<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Intelligent Design</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.spectrecollie.com/archives/2008/09/intelligent-design/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.spectrecollie.com/archives/2008/09/intelligent-design/</link>
	<description>Chuck Jordan's Personal Weblog</description>
	<pubDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2009 01:20:47 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Tony</title>
		<link>http://www.spectrecollie.com/archives/2008/09/intelligent-design/comment-page-1/#comment-13459</link>
		<dc:creator>Tony</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Sep 2008 21:16:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spectrecollie.com/?p=841#comment-13459</guid>
		<description>I'm really glad I read this. I've not played the full version of Spore yet, although I did buy the $10 Creature Creator.

My reasons for ignoring the full game largely spun from the realization that if a PC game isn't a MMORPG or (sometimes) an adventure game, I simply don't spend much time with it. More of a monetary thing.

That said, the reviews have been kind of mystifying. It's kind of like when you read a review of a $10 Wiiware or XBLA game and the reviewer is upset that it doesn't have more and more and doesn't last more than 10 hours. That is more of a construction argument than a gameplay argument, but I find it to be of a similar mindset.

I'm not sure what preconceived notions reviewers are required to have when they play a game, but it's generally amusing reading the things and picking up on just how many things about the game they're choosing to remain oblivious to in the interests of pigeonholing the title into a certain, understandable label. 

I guess what bothers me about a lot of it is that it is incredibly, incredibly rare for me to read a review that actually gives me an idea of how much fun the player had with the game. Usually if I do, they're not from the obvious places.

Maybe I'm just cynical, though.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m really glad I read this. I&#8217;ve not played the full version of Spore yet, although I did buy the $10 Creature Creator.</p>
<p>My reasons for ignoring the full game largely spun from the realization that if a PC game isn&#8217;t a MMORPG or (sometimes) an adventure game, I simply don&#8217;t spend much time with it. More of a monetary thing.</p>
<p>That said, the reviews have been kind of mystifying. It&#8217;s kind of like when you read a review of a $10 Wiiware or XBLA game and the reviewer is upset that it doesn&#8217;t have more and more and doesn&#8217;t last more than 10 hours. That is more of a construction argument than a gameplay argument, but I find it to be of a similar mindset.</p>
<p>I&#8217;m not sure what preconceived notions reviewers are required to have when they play a game, but it&#8217;s generally amusing reading the things and picking up on just how many things about the game they&#8217;re choosing to remain oblivious to in the interests of pigeonholing the title into a certain, understandable label. </p>
<p>I guess what bothers me about a lot of it is that it is incredibly, incredibly rare for me to read a review that actually gives me an idea of how much fun the player had with the game. Usually if I do, they&#8217;re not from the obvious places.</p>
<p>Maybe I&#8217;m just cynical, though.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
