The Frightening Power of Artificial Intelligence

Artificial Intelligence is a topic that has received much attention in relation to Spore. For anyone who's a little unsure about what exactly Artificial Intelligence is, here is a simple definition I pulled from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

artificial intelligence (n)
1: a branch of computer science dealing with the simulation of intelligent behavior in computers
2: the capability of a machine to imitate intelligent human behavior

When it comes to Spore, you can just start to see the basic introduction of AI. In Spore, the game play enables a great deal of user freedom because it "adapts" to the player's wants and needs. For example, when a player chooses to have their creature become an herbivore instead of a carnivore, there is a change in how the creatures within a tribe socialize with one another. They slowly begin to talk and play, whereas a tribe of carnivores socializes by wrestling. Although this may seem like a neat little bit of AI, this doesn't even scratch the surface of what Will Wright believes computers will be capable of within the next decade.

I recently read an extremely interesting article about AI in the online version of Popular Mechanics, where Will Wright shared his views on the subject. In this article, Wright introduces 5 prophecies about AI. Here is the list, but if you want to go more in-depth into them I recommend reading the article:

1. Machines will never achieve human intelligence
2. Your sim will be used against you (kind of)
3. Games will write themselves
4. Hive minds will be lots of fun
5. Machines will boot-strap their way to sentience

Let me give a brief explanation about what these prophecies are saying. Wright came up with the first prediction based on the fact that "computers aren't great at fundamentally recreating intelligence, but they're great at harvesting intelligence." He also says that machines are unlikely to ever be able to be creative; creativity is unique to human intelligence. In the case of Spore, I am the one who creates my unique creatures and buildings based on my own creative state of mind at the time. It would take a lot of "learning" on the computer's part to discover how exactly to create a unique creature based on my style of play, likes and dislikes. This leads into Wright's second prediction that computers are going to have to gather and piece together data about humans in order to be able to understand us and see what motivates us. Wright specifically uses The Sims as an example for how computers can learn more about human behavior. In the third prediction that games will write themselves, Wright believes that games will become more personalized because the longer you play, the more specific the game will become (based on concepts in the second prediction). I thought that the fourth prediction was the most interesting. Here, the computers will get to the point where they will be able to "share notes" on the data they've been collecting from humans in order to analyze trends and apply them to the individual. Finally, the fifth prediction says that computers will be able to continually upgrade new versions of their AI until they can "boot-strap" their way up the path toward sentience.

Sounds a little scary, right? I'll admit that the whole idea of AI is a little disturbing, and yet extremely impressive at the same time. I'm absolutely positive that we're going to hit all of Wright's predictions in the near future and it's going to completely change the face of gaming as we know it. Gamers will finally have complete freedom in all aspects of a game and each time you pick up a controller, you won't know what to expect. And what's to say it will stop there? Here's one of my predictions about AI: It's going to have a serious impact on education. When a student gets an assignment to write a 10-page paper about the French Revolution, he or she will open a word document, type the subject into a box, and the computer will bang out the paper in seconds based on the information it's gained about its owner's typical writing style and voice (this information will gradually increase with each paper the student writes over a period of time). It seems unlikely, but we could easily be heading that way depending on how AI develops. Who knows what we'll do at that point? It's a little disturbing to think that one day my computer could be the new HAL. If it gets to that point, it's comforting to know that we (as humans) will always have the ability to bash in the screen with a baseball bat if computers try to take over. For now, I'm not planning on worrying about it though. I think it will be interesting to see how AI progresses from games such as Spore to future games. That's something I'm very excited to see.

A Note on Learning from Spore

After introducing the idea of teaching concepts in Spore in my last blog post, I wanted to touch on this subject again to discuss a couple of ideas I've come up with since then. During our last Games class, Devin mentioned to me that it might be interesting to look at how games are more widely accepted as teaching tools by a younger audience than an older one. This is definitely a very important subject to think about when it comes to determining the deeper significance of simulation games such as Spore.

