One of the things that Spore was designed to be is a fun way to learn science. Will Wright himself views
games as great tools for teaching otherwise complicated ideas and concepts. While there were aesthetic changes to the game, as it was being developed to make it simpler, what wasn’t apparent was that the team at Maxis decided to cut out a lot of the scientific elements from the game as well. The game is so scientifically unrealistic that it is being criticized by a group of scientists for its inaccuracy. The team of scientist gave Spore a review from a scientific point of view, naturally, grading the game based on its scientific accuracy in each of the five stages, the conclusion being that Spore fails scientifically.

“The bottom line: In spite of its marketing, Spore clearly has little in common with science, especially evolution. That’s a pity, because with very minor tweaks, the game could live up to its promise. Gregory and Eldredge’s critique provides several good ideas, such as incurring a developmental cost for making radical body-plan changes. Another easy improvement would be to weave relevant science into the fabric of the existing game. In the game Civilization, for example, you learn a great deal about the history of ancient cultures through a series of pop-up mini-articles. When you stick a limb on your creature, wouldn’t it be nice to have an optional pop-up window that explains the real (and fascinating) science behind limb evolution?”

The group also concluded by saying that Spore could accomplish a great deal as a scientific teaching tool if it were tweaked through patches or expansion. Before Maxis does that, however, I’d like them to release a patch, or expansion, which gives Spore deeper game play.