Minecraft Review

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Zedar0:
And yes, even redstone, because Terraria has that as well. Unlike Minecraft's, it can actually be hidden...

I've never played the other game, so I don't really care about the discussion. Just letting you know almost all the redstone on my map is hidden in Minecraft.

Vanilla MineCraft doesn't deserve 4 and a half stars I don't think, it's community does.

I prefer Yahtzee's description of Minecraft "creativity toy" rather than "game".

Also best one-liner to summarise this game from the article "This utter and complete freedom is both Minecraft's biggest strength and also one of its weaknesses. If you're not the kind of person who can make their own fun, a lot of Minecraft's appeal is going to be lost on you. "

I go through stints of Minecraft, a single 4 hour session is enough to satisfy me for months =D

EDIT: I'm pretty sure vanilla minecraft isn't a 4.5 star game (Lower than Dragon Age 2 on this website, for those playing at home)

However, modded minecraft easily attains 4.5 in my books, with some of the better mods (HD textures, memory modifiers, etc) taking it up to 5 =D

Legiondude:

Zedar0:
You want a good review? Here:

Notice that this guy basically lists nothing but FACTS about the game. No opinions here, minus the occasional comment, such as his views on the music.

I watched and kept getting the vibe that he was out to accentuate the negative even if he had legitimate complaints

Also, can't reeeeeeaally garner respect for his review if he resorts to using fart noises for every criticism.

Also, every other review that they do is satirical. For example, they gave Sonic Generations a 4 out of 10 for having colors that aren't brown in it and not being able to play as Shadow (jokes that must have seemed funnier in their heads).

However, I get the impression that the shtick for the Minecraft review was that it was mostly non-satirical. Still, you have to agree that delivery is significantly less than what was promised.

Balobo:

SlightlyEvil:
Good to see a proper review, though the inherent difficulty of reviewing Minecraft is that everyone already owns it. Still, one of the best games I've played in ages.

The difficulty of reviewing Minecraft is because it's a pos and massive Notch fanboys will attack you if you speak the truth, so you must shower an unpolished, shallow and incomplete product with glowing praise.

You know it's ironic how I think the same when it comes to Skyrim now you mention it.

What is this? Where normally several articles were on the front page, there now is only this article and a lot of empty space.

rofltehcat:
What is this? Where normally several articles were on the front page, there now is only this article and a lot of empty space.

It's meta-commentary on the Minecraft experience.

Also, I have no idea what's wrong with your browser.

Zedar0:
I'm sorry, but you're out of your mind if you think it deserves that score. I mean, if you like it, fine, but if we're being objective here, Minecraft is terrible in just about every category you could name, and is far surpassed by similar titles such as Terraria, as someone already mentioned.

You want a good review? Here:

Notice that this guy basically lists nothing but FACTS about the game. No opinions here, minus the occasional comment, such as his views on the music.

Again, if you like it, that's your opinion and such and I'm about not to tell you that you CAN'T like it, and indeed there are a few aspects of it I like myself. But don't give it a great score and tell me that it isn't an objectively awful game.

Oh yeah, this is a great, unbiased review. Not like he had a whole segment where he was criticizing creative mode by throwing Diamond blocks into lava pits and at chickens with a goofy voice... Oh wait, he did. He's a total biased jerk. I'll admit, he has plenty of good points. But he's totally biased against Notch, against Minecraft. Yes, Notch is a bit of a jerk. Yes, Minecraft is not the greatest game made. But it's fun, and people like it, and you can't deny that. And it does have it's value. It's not like Twilight that has zero redeeming qualities. Minecraft is fun. It's fun to build, it's fun to dig, it's fun to kill the whacky creatures even if they aren't the brightest.

I prefer the OP's Review to that guys.

Zedar0:
You want a good review? Here:

Notice that this guy basically lists nothing but FACTS about the game. No opinions here, minus the occasional comment, such as his views on the music.

Others have pointed this out already, but it bears repeating: this guy lists some facts about the game in the midst of a lot of his opinions on how fun they make the result.

