Spore didn't have anything to do with creationism. The idea was create your creature however you want it. That was the idea from the first time they showed off the game. The only saving grace of Spore WAS the creature creator and had you evolved naturally you would have even less to do. I spend a lot of times designing games (need to learn how to program beyond Game Maker) and not that that MEANS I know what I'm talking about but the challenges of designing a semi-realistic evolution based game where you don't have direct control over the environment or the organisms evolution are daunting. First example, not having your species die out.
Far Cry 2 was missing something I could never put my finger on. Could have used more animals. I didn't see any zebras? until like 10 hours in when I hit one with my car.
@gorkamorkaorka: I've put a lot of thought into how such a game would work, and I know it has challenges. However, Will Wright used the word evolution one too many times when discussing Spore. If you look at what you are actually doing in the game, it is more or less straight-up creationism. That would be fine if they had never mentioned evolution in the run-up to the game, but they did and here we are.
Anyway, the work that went into building the creature creator could have just as easily gone into some sweet-ass evolutionary-simulation nonsense.
By the way, I recently became a fellow gamemaker-er. How long have you been using it? Any pro-tips?