3 ms·
Game Master
- webmaven 4y agoNeeds (2006) in the title. Personally, I was very disappointed in Spore. All the cool modifications you could make to your creatures had practically no impact on them as intelligent tool-users. Sure, you got different dances around the campfire, and interesting architectural variations, but those were just a surface gloss on what are interchangeable sophonts. Nothing in the way of different lifecycles, reproductive strategies, division of labor, longevity, rigidity or fluidity of social structures, collaboration between individuals (no deindividualized eusocial hive-minds), scale and interdependence of political units (perhaps hypercarnivorous predators all live in small towns with extensive hunting ranges and commute to large centralized work sites with factory farms in non-overlapping shifts), population densities, technological predispositions (eg. for an aquatic species, fire ought to be a fairly late "high tech" development), efficiency of scarce resource allocation, phobias or philias (something like a turtle that fears being flipped over might not do well in microgravity), etc. In short, just as the game seems like it is going to get really interesting, all your choices made to that point become moot: "You're a unique technological species, yay! Just like all the others." It was a huge letdown.