Minecraft Review

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

The Cool Kid:
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.

Shjade:
Exaggeration is fun!

Reading is awesome.

As for #2, "decent" is in the eye of the beholder. I've seen some Minecraft "recreations" that looked like a mess of blocks to me. When I watched the walkthrough of what was supposed to be the Minecraft version of the Shire, it was just blobs of green. The people providing the tour were certainly excited about what they were showing off, but it didn't look like much to me. On the other hand, when they got to Moria and the vast caverns and halls and pathways they'd constructed for it? That was pretty damn impressive. I could actually recognize locations and had a fairly good idea where some of those offshoot tunnels led within the foundation of the world they were emulating. That strikes me as qualifying for "decent." Likewise a world in which various set pieces from Studio Ghibli were built up in voxel form: I recognized about 90% of the locations in that map, some after just a glimpse of the design.

There are some pretty decent recreations in Minecraft. That doesn't mean they're pretty (though some manage it, somehow) or that everyone's going to agree on their success, but it's certainly possible and has been done.

Shjade:

The Cool Kid:
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.

Shjade:
Exaggeration is fun!

Reading is awesome.

As for #2, "decent" is in the eye of the beholder. I've seen some Minecraft "recreations" that looked like a mess of blocks to me. When I watched the walkthrough of what was supposed to be the Minecraft version of the Shire, it was just blobs of green. The people providing the tour were certainly excited about what they were showing off, but it didn't look like much to me. On the other hand, when they got to Moria and the vast caverns and halls and pathways they'd constructed for it? That was pretty damn impressive. I could actually recognize locations and had a fairly good idea where some of those offshoot tunnels led within the foundation of the world they were emulating. That strikes me as qualifying for "decent." Likewise a world in which various set pieces from Studio Ghibli were built up in voxel form: I recognized about 90% of the locations in that map, some after just a glimpse of the design.

There are some pretty decent recreations in Minecraft. That doesn't mean they're pretty (though some manage it, somehow) or that everyone's going to agree on their success, but it's certainly possible and has been done.

I'm telling you the facts, not giving you hyperboles so I've no idea how you think I'm exaggerating anything. Would you claim that someone saying the sky is blue is exaggerating?

This is not about what is "impressive", please don't change the subject as you said :

Everyone has the talent to make enormous three-dimensional recreations...

You are confusing 'recreation' with what are effectively homages as I've shown they are neither 3D and are so far fetched from their real life counterparts they can't be considered recreations.
You wouldn't consider the child's drawing to be a recreation, so why are you saying the Minecraft "buildings" are recreations? Homages, not recreations.

Shjade:
*wall of text snip*

Sorry, that is just flat out wrong.
GTA and all open world sand box games like it have clear objectives and challenges, they merely offer a large, but limited number of approaches. If there is a mission to kill some guy, you could use different weapons, come in at different angles etc. Even when the main story is finished, you still have challenges such as packages, rampages, taxi missions etc. But what is clear are 2 things; the objective and that there is a challenge. However every now and then you might spend a few minutes just mucking about

Minecraft has no objectives, no challenge, and is 100% dicking around....but with no cars, guns, planes, people to kill......just dirt.
And don't give me the "Minecraft is creative" spiel. If you want to be creative, go on Garry's Mod, get some 3D render programs or the dozens of free Dev Kits. Making a poor blocky recreation of a house is the same as saying that a 3 yr olds scribble of a house is art and creative.

Skyrim is about wondering around. You see a great big mountain and set off and see what treasures ans stories you come across. In Minecraft......you just wonder about like a headless chicken.

In short, every element of Minecraft has been done so incredibly better by many other games, thus to give it 4.5/5 is a joke.....and this is not even mentioning the clearly incomplete parts, dire bugs and AI, the hideous graphics, and zero optimisation, all of which you would find in an alpha release of a game.

The Cool Kid:
I'm telling you the facts, not giving you hyperboles so I've no idea how you think I'm exaggerating anything.

