New Blog

Two Bits

The Absence of Context in Spore

It is difficult to be critical when talking about a game as earnest as Spore. I expect this is why most discussions, particularly reviews, of the game have been mostly positive. Of course, no one pretends its constituent gameplay modes are any good. After all, we cannot fault it for failing to do something it is clearly not attempting. Yet it is a mistake to ignore the gameplay in Spore. Two reasons are given for excusing its shoddiness: first, the game is intended for a casual audience, and its simplistic gameplay is meant to induct non-gamers into genre conventions, not impress 'hardcore' gamers with its depth. Second, the focus is not the game modes anyway but the creation tools. Yet both excuses are problematic. In the former case, I fail to see how buggy, confusing, and sluggishly-controlled genre prototypes will draw anyone into gaming. The latter case is even more problematic, because, as it turns out, the real problem with Spore is not the overly simplistic gameplay modes. The real issue is that the game fails to provide a context for what are essentially ingenius creature/technology creation tools.

Will Wright's thesis for Spore, if you listen to him speak of it, is so grand, so stunningly vast and all-encompassing, that it is hard to believe you could be playing a game that pulls it off. So it is hardly disappointing when you realize that Spore fails to achieve this vision. The natural reaction then, once you realize Spore is not SimEverything, is to determine what Spore actually is, all hype and expectation aside. It is indisputable that the creation tools, especially the creature creator, are well-done and powerful. Indeed, we could even theorize that they are like coloring books and crayons for adults who have long abandoned their childish attempts at visual expression. In this, the creation tools are not just powerful but profound. But Maxis released the creature creator weeks ago for $10. How do these creation tools fit into a $60 game?

One possibility is the potential for storytelling. Proponents of The Sims, Will Wright specifically, often attempt to explain the series' enormous popularity by fingering interactive, emergent storytelling. Two people can sit down and play The Sims, Wright says, and in conversation they will share completely different stories about their experience. How much more powerful could Spore be, with its broad depth of creation tools that have led to the creation of over 30 million creatures, vehicles, and buildings? This could be Spore's thesis: expanding The Sims beyond the story of a single household to allow players to tell the stories of entire civilizations, from cell to galactic empire. If Spore is not about the simulation of the universe, perhaps it is, at least, the simulation of a creature's story - your creature's story.

It is not. Although you can make just about anything you can dream of in the creature creator, the game fails to provide a context for it. There is effectively no difference between my experience as a vicious dog covered in spikes and as a bipedal, flower-power creature built to appear feminine but equipped with a predator's mouth. There are, in fact, differences between the creatures, but until the Civilization stage, your creature's story breaks down to either killing or dancing (or a mix of the two, netting you a third method of play in the Civilization stage.) At this point, the powerful thesis of creation and story is bogged down by a desire to present the casual player with a sampling of game genres.

It is more than just simplistic game modes. The problem is that there are game modes at all. Spore, as a creation tool alone, would have provided a rich enough experience if the game was simply more open ended. It is true, I found myself telling stories, but the game provided no record of my experience. If my peaceful religious tribe turned into a military dictatorship halfway through the civilization stage, it was simply because I decided to start killing things. The choice was a result of my actions as a player and not as a creator. The game relates this story as a graph in a history menu, not a story. Missing is the spontaneous action of a creature with its own mind. Everything, from cell onward, is player controlled, and therefore the game provides no context for my own creature to tell its story. I am not telling anything; I am just playing a game.

Nor does the 'multiplayer' save it. As someone who has always had trouble connecting with friends to play specific games, this aspect of Spore is silent for me. Even so, I feel confident saying this would make almost no difference. It does not matter who created that tribe of creatures over the hill. They are invariably going to hiss at me or invite me to dance - nothing more. Encountering a friend's creature in the game (and I have) can be exciting, but it is a sentimental reaction and, fundamentally, has no effect on the context the rest of the game lacks. All creatures, essentially, act the same - as do tribes and civilizations and empires. The fact that some of them were crafted by my roommate has little bearing on my experience.

It is hard to be disappointed by a game that aspires so high. Who honestly expects a game to pull off everything Wright preached about? Yet part of having lofty ambitions is knowing which ones are working and which ones are not, so you can cull the flock and focus your work on what is possible. Spore stubbornly, desperatey refused to do that. Indeed, after playing it for awhile, I got the sense I was reading someone's paper that attempted to cram four different, very disparate, thesis into a twelve-page work that only had room for one. Perhaps if Wright had five more years (and five hundred more pages) to work on this project, he could fulfill the many different things he is trying to do. But, he does not, and so we are left with a game full of colorful but empty experiences.

