Spore: Creationism or science? Your world--and welcome to it

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American


The hype machine behind Spore, the highly anticipated Electronic Arts Inc. game developed by Sims City creator Will Wright, was enough to make The Dark Knight seem like a small, art house film. Well, Spore hit the US today (it arrived in Europe late last week).

So was it worth the wait? Early critics note that the game raises interesting questions about intelligent design (or creationism) vs. evolution. "With both evolution and 'creator control,' the game has something for everyone, though looking at some of the designs people have built using the already-available Creature Creator raises the question of whether Intelligent Design exists here on Earth," writes the Indystar.com blog.

"Is this intelligent design or evolution?" Eric Gwinn, a Chicago Tribune reporter asks on Chicagotribune.com. The answer, he adds, is that the game makers are not weighing in, leaving it to the players (and critics) to "see the game as they want." One way to avoid the argument, Gwin offers, is to say that the game "lets you play the role of homeobox genes, the bosses of the genetic factory, which build body parts inside every organism, regardless of religious or philosophical leanings."

Spore follows the same basic principles of EA's successful Sims franchise—gamers must make crucial decisions that affect the entire world in which they operate, and must then deal with the consequences of their actions. Whereas the Sims series focuses on what happens in societies created by gamers, Spore also gives control over the evolution of an entire universe.

Players are able to create and evolve life through tribal and more developed phases right on up to the point where they're advanced enough to leave their home planet and explore other worlds throughout a simulated universe. One of the coolest aspects of the game, senior designer Alex Hutchinson told me at an EA event earlier this year, is the ability of gamers to see the crest of a planet in the sky of their world and know that you’re their creations will eventually be able venture out to explore those new worlds.

The amount of work that went into creating Spore is apparent from its initial phases, during which players create the creatures that will populate their world. Gamers have several hundred categories from which to select attributes for creations, including facial characteristics and body types. Life can also start at the cellular level, where there are about a dozen different categories of attributes to assign. The biggest challenge from a design standpoint, Hutchinson told me, was making all of these different part co-exist naturally to give the game a consistent look.

EA designers refer to this process as procedural animation, a process during which players control a sophisticated 3-D modeling system using nothing more than their mouse. Players can even comment on other players' creations—and use them to populate their own worlds.

(Images courtesy of Electronic Arts, Inc.)

 


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


 

 

 

Larry Greenemeier is the associate editor of technology for Scientific American, covering a variety of tech-related topics, including biotech, computers, military tech, nanotech and robots.

More by Larry Greenemeier

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe