This article exploring the connection between Spore and “Power of Ten” thinking and other cultural issues appeared yesterday. I chatted with Steven at some length for the article, and also went through two incredibly detailed fact-checking calls. (I’ve noticed that when I appear in Harper’s, NYT, New Yorker, I get these massive fact-checking calls about small things; when I am in gaming mags, I never get a call at all, including about big things).
Along the way, Steven (whom I haven’t managed to break from the habit of calling me Ralph) calls A Theory of Fun “one of the best books to date about games and culture.” Now if only he’d give me some of his spare New York Times bestseller slots — not like he’s short of them…!
16 Responses to “Steven Johnson on Spore, AToF”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Interesting article, thanks. I’m looking forward to Spore more than anything else made public so far. It seems perfect for explorative gamers like me.
I think the author greatly overestimates the game’s education potential though. As the old adage says, sometimes only a little knowledge is worse than none at all. I think kids could benefit from a brief encounter with the game for some things, such as a 3-D encounter with solar systems and outer space. But, for the most part, the game is just a vastly simplified and cartoonish reflection of real natural systems. Using it as a core tool to familiarize kids with ecology and evolution would be like using episodes of Matlock to teach law. If anything, it’s better as a reflective tool toward the end of one’s education than as the foundation of one’s conceptual models.
[…] Comments […]
That was a neat article. Spore’s definitely something I’m looking forward to, simply because it will be different from a lot of the rest of the stuff out there.
In response to Aaron – I think games in general could be very useful as classroom teaching aids – for example, teaching a bunch of third-graders math might be easier to do with the help of a fun math game that the teacher helps them play and get good at. Or games designed to help teach history by allowing the learner to “play through” historical events and learn about them at the same time. The various stages of spore would be a good introductory presentation for topics such as biology, sociology, astrogeology, and so on. However, you’re right that a single game doesn’t really convey the depth of a subject properly, so I don’t think we’d ever see games replace the teachers and the lectures, but merely augment them.
I cannot comment intelligently on Spore because the mere mention of it invokes some sort of Pavlovian response in me that mailbox swerve upper with make rent chummy Alaska.
Tulip largely?
Great article, I think Spore will be a fun game, I think it will help people better understand Complex Systems thoery.
Or games designed to help teach history by allowing the learner to “play through” historical events and learn about them at the same time.
In elementary school, around… 5th grade…, we played the most absolutely amazing game. Basically, the entire grade was split into groups and played what was essentially a replica of Oregon Trail over the course of… three months, I think. I don’t remember any history with a direct correlation to that lesson. We also did things like putting Christopher Columbus on trial. And I mean… on trial. I was discarded from the jury due to bias. =P The lawyer (a classmate) made me indicate my position on a yardstick, which I still think is funny. Again, I don’t remember anything.
Granted, I’m one case in, uhh… 120 ish? It’d be worthwhile to find out how much my classmates recall, especially those who played more significant parts in both games (like the student who played Columbus, or the lawyers), but I’ve lost contact with, quite literally, all of them.
Sorry for the double post. I meant to add this:
It might be more effective for a game, especially a game like Spore, to teach the processes of history rather than its details. For instance, why people migrate or what the preconditions to empire are.
Am I the only one who read the article and thought he’ll be lucky to outsell ATITD?
This is what happens when a successful game designer is given carte blanche. He is so jaded with anything resembling the ordinary that he just has to go way out there to provide his nerve endings with any stimulation…
Seriously, read the article again, look at the video demo, and tell me that this game has “mass appeal” written on it. I’m all for cognitive trailblazing, but not with $20 million of investor’s hard-earned capital. Maybe EA will force him to clean it up before release, but this one could end up making Daikatana look irresistable.
caveat architectus, Raph?
Klingsor-
This begs the question: Is a game required to have “mass appeal”?
I’m going to say the answer is no, I posit that a game only has to have “enough” appeal to a segment of people who might want to play the game. Note this means people who play games, and who “might” want to play games (bringing otherwise non-gamers into gaming).
Some games are about killing orcs, MMO, and PVP and they do well. (WOW)
Some games are about building civilizations and socializations and they do well (Sims)
Some segments play both types, some play one type, and some play neither (but would if there were a game like Spore).
I personally applaud someone that innovates into new spaces, some people create incrementally, some create in great leaps and bounds. Either way I think we should support it, obviously EA is willing to.
KG might have a good point that the game’s presentation needs some polish. However, I don’t think that has any bearing on any of the game’s design, good or bad.
Part of having a breakout hit means also taking a risk too. No one’s ever done Spore before. If they had, it wouldn’t be getting nearly as much press.
Is a game required to have “mass appeal”? Well, if $20 million has been spent on its development, I would argue “yes”.
I guess I’m just a corporate Philistine, and find myself taking a more pragmatic view of virtual worlds these days. To David’s point of “part of having a breakout hit means also taking a risk too”, I agree completely, but look closer at the “self-absorbed” (my interpretation) world Wright is creating, and tell me more than a handful of the gaming demographic is going to be able to handle, let alone enjoy, the changes Wright puts them through each “level”. Risky, yes, but to what end?
Game designers, and the people who discuss game design, seem to be infatuated with differentiating themselves (hence the “no one’s ever done that before” approach). Wright is having fun, and I applaud him, but nowhere in the interview or other press have I heard him talk about putting his finger on the pulse of the gaming demographic. He did exactly that with SimCity, although now I wonder if it was accidental. Spore may excite him and a few fans, but will it excite enough customers to justify the $20 million investment?
Having actually seen Spore up close, I can tell you that it is not short of polish in any way. 🙂
Actually, Raph, I never used the word “polish” – someone apparently assumed that through the use of the phrase “clean it up”. What I meant was that the flow of the game, the interface, and the mechanics would be altered to appeal to a wider audience (“clean it up”!)
Your emoticon seems to indicate you’re a big fan of the project…
It’s probably the only PC game I am currently looking forward to. From the design side, I’m fascinated by the procedural stuff. From the play side, it’s very casual feeling — each of the levels is basically a fairly straightforward casual game.
I see it as a sophisticated mix of tamaguchi, monster rancher, pokemon among the gameplay genres. It’ll take advantage of the multiple computers in the household (but not necessarily networked together) to provide a long-term family-play platform. For example, grandma will raise a cute “spore” and the grandson will download them to see what his more violent “spore” can do.
Moreover, over time I think there will be Sim-type social gameplay added to the Spores.
So Spores starts to look like The Sims for a broader set of creature sets in a broader set of playing ground with a broader set of gameplay modes. For $20m, I see it as a great investment in a procedural programming-base world environment that Will Wright and team can build more focused and targeted game off of.
I think that’s just the fact that the game in the video is being talked about as an interested game design, and not so much as interesting game play. However by all accounts Will Wright still enjoys playing the game as it currently exists. I think that says good things.