It is easy for adults to critique Spore and say that it was a poor attempt by Will Wright to simultaneously entertain gamers while teaching them concepts of evolutionary biology and other sciences. Indeed, as I mentioned in my last post, the scientific concepts in Spore are very basic. However, I am a 21-year-old college senior and I've spent many years learning about subjects including biology, astronomy and sociology. Needless to say that most of the people who review Spore for its educational appeal have likewise been instructed in these subjects at some point in time. BUT, to an 8-year-old child who has never experienced any of these subjects before, the basic essence of science in Spore has far more of an impact. This is why Spore is frequently used in teaching environments today. For example, concepts such as sociology or Darwinism can become much clearer to young students when they see the interworkings of socialization, competition and civilization in Spore. Throughout my research on Spore, I've come across blogs and forums that have mentioned that Spore could be the Oregon Trail of its day. I definitely remember playing Oregon Trail in elementary school and loving it. Even though the teachers were using it as a tool to engage learning, I know that the main reason I (and probably everyone else) played it was to shoot the birds, deer and bison over and over again. I'd be ridiculous to say that I learned a plethora of information about the hardships of early settler life from this game when I was just a little kid. But when I look back on it now, I know that that was the first time I learned about the historic Oregon Trail; a subject that wasn't brought up again until late middle school/early high school. Spore probably works in the same way. Kids don't give a damn that they just learned the basic idea behind the Panspermia Theory, they just want to make a wacky creature with as many appendages as possible. The key is to pair this game up with an actual lesson. That way, the game will come to be associated with the subject at hand and will (hopefully) make recalling that information a little easier.

This is the idea that Wright was looking to build on as well. Wright was educated via the Montessori method of education, where you learn through interaction and experimentation with other objects. Wright has actually labeled Spore as a "Montessori Toy" several times in discussions of the game. You can hear a little more about his thoughts on the Montessori method in Spore and more about the game in general on this interesting video: Spore: A Modern Montessori Toy

One other way that kids can learn from Spore in ways that adults won't, is through questions they ask and discussions they have in the classroom. A child might get frustrated and ask why he keeps being defeated by other creatures. The teacher can then lead into a discussion about how, in order to be the fittest creature, you have to develop defenses and camouflage and realize when it is beneficial to engage in socialization versus competition. This is one way in which broader learning branches from a game a kid was simply playing to have fun. So, the next time you read a negative article about how Spore is a lame excuse for learning, look at it from the perspective of an 8-year-old and see how the game could be used in an actual classroom setting. This may or may not improve your impressions of the game, but it certainly provided me with an interesting subject for a couple of blog posts.

The Science of Spore

One of the things I've been thinking about during my Spore experience has to do with the science in the game. While it's been obvious to me from the start that Spore is teaching basic concepts of evolution and Darwinism, I wanted to find out a little bit more about what Will Wright's intentions were when he decided to create this science-based game. Can Spore be seen as a teaching mechanism? If so, does this make it a serious game? These are a couple of questions I wanted to find answers to.

There were a couple of interesting sources I found online while I was searching for information on the science of Spore. The first is a video on WeGame.com of Will Wright explaining this exact subject. Here he talks about how Spore introduces scientific subjects such as physics, chemistry, biology and sociology. The game even begins with the Panspermia Theory in mind where life is introduced to a planet as a single cell, progresses through evolution and then spreads to other planets. While I can see these scientific subjects in the game, they are only present on a very, very, VERY basic level. There are basic concepts of biology in the creature creator, traces of sociology in the creature interactions, quite a lot of physics in terms of the game design itself, and as for chemistry...I haven't seen any. I honestly can't figure out how chemistry could possibly be used in Spore (If anyone has a better idea, please let me know). When Wright talks about the concept of evolution, he says it's a lot about the interplay between competition and cooperation. Competition and cooperation are definitely important concepts in Spore, so I can see his idea there. However, this is only a single aspect of a very complex subject. So, again, the basic science of evolution is there, but not to a very high degree. I really liked the final comment he made about how he wants the game to relate to reality. Even if the concepts are extremely basic, it gives the player a chance to experience these sciences and see how they relate to our real world.

The second source I came across was the article "Want to Learn Astrobiology? Pick Up the Console" on the news site Reuters.com. In this article, Wright talks about the same subjects he introduced in the video, this time including astronomy. Wright says that he and his team met with scientists during the four-year development of the game in order to make the scientific aspect more credible. I though that it was very interesting that Spore is being used as a part of SETI's educational outreach program to introduce astrobiology to high school students. This is a way in which Spore is being used as an educational tool. Even though the concepts may be basic, it's a good way to get kids to see how the concepts work and have fun while learning more about them.

