The article in Wired, is a look at the possible future of gaming, when players will be asked to take a greater role in the building of the game and it's content. Greater freedom will be given to players to utilize their creativity " to help build, design, and populate our digital worlds."
In his article he also explains how games are a completely different way of learning which may not be evident to older generations. He call it the generational difference. The current status in today's media is mostly negative, and it has a lot to do with this difference, this gap. Wright puts it plainly when he writes,
Society, however, notices only the negative. Most people on the far side of the generational divide - elders - look at games and see a list of ills (they're violent, addictive, childish, worthless). Some of these labels may be deserved. But the positive aspects of gaming - creativity, community, self-esteem, problem-solving - are somehow less visible to nongamers.
Which reminds me of an article from the Economist I posted about last year about research on this generational gap.
Now back to game design, research and Spore. At this year's GDC in San Jose, Wright had a presentation on doing good research before building a game and how that will impact the game design. Read all about it over at GameSpy.
Here's an additional 25min video of some Spore game play, from last year's GDC.(It's nothing new though and if you've seen the full presentation, then you've already seen it)
Last not but least, here are a list of other recent articles you'll definitely enjoy:
- GDC 06: Will Wright and Spore (IGN)
- Will Wright explains the origins of "Spore" (ZDNet)
- GDC 06: His Spore-ness addresses adoring throng (Gamespot)
- Wikipedia: Spore (computer game)