This puts words and an explanation to the sinking feeling that I had earlier this year, as I compared the reviews of the release version of Spore to the Wil Wright demos and lectures of previous years. It turns out that the lectures were by the "science team", but the final game is more influenced by the "cute team".
I dunno. You could argue the same about the works of Shakespeare, Citizen Kane, The Big Lebowski, and on. Really, you could say that anything great is a time drain. (I'm about to start watching all of The Wire, which is a hundred-some hours long. But from what I've heard, it'll be worth it.)
I'd have preferred something great, and then decided not to play it if I wanted to spend my time more wisely. There's no excuse for what Spore became.
You absolutely can say those things about The Big Lebowski, The Watchmen, The Wire. It's not a slippery slope. If you're good at building stuff, you enjoy doing it, and it's sane to be scared of competing enjoyments --- especially when, like a game, they suck hours away at a time.
Yeah, but... I don't think it's good to say "It's a good thing it sucked, look at how much time we saved." That leads to people thinking it's good to suck.
I'm just saying, it's a silver lining. If someone comes out with some new totally hyped up MMORPG, I am going to be relieved if it sucks and terrified if it is the greatest thing since Trade Wars. I lost friends to EverQuest.
Too bad.