I'm going to assume the points he brings up about promised features that aren't in the game are true; that sounds like Mojang's performance trend to me. Village NPCs are completely useless from a gameplay perspective, yes, that's not really debatable: they do absolutely nothing aside from 1) exist and 2) wander aimlessly (often ruining their own crops). They're no different from the various animals that have existed in the game for quite some time from a behavioral perspective without offering any of the animals' various useful products when killed.

He's also right about the monsters' AI being practically nonexistent and combat itself being very simple and easy. Unless I'm completely swarmed by enemies in an area that's difficult to move around or escape, or I run into a baddie early on before I have any armor or weapons, I'm pretty much not going to die in combat, end of story; once I've got a full set of iron armor and food, I pretty much only die from lava mishaps or unexpected falls. I would imagine this is true for most players who are at least passably combat-savvy.

However, when he says that because of these flaws the game can't be good and only "autistic" people will enjoy the construction for any prolonged period of time, that's an expression of how little he enjoys playing the game, not a factual description of how much everyone, or even a majority of players, will enjoy playing the game. I posit that the very existence of all the rabid Notch fans mentioned earlier in this thread suggests a good number of people do very much enjoy Minecraft's construction capacity (though I sincerely doubt many enjoy it for its combat or NPC interaction potential), which calls his judgement into question. Unless, of course, it was a joke...in which case it just wasn't funny. But that's okay - plenty of people who try to be funny fail at it. It happens.

I'd say trying to review Minecraft demonstrates the inherent problems of reviewing video games on the whole: it's a highly subjective thing to do, even more so than movie, music or book reviews. For the most part, you can anticipate a box office bomb by judging a movie's technical and genre content. You might come across an unexpected hit out of nowhere, but by and large you'll find some point of widespread agreement as to whether a movie's cinematography is excellent or sub-par, whether a given actor's performance makes a character come to life or comes across as flat and uninteresting, whether a writer's prose is gripping or overwrought, and so on.

But with games? There are folks who'll rate a game down hugely for crap graphics despite good gameplay and others who will ignore those graphics because they value the gameplay. There are folks who demand compelling story and others who are happy with "run to the right and shoot" as the extent of a character's motivation. There are players who will take nearly nonexistent objectives as an invitation to create their own with the tools available and players who think those tools are wasted without proper objectives to achieve with them. It's impossible to "accurately" review games for the majority because, well, there isn't a majority in gaming. There are too many different kinds of players who enjoy different kinds of games and qualities within games, overlapping and splitting apart over seemingly minor features or something as simple as differences in aesthetic preference.

Point being, given the popularity and community support surrounding Minecraft, it would be foolish to judge it a failure as a game simply because someone didn't like it, or even because it's incomplete. Do I find the game's obviously unfinished design disappointing? Yes, extremely. Do I find its graphical limitations unappealing? Yes, especially with regard to the living inhabitants (the block world, not so much). Would I call it a bad game because of those things? Considering I've put at least a hundred hours into it all told, no, I wouldn't. I wouldn't have kept playing if I wasn't enjoying the experience, however half-baked it may be.

To put it another way, the fact that it could be better than it is doesn't make its current incarnation bad.

*

On separate note, regarding its comparison to Terraria: combat in Terraria, though at times frustrating early on and entirely boring once you've hit the cap, particularly if you use intelligent strategy in addition to powerful equipment (seriously, you can solo the hardmode bosses without much trouble if you have at least an Adamantite repeater, a healthy supply of unholy arrows (vendor-sold) for it, Mythril or Adamantite armor, and a platform of hellstone to stand on; a cross necklace and starry cape make this method even easier), is far better than Minecraft's poor showing in that category. It's also more visually satisfying, though I think I'd give the nod to Minecraft on music; Terraria's tunes get on my nerves after a while (totally subjective quality there, of course).

