Two days ago, EA released Spore's first add-on called the Spore Creepy and Cute Parts Pack. This pack includes 60 new creature parts, 48 new paint options and 24 new animations. Basically, you are now able to create a new, cute, cuddly creature, or one with angry, harsh features. This is another way that Spore has gone on to increase its already nearly limitless creativity. This is an exciting release, right?
well...
From my point-of-view, I can't say I'm too delighted. As you can tell from other blogs I've written, I believe that there are definitely some areas where Spore could improve. The main ones having to do with length and complexity. It is apparent that many other members of the gaming community have criticized Spore for these reasons as well. In fact, in most reviews I've read about Spore, even the negative ones tend to acknowledge the game for its creative scope and user freedom. Why then, is Spore's first add-on simply an addition to the creative aspect of the game? Why did Wright and EA choose not to address the problems that are receiving the highest criticism by gamers? When I first saw the trailer for the Creepy and Cute Parts Pack, I thought two things: This is unnecessary and this is cheesy. There is no way that anyone has reached their creative limit in Spore. There are SO many options for how to create a unique creature that I could keep busy for a long time. It doesn't make sense that Spore players would need an extra parts pack so soon after its release. As for the cheesy aspect, the trailer felt like watching some corny Disney cartoon. The new "cute" parts it showed had big, googly eyes and large rabbit teeth. However, this is what seems to sell. As I mentioned in an earlier blog about female gamers, big eyes can make the little girls squeal. A very depressing thought that came to mind after I watched this trailer had to do with the fact that Spore has now been officially distorted. During the development of this game, Will Wright spent eight years doing research and interviewing dozens of scientists in order to make Spore a strategy/simulation game that could break the norm and be used as a teaching tool. With this parts pack, it's easy to see where the emphasis of the game lies: The creatures. The strategy/simulation aspect of the game that is rooted in science and is the actual gameplay is not receiving the attention it needs. Does EA know that a large number of Spore's fans are carried over from The Sims crowd? Is this why they're emphasizing the creative, customization side of the game to a greater extent? This is what it seems like.
Overall, I'm sure that this parts pack will be entertaining for many people, but I feel that it was not well-timed and should have come after the technical aspects of the game were fixed. One final thing that absolutely blows my mind is the cost of this parts pack, which is $20. Seeing this pushed me over the edge a bit. It just seemed like a superficial way for EA to rake in a good deal more money. $20 seems ridiculous for some limbs, paint and the ability for your creature to do the moonwalk. I'll probably have to wait until someone hacks it and puts it online before I try it. Maybe by then the gameplay issues in Spore will be worked out too (probably not). Then we'll have a pretty perfect game universally (maybe).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Hilarious. It seems like you've got a thing against big googly eyes now. I like them myself and I'm not ashamed. Do you remember the earlier released creature creator? Maybe this is what they're trying to make Spore into. A $70 version of a $10 toy. It's hard not to be cynical. One thing this reminds me of: I took a film class in college, all about Hitchcock. About how his ideas were the films. That seems pretty typical, and in the same way we tend to look at Spore as Will Wright's creation. Later on, I met a film scholar who talked about movies from further aback, historical context, the production companies, weird politics, shaping the movies often to a greater extent than the directors. Now this wasn't entirely new, I knew that movies were test marketed and changed for what I saw as spurious reasons, but we're not talking about Mission to Mars, we're talking about Hitchcock. I wonder how much the eventual success or failure of Spore can be explained by a deeper analysis of its creation.
Hold on there friend, no one's saying I'm against the puppy dog eyes. I'm just as easy to market to as any other giggly female. It just frustrates me that the Creepy and Cute Parts Pack is where EA and Wright chose to focus their attention instead of on improving the actual gameplay. The cost is also very frustrating. However, this is all essential to marketing. You create something the market wants/needs and then expand, expand, expand. Your film example reminded me of this. Whenever a Disney movie is released, you never just see the movie. You see merchandise, sequels, TV specials and a flood of other marketing techniques.
In the next few years, we'll be able to look back on Spore and truly see what kind of an impact it had in our culture. Will it be seen as a scientific novelty or just another Sims game? This parts pack and other future game additions will have an impact on how this question is answered.
Post a Comment