The Official Spore Thread


Recommended Posts

I don't think that's a good enough excuse. That video is 3 years old, so running on high end hardware from back then, which is maybe mid-low end now. It runs fine on my middling system (C2D oc'ed 2.4GHz, 4GB ram, 8600GT @ 1920x1200, Vista Ultimate x64), so most systems from the last 2 years should be more than adequate I reckon.

I think like others have said, it got 'dumbed down'. Great shame as that demo looked superb.

Here's hoping for Spore 2.

It was said a while ago that Spore would run on the same as Sims 2. Which makes perfect sense and you can tell the engine is essentially the same.

The Sims 3 looks to be a new engine and appears similar to the original Spore demo in respect to everything "flowing" better as well as the graphics. So it makes sense to me that a "Spore 2" may come in the future using that engine. Hopefully not too far away because it looked very, very good.

Additionally, maybe they wanted Spore on as many PCs as possible the first time, in order to get everyone "on board" before pushing forward? Kind of like how Sims 1 was in 2D.

My system is considerably less than that and I wouldn't even consider mine "mass market for families".

Edited by Fourjays
So far, after playing up to the Tribal stage, I'm a little disappointed in the fact that you really spend no time in the first 2 stages at all.

I have to echo these thoughts. It just felt so quick. The only stage with any apparent depth is the space part. However that's from one extreme to the other. All the micromanagement bored me almost straight away.

Its a good game, but I think its a distraction. Its far from game of the year.

Got Spore at the weekend, and played with it for a few hours. Loved the first two parts of the game, great fun. The third part was basically a re-hash of the original Warcraft (NOT WoW) from 10+ years ago and started to lose me. Pretty much hated fourth part as there is no real instruction on what your doing at the start (i.e. the vehicle you have to design, you're given no idea what it's for until AFTER you've designed it). I've played about 30 minutes of the space section, and it just seems like pure tedium. Having read through some posts on the official Spore forum and what people are complaining about there (pirate attacks, crumbling eco-systems etc, and you having to single handedly fix everything immediately) I doubt I'll enjoy this part either.

I've also just watched the 2005 presentation by Will Wright on YouTube and I can't believe that the game demoed 3 years ago is related to whats just released. That game had so much more depth, and a much greater sense of exploration and an evolutionary 'sand-box'. I want that game. PLEASE!

This reminds me of something. Swap out Spore and replace with Project Ego/Fable. I was going to grab this today, but this sentiment seems to be pretty common...I may be rethinking.

You know I've got to agree with the quote in the above post. I too remember seeing that demo (or one of...) and wow, I was just so amazed by it. It really looked like it had a lot more depth. I was thinking about it today, and it would be a MUCH more amazing game if it actually had some online game play, and it would definitely add a lot more replayability (is that even a word) to the game. I mean, how much fun would it be to team up with 2 or 3 other friends, and play against other people all over the world. I have no idea why they didn't add such functions to the game.

I mean, sure it's fun for the first maybe 2-3 times you run through all the stages, but with no social interaction between live people, it can get rather boring...

I feel like this game needs to be put back into the oven and cooked for another year unfortunately. This game had so much potential, but not enough follow through which is too bad...

Oh well, at least it came with an awesome art book!

I think the problem with Spore is that they've been unable to decide how to make it "playable" and "accessible" while applying it to evolution. The mechanics behind are brilliant and what I saw of that video looked to me more a "sandbox" then a game.

I'll try and use the Sims to explain - in the Sims you have your neighbourhood, in the neighbourhood are families and in the families are Sims. The neighbourhoods are totally separate, but the families within the neighbourhood are separate until you make them interact. Likewise, while the Sims are grouped in families, they are indeed individuals. You can play as one family, or another. You are fairly free to be who you want, when you want and they constantly age. As the family grows old, you start playing as the one that was just a baby at the start. In that way it is a continuous game - it won't end until you want it too. Alongside this, you have a sort of mini-game - fulfilling their needs and aspirations.