However, in terms of world generation and construction, Terraria pales in comparison. Not only is construction more varied in its possibilities in Minecraft, it is also - and this is important - simpler and smoother. Big ugly blocks make for easy construction compared with Terraria's many tiny blocks you have to place just right with your cursor, then add background walls that can very easily end up looking silly if you stick them out a square too far so that they poke outside the blocks, teleporting and flying enemies can disrupt your construction projects in far more obnoxious fashion than creepers do, and so on. You can still be creative in Terraria, sure, no question, but it's a far more tedious method to do so with less reward in your end product. As for world generation, while both are fairly repetitive, Terraria is the more so, given any world will always have X flying islands, X corruption chasms, a dungeon and a jungle at opposite sides of the central spawn point, oceans at the extreme edges of the world, etc. Terraria's worlds lack much in the way of variety. Exploring the underground caves feels like a chore to get to the next goal: reaching the underworld, finding the last 20 adamantite I need, farming souls of night, etc. By contrast, Minecraft's worlds, though repetitious as well in terms of textures and the total range of possible finds, feel much less predictable. I've spent entire days exploring my way through a single lengthy interconnected series of caves-into-mineshafts-into-crevasses-into-more-caves, and the structures and spaces I came across always seemed at least somewhat unique (With the exception of crevasses which, I have to say, I think were the worst part of the "adventure" patch; they're just so...bland, these wide-open scars in the ground with nothing in them. I prefer the honeycombing caves and abandoned mineshafts with their more mysterious pathing and interweaving patterns. Crevasses are too static in their appearance. But I digress.). It may sound strange, but I have more fun exploring in Minecraft than I do in Terraria, despite the lack of a Dual Hook, Glowsticks or properly threatening enemies to spice up the experience.

They're two games that offer very different gameplay experiences. I've "finished" both - full Hallowed set with a Godly Excalibur, Megashark and more accessories than I have room to carry in Terraria; brick house on a high plateau overseeing an NPC village I guard from monster invasions, with a fully-shelf-stacked enchanting and alchemy alcove in my basement and, below that, an obsidian vault in which I've locked up the Ender Dragon's egg in an iron bar cage in Minecraft - and they were both satisfying and annoying in different ways. In the end, though, I think Minecraft is the one I'll be revisiting more often; there's just nothing to do in Terraria once you have all the gear and have conquered everything, at least nothing that I couldn't do better, easier, and with greater enjoyment in Minecraft.

This ends the wall of text for the evening.

"if you're able to lose yourself in finding your own fun, there isn't a better game than Minecraft."
Sorry, my idea of fun goes beyond stacking blocks. Plus I'd always have that nagging feeling that I paid a fat man for the world's most unoptimised game.

Zedar0:
I'm sorry, but you're out of your mind if you think it deserves that score. I mean, if you like it, fine, but if we're being objective here, Minecraft is terrible in just about every category you could name, and is far surpassed by similar titles such as Terraria, as someone already mentioned.

You want a good review? Here: *Link removed for space*

Notice that this guy basically lists nothing but FACTS about the game. No opinions here, minus the occasional comment, such as his views on the music.

Again, if you like it, that's your opinion and such and I'm about not to tell you that you CAN'T like it, and indeed there are a few aspects of it I like myself. But don't give it a great score and tell me that it isn't an objectively awful game.

A review is SUPPOSED to be a subjective opinion. The way a person experiences a game is subjective and the absolute WORST review I can imagine reading is one that lists "just the facts ma'am" (to quote Joe Friday and date myself). I want to know how it effected the review, what he liked about it and what he didn't, what felt intuitive and what was frustrating. Does he recommend the game wholeheartedly, is he ambivalent, or does he recommend people steer clear.

There is a reason this indie game with little to no marketing budget until recently has moved over 4 million units. Terreria is a fine game, I own it and play it, but the experiences are fundamentally different. I understand why people are so keen to compare and contrast the two, and choose favorites, but really I think that is counterproductive. Minecraft is an awesome game and has great success, it has sucked up many, many of my own hours and I think it EASILY deserved a 4.5/5.

The Cool Kid:
"if you're able to lose yourself in finding your own fun, there isn't a better game than Minecraft."
Sorry, my idea of fun goes beyond stacking blocks. Plus I'd always have that nagging feeling that I paid a fat man for the world's most unoptimised game.

