Spore is meant to be Sims, not Half-Life

By Tom Bramwell Published 8 September, 2008

Will Wright responds to reviews.

Will Wright has said that Maxis wanted to emulate the critical and commercial success of The Sims 2 with new game Spore, rather than making something to rival the highest-ranked games ever released in the eyes of reviewers.

"We were very focused, if anything, on making a game for more casual players," Wright, who is Maxis' chief engineer and one of its co-founders, told MTV Multiplayer.

"Spore has more depth than, let's say, The Sims did. But we looked at the Metacritic scores for Sims 2, which was around 90, and something like Half-Life, which was 97, and we decided - quite a while back - that we would rather have the Metacritic and sales of Sims 2 than the Metacritic and sales of Half-Life."

Spore's current Metacritic average is 87 based on 20 reviews, the lowest of which is Wired's 7/10, which concluded that "Spore tries to be all things to all people - a strategy that never quite works out the way it's supposed to", arguing that behind the "occasionally mind-boggling tricks that Spore pulls", "you're left with very simplistic gameplay".

For our part, we gave Spore 9/10 in our review, pointing out that the relentlessly comic, surprisingly deep space-exploration game at its heart overwhelmed our early disappointment with the first four stages, and that the interaction with other players' online worlds enlivens the game in a way that not much else can match.

As for Wright, he also said that he currently plays the space stage as several different species using different saved games, and enjoys the way they interact.

However, he did not comment on whether he's got a Flapyak in Viva Piñata: Trouble in Paradise yet, or whether he renames his Sprinkling woman or just hits her with a spade for being totally useless all the time like we do.

Picture of Tom.

About Tom Bramwell

Tom is Operations director of Eurogamer Network and Editor-at-Large of Eurogamer.net. He joined the company in February 2000.

Read more articles from Tom by visiting the Tom Bramwell archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (37) Latest comment 3 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • DanWhitehead #1 3 years ago

    The growing industry obsession with Metacritic scores is deeply unhealthy.

  • Jigglybean #2 3 years ago

    I never believe reviews myself - including Eurogamers very generous 9/10 for this turd.

  • rudedudejude #3 3 years ago

    Yep, sorry but 9/10.... o.O

  • cloud_ix #4 3 years ago

    i just think the box art is hideous

  • Stupid_Fat_Hobbit #5 3 years ago

    Don't worry Dan, it's not like publishers are using them to decide how much to pay developers in royalties or anything...
    Edited by 1 at 08/09/08 @ 09:36

  • Stormflood #6 3 years ago

    Another stealth Spore advert in the guise of an article. I shudder to think how many Spore adverts Ad Blocker is hiding from me...

  • Triggerhappytel #7 3 years ago

    But ofcourse; any company would easily take the high critical scores but tens of millions of sales of The Sims over the very high review scores but *just* several million sales of Half-Life.

    Let's be honest, this isn't news. It's so insultingly obvious it doesn't need reporting.

  • Eraysor #8 3 years ago

    I would have given it 11/10, I literally haven't stopped playing it yet save for sleep.

  • Chalee #9 3 years ago

    A metacritic of 87 is pretty excellent for a game that is as ambitious as Spore I think. Making a standard corridor FPS work is one thing, making something like spore is another. You have to admire them for taking such an audacious concept and turning it into a game which is, to all intents and purposes, pretty good fun if just a bit shallow.

    I mean we gamers always complain about how all games are clones, but when something genuinely different comes along we're all too happy to bash it for being 'shallow' or 'too cutesy'. It seems that at the end of the day, in spite of all the screams to the contrary, all that the majority of 'hardcore' gamers want to play is more corridor shooters and MMORPG grindfests.

    Oh and btw, to all the people who dislike spore because of the art style - I think you're all a bit insecure. Why is it so important for you to be seen playing games in which you're a muscley man in a brown near future dystopia? Playing cute and colourful games will not shrink your penis guys! You can't all be thirteen now can you?

  • viper_h #10 3 years ago

    I got to the space stage, but then the game bugged on me and wouldn't let me pick up a transmission orbiting my planet, and I couldn't save, so I turned it off. Not sure if I'll go back.

    Pretty pissed off I didn't pirate this now actually.

  • hulahoops #11 3 years ago

    @ DanWhitehead

    "The growing industry obsession with Metacritic scores is deeply unhealthy."

    How so?

