The assumption that we can lose the metaphor for training in the real world through digital interaction, or that we become frustrated by the 'work' involved in reality is half academic jackassery and half depressingly preexisting knowledge.

That a game could teach you to do the wrong thing, whereas building a house would teach you to build a house, but building a house in a game would only teach you to watch an animation, is condescending. The brain is diversified enough to determine the appropriate action to produce a result, if you want some thing, then you do what it takes to create it. that you might get a better idea of the broad strokes of creation from a game is a boon.

On the other hand, the nonexistence of computers in the past didn't prevent people from prayer, and superstitious behavior which produces no measurable effect. Low energy, low risk behaviors are always more attractive than getting something done, until food or lust moves you to make a bigger effort--and in the absence of the energy you need to survive, they're a wonderful surrogate for hope. For instance, govt has a camera installed in all our asses now, or will soon, and they're cataloguing our excretions for future use against us. I don't mean they're out to get us, just that the information is there, and someday, someone will be out to get somebody else--they always are, and they always do. But gaming puts a friendly face on the omnipotent overarching godlike view of the world, where the inner lives of simulated creatures are playings and they have no secrets from you.

So the problem here isn't that people will somehow fall down like marionettes with broken strings--unable to translate gameplay into the real world, the problem is that people will try to make life more like an MMO--and when that day comes, the daily grind... will become a daily heroic. And you'll turn badges in for mortgage payments and the occasional pair of shoes for a wife who you refer to, affectionately, as your epic mount.

I could keep going, but I think this is a good place to stop.

deathbunny

Great interview--astronomy, life on other planets, evolution, etc. has always been fascinating to me.

I appreciate games like Spore because, while not entirely accurate in every respect (and they shouldn't be, or it wouldn't be as fun to play!) they provide a good background and spark interest to the subject. Civilization is another good example as an intro to history/politics.

Picking up Spore later today. Can't wait to start!

VoteSmart

Very interesting. I hope more people see the opportunity of education through games. (Not educational games, just games with somewhat of a moral or purpose at the end.)

MrMister

I have yet to play Spore, but it definatly looks pretty intresting.

Acebuckeye13

On the topic of the interview - As a biologist, the game is incredibly accurate and features a wealth of information that not everyone is privy too. They did a bang up job making the tedium of biology interesting.

On the topic of Spore - I've been trying to get into it but it's slow going. I'm only in the tribal stage so I have not experienced the full game, however the interface, techs, creature creation, etc, just seem so tedious. I absolutely hate sitting back from the big screen monitor and trying to piece together my own creature. I might try starting over with a prefabricated model and skip the cell and creature stages.

Somatoform

Huh. I'm still reading this, although I'm curious: does anyone else think Jill Taylor is being rather condescending towards people who play games?

shatteredhalo

Let's shift the focus to Astrozoology.

Namssorg

Good interview. Downloading Spore right now through Direct2Drive, and can't wait to play.

DukeOfPwn

A very enjoyable interview - I love these kind of debates.

However, I feel a bit put out by Maggie Greene's description of it being "a little 'out there'". It's a bit condescending. Perhaps your are assuming the common denominator here is lower than it is. This site is called Kotaku - and any good otaku will easily grapple with the concepts in the interview.

Sorry, but I get a bit tired of anti-intellectualism, and the internet and geek culture in particular are usually blissfully free of it.

Treesus

@Treesus:

I agree... it'd be nice if Maggie would stop insinuating that her audience is beneath her.

sixonedoesitall

This sounds exactly like a show I caught part of last night on Discovery Channel. "The Future Is Wild and the Making of Spore". They took parts of their old series about how the species on Earth would evolve without us, and added in interviews with people involved in Spore. I think this woman was on it too, not sure, I was falling asleep.

Anyway, I think if you can put this sort of stuff on basic cable, us Kotaku-ites can understand it.

Evil Tortie's Mom

For once, the Discovery Channel held the audience of gamers, and EA got some more publicity. Spore is a great game, and biologically speaking, it is quite accurate, since it is normally the carnivore that has the easy time here.

antisniper

@Treesus: Guh? I think she just meant that it's not the sort of topic people ordinarily gravitate to, but that it's worth reading even if it means having to grasp some unfamiliar concepts. No need to gang up on her.

Allosteric

@Allosteric: I guess. Sorry Maggie.

But I would have thought gamers would gravitate to this sort of topic more than the general public. Anyone with even a passing interest in popular science will find no unfamiliar concepts there.

Treesus

@Allosteric:

I'm with you.

I didn't feel insulted by the phrase.

I'm favoriting the link for later. Seems like it'll be interesting though.

.em.

Interesting debate.

Spore has certainly sparked by interest in the larger scheme of things. How tiny unicellular organisms eventually lead to a race that is the ruler of a planet (human history till now), and perhaps the rulers of a galaxy going forward

I know many people found spore to simplistic to play, but you can make it very interesting for yourselves if you want to. For example play on hard difficulty and stay a herbivore. I tried playing the first two stages with that config, and it is quite challenging.

SansSanity

@Treesus: 'Anti-intellectualism'? I AM an intellectual in the strictest sense of the word - worse than that, I'm *gasp* in a useless field called history. These are not the sort of topics that the 'average' person, gamer or not, spends lots of time thinking about, nor do they gravitate towards them (want proof? I'll cheerfully forward my monthly page view totals which rather clearly show academic or 'intellectual' and 'deep thinking' articles are the LEAST read here). Actually, considering the asinine commentary many articles with an academic bent and the hint of 'intellectualism' is likely to engender, I'd say you're very, very wrong with your assessment that the average gamer population - at least many people who put the effort into writing comments on this site - gravitates towards these sort of topics.

And if I thought the audience here was so beneath me, I certainly wouldn't waste my non-existent free time writing for Kotaku.

Maggie Greene