So what game do you like then? Just wonder and that is your opinion. If someone likes to make their down house/castle/whatever then whats the problem?

OT: Never really got into minecraft, would like to try out a better demo then the one they have now. Though whatever, I'll try the game out if my cousin gets it sometime in the future.

The Cool Kid:
"if you're able to lose yourself in finding your own fun, there isn't a better game than Minecraft."
Sorry, my idea of fun goes beyond stacking blocks. Plus I'd always have that nagging feeling that I paid a fat man for the world's most unoptimised game.

Amen. A game in THIS SHAPE costs 30 dollars and gets a 4.5/5? Jesus Christ, the production values and content level of Minecraft would suggest a 5 dollar price tag.

Balobo:
A game in THIS SHAPE costs 30 dollars and gets a 4.5/5? Jesus Christ, the production values and content level of Minecraft would suggest a 5 dollar price tag.

I might not agree with the level of ire some people direct at Minecraft, but I will agree the price seems very high for the content.

Legiondude:

Zedar0:
You want a good review? Here:

Notice that this guy basically lists nothing but FACTS about the game. No opinions here, minus the occasional comment, such as his views on the music.

I watched and kept getting the vibe that he was out to accentuate the negative even if he had legitimate complaints

Also, can't reeeeeeaally garner respect for his review if he resorts to using fart noises for every criticism.

I cant take any reviewing groups seriously if they use the word "Scrub" in their opening.

Seriously, the guy sounded like a pretentious dick sitting in a starbucks recording on his Macbook pro all the while sounding as if he really didnt want to be reviewing the game to begin with.

The fact is, Minecraft is a game as much as lego's being considered toys [and not adult pain traps of hurt], it isn't a game that says "oh, go do this!". sure, there is technically an ending, but at no point are you exclusively told that "this is your end objective".

The fact that it lets you decide on how you want to play, along with each world being randomly generated, along with the ability to play with friends online gives us nearly limitless ways to play.

This review is pointless. this is not a review of minecraft 1.1 or even 1.0. At best it is a review of beta 1.8 but it is more like they took their review from a year ago and put some new paint on it.

"If you're not the kind of person who can make their own fun, a lot of Minecraft's appeal is going to be lost on you"

You could say that about a stick....

Eh. I dislike Minecraft.

I consider myself very creative (I'm a writer, after all) but the way Minecraft throws up its hands and says "you do something" makes me wonder why it even exists. I don't need the game to use my imagination and if the program itself doesn't actually offer anything on its part... what is it?

Slycne:
Minecraft Review

Simple freedom makes Minecraft stand out in today's market.

Read Full Article

I'm going to have to agree with the others here.

"If you're not the kind of person who can make their own fun, a lot of Minecraft's appeal is going to be lost on you" is a rather odd line; it can be used for anything.

Saying something is good if you can make it good isn't what I would call solid review writing.

Outcast107:

The Cool Kid:
"if you're able to lose yourself in finding your own fun, there isn't a better game than Minecraft."
Sorry, my idea of fun goes beyond stacking blocks. Plus I'd always have that nagging feeling that I paid a fat man for the world's most unoptimised game.

So what game do you like then? Just wonder and that is your opinion. If someone likes to make their down house/castle/whatever then whats the problem?

OT: Never really got into minecraft, would like to try out a better demo then the one they have now. Though whatever, I'll try the game out if my cousin gets it sometime in the future.

I play Eve Online, Crysis, Crysis Warhead, Crysis 2, STALKER's, GTA's, DMC's, Sims, GT's, SotC, GoW (both franchises), MoH, Orcs Must Die, From Dust, Total War's, Elder Scroll games, Fable, Halo's, Cryostatis, Dawn of Wars, Split Second, Motorstorm, Wipeouts, Infamous, LBP, used to play WoW...I've been playing games since when Golden Axe was the in-game to have.

Who said there was a problem? Freudian Slip at all?

If I want to play in a sandbox, there are many better games.
If I want to be creative, games really aren't the best tool out there.

And ultimately Minecraft is ridiculously unoptimised/not optimised at all. It will tend to use more resources then the most demanding of modern games, which is applauding considering the lack of anything going on in the game and more so considering the price of the game.