I don't. I was exaggerating and you've completely missed it, despite my starting that post by pointing out I was about to have fun with exaggeration, too. Reading.

Jimbo1212:
GTA and all open world sand box games like it have clear objectives and challenges, they merely offer a large, but limited number of approaches. If there is a mission to kill some guy, you could use different weapons, come in at different angles etc. Even when the main story is finished, you still have challenges such as packages, rampages, taxi missions etc. But what is clear are 2 things; the objective and that there is a challenge. However every now and then you might spend a few minutes just mucking about

Thank you for reinforcing my point. Yes, some players might spend a few minutes just mucking about. Other players might spend far more time mucking about than they ever do dealing with the game's objectives and main story. It's a question of individual interest in what the game allows.

I'm not a builder in Minecraft, myself. I make a small house or an outpost or something to that effect, just something simple and secure for a base of operations, then spend about 90% of my time in any given map/server mapping out caves and landmarks and so on. I like exploring; it's what I do. There aren't many games that allow for that interest to the extent that Minecraft does. Terraria's map is limited by comparison. Skyrim's content is static; I did enjoy exploring it for a large chunk of time, but it has little value for me after I've seen all there is to see. MMORPGs have the same issue: lots to explore, but limited interest after I've seen it all - the raiding and so forth is a grind, not entertainment. Differences in player interest.

Creative mode in Minecraft is akin to Garry's Mod (from what I've seen of it, at least - I've never used Garry's Mod, or played Creative mode for that matter), but Survival mode is not so much. The objectives you more or less make for yourself, yes. The challenge is then in completing those objectives: finding and collecting the materials you need without dying too much in the process to finish the project you want to do. I don't recall going on a "Minecraft is creative" tangent, nor was it my plan to do so; people are creative. Minecraft is a game that has space for creativity in it. An incomplete game, I'd say, but a successful one. I don't mean that in financial terms (though it obviously is that, too). I mean it's successful in that people enjoy playing it. That seems like the core goal of a game to me.

Again, could it be better? Yes, of course. Does it need to be better to be good? Apparently not. I'm not saying I'd give it a 4.5/5 myself, but then, I'm not really the type who thinks scoring games makes any sense (see wall of text for details). I am capable of recognizing entertainment value, however, even if I don't always agree with it myself.

Shjade:

Jimbo1212:
GTA and all open world sand box games like it have clear objectives and challenges, they merely offer a large, but limited number of approaches. If there is a mission to kill some guy, you could use different weapons, come in at different angles etc. Even when the main story is finished, you still have challenges such as packages, rampages, taxi missions etc. But what is clear are 2 things; the objective and that there is a challenge. However every now and then you might spend a few minutes just mucking about

Thank you for reinforcing my point. Yes, some players might spend a few minutes just mucking about. Other players might spend far more time mucking about than they ever do dealing with the game's objectives and main story. It's a question of individual interest in what the game allows.

I'm not a builder in Minecraft, myself. I make a small house or an outpost or something to that effect, just something simple and secure for a base of operations, then spend about 90% of my time in any given map/server mapping out caves and landmarks and so on. I like exploring; it's what I do. There aren't many games that allow for that interest to the extent that Minecraft does. Terraria's map is limited by comparison. Skyrim's content is static; I did enjoy exploring it for a large chunk of time, but it has little value for me after I've seen all there is to see. MMORPGs have the same issue: lots to explore, but limited interest after I've seen it all - the raiding and so forth is a grind, not entertainment. Differences in player interest.

Creative mode in Minecraft is akin to Garry's Mod (from what I've seen of it, at least - I've never used Garry's Mod, or played Creative mode for that matter), but Survival mode is not so much. The objectives you more or less make for yourself, yes. The challenge is then in completing those objectives: finding and collecting the materials you need without dying too much in the process to finish the project you want to do. I don't recall going on a "Minecraft is creative" tangent, nor was it my plan to do so; people are creative. Minecraft is a game that has space for creativity in it. An incomplete game, I'd say, but a successful one. I don't mean that in financial terms (though it obviously is that, too). I mean it's successful in that people enjoy playing it. That seems like the core goal of a game to me.

