle the full game - and has a hard drive to run it.... (laugh) JAF1970 (talk) 17:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Release date

Anyone know when Spore comes out for the rest of the world? =D - 125.255.29.130 (talk) 23:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Well the European and the North American times are mentioned in the article, but if you want to know some other places you should visit a local internet game shop. Skele (talk) 12:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Oi, stop changing it, people! It clearly says worldwide in this, it doesn't just say it comes out for North America. So stop changing it! >=( - 125.255.29.130 (talk) 02:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it says so. BUT games are normally released around the world at the same time as America. That means most WP game articles use NA as Worldwide. PS: It would be good for you to register (if you want to contribute) ;) Pseudoserpent (talk) 03:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmmms, I suppose it makes sense. I might join in the future, but it depends. =/ - 125.255.29.130 (talk) 05:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Creature editor

Creature Editor demo item added. JAF1970 (talk) 21:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikia link

Am I missing something, or is there a reason people are removing the link to the Spore Wiki at Wikia? KiTA (talk) 20:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

For some reason, the anon posted his/her reasoning at Talk:Spore (video game)/External Link Discussions and Disputes‎. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 20:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)