Grey Day for Elcia:

Slycne:
Minecraft Review

Simple freedom makes Minecraft stand out in today's market.

Read Full Article

I'm going to have to agree with the others here.

"If you're not the kind of person who can make their own fun, a lot of Minecraft's appeal is going to be lost on you" is a rather odd line; it can be used for anything.

Saying something is good if you can make it good isn't what I would call solid review writing.

Nope, but it will appeal to the fanboys out there, keeping traffic high and everyone happy...

So much so for integrity.

Mygaffer:

Zedar0:
I'm sorry, but you're out of your mind if you think it deserves that score. I mean, if you like it, fine, but if we're being objective here, Minecraft is terrible in just about every category you could name, and is far surpassed by similar titles such as Terraria, as someone already mentioned.

You want a good review? Here: *Link removed for space*

Notice that this guy basically lists nothing but FACTS about the game. No opinions here, minus the occasional comment, such as his views on the music.

Again, if you like it, that's your opinion and such and I'm about not to tell you that you CAN'T like it, and indeed there are a few aspects of it I like myself. But don't give it a great score and tell me that it isn't an objectively awful game.

A review is SUPPOSED to be a subjective opinion. The way a person experiences a game is subjective and the absolute WORST review I can imagine reading is one that lists "just the facts ma'am" (to quote Joe Friday and date myself). I want to know how it effected the review, what he liked about it and what he didn't, what felt intuitive and what was frustrating. Does he recommend the game wholeheartedly, is he ambivalent, or does he recommend people steer clear.

There is a reason this indie game with little to no marketing budget until recently has moved over 4 million units. Terreria is a fine game, I own it and play it, but the experiences are fundamentally different. I understand why people are so keen to compare and contrast the two, and choose favorites, but really I think that is counterproductive. Minecraft is an awesome game and has great success, it has sucked up many, many of my own hours and I think it EASILY deserved a 4.5/5.

A bad review is subjective otherwise the score at the end is utterly meaningless as it is completely personal.
A good review lists facts because what is the point reading about someone's personal thoughts as they are personal and therefore completely irrelevant to yourself? If I reviewed "The Birth of a Nation" and said it's brilliant because of my personal experiences would you then agree? Or would you stand back and say "hang on, it's a terribly racist film"?

There is a reason minecraft has shifted so many units but that reason doesn't have to be positive quality to do with the game. It could be, and probably is, due to hype and the repetitive actions allowing people to dangerously zone out.
Minecraft is dull, drab and a poor excuse for programming. When it eats up more resources then something like Metro 2033, you have to ask yourself what the hell is going on.

Mr.Mattress:

Oh yeah, this is a great, unbiased review. Not like he had a whole segment where he was criticizing creative mode by throwing Diamond blocks into lava pits and at chickens with a goofy voice... Oh wait, he did. He's a total biased jerk. I'll admit, he has plenty of good points. But he's totally biased against Notch, against Minecraft. Yes, Notch is a bit of a jerk. Yes, Minecraft is not the greatest game made. But it's fun, and people like it, and you can't deny that. And it does have it's value. It's not like Twilight that has zero redeeming qualities. Minecraft is fun. It's fun to build, it's fun to dig, it's fun to kill the whacky creatures even if they aren't the brightest.

I prefer the OP's Review to that guys.

FYI he wasn't making the goofy voice. That was someone from the Minecraft community; the guy remained unbiased.
Some people like torture, others like avoiding washing. What people like to do doesn't make that action inherently good.
Twilight at least has production value - it can look okay and so on. Minecraft just rapes your PC and leaves nothing but piss-poor pixels on screen and the ability to play with coloured blocks. Fan-fucking-tastic, best $30 bucks right there.

Mypetmonkey:
"If you're not the kind of person who can make their own fun, a lot of Minecraft's appeal is going to be lost on you"

You could say that about a stick....

