Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Rhodan]

Where will the auto balancer keep getting those stronger monsters, then?
The higher cost argument is invalid because you can just keep getting more and more points infinitely.

A much better system would be to divide strength/speed/health/charm and so on so they are each a fraction of the total power.
So a monster with no feet, 5 huge claws, some scales and a flower would have 50% strength, 0% speed, %30% health and 20% charm.
The claws will give it the claw attack.  Total power is governed by the creature's size.

So a tiny creature that is nothing but teeth would have a nasty bite, but not as nasty as the same creature's huge cousin.   Max creature size would depend on progress in Creature stage, though food, speed and sneak penalties would add benefits to staying small.

[Micro102]

NO! Thats the same problem with vehicles. The work put in needs to be what makes the creature strong. Otherwise you make the thing huge, put 1 part on it, and then its just as strong as someone who worked on his creature for an hour.

The autobalncer will only let a limited amount of stronger creatures in. the more the better as different stats will allow for more fine tuning of balance. And its not like people arent going to make wear creatures.

[Smitehappy]

So why not just drop the stat system and make it procedural like was originally intended?

[Rhodan]

Except the original intent is not the current intent, so procedural stats won't happen in Spore.  Ever.

And Micro102, that system could still make a huge creature with only one claw have only 10% strength and 0% everything else.  The fractioning would only happen when the stats begin to max out.
Also, my question remains: Where will the autobalancer keep getting creatures stronger than yours?  What if your creature is the strongest in the entire Sporepedia?

Spore as it is now is not geared towards making the strongest/best surviving creature, it's geared towards making the coolest/prettiest/scariest/most creative creature.  The whole game is about creativity, so major stat changes or procedural stuff won't happen, not in this game.

[LegoLord]

I've heard complaints that are the exact opposite of that; too much incentive to make a big, strong creature, no creative value. 

Whatever.  Someone has to be wrong.  Maybe both of those sides are just sour because they didn't keep up with development.  I had heard of Spore when it was close to coming out, and the late trailers matched what was in the game.  All that stuff from 2005 is only on youtube now.  Even before it came out, you could have scoured their site and not found any of that stuff mentioned in 2005.  If you'd been keeping up, you'd know they were cutting things.

[Rhodan]

I don't think the Spore we saw in 2005 would make a great game, most of the stuff is just too unlikely to be feasible or good for gameplay.  Most of what we saw was probably just rigged anyways, the physics in the procedural animations probably caused major glitches in 70% of the creatures they tried to make.

The Spore we have now isn't great either, but a lot of people are having fun with it, and it might bring on a whole new generation of Sporelikes, some of which will likely be a lot more realistic.

[Micro102]

If you would have a huge creature in real life thats weaker/not as good at survival, then others, it will become extinct. Frankly i think respawning creatures even after they all die is a bad idea.

[Jreengus]

I don't think the Spore we saw in 2005 would make a great game, most of the stuff is just too unlikely to be feasible or good for gameplay.  Most of what we saw was probably just rigged anyways, the physics in the procedural animations probably caused major glitches in 70% of the creatures they tried to make.

The Spore we have now isn't great either, but a lot of people are having fun with it, and it might bring on a whole new generation of Sporelikes, some of which will likely be a lot more realistic.

How exactly would you define a sporelike? It seems kind of difficult to do without actually remaking spore. It's not like spore did anything original it just took 5 different well known game types and threw them together along with an editor. Whether you think that worked well or not is irrelevant you can hardly call it a new type of game.

[Granite26]

I don't think the Spore we saw in 2005 would make a great game, most of the stuff is just too unlikely to be feasible or good for gameplay. 

yeah...  I know another game where most of the content is unsuitable and unfeasible for good gameplay

[Smitehappy]

Except the original intent is not the current intent, so procedural stats won't happen in Spore.  Ever.

Start at 6 minutes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8dvMDFOFnA

A quote just incase you missed.
Will: "The way he's fighting is based upon where I put his weapon which is on his tail"

[Zironic]

Except the original intent is not the current intent, so procedural stats won't happen in Spore.  Ever.

Start at 6 minutes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8dvMDFOFnA

A quote just incase you missed.
Will: "The way he's fighting is based upon where I put his weapon which is on his tail"

They could have gone procedural but Will is about accessibility and 90% of people wouldn't use it and wouldn't like it. I bet Will still has a procedural version laying around.

I personally like the creature and the space stage the most. If they make it so I can play an ever evolving creature on a dynamic planet (changing) with about 10 times the length of the current level (which can be dependent on your play style. I've done it in an hour on hard, and 3 on easy.) Then I'd be really happy.

Space Stage - Upgrade everything. Make money more useful. Let me design the interior of my ship. Hire goons. Large Huge Giant battleships that you can fly your flagship to and using your goons - board and invade.

oh wait, That's two real games.

[Sean Mirrsen]

Interestingly, DF ultimately heads roughly in the Spore (the original Spore, not the one released) direction. With "wizard tower" mode and the ability to create custom creatures, the game will largely become (Creature Stage + City Stage)*Steroids. Except without the visuals and accessibility.

[Zironic]

Interestingly, DF ultimately heads roughly in the Spore (the original Spore, not the one released) direction. With "wizard tower" mode and the ability to create custom creatures, the game will largely become (Creature Stage + City Stage)*Steroids. Except without the visuals and accessibility.

If I can mod my creature while playing, it's better than spore. All you need is 1 leg, 1 arm, and a body with no internal organs and a head. And 15 useless limbs to help lower pierce effectiveness.

[Rhodan]

Except the original intent is not the current intent, so procedural stats won't happen in Spore.  Ever.

My quote you quoted just in case you didn't read it.  The originally intended to make Spore work that way, now they don't and focus on just making pretty creatures.  They might have planned to use procedural stats in the beginning, but their goals have changed since then.
Besides, "The way he's fighting is based upon where I put his weapon which is on his tail" might just as well be about animation only.  "they way he's fighting", not "The effectiveness of his attack".

[LegoLord]

That sort of thing could also put strain on the already limited creature complexity.  That complexity meter?  It's based on how hard it is for the program to procedurally animate it.