Monday 8 April 2013

BA6 | Advanced Game Studies #03


Game Analysis #3 - Spore

In 2008 Maxis released Spore, a god game where players take control of the development of a species of which they create themselves. They begin their life as a microscopic organism and the player must control their development as the creature becomes more intelligent and grows as a species.

Unfortunately I couldn’t get a hold of a copy of Spore, nor could I find an affordable copy to buy :/ Therefore this analysis may be slightly less informed than my previous 2.


Structural Framework Analysis  

How do the rules and conditions of the game create conflict?

One possible rule/condition seen at the beginning of Spore comes in the form of a choice. Players are forced choose whether their creature is a herbivore or a carnivore. No big deal, right? Wrong, from the videos I have been watching and reviews I've been reading it seems that carnivores are portrayed as a more brutal species compared to herbivore as they tend to have to fight and enter combat throughout the game to survive. Herbivores seem to befriend other herbivores and have a much calmer development cycle. This rule/condition of gameplay can cause conflict between the different species within the world of spore later in the game. This is most apparent at the “creature” stage of the game where carnivores must go around killing and destroying in order to progress whereas herbivores seem to have it much…friendlier? 

Are players struggling against each other, the game or both?

As there are 5 separate elements of gameplay styles in Spore, it is difficult to label the game in terms of multiplayer options. These stages are cell, creature, tribal, civilization and space stage. The cell, creature, tribal and civ stages are all single player components of the game.  However, the space stage of spore allows players to roam around the Spore galaxy, finding new planets to land on and explore. Most of these planets are run by other human players or have been created by them. However, players can not “go to battle” or enter combat with other players like one would in a multiplayer game. No, instead these worlds are populated using the pollinated content, all creations, creatures, buildings and vehicles etc, are automatically shared and can be found in the “Sporepedia” (a sort of online Spore content library).

So, having said this, I can conclude that players aren’t ever really struggling against each other. Unless perhaps they want to better what someone else has created and dropped in the Sporepedia but that’s not really what the game’s about. Ultimately the player is struggling against the game. 
 
What are the interactive experiences provided for players in the game?

In some ways, Spore is one massive interactive experience. The chance for a player to fully interact with the development of something they themselves created. However, this conclusion depends on how we depict “interactive”. I guess the “god” element of the game suggests that its an interactive experience but not one that continues after the games been switched off..

Perhaps the Sporepedia can be considered an interactive experience for the player as they can interact with all the community made content that has been created and also submit creations of their own.
 
 
>> video reference, credit goes to pivotnils << 

Referring to my initial point, players can literally create what they want too, surely this is interactivity? The player must interact with the game and their creature or world to enhance it. They get to choose how their creature looks and how it behaves in the world of Spore. 

 
>> video reference, credit goes to Spore << 
 
 Does interaction create meaningful play?

From what I can gather, without actually playing the game, this interaction with your spore creature most definitely creates meaningful play. You don’t want a creature you designed from organism to creature fail miserably. No, you want your creature to do great and be amazing. The personal stake in your creature from the interactive elements of the game creates meaningful play definitely. 

Aesthetic Framework Analysis

What does the game look like?

Visually, Spore is very bright, colourful and vibrant. Personally, from what I have seen of the game, I find the creature models quite comical in appearance. As I mentioned previously, the game is split up into 5 separate sections of gameplay and each portrays a different “look” in terms of aesthetics and presentation. 

Stage 1 - Cell Stage. This is a birds eye view section of the game with very simplistic controls and objectives. Visually it’s very simple but colourful and vibrant. 
 
 >> picture reference <<
 Stage 2 - Creature Stage. This section of the game takes on the “3rd person action adventure” role. Players assume the direct control of their creature and move it around the world. 
 
 >> picture reference <<
 
Stage 3 - Tribal Stage.  Not that visually different from the creature stage except players are given structures to play and interact with whilst progressing through the development of their creature.   
 
 >> picture reference << 
 
 Stage 4 - Civilization stage. This is supposed to reflect popular god games such as it’s namesake, Sid Meiers Civilization series. 
 
 >> picture reference <<
 
 Stage 5 - Space Stage. Players get to control their ship and move their creature through various galaxies ready to explore. 
 
>> picture reference << 
 
What are the possible visual influences and intertextual references?

Whilst searching for gameplay videos of Spore I came across the Zero Punctuation review, which is admittedly frank and to the point with dark comedy. However, there is an adequate point made about the different level stages of Spore and how they are just like pre existing games. So this could be considered an influence. Skip to 2:58 to see the visual influences for each stage of the game or watch from the start to see a comical video review of Spore.
 
 
>> video reference, credit goes to TheEscapistMagazine << 
 
Contextual Framework Analysis

Consider the game in terms of context, origin, year of manufacture, company, target audience, does the game contain any persuasive purpose, what would make the game more effective and what potentials does the game point to?

Developed by Maxis and designed by Will Wright, Spore was released in 2008 for PC and Macintosh. Described as a massively single player game players assume the god role and create an army of creatures, developing them from organic cell through to galaxy exploration. 

Spores target audience can vary greatly, often described as trying to please a wide variety of different gamers and supporting varying styles of gameplay to suit. With elements of 3rd person action, simplistic FLOW-esque top down games and RTS games Spore offered options to many different gamers suggesting that its target audience was…well, pretty much everyone. 
 
From what I can tell most of the sections of different gameplay needed more work or just needed to not be there, this is what I can understand from reviews. Having said that, Spore points to a potential of learning. Learning about development cycles, growing a community of your own, making adult decisions and ensuring your creatures are okay. These are all responsibilities which the player must take seriously in order to successfully manage the game.

No comments:

Post a Comment