Blog

I'm getting kind of sick of posting 5 versions of the same blog every day. Thus! If you're still interested in reading my blog, I'd like to direct you to http://blog.myspace.com/thesodon. You can watch my blog there, and if you're a myspace member, you can subscribe to the blog to receive handy update notifications in your mailbox. Sweet! So all my posts will go there from now on. Enjoy!

Lights Out

Sorry for the lack of posts lately. I'll make no excuses other than that. I know my audience is limited anyway, so I doubt there is much disappointment, if any!

A strange thing has been occuring since I moved back to Colorado: street lights are dying as I drive by. It seems to happen a couple times a month, and I find it very strange. What are the chances? Further, what are the chances one person will see so many street lights burn out in such a short period of time? I would not label this an ill omen; disappearing lights are just interesting.

As of two hours ago, I am officially done with the Fall 2006 Semester. Huzzah! Now I get to rest for a month, and then it's off to Washington where I shall partake in Jesuit goodness. (Exciting.)

Also, a follow-up to my blog about trans fat:

I Don't Want Sex!

Speaking to a group of business men (of whom I was a member), a wise man once said, "Ask your wife: if there was no sex in marriage, would she still want to get married? She would say, 'Of course!' Ask yourself that question, gentlemen. I'm not so sure I would say 'yes'."

At the time, I agreed with him. It was a valid and difficult question. After all, isn't sex half the point of marriage - or at least half the fun? He seemed to be suggesting an interesting truth about men and women. Women (or most women, or perhaps just some women, which in any case is a lot more than the 'little to no men' tally) are much more interested in the meat of the relationship than men: the talking, the cuddling, the commitment, and so on.

I won't really argue or belabor the point. However, this year has seen an interesting growth in me. I've now come to a conclusion: I would still get married without sex. I doubt if I am the only one who would, but this is my blog after all, so we'll just talk about me.

The fact is, sex is a diversion, or to use weaker language, icing on the cake. If a romantic relationship is a car, then the emotional and non-sensual-physical intimacies are the wheels and engine. Sex is the nitrous tanks in the trunk. Sure, it make for a fun ride. It even makes the ride more attractive when the nitrous turbo boost isn't running. But could you drive without it? Perfectly fine.

I've come to realize, through my relationship with my girlfriend but even beyond that, that what I truly desire goes beyond sex. I want companionship, commitment. To me, marriage (and by extension, any romantic relationship) is about being able to sit down with somebody and be yourself, to have someone to confide everything in - everything, and to have someone to share a bed with simply for the sake of closeness and intimacy. Sex does not really fit into that picture, or at least, the picture does not demand it.

I say all of that to say this: I love hugs. I love cuddling. A kiss, no matter how much tongue is involved, doesn't really even compare to the intimate closeness that cuddling brings. Now, I've kissed. Occasionally, tongue was even involved. But what I treasure most are the hugs, held hands, draped arms, and sitted laps (grammar be damned!)

To me, there are two kinds of romantic, physical contact: intimate and sensual. Sensual (sex and foreplay) is fun, exciting, and science even tells us that it develops stronger attachments (look it up). But intimate (cuddling or any kind of contact that doesn't lead to foreplay/sex) just goes much deeper. It's hard to describe how much I enjoy it. Maybe I should write a poem? Also, maybe I need to get hugged more. Which is an example of how gender roles goes both ways, ladies. As I explained to Danielle, girls can cuddle and hug all day long and nobody cares. But it's a miracle for a guy to even trade full frontals with his friends.

But I digress.

The point is, I would take a tight hug over a hot kiss any day (and luckily, my girlfriend feels similarly). I can't say whether my way is right or not. No doubt many guys (and girls!) would disagree. Still, I prefer the female way of viewing things, where sex is just a fun diversion that happens now and then. The media and society tells me that, as a man, it is natural for me to want sex all the time, without qualification. And it's everywhere. I can't go one day without sex being shoved down my throat, be it on TV, in a movie, or on the Internet. Well, frankly, as Jim said in American Pie, I'm sick of sex, and I haven't even done it yet!