From my eight years of public school experience and three years at the university level, I will openly admit that reading textbooks, memorizing that material and hearing teachers regurgitate the information in lectures is the absolute worst way to learn about a subject. I feel that much of my tuition has been wasted in this way because you only "learn" the material in order to get an A in the class and move closer to a degree. My most useful classes in the past have been those involving labs (biology, chemistry, anatomy/physiology, astronomy) and hands-on experience (visual communication, advertising copyrighting, Scribendi, and others). In this sense, I feel that Spore would be a good supplemental material to use in conjunction with different science classes because it could show how some of these complex subjects look in action. Honestly, any opportunity to get students involved with the subject matter, other than reading and memorizing, adds a great deal to the learning process. In this respect, I would think that Spore could be seen in some ways as a serious game because it's teaching players basic information about important subjects. The SETI program is a good example. However, I don't know if Spore is the best definition of a serious game in that it doesn't elaborate fully on these concepts and is easily more fun than educational. I suppose my final word on this idea is that I am divided on whether or not it is a serious game. There are easily reasons for both and I think the player ultimately makes this decision based on the experiences and outcomes they receive from the game.

Spore, Simulation, and Gonzalo Frasca

After recently reading Gonzalo Frasca’s essay “Simulation Versus Narrative: Introduction to Ludology,” I found a lot of interesting information that applies directly to Spore.

Let me start with a very brief introduction to Frasca’s essay. The overall goal of this essay was to show how the concept of narrative is not accurate when applied to the video game medium. Frasca believes that video games are based more on simulation due to the fact that the receiver of the medium is able to modify the behavior of the system, whereas books or movies (narratives) are unchangeable. Two important concepts Frasca centers on in his essay are the terms paidia and ludus, which Roger Caillois introduced in his essay "The Definition of Play." With ludus, the player’s goals are clear and there is a clear line drawn between winners and losers. Paidia, however, leaves the main goals up to the player and allows for manipulation of the rules. Paidia and ludus, along with meta-rules and representation, form the four levels in simulation that can be manipulated.

With that, I’d like to identify some of the parts of the essay that I found to be interesting and relevant to my experience playing Spore. One of the first things that struck me was how Frasca pulled video games away from typical narratives. He said that although there are definitely stories, characters, settings and events in video games, they are not held together by a narrative structure (according to Ludology; the study of games and video games). I could see this because in video games, the player can manipulate the story development and outcome as they wish. For example, in Spore you have your creatures (characters) following a storyline that revolves around the path of evolution, which takes place billions of years ago on unknown worlds. However, this story is never enacted in the same exact way twice, as it is in novels and films. Frasca even says in the essay that you never step in the same video game twice. The player is able to manipulate the rules and play however they want for as long as they want. At the end of each stage in Spore, the game expects you to move on to the next phase of evolution, but I often found myself continuing to play in the completed stage for an extended period of time. In this way I was able to alter the gameplay to have it suit my needs until I was ready to move on. Other civilization and simulation games typically follow this structure. Zeus is one example of another civilization/sim game I’ve played where the gameplay never really ends; it continues even after all the main goals have been accomplished.

When I think of simulation games such as Spore, I tend to classify them under the category of paidia simply because there are so many ways you can alter the gameplay and there is not always a win-lose situation. Other games such as first person shooters and strategy games would relate more closely to ludus because there are certain rules you must follow in order to proceed and eventually win the game. Here, the player’s goals are set and the difference between good and evil forces is very clearly described throughout the game. It is interesting though, because these games can always be altered via meta-rules (Frasca’s fourth level of simulation) through the form of mods. This brings the concept of paidia into the realm of games that follow more of a ludus style. It’s really fascinating how all of these concepts relate to and differ from one another. Frasca’s essay was definitely a very intriguing read and I would recommend it to anyone who is playing a simulation game.

A Look at Yahtzee's Spore Review

Earlier this week, I was very fortunate to receive a comment from Jordan where he shared a link for a recent Spore review. This video review is easily one of the most intense reviews of Spore I've ever seen. The author of the review is Ben "Yahtzee" Croshaw, a British game journalist and game designer. Before reading my critique of his review, I invite you to go ahead and watch the 5-minute video so that you can get an idea of what the review consists of. This is the link:

Zero Punctuation: Spore


Ok, now that we've all had a good laugh after watching the video, let's get down to business. First of all, I must say this was an entertaining way to review a video game. I found myself laughing out loud at Yahtzee's blunt style and creative presentation. However, I wound up having to watch the video three times in order to pinpoint the constructive comments I wanted to elaborate on. Aside from the humorous side comments, hilarious illustrations, and the incredibly fast British narration, the review itself reiterated all of the main criticisms that have appeared in other Spore reviews I've read.