    Surely it's preferably to the previous obsession with licenses and sequels?

    Isn't a move toward quality being perceived to determine sales (no matter how inaccurate the quality gauge may be, but it could be a lot worse than Metacritic) rather than franchise a good thing?

  • kangarootoo #12 3 years ago

    "The growing industry obsession with Metacritic scores is deeply unhealthy"

    The truth.

    "Surely it's preferably to the previous obsession with licenses and sequels?"

    Massive strawman.

  • Wriggler #13 3 years ago

    I think the game is great, but I also think that maybe those who are calling it a "turd" played the game expecting it to be something it isn't?

  • mingster #14 3 years ago

    I can't see whats wrong with Metacritics or Gamerankings they are both unbiased collections of review scores from multiple sources. With links back to the original review.
    Bloody handy i reckon saves searching about for multiple reviews.
    Plus they average out to about the right score as they include the bad review scores as well (infact these are the ones i read to see what people didn't like)

  • abigsmurf #15 3 years ago

    Spore is fun but deeply flawed.

    It fails as a sandbox because the first three stages are far too brief but great fun whilst they last. The limited amount of DNA prevents you from customising your creatures as much as you'd like.

    The civilisation stage is horribly unbalanced. If you don't steamroll over the enemy quickly you stand little chance as the game mechanics promote stalemate in longer games (spice vents output decreasing everytime they're captured... Whos bright idea was that?) and bases need better counters against boats. Your only option to defeat a boat is to build one yourself... So you end up building boats exactly at the same rate the cpu sends them over. If you give up, it takes hours to lose and there's no restart option unless you start on another planet.

    The space stage initially seems dull and confusing but it's grown on me slightly.

  • aldo_14 #16 3 years ago

    I've only had time to play up to the Tribal stage so far, but I've been enjoying Spore immensely. But I'm also wondering what the more vocal complainants wanted or expected from the game. If it's just an art-style criticism, though, they can piss off - it's on the same level as slagging off Schindlers List* for being black and white (or grouping it as being the same as Sin City for the same reason).

    (*not that i'm saying Spore is like a videogaming equivalent of Schindlers List, just that judging a book by its cover is extremely daft)

  • Agent_Orange #17 3 years ago

    Actually I got this game at the weekend and am struggling to put it down. I'm on the space stage as a warlike population so am trying to conquer everything! There's just loads to do! I can't see why people are complaining about this; go back to your first person shooters if you can't hack a strategy game!

  • dominalien #18 3 years ago

    Spore ads on EG? I haven't seen no Spore ads on EG! Oh, so that's what this red Adblock icon in the corner does. Good job!

  • kinky_mong #19 3 years ago

    "This place is Spore central for the last week. Talk about going overboard to advertise a shitty game. Plus it has the ugliest art design I've ever seen. It's hideous."

    It's priceless stupid comments like this that make the comments section on EG one of the most embarrassing things about the site. Thank God idiots like you don't trespass into the forum.

    I wouldn't worry yourself about that idiot Coin-Op. Someone who says that Spore's art design is ugly then post in a Halo thread to say that Gears of War is far better clearly is a troll with no taste what-so-ever. As Yahtzee would say he's "an Adrian".
    Edited by 1 at 08/09/08 @ 11:21

  • FooAtari #20 3 years ago

    "The growing industry obsession with Metacritic scores is deeply unhealthy."

    The game industry seems so far removed from the music and film industry for all the wrong reasons. I'm sure I like it a little less every day.

  • hiddenranbir #21 3 years ago

    Woo Spore!

    I'm populating the metaverse with my Space Eggs.

    Anyone want to respond with the Space Chicken?

  • Flub #22 3 years ago

    It'd be nice if the media was reporting on how online play hasn't been working for a lot of European players still and how inept and useless EA are at communicating with the customers effected.

  • Triggerhappytel #23 3 years ago

    Will everyone please stop quoting that moron Coin-Op? What's the point on having him on ignore if I can still read his brainless comments?!

    ;)

    PS - I only know it's Coin-Op because of what kinky_mong said.

  • MENTAL1ST Verified Senior Software Engineer, Picsel UK Ltd. #24 3 years ago

    [link url=http://www.spore.com/sporepedia#qry=srch-Space%2520Chi cken
    ]http://ww w.spore.com/sporepedia#qry=srch...[/link]

    Apparently there are almost 18 thousand different space chickens to choose from.

