The Greatest Game of All Time? Maybe Not.
September 7th, 2008A few months back everyone and their third-cousins were clamoring for the oncoming of Spore - supposedly the greatest video game of all time. This was a game that was supposed to revolutionize how people played and thought about games. The plot concept of Spore revolves around the player controlling an individual cell and leading that cell through continuous levels of sophistication, starting from evolution and ending with civilization and intergalactic conquest. The gameplay concept of Spore revolves around its own evolutionary process as well, in the form of continuous levels of sophisticated game genres, running from action/adventure to real-time strategy to a massive single-player online game (think MMO but without direct multiplayer online interaction). On top of that, Spore is highly supportive of user-generated content as players can personally customize the species they play on a multitude of levels and share these creatures with the Spore online universe. Overall, Spore is a game that is massive in scope and flexibility, which makes it easy to see why everyone was salivating over its release.
Well, the second coming… I mean, Spore, finally arrived this Friday and unexpectedly the reviews have not been quite as knockout as the initial hype would have suggested. Okay, that is a bit of an overstatement because Spore’s ratings are certainly very high (it received a 91% from PC Gamer, 8.8/10.0 from IGN, and 8.0/10.0 from Gamespot). The reason why I say Spore has not lived up to its hype is because while a majority of game reviewers are still in awe over the game’s scope (due to its genre traversing makeup and its endless pit of user-generated content), they have come to acknowledge that the game does have its flaws as well. And it seems that the predominant culprit is gameplay. That’s right: Gameplay.
Apparently Spore is not a very challenging game. According to both IGN and the New York Times, the game tends to be very repetitive and players can quickly lose interest. I think the New York Times put it best by making a distinction between a toy and a game - Spore being a toy, a means through which an individual can create and explore an imaginative world for entertainment, versus a game, a system of rules that allows an individual to create and explore challenging strategies to lead them to victory. And as the New York Times so elegantly put it, we all eventually throw our toys away, but certain games - think Chess, Poker - these are eternal. Unfortunately, somehow lost in developing the scope and glitz of Spore, Will Wright, the lead designer of the game, had forgotten about what actually makes a game a game.
Now I don’t mean to be overly critical of Spore. It was certainly a massive challenge for any team to create a game of this magnitude and when working with such a scope, its definitely easy to see how designers and developers can get lost in the scheme of things. But I’d like to point out that gameplay should always supercede scope on the priority scale for game creation. There is a good reason why tons of people still play Starcraft to this day while Pokemon has come and gone. It’s never about the quantity of fancy bells and whistles but the quality of them. Fortunately for Spore, its bells and whistles are still deemed to be quite fun. It’s just that it doesn’t seem like it will turn into the industry defining trophy that people originally thought it’d be.
-barry
PS: On a sidenote, I can’t wait for Starcraft 2 (lol!).