Again, could it be better? Yes, of course. Does it need to be better to be good? Apparently not. I'm not saying I'd give it a 4.5/5 myself, but then, I'm not really the type who thinks scoring games makes any sense (see wall of text for details). I am capable of recognizing entertainment value, however, even if I don't always agree with it myself.

But the vast majority of gamers want structure and 99% of people would find what you do to be boring. On those grounds alone, the game should have not received 4.5/5.
It also speaks volumes that you just wonder about on a crap looking map ignoring 95% of MC's content and do not want to get involved in it.

No - Garrys mod is nothing like Minecraft. It is far more complex and allows for anything. MC allows for logic and brick stacking. Comparing the two is insulting to Garrys mod and the Source Engine.

Rubbish, you know it could be far better - the game is still alpha. Does it need to be better? Well it needs to be a finished product before being reviewed.

Shjade:
snip

Your exaggeration though was utter drivel and so far off the mark, it wasn't an exaggeration, it was:

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.

I do see what you're saying, that Minecraft offers a lot (in your eyes) if you are the kind of person it clicks with. It just seems odd that a games biggest praise is "you'll like it if you make it good".

Maybe that's one of the better arguments against MC being a game at all. I dunno.

Jimbo1212:
But the vast majority of gamers want structure and 99% of people would find what you do to be boring. On those grounds alone, the game should have not received 4.5/5.
It also speaks volumes that you just wonder about on a crap looking map ignoring 95% of MC's content and do not want to get involved in it.

1) The "vast majority of gamers" can't agree on whether Farmville is the next big thing in gaming or the first horseman of the apocalypse. I think you're pretty deluded if you believe you can make any claims on behalf of most gamers in any decisive way. I agree that the vast majority of gamers who think like you want structure, but who knows how many people that actually counts?

2) I agree, it speaks volumes that enjoy wandering around collecting, killing and exploring and find it fun while someone else can purely build and find that enjoyable and both can take place within the same game. Positive volumes, that is. I don't know where you came up with a figure like 95% of MC's content, though. The only part of Minecraft I'd say I "ignore" is the Nether, because that place is a pain to get around and it's boring to look at so I just use it for quick long-distance transportation and glowstone collection and otherwise stay the hell out. Not building big projects isn't ignoring the content; I use it in other ways.

You appear to be restricting your thoughts to a fairly narrow scope. Try getting outside of it. Some things are more complex than black/white, good/bad; this is almost always true when discussing a matter of opinion (as in this case).

The Cool Kid:
Your exaggeration though was utter drivel and so far off the mark, it wasn't an exaggeration, it was:

I will give the assessment of someone who misread a fairly plain post to interpret it as being directed toward himself when it clearly did not apply to his post the credible consideration it deserves.

That is to say, none.

Shjade:

Jimbo1212:
But the vast majority of gamers want structure and 99% of people would find what you do to be boring. On those grounds alone, the game should have not received 4.5/5.
It also speaks volumes that you just wonder about on a crap looking map ignoring 95% of MC's content and do not want to get involved in it.

1) The "vast majority of gamers" can't agree on whether Farmville is the next big thing in gaming or the first horseman of the apocalypse. I think you're pretty deluded if you believe you can make any claims on behalf of most gamers in any decisive way. I agree that the vast majority of gamers who think like you want structure, but who knows how many people that actually counts?

2) I agree, it speaks volumes that enjoy wandering around collecting, killing and exploring and find it fun while someone else can purely build and find that enjoyable and both can take place within the same game. Positive volumes, that is. I don't know where you came up with a figure like 95% of MC's content, though. The only part of Minecraft I'd say I "ignore" is the Nether, because that place is a pain to get around and it's boring to look at so I just use it for quick long-distance transportation and glowstone collection and otherwise stay the hell out. Not building big projects isn't ignoring the content; I use it in other ways.

