[SPLIT] Spore: Space Sim

[Faiblesse Des Sens]

EVE was a pretty nice game to play, but far too much is just flying around in space on auto-pilot. It's not too daunting, it's just a game you'd play in amongst other games. And I'd prefer it if it was F2P for what it provides.

 

Does anybody have a game that's like EVE but not as incredibly overwhelming? Something, shall I say, more casual? I've never played a game like that before but after looking a while it looks like there are several games of its kind. I'm wondering if there's a free one that doesn't require you quit your job to play it.

There really isn't anything else out there like EVE. 90% of it is spreadsheets and mundane tasks. However, there is that 10% when someone will forcefully take over an entire corporation, when massive corporations engage in diplomatic warfare, or when the SA Goonfleet launch hundreds of smaller ships at your bigger ship, overwhelming you with unbeatable numbers. It's 10 hours of gametime, where 9 is the most boring thing in the world (Even EVE players can't stand the game sometimes) and the 10th is the most fascinating, unique experience you've ever had. Most people suffer through the 90% to get to that sweet 10%.

There's X3, which is single player, but its 50 times more complex to learn than Eve. Space sims aren't really a big market and any potential devs probably got turned off from Spore's backlash.

 

 

....Spore was a space sim? o_0

[Enervation]

....Spore was a space sim? o_0

 

Part of it was - I believe the fourth phase, right after the world conquering phase. You design your own ship and then embark on a grand exploration of other planets. The scope of it is staggering, since you can basically fly through the entire galaxy, one star system at a time.

[Faiblesse Des Sens]

I know that, but isn't it still nothing like the games being talked about?

[TheMightyEthan]

Putting Spore in with X3 or Eve is like lumping Diddy Kong Racing in with Gran Turismo 5.

[P4: Gritty Reboot]

Putting Spore in with X3 or Eve is like lumping Diddy Kong Racing in with Gran Turismo 5.

 

You're right; Diddy Kong Racing is in a class all by itself.

---

I perused the thread to see if this had been posted but didn't seem to see it; sorry if it's already been mentioned.

 

http://www.oneswitch.org.uk/2/switch-downloads.htm

 

One Switch hosts and makes games targeted at the handicapped, so most/all of them use only one button (usually the spacebar) to play. I particularly recommend One Switch Ballz (tee hee, I know); it's simple but tough to master.

[AgamemnonV2]

....Spore was a space sim? o_0

That's what the entire end-game is supposed to be. It's as shallow as the kiddie pool you first start off in the first stage, however, so it falls flat on its face.

 

Putting Spore in with X3 or Eve is like lumping Diddy Kong Racing in with Gran Turismo 5.

Except in this case Diddy Kong Racing has sold five times as more copies as Gran Turismo 5 and had millions of dollars more spent in marketing.

 

Spore sucks but that game has sold better than any other video game dealing with space (sim, flight, RTS, etc.).

[TheMightyEthan]

Putting Spore in with X3 or Eve is like lumping Diddy Kong Racing in with Gran Turismo 5.

Except in this case Diddy Kong Racing has sold five times as more copies as Gran Turismo 5 and had millions of dollars more spent in marketing.

 

Spore sucks but that game has sold better than any other video game dealing with space (sim, flight, RTS, etc.).

I'm not making a statement about the quality/sales of either game (I love both Diddy Kong Racing, and don't much care for GT5), just saying that they're completely different kinds of games. Spore isn't a "space sim" any more than Diddy Kong Racing is a simulation racer, but that doesn't mean either of them is bad (Spore's space stage is bad, but not because it's not a sim) or commercially unsuccessful.

[AgamemnonV2]

Putting Spore in with X3 or Eve is like lumping Diddy Kong Racing in with Gran Turismo 5.

Except in this case Diddy Kong Racing has sold five times as more copies as Gran Turismo 5 and had millions of dollars more spent in marketing.

 

Spore sucks but that game has sold better than any other video game dealing with space (sim, flight, RTS, etc.).

I'm not making a statement about the quality/sales of either game (I love both Diddy Kong Racing, and don't much care for GT5), just saying that they're completely different kinds of games. Spore isn't a "space sim" any more than Diddy Kong Racing is a simulation racer, but that doesn't mean either of them is bad (Spore's space stage is bad, but not because it's not a sim) or commercially unsuccessful.

So because Spore is cartoony it's not a space sim? That's a new one. Did you also know that the mechanics of X3 don't work on space physics in the slightest as well? By your logic NEITHER is a "space sim" then.

 

What Diddy Kong Racing and Gran Turismo 5 are are racing games, just like X3 and Spore are space sim games (although Spore does touch on other bits in its earlier stages).