I realize this has been a rambling blog. It made a lot more sense to me in the shower. I should really take a notepad in there with me. Well, I'm going to end this now while I still can. I thank you for suffering through this nonsense, and I apologize for wasting your intellectual time. The blog will return to its normal, sensical postings (as sensical as they ever are) tomorrow.

Missing Hamsters and Sunsets Over the Rockies

Danielle delivered tragic news to me a couple days ago. Remember the hamster pup I was going to adopt from Antigone's litter? (Antigone is Danielle's hamster.) Well, he died. This is a sad day! Poor Spot, the world was too much for your little, furry soul.

Spot is his name. I named him, you see.

Right now, all that's left of the once numerous litter is Runt and Porko. I'm currently slated to get Runt now, but who knows if he'll survive until January. Poor hamsters. I may just have to buy one if all these pups keep dying.

I often remark to my friends that Colorado has the prettiest skies. Well, when I was reading about the new World of Warcraft patch today, I happened to look up and see this outside my window:


I immediately dashed upstairs and got my camera out of the car. I went outside on the deck and took a bunch of pictures. Be amazed!



The whole sky was filled with these orange/pink clouds. The view was breathtaking, I assure you. I love Colorado!

I turned in my final paper for ethics class today. Only three classes left - and tomorrow is the last day for creative writing class. I actually only have two days of classes left, but they entail papers, final exams, portfolios, and group presentations. In other words, suckiness.

But then on come the holidays! Bittersweet holidays. But that's life.

Now, back to Warcraft. At the risk of making myself nerdy, I have to admit that the new patch, and the upcoming expansion in January, has me completely stoked. I may just re-active my subscription in the near future! Although it's likely I'll hold off until I'm done with school. Warcraft may be just the thing I need for the break, what with Jay's girlfriend back in town and all.

Well, I should probably start on my portfolio and paper. I've had all day to do it, and as of 8:57pm, I have done no work on them. I rock!

Uncle Sam Wants YOU to Eat Healthy

So this doesn't make any sense to me. On the face of it, it seems like a good idea. Trans fat is bad for you, therefore, we won't let restaurants serve it to you anymore. But when I came across this, I couldn't help but baulk: "'Often people don't make wise food choices even when given the option. So we have to make choices for them. It's a positive move,' [Hansil Basin, manager of Sbarro pizza] said."

Oh, so now I'm not capable of making my own dietary decisions? Personally, I think this is stupid. Should people eat tons of trans fat so they get fat and acquire heart disease? No. But is it the government's responsibility to make that decision for us? I don't think so.

To me, this sounds like the beginning of a slippery slope ending with vacuum-sealed meals delivered to and arranged for us by our local government. After all, if the government call tell us not to eat trans fat, well then they might tell us to stop eating so much sugar and fat too. After all, it's bad for you!

It's just stupid. What shocks me is how willing people are to give up their freedoms. Rather than make their own educated choices of what to eat, they would prefer the government tell them what they can't eat. Argh.

On an unrelated note, it's amazing how far a blue sky will take you. Colorado has received a few good snows already this winter, but by and large, the blue skies immediately following them have melted a lot of it off and made the roads much clearer. Contrast this with Spokane, who's had similar snowfall but overcast skies. First off, the town's way colder, but the snow isn't going anywhere either. It's sort of annoying, although it some cases, pretty. Half-melted snow isn't as cool as the winter wonderland Danielle and I found behind Greenwood Memorial Terrace on Sunday.

This is the last real week of school, and I have three major paper/projects to finish by Thursday (one on Wednesday). As Danielle's last blog says, "the week from hell." Hers will be worse than mine, for sure, but I'll still complain!

I watched Domestic Disturbance last night, with John Travolta and Vince Vaughn. It's strange watching Vaughn as a serious villain, for one. The movie itself was "meh." I had a few problems with it. Like, for a couple who supposedly tried to "make it work" for "months and months" with lots of "counseling" Travolta and his ex-wife seem to get along pretty well - they're both very nice people. I really could not find any excuse in the movie for them to be divorced. Not to mention - how did the mom not notice how poor of a father her fiance would be to her son? It seems like she'd notice something awry.

The movie kept me watching, but so much of it made so little sense. Oh well. Next up is the old BBC TV show, Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. I've already watched the first episode, which was pretty similar to the first bit of the recent movie. Still, it's British humor, which I find hilarious. I'm sure I'll enjoy the next 5 episodes.