You appear to be restricting your thoughts to a fairly narrow scope. Try getting outside of it. Some things are more complex than black/white, good/bad; this is almost always true when discussing a matter of opinion (as in this case).

- Actually all decent gamers know FarmVille is a joke and can't last. This is proven by Zynga about to go bust. I can make claims for most games based solely on sales and common sense. Lets look at the biggest selling games. They are all fast paced, have a storyline, characters, ok to good graphics, and a good multiplayer. MC has none of that.

- You enjoy killing in MC even though it is the most basic type of combat going? You enjoy exploring in a game that has some of the worst graphics to date?
Why?

My view is not restricted in anyway, I am simply aware of what is in the gaming market thus I know of the vast number of games and tools that are better than MC. As I have said many times in MC threads, I believe people do not play MC as a game, but as an unhealthy tool for escapism from reality.

Chairman Miaow:
"if you're able to lose yourself in finding your own fun, there isn't a better game than Minecraft." except Terraria.

um no. terraria has loot. and bosses and areas. there is no making your own fun. there is no creativity in terraria except in building stuff, but if you honestly think that the building houses n furnishing is the best part of terraria, you are the very small minority. i LOVE terraria, but i wouldnt say it makes me lose myself in my OWN fun. it makes me lose myself in the game the devs made. they made the biomes, they made the items, they make how you basically have to build to be a house, an they make the bosses. terraria has better action, minecraft has more ME in it. there is very little self-fun in terraria. but it is still a hell of good time to play.

Shjade:

The Cool Kid:
Your exaggeration though was utter drivel and so far off the mark, it wasn't an exaggeration, it was:

I will give the assessment of someone who misread a fairly plain post to interpret it as being directed toward himself when it clearly did not apply to his post the credible consideration it deserves.

That is to say, none.

What is wrong with you?

Your original comment was attempting to state how Jimbo's comment was nothing more then an exaggeration by saying that crayons did not have the same imaginative scope as Minecraft.

My comment was in reply to that stated how your view of Minecraft was actually incorrect, which is separate to the crayons as the crayons were exaggerated, not Minecraft

Your exaggeration simply showed your complete misunderstanding of Minecraft.

Now you try and deny the whole thing. Welcome to Denial 101.

Jimbo1212:
I can make claims for most games based solely on sales and common sense. Lets look at the biggest selling games. They are all fast paced, have a storyline, characters, ok to good graphics, and a good multiplayer. MC has none of that.

"With 20 million registrations and a paying player base quickly approaching 5 million..."
I guess MC has none of that...except the sales? Hunh. It's almost like you're assuming the only games that sell well are the ones you like. How odd.

Bastion sold pretty well as I recall, and is completely single-player with what I'd call an average (rather than "fast") pace.

Heck, Skyrim's not particularly fast-paced and lacks multiplayer, too. That one bombed on release, right? I can't remember.

I enjoy exploring in Minecraft because it always gives me somewhere new to explore. Does it look state of the art? No. It doesn't look too terrible with the art pack I use for it, but I'm never going to open up Minecraft and mistakenly think I just booted up Lord of the Rings Online. That's okay, though; I don't need lens flare to enjoy a game.

The Cool Kid:
Your original comment was attempting to state how Jimbo's comment was nothing more then an exaggeration by saying that crayons did not have the same imaginative scope as Minecraft.

My comment was in reply to that stated how your view of Minecraft was actually incorrect, which is separate to the crayons as the crayons were exaggerated, not Minecraft

Your exaggeration simply showed your complete misunderstanding of Minecraft.

See, this is why I can't care about your assessment: it's clearly wrong. I wasn't saying crayons lack the same imaginative scope as Minecraft. That's a silly thing to say; crayons are inanimate objects - they don't have an imagination. Nor does Minecraft. Rather, I was pointing out that suggesting the experience of playing Minecraft is no different than that of drawing with crayons is an exaggeration, which it is. They're completely different. I then went on to exaggerate how much you can do in Minecraft as well (not everyone has the talent - or the patience - to make giant recreations in Minecraft either, even if it's easier than making good drawings with crayon), because exaggeration is fun and I figured both sides could use some.