I love this comment. :D

Pretty surprised to see that a game with a lot of hype which has been sustained for such a long time gets a quick one page review and a high score. I was expecting that when this day came I'd read at least a 2 page review consisting of not just the reviewers feelings and thoughts but also more facts and, er, based on the current build. This review could have at least touched on some of the new content, or even described some of the amazingly complex things you can apparently do.

As it stands this interview essentially went:

"Yah, freedom, exploration, freedom, freedom, don't play if you have the imagination of a brick."

I feel this review is pretty low in standard compared to the normal quality I expect from Escapist, and the whole thing feels like it was written several months ago and quickly rushed out the door today to fill daily news space.

I'm baffled to see someone compared Minecraft to Skyrim just because they're finished games with a lot of flaws that are still enjoyable.

Skyrim's bad flaws can be excused because
1. They aren't gamebreakers and usually briefly break the immersion at best (mandatory point to make)
2. (most importantly) the game is so vast and has so many things going, so many questlines and randomized encounters and NPCs and whatnot, that one has to realize a product with that much going on can't be bug-free. These are all the good things that overshadow the bad things.

Minecraft has even been called "more of a sandbox than a game", which should tell you why that excuse doesn't apply to it at all. I can understand the appeal of the game for some, but I personally stick to my imagination or drawings when I want to create a building or something, and when I want the feeling of building my house amidst the monsters of the world and then beating the crap out of them and decorate my chimney with their loot and faces, I stick to Terraria.
I mean, shit, look at what they shipped with 1.1. That's the kind of dedication I feel is absent from Minecraft.

Grey Day for Elcia:
Eh. I dislike Minecraft.

I consider myself very creative (I'm a writer, after all) but the way Minecraft throws up its hands and says "you do something" makes me wonder why it even exists. I don't need the game to use my imagination and if the program itself doesn't actually offer anything on its part... what is it?

Being a writer, isn't that pretty much the same relationship you have with your writing tool, be it pen or computer?

What an awful review.
The game is incomplete, utterly boring, and the fact that you have to pay for it is a joke.

Grey Day for Elcia:

Slycne:
Minecraft Review

Simple freedom makes Minecraft stand out in today's market.

Read Full Article

I'm going to have to agree with the others here.

"If you're not the kind of person who can make their own fun, a lot of Minecraft's appeal is going to be lost on you" is a rather odd line; it can be used for anything.

Saying something is good if you can make it good isn't what I would call solid review writing.

Which is something I could generally agree with, but that isn't precisely the point I am making here. Rather than making the game good, I'm pointing out that you have to enter it with a proper mindset. It's fairly akin to how someone might approach a challenging game like Ninja Gaiden or Dark Souls. If you're unable to find the fun in the challenge then you are not likely to enjoy the game.

"Justin Clouse wonders what that hissing noise is." Millions of annoyed readers at seeing yet another 4.5 score coupled with a review that doesn't list any obvious faults.

Slycne:

Grey Day for Elcia:

Slycne:
Minecraft Review

Simple freedom makes Minecraft stand out in today's market.

Read Full Article

I'm going to have to agree with the others here.

"If you're not the kind of person who can make their own fun, a lot of Minecraft's appeal is going to be lost on you" is a rather odd line; it can be used for anything.

Saying something is good if you can make it good isn't what I would call solid review writing.

Which is something I could generally agree with, but that isn't precisely the point I am making here. Rather than making the game good, I'm pointing out that you have to enter it with a proper mindset. It's fairly akin to how someone might approach a challenging game like Ninja Gaiden or Dark Souls. If you're unable to find the fun in the challenge then you are not likely to enjoy the game.

What challenge?
The AI does not exist and the food system is broken.
The only challenge would be taking the time off school or work to sink into this game to get anywhere.

Landis963:
"Justin Clouse wonders what that hissing noise is." Millions of annoyed readers at seeing yet another 4.5 score coupled with a review that doesn't list any obvious faults.

Millions of annoyed readers should take a second look at the last two paragraphs.

Jimbo1212:

Slycne:

Which is something I could generally agree with, but that isn't precisely the point I am making here. Rather than making the game good, I'm pointing out that you have to enter it with a proper mindset. It's fairly akin to how someone might approach a challenging game like Ninja Gaiden or Dark Souls. If you're unable to find the fun in the challenge then you are not likely to enjoy the game.

