I wanted to go ahead and write a blog about this because it really shows how big Spore truly is in the world. During a Google search for Spore topics, I came across Time's Best Inventions of 2008. It turns out that Spore made the list at number twenty. Some of the other inventions Spore preceded on this list included the following: the synthetic organism, bionic contact lenses, thin-film solar panels, the invisibility cloak, the 46th Mersenne Prime, Einstein's refrigerator, and a biomechanical energy harvester, among many others.
When I first saw this list, I was actually surprised. Spore is a greater invention than bionic contact lenses and a biomechanical energy harvester? I guess someone thinks the game is better than what a lot of the negative reviews out there have said. However, this leads to an interesting point. Even though Spore has received a fair amount of negative reviews within the gaming community, this in no way means that it is a failed game. It illustrates the contextual significance of video games. This idea has come up in class as part of our discussions about James Paul Gee's views on semiotic domains, video game literacy and contextual/social meaning. An important point he made that stuck out to me while reading his book had to do with the fact that you can receive far more meaning from something by looking at it in different contexts instead of reading/viewing/interacting with it in one set way (this was talked about throughout the first chapter of What Video Games Have to Teach Us About Learning and Literacy). In the case of Spore, the average gamer will only receive one set of experiences involving playing the game as a set of goals to be met with a creative twist. However, when you place Spore in an instructional setting, it takes on a whole new meaning for teachers and students. It takes on another meaning still within the context of Time's Best Inventions of 2008 as a game displaying societal, scientific importance. This is why I think I was surprised when I first saw this Time article. It's very interesting to see how the meanings and significance of Spore change so dramatically from context to context. One group thinks it's a disaster, another appreciates it for its massive scope and revolutionary concept, yet another thinks it's an award-winning invention. Needless to say, there are most likely countless other meanings and experiences that have been gained from Spore by other individuals. I read Gee's book and understood the concepts he addressed, but it's always great to be able to find examples of these concepts in the real world.
Now, do I believe that Spore warrants spot number twenty on this list? I'm not completely sure. It's definitely an amazing piece of video game ingenuity, but it seems like some of the other inventions I mentioned above could have been ranked higher than Spore. Still, as I've mentioned in previous blogs, I believe Spore marks the beginning of the future of gaming. If you're interested in seeing the actual issue of Time with the best inventions, here's the link:
Time's Best Inventions of 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I wonder what led Time to put Spore on their list and if they'll have anything more to say about it. Their blurb seems to indicate the scope of the game as the reason for it's intrigue, but it's not clear how that makes it stand out as an invention. The animation in the game is a technical leap, something that had been anticipated as much as the gameplay by some people. Going hand in hand with the intense customizability of the characters (and towns etc) is the procedural animation to make it feel like reality.
I think critics may also want to take a breath, and look at how Wright's earlier games achieved notoriety. Sim City and the Sims are not the box office hits of the summer, flash in the pan sort of success. They expanded what mainstream audiences thought a game could be about and what one does while playing. They were appreciated over time as their audiences expanded and matured (in terms of their relationship with the game).
So what does it mean to consider Spore as an invention and to compare it to these other inventions.
Something of a sidenote: it's interesting that they consider the 46th Mersenne prime as an invention and not a discovery. In math there is some bugaboo over whether one invents or discovers new math.
Post a Comment