#059 GAD BA6: Game Studies Part 2

Spore:
Starting off with Spore, a game where players essentially take the god roll over a fiction species that they create themselves. I've never actually played spore, only seen reviews and clips of it on youtube, so I am actually kind of interested in researching the game. Below is a trailer for the game.

Spore allows the player to develop a species from a microscopic organism to its evolution into a complex animal, its emergence as a social, intelligent being, to its mastery of the planet and then finally to its ascension into space, where it interacts with alien species across the galaxy. Throughout the game, the player's perspective and species change dramatically.

The game is broken up into distinct yet consistent, dependent "phases". The outcome of one phase affects the initial conditions and leveling facing the player in the next. Each phase exhibits its own style of play, and has been described by the developers as ten times more complicated than its preceding phase. While players are able to spend as much time as they would want in each, it is possible to accelerate or skip phases altogether. Some phases feature optional missions; when the player completes a mission, they are granted a bonus, such as a new ability or money. If all of a player's creations are completely destroyed at some point, the species will be respawned at its nearest colony or at the beginning of the phase.

How do the rules and conditions of the game create conflict?

Without actually playing the game, I am having to go off of reviews and youtube videos, but even then I can get a fairly good idea. There are two things I've noticed, one leading on from the other. First of all, the player must choose between creating a carnivore or herbivore species. From trailers and in-game footage, the carnivores have essentially been portrayed as the more brutal and evil species, while the herbivores are almost docile and pleasant. Another point leading on from the carnivore vs herbivore is that as a carnivore you are encouraged to eat other cells of your size or food that is relatable to you with the benefit of developing your species further, the conflict being that you can also be eaten by bigger cells, creating a conflict with yourself.

Are players struggling against each other, the game or both?

There are 5 stages in spore, each stage presenting a different type of experience with different goals to obtain. The five stages are the Cell stage, the Creature stage, the Tribal stage, the Civilization stage, and the Space stage. In order to advance to the next stage of the game, players must complete the objective for each stage. Once completed, the player has the option to advance to the next stage, or to continue playing. The first 4 stages are essentially a single player game, but later on when your creatures evolve to the last stage ( Space stage), players can begin to interact with each other. Players cannot attack each other, of hinder each others progress, instead each of the planets explored (which do actually belong to players) are populated with a random range of species and structures.

So do players struggle against each other? No, the players can't actually "win" or "lose" to another player, as they are essentially isolated in game. Do players struggles against the game? Yes, the content and mechanics behind the game are all directed at a player vs enviroment style. Conclusively, the player is struggling against the game.

What are the interactive experiences provided for players in the game?

From the beginning of the game, players are greeted with a in-depth species creator. Spore offers players millions of combinations, providing a large amount of customization. The god element of the game portrays a high degree of interactive experience, which being the main mechanic of the game, almost suggests that the entire game is a interactive experience.

Then when we look inside the game, we find much more interactive experiences. Experiences such as communicating or engaging in conflict, gathering resources from plants, ground etc and being able to control either one or many of the player's creatures in the real time strategy mode as well as expanding your territory further.

Does interaction create meaningful play?

Spore revolves around creating and developing your own species, so there will always be some slight player attachment to their own species. Players want their species to develop and strive, to turn in to something impressive that they can be proud of. The games interaction also creates meaningful play, all of the gameplay is a conflict between the player and the game environment. The interaction shows how animals in the real world have to protect themselves by defending from other animals or species, expand their territory by killing other species as well as gain access to resources such as water or food, which is something that we see in nature.

What does the game look like?
As the player develops their species, the aesthetics of the game develop too. The style stays consistent though, a sort of bright and vibrant cartoon meets realistic. The level of detail on the creatures is significantly higher than the environment, as the focus of the game is on the creatures.

Cell Stage.

Creature Stage.

Tribal Stage.

Civilizations Stage.

Space Stage.

What are the possible visual influences and intertextual references?
Being made by Maxis, you can sort of see the link to the Sim's. A computer generated simulation of an entire world, taking visual marks and UI layouts from the Sims. There is also some similarities in style between Spore and  games such as Runescape (new edition) and World of Warcraft, especially in the visual style. The buildings in the tribal and civilization stage could easily fit in to the world of Azeroth (World of Warcraft planet name). Even the fighting mechanics and the 3rd person view when moving and in combat are similar, the camera spinning around from a zoomable height.

Consider the game in terms of context, origin, year of manufacture, company, target audience, does the game contain any persuasive purpose, what would make the game more effective and what potentials does the game point to?
Developed by Maxis and designed by Will Wright, Spore was manufactured in 2006 and was released worldwide in 2008. Maxis's particular style is creating a realistic, simulator, to give the player a realistic, immersive experience. The target audience is very wide, anywhere from the age of 3 and above. It can arguably be said that it is trying to please wide variety of different players, supporting multiple game playing styles depending on the understanding of the game by the player. It is the sort of game that can be played by most, but obviously the older generations would be more efficient. I can see that the game is slightly educational, teaching players about the theory of evolution and natural development under the surface.

Improvements to the duration of game play in the first few stages would bulk up the game, taking more time to develop species and less time in the Space Exploration stage. To me it seems like the first 4 stages were only 20% or so of the game, the space age being the other 80%. The environment could also be improved, Maxis clearly spent a lot of time animating and creating the system that allows players to make their own species, if only they put the same time and dedication into the environment Spore would be a much better game.