In comparison, in Spore the neighbourhoods are the galaxies. The family is the planet and the Sims are your creature. The problem being that unlike the Sims you can't switch from one planet to another, or from one creature to another. You are stuck with what you start with and therefore it has to come to an end. Not a big problem in itself - many games have a start and an end. The problem is that the gameplay is still designed for a continuous game like the Sims, and it just doesn't suit a start and end game.

It's like they've tried to merge the clever mechanics they've made, with the simple short-term gameplay of the Sims and the style of an RTS.

I hope that sort of makes sense, struggling to explain what I'm feeling about Spore.

I think the problem with Spore is that they've been unable to decide how to make it "playable" and "accessible" while applying it to evolution. The mechanics behind are brilliant and what I saw of that video looked to me more a "sandbox" then a game.

I'll try and use the Sims to explain - in the Sims you have your neighbourhood, in the neighbourhood are families and in the families are Sims. The neighbourhoods are totally separate, but the families within the neighbourhood are separate until you make them interact. Likewise, while the Sims are grouped in families, they are indeed individuals. You can play as one family, or another. You are fairly free to be who you want, when you want and they constantly age. As the family grows old, you start playing as the one that was just a baby at the start. In that way it is a continuous game - it won't end until you want it too. Alongside this, you have a sort of mini-game - fulfilling their needs and aspirations.

In comparison, in Spore the neighbourhoods are the galaxies. The family is the planet and the Sims are your creature. The problem being that unlike the Sims you can't switch from one planet to another, or from one creature to another. You are stuck with what you start with and therefore it has to come to an end. Not a big problem in itself - many games have a start and an end. The problem is that the gameplay is still designed for a continuous game like the Sims, and it just doesn't suit a start and end game.

It's like they've tried to merge the clever mechanics they've made, with the simple short-term gameplay of the Sims and the style of an RTS.

I hope that sort of makes sense, struggling to explain what I'm feeling about Spore.

Thats a good explanation from what Ive heard. I'm still on the fence...seems innovative, yet I see myself burning out on it very quickly. The demo of the creature creation is very addictive, I tend to loose myself in that alone.

Thats a good explanation from what Ive heard. I'm still on the fence...seems innovative, yet I see myself burning out on it very quickly. The demo of the creature creation is very addictive, I tend to loose myself in that alone.

