Pfft, I don't even care about these reviews anymore. I've played it about 12 hours over the past 2 days, and while it's maybe not as good as I imagined back in 2005, would think the reviews would be higher.

Seriously, what's wrong with these clueless reviewers? The early stages are only there to give a motto, believability, a training ground and tutorial for the last stage, which is the "real" part of the game!

Furthermore, the fact that almost no one even noticed that the early stages are tutorials means that SPORE is completely awesome.

And more, how can they ask for depth in the early stages when all you do is play a couple of hours in each of them atmost?? The Space Stage is the only one that has depth because you can easily spend dozens of hours on it alone.

maybe the game just isn't that great. Maybe it's only really good

I could understand disagreeing with a reviewer, but don't call them clueless or stupid. They know more about games than you do and have more experience with reviewing them. Also consider that they've probably had far more time than you had to play the game. Like I said, feel free to disagree with them, but insulting them is just incredibly immature.

It's more like they are out of touch.

"What?!? No blood and guns in Spore? Heh, highest score possible - 9."

"Not rated M? Must be casual - deduct 1 point."

They're clueless when they're asking for more depth in the early stages - It's like asking wanting to defeat the real advantages of SPORE. Why force the players to "wait" like 20 hours for the real intention of Spore? It doesn't make sense.

Sometimes More is Less.

This sort of thing happens every time a new, hyped game comes out. Fans who have been anticipating the game for ages start playing it, and in their "wow, this is so new and exciting!" phase, they proclaim it to be "the best game ever made" or some such thing. Then, a little while later, they start to realize that the game isn't the best game ever made, and is, in fact, just one more very good title in a growing list of very good titles out this year.

Give the game a couple of weeks before you start insulting reviewers over pointing out its flaws. Chances are, by then, you'll agree with them.

Honestly, I thought Spore could have been better. I've only barely started the Space Age, but as far as I've played, I thought you could decide to live in your city, even get out of your ship, or just always be able to play your creature and travel the lands on different planets and stuff, but it's filled with individual stages that are not that engaging when you think about it.

The really fun ones are the first two stages, but the rest is a bit too much strategy game style in my opinion. Sure, I'll continue the Space Age because it's where the game really starts, but I wished I could still play with my creature and stuff! You can't even upload created creatures in the Spore Creature Creator in a new planet, or I'm just too noob to know how...! o_o

Yes, I got the RELOADED torrent, and I'm still buying the game.

What is the point of depth when you're only going to give 60 minutes for it? Why give depth when it's not even the focus of the game?

Some people are asking for depth where there shouldn't be any. It's like asking for Diablo 3 to have serious choices/consequences and story-centric gameplay, even though it's geared towards adrenaline-pumping action!

Spore is not a strategy game - It's a life simulator/creator game, and no other game comes close to it regarding that. Why should the developer dilute those strengths?