  • Silvervein #25 3 years ago

    *danwhitehead, kangarootoo
    I'm confused. Why is industry attention to metacritic scores unhealthy?

  • Gearskin #26 3 years ago

    This game blows my mind with its scope, even if it doesn't have all the depth.

    It's still brilliant.

  • MENTAL1ST Verified Senior Software Engineer, Picsel UK Ltd. #27 3 years ago

    Why is industry attention to metacritic scores unhealthy?

    Any obsession with restircted, artificial metrics is unhealthy.

    People will start looking for the easiest way to improve those metrics to the exclusion of all other markers of quality or worth. For example, some publisher may decide that it would be more cost-effective to divert money directly to the score-makers rather than the people producing the games that get the scores...
    Edited by 1 at 08/09/08 @ 13:15

  • Silvervein #28 3 years ago

    @Mentalist(air)
    Obsession with anything is not healthy, I agree. However, attention to score of metacritic is a different thing.
    As far as I know, metacritic gathers opinions of people about the game, and presents them as a score that's average of separate scores received by the game. As such, it strikes me as much more objective indicator of game quality than scores given to games at professional sites. For two reasons. Score at professional site is a reflection of the taste of one person: the reviewer.
    Also, in many cases it's a subject to corporate control and approval, which artificially increases rating of a game in question.
    Places like metacritic are much less vulnerable to those manipulations. For that reason I trust them a bit more than other information outlets. If 'industry' pays attention to sites like metacritic, I don't see it as a bad thing, since they get valid insight into people's opinion about the game, other than sales data. Which, at least in theory, might allow them to improve the games.

    PS.
    As for diverting money to score makers and advertising, instead of developers and quality control...I thought it's a common practice nowadays, with market saturated with multitude of clones of specific gameplay types that bring biggest return of investor money. The only way you are going to convince people that your clone is worth buying is if you get a spin doctor that's going to gloss over glaring shortcomings and will focus instead on one (in some cases two) features that make the title slightly different than the rest of the crowd.

  • kangarootoo #29 3 years ago

    @Silvervein

    A couple of comments re metacritic.

    Firstly, the quality of information available from something like metacritic is practically zero. All you get is a number. What use is that really to anyone?

    When you make a game, you are creating an experience for a target audience. A poor metacritic score gives you no useful information as to what went wrong (if indeed anything did, which is my second point). By examining metacritic scores collectively, you risk comparing your titles with others that are simply not its peers.

    E.g. my game scores average 6/10. Other game scores 8/10. My publisher says "our next title needs to be more like game8/10". My game was a golf simulation, game8/10 was an RTS. Should my golf simulation be more like an RTS? If it was, would it be likely to score more highly on metacritic? Of course not.

    Secondly, metacritic does not tell you whether a game is "good" or "bad". What it tells you is whether some liked your game. In fact, it doesn't even really tell you that. All is really tells you is what score reviewers gave your game, on average. Metacritic puts EVERY game in the same basket and attempts to compare them objectively. This is an impossible, futile and in fact deeply misleading task.


    All games should be judged on two things. Sales figures, and feedback from the target audience. There are probably other things, but they are flavours of those two.

    First off, games need to sell, 'cos if they don't sell nobody gets to work on games anymore.

    Secondly, you can't please everyone and neither should you try. A 9/10 fps will never sell to my dad, whereas a 7/10 city building game probably will.

    Will Wright is making essentially the same point, that comparing Spore to HL2 on a scale out of ten is like comparing a cheesecake with a margharita cocktail against a scale of 10. If not pointless, of very little value.
    Edited by 1 at 08/09/08 @ 14:28

  • Nithron #30 3 years ago

    Well. That just put me off, right there.

  • MENTAL1ST Verified Senior Software Engineer, Picsel UK Ltd. #31 3 years ago

    My game was a golf simulation, game8/10 was an RTS. Should my golf simulation be more like an RTS?

    Didn't exactly that happen with Sensible Golf and Cannon Fodder?