What challenge?
The AI does not exist and the food system is broken.
The only challenge would be taking the time off school or work to sink into this game to get anywhere.

Alright? I wasn't talking about challenge directly though, I was making a comparison about how other games require you to approach them on specific levels for them to be truly fun or good.

Slycne:

Jimbo1212:

Slycne:

Which is something I could generally agree with, but that isn't precisely the point I am making here. Rather than making the game good, I'm pointing out that you have to enter it with a proper mindset. It's fairly akin to how someone might approach a challenging game like Ninja Gaiden or Dark Souls. If you're unable to find the fun in the challenge then you are not likely to enjoy the game.

What challenge?
The AI does not exist and the food system is broken.
The only challenge would be taking the time off school or work to sink into this game to get anywhere.

Alright? I wasn't talking about challenge directly though, I was making a comparison about how other games require you to approach them on specific levels for them to be truly fun or good.

...what does that even mean?
Minecraft has no challenges besides alpha combat and brick stacking. It is not like GTA where you can attack a convoy in a hundred ways. The games you listed are directly challenging so I'm not sure why you brought them up.
The storyline in Mincraft(if you can call it that) is generic, linear, and a huge grind, and the rest of the game is brick stacking.
Where is the challenge or entertainment in this game?

Jimbo1212:
...what does that even mean?
Minecraft has no challenges besides alpha combat and brick stacking. It is not like GTA where you can attack a convoy in a hundred ways. The games you listed are directly challenging so I'm not sure why you brought them up.
The storyline in Mincraft(if you can call it that) is generic, linear, and a huge grind, and the rest of the game is brick stacking.
Where is the challenge or entertainment in this game?

Do I really need to explain what a comparison is? The original poster misinterpreted my intention with the specific line, so I was trying to provide an example of the concept in different situation. You keep getting hung up on challenge when I'm not talking about it. I wasn't saying Minecraft is only good if you make it good for yourself, I was saying that Minecraft is good in a similar way that games like Dark Souls require you to enjoy them in a specific fashion. Minecraft requires you to enter with a mindset of making your own fun where as games like Dark Souls requires a mindset of enjoying the challenge. The point was simply in them both needing a specific connection not about challenge. Make sense?

Slycne:

Jimbo1212:
...what does that even mean?
Minecraft has no challenges besides alpha combat and brick stacking. It is not like GTA where you can attack a convoy in a hundred ways. The games you listed are directly challenging so I'm not sure why you brought them up.
The storyline in Mincraft(if you can call it that) is generic, linear, and a huge grind, and the rest of the game is brick stacking.
Where is the challenge or entertainment in this game?

Do I really need to explain what a comparison is? The original poster misinterpreted my intention with the specific line, so I was trying to provide an example of the concept in different situation. You keep getting hung up on challenge when I'm not talking about it. I wasn't saying Minecraft is only good if you make it good for yourself, I was saying that Minecraft is good in a similar way that games like Dark Souls require you to enjoy them in a specific fashion. Minecraft requires you to enter with a mindset of making your own fun where as games like Dark Souls requires a mindset of enjoying the challenge. The point was simply in them both needing a specific connection not about challenge. Make sense?

"Making your own fun" is applicable to every game, from tetris, CoD, and dribbling on paper. It is what mothers tell bored children when they run out of toys.
No game should ever been based solely on "making it up as you go", because that is absurd and shows the game to be vacuous and utterly lacking content. There is no challenge and no storyline, thus there is nothing to do besides stacking blocks.
Every game is a carefully designed experience, from characters to the gameplay, yet Mincecraft gives up on the title screen and tells the user to "make the fun themselves". What is the difference between that and a blank piece of paper with crayons? Now who ever referred to crayons and paper as a game?

Exaggeration is fun!