The first of these is that Will Wright has had an enormous reputation to uphold. After creating games such as SimCity and The Sims, there was an incredible amount of hype attached to Spore years in advance. After Spore was actually released, many gamers and reviews emphasized the belief that this game had not delivered on the hype (very clear in Yahtzee's review). I admit that I was surprised when I found myself completing the first two phases after only a few hours of gameplay. It is also true that the phases are completed in a somewhat linear fashion, so your level of creativity is what determines a more lengthy, enjoyable experience. Despite the fact that Yahtzee vehemently argues that Spore does not live up to its expectations, he does say that both the possibility for endless creature/object creations and the size of the game are impressive. I agree that Spore didn't let anybody down in this respect. The sheer magnitude of the game continues to impress me to this day. Another important comment that Yahtzee makes is when he says that "if all you're after is some kind of 3-D art program for 8-year-olds, Spore is definitely for you. If you're holding out for an actual game, you get to eat shit." This is where my opinion differs a bit from Yahtzee's. As someone who enjoyed The Sims and strategy games such as Civilization, Zeus, and Age of Empires, I think that Spore is a very well-rounded game. You have the ability to play a very detailed simulation game in the early phases and then start building tribes and civilizations in the later phases. Perhaps having more of an interest in these types of games contributes to a more enjoyable experience. I'm only in the third phase of the game, so I have yet to see if the upcoming phases will hold my attention. In the face of these negative reviews, my key to enjoying the game is to keep them as far away from my thoughts as possible. I want to play Spore for what it is and then determine afterward how similar/different my experience was from the reviews.

Yahtzee did introduce a couple of ideas that I felt were very insightful:
1) Describing the Space phase as a satirical portrait of U.S. foreign policy.
2) The statement that Spore will never have the appeal of The Sims due to the fact that the human element has been removed. Yahtzee states that it is not just controlling life that we enjoy, but rather controlling lives that resemble our own. I paused at this point in the video because I realized that this statement was completely true; this was why The Sims appealed to me so much. I thought that this comment was the most constructive and provocative of the entire review.

Overall, I think that the Yahtzee review has points that I agree with, disagree with, and still have yet to find out about. As a game review, it was a combination of a constructive review and a comical rant. However, I loved watching it. It would be interesting to see reviews he's done of other games and see how they differ from this one.

The Expectations of Spore

When I first decided to play the game Spore, I did so because I had heard about it dozens of times from friends and online websites over the course of a few months. The previews were all the same: Spore would revolutionize the face of gaming with its enormous scope, complexity, and level of user freedom. Needless to say, the hype alone caused me to join the ranks of the millions of other gamers (and potential gamers) who were anxiously awaiting the release of Sproe. I was able to have a taste of what the game would be like when the Creature Creator became available online in June. The main thing I was impressed with at this point was the creative potential of the game. I was able to alter practically every minute detail of my creature to fit my wants and needs. Whether this involved making a creature with arms on its head, six legs, and a mouth on its stomache, or one resembling my cat, I had free reign over its complete design. This brought my level of excitement for the full game up another notch.

When Spore was officially released in September, I immediately started playing and anxiously waited for the positive reviews to start rolling in. The results were slightly surprising. After my first sitting, I had already finished the first two stages. The first stage alone took me 30 minutes to complete, and this was on Normal mode. The ease with which I was able to complete these stages was definitely unexpected. Where was the complexity I had heard so much about in the previews? One answer to this is that I probably could have spent a lot more time on each of these stages, had I not been so anxious to see what was coming up next. I'm already planning on playing the game slower, with more attention to detail the second time around. Regardless of how fast the game passed by, I thoroughly enjoyed playing it. The previews didn't get it wrong when they raved about the scope and user freedom. I think the fact that every creation made in this game can be shared with millions of people via the Spore server is very impressive. The sheer magnitude of this concept absolutely blew me away. As for user freedom, it was as I had experienced it in the Creature Creator, but taken to a much higher level.

Many reviewers did not share my point-of-view. The common reviews from gamers on websites such as Gamespot.com share a similar complaint: The depth of the gameplay is shallow and simple. As I mentioned earlier, this was also a concern I had, but I easily got past this and enjoyed the game for what it was. The best review of Spore I've read thus far came in the 180th issue of PC Gamer. In a massive seven-page review, the author (Kristen Salvatore) makes a very important point: Once gamers get past the simplicity of the play modes, it's easy to see that this casual game can still be extremely fun; it isn't a game that rewards you for your ability to beat a game, but rather one that rewards you just for playing.

Play a game just for fun? Really? In this day and age of competitive gaming, many gamers would read these last few sentences and laugh. However, it's completely true. When you first start playing a game, it's important to be able to set aside the previews, reviews and expectations because if you don't, that's all you'll be able to focus on and the game won't be enjoyable. So, even if Spore doesn't quite live up fully to it's massive expectations, it's still a game that I love playing.