[TheMightyEthan]

So because Spore is cartoony it's not a space sim? That's a new one.

I never said anything about it being cartoony. That's the second time you've attacked my point based on something I didn't say.

 

[AgamemnonV2]

Spore isn't a "space sim" any more than Diddy Kong Racing is a simulation racer...

What exactly did you mean then when you compared a kiddy racing game that applies about zero to physics to a kiddy space sim then? Oh, I'm sure you were making the obvious dissimilarities in art direction, right? Oh, wait. You said you weren't making a statement about the quality.

 

u mad because I pointed out the obvious. I get it. Must be one of those "anime and cartoons aren't the same!" situations once again, because none of us want to admit games of different calibers are actually classified in the same category. But what evs, if using a fifty-cent word like "troll" helps you along in the world then do what you can.

[deanb]

Diddy kong is a kart racer, GT5 is a race sim.

 

EVE is a space sim, Spore is a god sim.

 

I'm not sure on where the confusion comes in. You go into space for part of it, but you do in Halo Reach, folks are still aware Reach is a FPS.

[TheMightyEthan]

There are more facets to games than "art style" and "quality".

[AgamemnonV2]

Diddy kong is a kart racer, GT5 is a race sim.

Diddy kong is a racing game, GT5 is a racing game. Way to create a rift in their genre classifications.

 

Tell you what. You find me five sources that classify Diddy Kong Racing as a "kart racer" and I'll drop the matter. I wish you luck in your Googling adventures.

 

EVE is a space sim, Spore is a god sim.

Spore is a god sim for about the first two hours of the game (Cell and Creature stage). It becomes a strategy game for another couple of hours (Tribal and Civilization). The vast majority of time, where thousands of achievements are tied to, is spent in the Space Stage.

 

It's a bit like calling FF8 a card game because there's a card mini game within the game. This is the first time I've heard anyone NOT agree that Spore is all about the Space Stage. What does its expansion center around? Oh, yeah.

 

I'm not sure on where the confusion comes in. You go into space for part of it, but you do in Halo Reach, folks are still aware Reach is a FPS.

What exactly is it with you and obfuscating the point as well as you can?

 

There are more facets to games than "art style" and "quality".

Oh good, you're still being vague. I'm glad we could have a mature chat then.

[Faiblesse Des Sens]

The vast majority of time, where thousands of achievements are tied to, is spent in the Space Stage.

 

 

Where it's still not a space sim.

[AgamemnonV2]

The vast majority of time, where thousands of achievements are tied to, is spent in the Space Stage.

 

 

Where it's still not a space sim.

Of course, because it doesn't fit your narrow definition of what a space sim is, correct?

 

Or is that what I'm missing in chat?

[Faiblesse Des Sens]

I like how I get to start this. =)

 

What's your wide definition of a space sim? Anything in space? Let's go back to the Halo example. Sure, it's set in space, but it's not a space sim.

[McBeeferton]

I'd think a space simulator is flying a ship in space. But could expand to doing just any ol' thing in space. However, Halo is definitely not a space sim...

[AgamemnonV2]

I like how I get to start this. =)

 

What's your wide definition of a space sim? Anything in space? Let's go back to the Halo example. Sure, it's set in space, but it's not a space sim.

It's interesting how I even need to defend this.

 

Space sim, at least to me, details a game centered around the aspect of space in either vehicle flight and combat or exploration for the majority of its game. Spore's Space Stage is all vehicle combat and exploration. 100%. In fact, you don't go out of your spaceship until the expansion pack.

 

Now, is it realistic? Not in the slightest. But neither is Eve, X3, X-Wing vs. TIE-Fighter, or the other "greats."

 

This wouldn't even be a talking point if Spore was a more serious game.

[TheMightyEthan]

There are more facets to games than "art style" and "quality".

Oh good, you're still being vague. I'm glad we could have a mature chat then.

Fine, you want me to elaborate? I wasn't elaborating because you'd have to be a fucking moron not to see the distinction, it's so blindingly obvious (as evidenced by the fact that EVERYONE but you sees it).

 

Diddy Kong Racing is a kart racer, not a simulation racer, and I don't need a source for that just like I don't need a source for the statement "Starcraft is a real-time strategy, not a turn-based strategy." It just is, and if you can't accept it then you're either completely retarded just being difficult (trolling?).