Yes, Minecraft, a game in which you can explore a constantly generating randomized world - within the limits of what it has available to generate, of course - is identical to a sheet of blank paper and a box of crayons. Everyone has the talent to make enormous three-dimensional recreations of their favorite architecture using only crayons and this simple wood product! Moreover, crayons will occasionally rebel to challenge you while you're drawing by hopping around the paper and butting into things! In fact, I'd call crayon AI even more challenging than-wait what?

No. No, that isn't right at all.

Minecraft is really more comparable to a game like Saints Row or Grand Theft Auto than a box of crayons in terms of "finding your own fun." Bear with me - I realize your first instinct is going to be to say "no it isn't you can't even build in those games and you have missions and guns and interactive NPCs and blahblahblah" yeah, I know, they're very different games; I'm not trying to say they're the same. I'm just comparing this one quality they have in common. See, when you've finished the "story" of, say, Saints Row 3 (which isn't really all that long), you're left with a reasonably big city and a bunch of tools you can use to navigate said city and blow its inhabitants to bits. There aren't really any goals at that point, though. It's just a playset for you to mess around with however you like. Some folks will, at this point in the game, become bored with it and stop playing - they've beaten the game and don't see any reason to keep messing around. Others will use the options available to enjoy driving around the city, crashing into things, flashing people, swinging jets through narrows spaces between buildings for bonus points, fighting cops to see how long they can survive a full-on tank-and-helicopter onslaught before ending up at the hospital, and so on. Does this accomplish anything? No, not really; they're just having fun with the options the game gives them.

Likewise, Minecraft is a huge open world with a set of tools you can use to do what you want to do with it. What it lacks is the focus of a story or quests or similar objective-based gameplay (aside from the achievements, some of which are reasonably challenging to achieve, though a few are basically just luck-based missions). As in the above example, for some people this is a turn-off and they won't be interested in the unfocused gameplay available, while others will see this as an opportunity to have fun in their own way with the tools available. Could they do this with Legos or crayons or clay? Sure, some of them could. Not everyone has the means or talent to create what they'd want to make in the real world, though. Minecraft is a much easier creative outlet for a lot of folks, and it certainly allows you to build on an incredible large scale compared to what is possible in reality (the Lord of the Rings recreation guys come to mind - seriously, I'd love you to show me how to recreate the entire Lord of the Rings world set anywhere near to-scale with crayons and sheets of paper; it's impractical even to imagine).

I'd really call it more "setting your own goals" than "making your own fun," though ultimately amounts to much the same thing. You aren't intended to "make your own fun" or "set your own goals" in Tetris, Call of Duty, or that other game you mentioned with the dribbling and paper (I'm afraid I've never heard of that one - is it by EA?), you're intended to go for a high score or get to the next level or follow the mission on your HUD or whatever the next pre-set goal dictates. Sometimes all you need is to have an open space to follow your own interests and see where they lead you. For a lot of people, Minecraft is a good outlet for that.

There's something important to keep in mind here: the fact that you (global "you" here, not an individual poster) dislike or do not understand the appeal of a given thing does not necessarily mean it is bad. It is completely okay to have your own opinion in opposition to others. It's okay to not like things! Even if other people like those things that you don't like! There's no need to wear yourself out trying to tear it down just because you don't like it; the people who do like it are unlikely to change their minds because of a rant of dissatisfaction with X graphics or Y gameplay. Chances are they already know about these issues; they might even agree with you. They disagree, however, on the result of those flaws.

And that's okay. So relax! :D

Shjade:
Exaggeration is fun!

Yes, Minecraft, a game in which you can explore a constantly generating randomized world - within the limits of what it has available to generate, of course - is identical to a sheet of blank paper and a box of crayons. Everyone has the talent to make enormous three-dimensional recreations of their favorite architecture using only crayons and this simple wood product! Moreover, crayons will occasionally rebel to challenge you while you're drawing by hopping around the paper and butting into things! In fact, I'd call crayon AI even more challenging than-wait what?

No. No, that isn't right at all.

I'm going to have to burst your bubble here:

1)Minecraft isn't actually 3D. It's pseudo-3D, just like how drawing a cube on paper is. You aren't actually making a 3D structure in the same manner as an architect.

2)You aren't making decent recreations of anything:




 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here