  • Silvervein #32 3 years ago

    @kangarootoo

    Your points are valid. But I can't agree with your assesment of criteria games should be judged by.
    Sales figures data doesn't give you clear picture, since it's heavily dependent on the advertising (especially in case of games that follow 'Metoo' philosophy, for example shooters).
    Definition of target audience causes problems of its own. Couple of years back, when you saw a game about scantily clad girl gifted around the lung area, exploring ruins in action adventure style, the definition of target audience was simple: teenage males. But please define target audience of, say, spore. Or target audience or everquest. Or target audience of Knights of the Old Republic. In those cases target audience becomes too wide to be defined easily. Also, how in practice would you imagine gathering data from such target audience? A poll at the game website? Calling registered users? Using focus groups? In each case you will get some result, but how valid and relevant would it be?

    On top of that, there is one issue that's quite serious to me personally. That is, what is the reason to make games? At the base, it's to provide entertainment. Of course, if you make games for a living, you also want to get money.
    The problem starts when people ask themselves when enough is enough. With answer always being: never. And so we have the trend to appeal to 'wide audience' to maximize profits. With accompanying attributes of 'absolute accesibility' 'ease of gameplay' and 'not challenging audience, since that might limit sales'.

    Electronic arts is a good example of this: company that's oriented for income, and income only. Are they successfull? Perhaps, I don't follow economic periodicals so I can't say much besides noticing they grow and seem to be doing well. But what is the result of their growth? Several companies that made good games are destroyed (to mention only origin, bullfrog and westwood. As a side note: their games had narrower audience, and at least to me, seemed to be providing entertainment of higher quality focusing on their respective audiences rather than trying to make a game that is for everyone.). Endless stream of annulally released clones of questionable entertainment value is another result.
    And secondary results? Takeover of bioware, for example. How did it affect their game issued under wings of EA? Mass effect is pretty. It's action game. But as a game made by company that made its name by making games heavily relying on good storytelling, mass effect is uninspired to say the least. Idea for the story is good, but its squashed by the action elements and remains vestigal throughout the whole game. Appealing to wide audience? Sure. But what's the number of things that are great for everybody? I know only two. Air and water.

    Bottomline. Industry behemoths are against innovation by nature, since risk goes against profits. Smaller companies, like stardock, can maintain much better communication with relatively smaller audience of their games, thus getting clearer input while still managing to turn out profit, which doesn't burden customers with extra cost of maintaining company departments that have nothing to do with providing entertaining games.

    Hm. It all turned into another rant on my part.
    /rantmode off

  • Feanor #33 3 years ago

    Spore could have a average score rivaling HL2 if it was a better game without as many flaws. It's not the reviewers fault that the game falls short in several key areas.

  • Scimarad #34 3 years ago

    I honestly can't see why people are disapointed in the earlier stages - I really enjoy the Creature stage, though Civ can turn into a bit of a chore. Mostly though it's just the fact you never know what you are going to see, that and the ability to make pretty much what you want.

    Personally I think it's a fantastic acheivement, despite the flaws.

  • actionfitz #35 3 years ago

    All i will say is:

    [link url=http://kotaku.com/5046552/amazon-revi ewers-do-not-take-kindly-to-spores-drm
    ]http://ko taku.com/5046552/amazon-reviewe...[/link]


    O.o
    not Kosher...

  • Feanor #36 3 years ago

    Serves them right, I hope this DRM shit costs them millions.

    They even have DRM on the free Spore demo.

  • hulahoops #37 3 years ago

    Christ almighty will everyone please climb down from their big pedantic horses about scoring games.

    We understand the pitfalls of scoring games.

    We understand that they're not a definitive gauge of a game's quality.

    But if a game of the genre you enjoy averages in the nineties, there's a bloody good chance you'll enjoy that one more than a game of similar genre which averages in the 30s.

    So clearly scores aren't deeply misleading and pointless.

    There's a little more of an argument that the validity of a difference of, say, 5-10 points average is diminished, but the rule of thumb that a game in the 90s is going to appeal to a lot of people (again, provided the genre and concept interest you) while a game averaging in the 80s may need further investigation, and a game in the 70s is probably for dyed in the wool fans of the genre only.

    The fact that scoring system has endured for decades is testament to its validity. People just don't have time to read the thousands of reviews which constitute Metacritic averages. Of course it would be preferable if we could, and could therefore ignore the scores. We understand that.

    It's not perfect. But show me a system which is.

    Before Metacritic the license or franchise was everything, while critical acclaim meant little. I'll say it again, the obsession with Metacritic is a preferable benchmark to that. Aren't you glad we've moved on?
    Edited by 2 at 09/09/08 @ 10:18