 

As a kart racer, Diddy Kong Racing has at its core the idea of racing land-based wheeled vehicles (it also has planes and hovercraft, but that is not relevant to my point), just like Gran Turismo 5. However, where Gran Turismo 5 attempts to create a detailed simulation of the cars involving intricate fine-tuning and high-fidelity physics simulations, Diddy Kong Racing instead opts for a much more stylized approach (and here I'm not talking about art, I'm talking about game mechanics) which captures the idea of racing land-based wheeled vehicles without worrying too much about getting a perfect simulation of the real world.

 

Similarly, the Spore space stage has at its core the idea of space exploration/colonization/life-in-space, just like Eve or X3. However, where Eve and X3 strive to create realistic worlds in that setting (especially in the context of economics, but in other areas as well), Spore opts for a more stylized, whimsical approach without any regard whatsoever for realism in any way.

 

To break it down still further, and hopefully eliminate any chance of confusion: the distinction I was making, that apparently everyone but you understood, was that Gran Turismo 5 is like Eve and X3 in that they strive for realism (with varying degrees of success), whereas Diddy Kong Racing and Spore's space stage make no attempts at realism, opting instead for more stylized approaches (STILL NOT TALKING ABOUT ART).

 

Spore is not a space sim because it makes no attempt to "simulate" anything.

[McBeeferton]

I like how I get to start this. =)

 

What's your wide definition of a space sim? Anything in space? Let's go back to the Halo example. Sure, it's set in space, but it's not a space sim.

It's interesting how I even need to defend this.

 

Space sim, at least to me, details a game centered around the aspect of space in either vehicle flight and combat or exploration for the majority of its game. Spore's Space Stage is all vehicle combat and exploration. 100%. In fact, you don't go out of your spaceship until the expansion pack.

 

Now, is it realistic? Not in the slightest. But neither is Eve, X3, X-Wing vs. TIE-Fighter, or the other "greats."

 

This wouldn't even be a talking point if Spore was a more serious game.

 

Pretty much what he said.

[AgamemnonV2]

There are more facets to games than "art style" and "quality".

Oh good, you're still being vague. I'm glad we could have a mature chat then.

Fine, you want me to elaborate? I wasn't elaborating because you'd have to be a fucking moron not to see the distinction, it's so blindingly obvious (as evidenced by the fact that EVERYONE but you sees it).

 

Diddy Kong Racing is a kart racer, not a simulation racer, and I don't need a source for that just like I don't need a source for the statement "Starcraft is a real-time strategy, not a turn-based strategy." It just is, and if you can't accept it then you're either completely retarded just being difficult (trolling?).

Right, and where did I call Diddy Kong Racing a racing sim? Oh, that's right. I didn't. So rage all you want.

 

As a kart racer, Diddy Kong Racing has at its core the idea of racing land-based wheeled vehicles (it also has planes and hovercraft, but that is not relevant to my point), just like Gran Turismo 5. However, where Gran Turismo 5 attempts to create a detailed simulation of the cars involving intricate fine-tuning and high-fidelity physics simulations, Diddy Kong Racing instead opts for a much more stylized approach (and here I'm not talking about art, I'm talking about game mechanics) which captures the idea of racing land-based wheeled vehicles without worrying too much about getting a perfect simulation of the real world.

I think it's cute how you call Diddy Kong Racing a "kart racer" rather than what it actually is, a racing game, because you'd then have to admit it falls in the same genre of GT5 (another racing game). It's like people have this driving need to make themselves feel better that they're not playing "vidja gaems" but "complex ultra-serious adult simulators." GT5, being such an ulta-serious complex racing sim, includes such "fine-tuning and high-fidelity physics" that when you take a turn that should flip your car it just slides across the road, or when a specific crash would render your vehicle immediately inoperable or pop a tire or something, you just keep on moving like nothing is wrong.

 

So while you are making yourself feel better that you're playing a "racing sim" that applies some specifics like actual vehicle weight and classifications, it completely ignores everything about REAL racing (I'll give you a hint--in real-life racing, pros do not "lean" into other cars to make their turns undamaged without slowing down). So your argument is shot to hell. The only REAL sims I know of is Microsoft's slew of stuff (like Flight Simulator).

 

Similarly, the Spore space stage has at its core the idea of space exploration/colonization/life-in-space, just like Eve or X3. However, where Eve and X3 strive to create realistic worlds in that setting (especially in the context of economics, but in other areas as well), Spore opts for a more stylized, whimsical approach without any regard whatsoever for realism in any way.

Oh, you mean like the realism in X3 where a planet's gravitational pull comes into play, or how you can land on planets? Or how massive-in-mass ships in Eve can make hairpin turns without so much trouble to never experience a collision or all those lovely sound explosions (I know, they're "pre-rendered" sounds explained in the lore--I so buy that, uh huh)? Or how both some how manage to put a camera behind your ship and then allows you to rotate that camera where ever you'd like?