I stopped playing the Creature Creator within a day, got boring fast. Though this full game has more to it, I will probably finish it in a couple days. Will I go through another round, not sure.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • My father still uses a programme written in dbase3. Still manages to work with a little help from dosbox. 
    • Microsoft hides these secret Windows 11 performance boost settings available on every PC by Sayan Sen Windows enthusiasts often look for ways to extract as much performance out of their systems as possible, and it's often the case that they try and do so while trying to minimize the heat and power consumption. This is especially relevant in the case of mobile Windows PCs since laptops and notebooks tend to get hot and management of that heat and power is harder in such a form factor. As such users often turn to techniques like under-volting which can be used to squeeze out the maximum capabilities of a chip while also maintaining lowered power levels. There are official apps from AMD and Intel with the likes of Ryzen Master and XTU (Extreme Tuning Utility). While these are quite handy, most enthusiasts probably prefer to dig into the BIOS and play around with settings there like Curve Optimizer on Ryzen, which lets users set various frequency-voltage scaling values. These are essentially called P-States. If you are not familiar with them, Processor Power Management is done through Advanced Configuration and Power Interface (ACPI) P-states and C-states. While P-states or performance pwoer states handle CPU voltage-frequency scaling, C-states deal with CPU sleep states so that some of the CPU functions, which are not necessary at that moment, can be disabled. The P-states and C-states work together to make the processor run more efficiently. It helps the OS and apps determine which cores can be parked and which should be boosted. Of course not every user is an enthusiast or knows the technicalities and integrities of how things like overclocking or undervolting work. Thankfully for them Windows itself offers something pretty cool, though it is hidden by default on all systems. By default, Windows only has two P-States, "Minimum Processor State" and "Maximum Processor State." However, this can be changed with a Registry trick to expand the options under a secret "Processor performance boost mode" dropdown. This essentially enables the HWP or hardware P-States available on a device, and these are not controlled just by the OS itself as the underlying hardware gets involved too. In total there are five Processor Performance Boost Mode profiles that control how Windows requests and allows CPU turbo/boost behavior under the different power policies. They are: Disabled: In this mode, processor boosting is effectively turned off. The CPU will avoid entering turbo or boost frequencies and instead operate closer to its base frequency ceiling. This can significantly reduce power consumption and heat output, but at the cost of reduced burst performance and responsiveness in short workloads. Enabled: This is the standard behavior where boost functionality is allowed under normal conditions. The processor can opportunistically increase frequency when workload demands it, balancing performance gains with power and thermal constraints as managed by the system. Aggressive: Aggressive mode favors performance more heavily, allowing the CPU to enter higher boost states more readily and sustain them longer. This should in theory improve responsiveness under bursty or heavy workloads but increases power draw and thermal output compared to the default enabled behavior. Efficient Enabled: This mode still allows boosting, but with a stronger bias toward energy efficiency. The system attempts to use boost more selectively, avoiding unnecessary frequency spikes when the performance gain is marginal. Efficient Aggressive: This is a hybrid approach where boost is still performance-responsive, but the system continuously weighs efficiency more heavily than in Aggressive mode. It aims to deliver noticeable performance improvements while reducing wasted power in less demanding scenarios. Here's how to enable the Processor performance boost mode: Open Registry Editor: Press Win+R, type regedit, and click OK. Go to: HKLM\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Power\PowerSettings\54533251-82be-4824-96c1-47b60b740d00\be337238-0d82-4146-a960-4f3749d470c7 (where HKLM stands for HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE_) Modify the value of Attributes from 1 to 2 (you can find modify option by right-clicking) After that, exit Registry, you should now be able to see the new "Processor performance boost mode" dropdown menu: As you can see there are now five new P-States or CPPC states or power profile available that help define the boost mode processor setting on your PC. Wrapping it up here's a quick run-down of the settings as defined by Microsoft itself. Setting Description Disabled The corresponding P-state-based behaviour is disabled. Collaborative Processor Performance Control (CPPC) behaviour is disabled. Enabled The corresponding P-state-based behaviour is enabled. CPPC behaviour is Efficient Enabled. Aggressive The corresponding P-state-based behaviour is enabled. CPPC behaviour is Aggressive. Efficient Enabled The corresponding P-state-based behaviour is Efficient. CPPC behaviour is Efficient Enabled. Efficient Aggressive The corresponding P-state-based behaviour is Efficient. CPPC behaviour is Aggressive. Aggressive At Guaranteed Windows calculates the desired extra performance above the guaranteed performance level, and asks the processor to deliver that specific performance level. Efficient Aggressive At Guaranteed Windows always asks the processor to deliver the highest possible performance above the guaranteed performance level. In the next part we shall be comparing these settings to explore how much of a benefit or regression they can provide in terms of performance and power efficiency. If you decide to change the values on your system and are experiencing problems like crashes or an overheating PC, make sure to revert the steps back to the original state.
    • I think he means you haven't reviewed previous UFC games. Of course it doesn't matter... Every time you just report on something that involves the President even if just simply what happened you guys usually get accused of being anti-Trump. We live in fun times.
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Month Later
      Leroy Jethro Gibbs earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Conversation Starter
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • One Month Later
      AndreaB earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Month Later
      agatameier earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      agatameier earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      518
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      198
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      147
    4. 4
      ATLien_0
      93
    5. 5
      Steven P.
      77
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!