 

This is all ignoring how X3 and Eve mirror the real life examples of space flight and exploration. Because, you know, we have so many real-world examples to draw from on constructing mega space stations and working FTL travel.

 

To break it down still further, and hopefully eliminate any chance of confusion: the distinction I was making, that apparently everyone but you understood, was that Gran Turismo 5 is like Eve and X3 in that they strive for realism (with varying degrees of success), whereas Diddy Kong Racing and Spore's space stage make no attempts at realism, opting instead for more stylized approaches (STILL NOT TALKING ABOUT ART).

I understood. I understood that so well that I pointed that out when you were being Mr. Vague, but then you raged and told me that's not what you were saying. But hey, you're saying it now. So to recap: you rage when I called you out on what you were doing, you rage when I ask you to clarify, and then you're raging because...why exactly? Because you want me to agree with you or something?

 

Spore is not a space sim because it makes no attempt to "simulate" anything.

So all that planet orbiting garbage or gravitational pull to the galactic core or the ecology makeup of a planet...that's just what? Fluff?

 

I'm calling this for what it is: someone who doesn't want to submit to the fact that a kiddy game like Spore is, in fact, classified with other more "serious" games.

[deanb]

So while you are making yourself feel better that you're playing a "racing sim"

The reason I like folks who have Raptr sigs is cos it makes seeing what games they play so easy:

http://raptr.com/TheMightyEthan/games?platform=PS3

 

Starcraft is a Strategy game. Civilization is a Strategy game. However within that SC is a RTS n Civ is a TBS.

 

Yeah they're both racing games, but within that one is a kart racer n one is a racing sim.

 

Spore is a god game. You guide a civilization from the primordial ooze to building a galactic empire.

 

Also what EVE you playing with hairpin turns? Takes dozens of kilometres to swing around in even the smallest ship.

[TheMightyEthan]

There are more facets to games than "art style" and "quality".

Oh good, you're still being vague. I'm glad we could have a mature chat then.

Fine, you want me to elaborate? I wasn't elaborating because you'd have to be a fucking moron not to see the distinction, it's so blindingly obvious (as evidenced by the fact that EVERYONE but you sees it).

 

Diddy Kong Racing is a kart racer, not a simulation racer, and I don't need a source for that just like I don't need a source for the statement "Starcraft is a real-time strategy, not a turn-based strategy." It just is, and if you can't accept it then you're either completely retarded just being difficult (trolling?).

Right, and where did I call Diddy Kong Racing a racing sim? Oh, that's right. I didn't. So rage all you want.

I never said you called it a racing sim, I was just making clear the distinction that I was making.

 

As a kart racer, Diddy Kong Racing has at its core the idea of racing land-based wheeled vehicles (it also has planes and hovercraft, but that is not relevant to my point), just like Gran Turismo 5. However, where Gran Turismo 5 attempts to create a detailed simulation of the cars involving intricate fine-tuning and high-fidelity physics simulations, Diddy Kong Racing instead opts for a much more stylized approach (and here I'm not talking about art, I'm talking about game mechanics) which captures the idea of racing land-based wheeled vehicles without worrying too much about getting a perfect simulation of the real world.

I think it's cute how you call Diddy Kong Racing a "kart racer" rather than what it actually is, a racing game, because you'd then have to admit it falls in the same genre of GT5 (another racing game). It's like people have this driving need to make themselves feel better that they're not playing "vidja gaems" but "complex ultra-serious adult simulators." GT5, being such an ulta-serious complex racing sim, includes such "fine-tuning and high-fidelity physics" that when you take a turn that should flip your car it just slides across the road, or when a specific crash would render your vehicle immediately inoperable or pop a tire or something, you just keep on moving like nothing is wrong.

 

So while you are making yourself feel better that you're playing a "racing sim" that applies some specifics like actual vehicle weight and classifications, it completely ignores everything about REAL racing (I'll give you a hint--in real-life racing, pros do not "lean" into other cars to make their turns undamaged without slowing down). So your argument is shot to hell. The only REAL sims I know of is Microsoft's slew of stuff (like Flight Simulator).

Of course they're both racers. I never said they weren't. In fact, the nature of both of them as racing games is what makes the analogy work.

 

Also, you make a whole lot of assumptions. Like assuming I like GT5. I don't, I can't stand sim racers, give me arcade racers and kart racers any day of the week. This one is especially amusing, because I said earlier that I don't like GT5.

 

Similarly, the Spore space stage has at its core the idea of space exploration/colonization/life-in-space, just like Eve or X3. However, where Eve and X3 strive to create realistic worlds in that setting (especially in the context of economics, but in other areas as well), Spore opts for a more stylized, whimsical approach without any regard whatsoever for realism in any way.

Oh, you mean like the realism in X3 where a planet's gravitational pull comes into play, or how you can land on planets? Or how massive-in-mass ships in Eve can make hairpin turns without so much trouble to never experience a collision or all those lovely sound explosions (I know, they're "pre-rendered" sounds explained in the lore--I so buy that, uh huh)? Or how both some how manage to put a camera behind your ship and then allows you to rotate that camera where ever you'd like?

1) I never said they were completely realistic in every way. 2) You're picking on camera angle? Wow...

 

This is all ignoring how X3 and Eve mirror the real life examples of space flight and exploration. Because, you know, we have so many real-world examples to draw from on constructing mega space stations and working FTL travel.

Yes, because you MUST have a real-life example of something in order to attempt to simulate it. Simulations can NEVER be based solely on theory, but must have an anchor in practice.

 

To break it down still further, and hopefully eliminate any chance of confusion: the distinction I was making, that apparently everyone but you understood, was that Gran Turismo 5 is like Eve and X3 in that they strive for realism (with varying degrees of success), whereas Diddy Kong Racing and Spore's space stage make no attempts at realism, opting instead for more stylized approaches (STILL NOT TALKING ABOUT ART).

I understood. I understood that so well that I pointed that out when you were being Mr. Vague, but then you raged and told me that's not what you were saying. But hey, you're saying it now. So to recap: you rage when I called you out on what you were doing, you rage when I ask you to clarify, and then you're raging because...why exactly? Because you want me to agree with you or something?

Wait, what? When did I ever say that I wasn't referring to realism? Once I said I wasn't referring to quality of the game, and once I said I wasn't referring to the art. I stand by both those statements.

 

Spore is not a space sim because it makes no attempt to "simulate" anything.

So all that planet orbiting garbage or gravitational pull to the galactic core or the ecology makeup of a planet...that's just what? Fluff?

There is a life simulation going on in some of the earlier stages, but I don't believe that it's actually running at the space stage (I could be wrong about that though). Also, the planetary orbits and stuff aren't simulated, it's just locked in on circular "orbits" around the stars (do they even orbit or are they just stationary? I can't remember).

 

I'm calling this for what it is: someone who doesn't want to submit to the fact that a kiddy game like Spore is, in fact, classified with other more "serious" games.

Again with the assumptions. I happen to quite like Spore, thank you very much (though the space stage was a disappointment because it felt like a big step backward compared to the way the rest of the game built up). And despite how simplistic it is I would be quite willing to call the civilization stage a real-time strategy, even though that lumps it in with my beloved Starcraft, Company of Heroes, and Rise of Nations. This has nothing to do with how serious or not Spore is.

 

And now I am done, because I still believe it to be most likely that you're trolling, and I won't feed the troll any more. If you can actually construct an argument that truly addresses one of my points then I will respond to it, but I'm through deconstructing straw men.

[AgamemnonV2]

So while you are making yourself feel better that you're playing a "racing sim"

The reason I like folks who have Raptr sigs is cos it makes seeing what games they play so easy:

http://raptr.com/TheMightyEthan/games?platform=PS3

 

Starcraft is a Strategy game. Civilization is a Strategy game. However within that SC is a RTS n Civ is a TBS.

 

Yeah they're both racing games, but within that one is a kart racer n one is a racing sim.

 

Spore is a god game. You guide a civilization from the primordial ooze to building a galactic empire.

 

Also what EVE you playing with hairpin turns? Takes dozens of kilometres to swing around in even the smallest ship.

It's like I have to repeat myself three or four times or something.

[McBeeferton]

Also what EVE you playing with hairpin turns? Takes dozens of kilometres to swing around in even the smallest ship.

 

Well, if you're not moving, you can turn around on a dime. Though the physics in EVE are kind of dumb. In Space your speed wouldn't matter if you were simply "turning". However, to change the direction you're moving, that's difficult. EVE does that fairly well. But it's not like you can fly in one direction and turn your ship around while going in that same direction, like you could in real life. EVE treats spaceflight a little too similarly to Earth flight, if you ask me. Though, and this is me nitpicking, even Earth-flight allows you to fly upside down, and in EVE you can't quite do that.

 

So long as you're not moving and tell your ship to change course, it'll turn on a dime no matter the size. I remember seeing a video of a Gallente Titan turning around, albeit very slowly.

 

In my opinion, I wouldn't call EVE a space-sim because it imitates space flight, but rather a space industry and economy.

Edited April 19, 2011 by Sir Beefychu