After doing this, I pointed out that what I'd just said isn't right at all (referring to the majority of it being exaggeration). You must have missed that part.

It's okay to not understand what someone's written, but it's laughable to then criticize it in a fashion that makes it clear you didn't understand what you just read.

You know on this thread I'm seeing a lot of "NO IT'S A TOY, PEOPLE SHOULDN'T LIKE IT! I DON'T WANT TO HEAR WHY YOU ENJOY IT LALALALALALALALALALA IT'S NOT A TOY IT'S A GAME, OTHER GAMES HAVE BETTER GRAPHICS AND MECHANICS! YOU SHOULDN'T LIKE THIS ONE!" That doesn't really make much sense, should you not like Oblivion because Skyrim is a better game? Should you not enjoy pong because there are so many better things out there? Also keep in mind that "better" is purely subjective and there's no way to scientifically prove that one game is better than another, and even more impossible to prove that one game is more FUN than another. Also why does someone else enjoying a game get you so worked up? I think some games are overrated on this site but I don't feel the need to bash them and say that they're having fun for the wrong reasons.

In short, calm down, you're getting worked up over nothing. Also there seem to be some very elitist remarks here "all decent gamers know that farmvile is a joke"...what gives?

Shjade:

The Cool Kid:
Your original comment was attempting to state how Jimbo's comment was nothing more then an exaggeration by saying that crayons did not have the same imaginative scope as Minecraft.

My comment was in reply to that stated how your view of Minecraft was actually incorrect, which is separate to the crayons as the crayons were exaggerated, not Minecraft

Your exaggeration simply showed your complete misunderstanding of Minecraft.

See, this is why I can't care about your assessment: it's clearly wrong. I wasn't saying crayons lack the same imaginative scope as Minecraft. That's a silly thing to say; crayons are inanimate objects - they don't have an imagination. Nor does Minecraft. Rather, I was pointing out that suggesting the experience of playing Minecraft is no different than that of drawing with crayons is an exaggeration, which it is. They're completely different. I then went on to exaggerate how much you can do in Minecraft as well (not everyone has the talent - or the patience - to make giant recreations in Minecraft either, even if it's easier than making good drawings with crayon), because exaggeration is fun and I figured both sides could use some.

After doing this, I pointed out that what I'd just said isn't right at all (referring to the majority of it being exaggeration). You must have missed that part.

It's okay to not understand what someone's written, but it's laughable to then criticize it in a fashion that makes it clear you didn't understand what you just read.

By imaginative scope I meant that you were saying the crayons did not allow you to express your imagination as much as minecraft. Which is wrong as both are poor tools to do anything with.

We've been over this talk of "recreations". The "recreations" are so poor they are actually the player paying homage to something due to the incredibly limited tool set minecraft offers. You wouldn't refer to a crayon drawing of a castle as a recreation, it's a bad drawing of a castle, and in this sense, anything made in minecraft is a poor construction of 'insert whatever'.

As I've stated you were exaggerating what you could do with crayons, not minecraft, and what you said about the latter, not former, is what I'm pulling you up on. The fact you have yet to realise this is worrying.

Shjade:

"With 20 million registrations and a paying player base quickly approaching 5 million..."
I guess MC has none of that...except the sales? Hunh. It's almost like you're assuming the only games that sell well are the ones you like. How odd.

The illegal drug market is worth $320,000,000,000. Does that mean we should all go out, by some drugs and start speed-balling?
Sales means nothing. You have to look at the product, and then the sales, to see what the product is worth.

Plus, not that I care for an answer, but does it not seem utterly, utterly pointless exploring procedural terrain in the pursuit of...fuck all?

The Cool Kid:

Shjade:

"With 20 million registrations and a paying player base quickly approaching 5 million..."
I guess MC has none of that...except the sales? Hunh. It's almost like you're assuming the only games that sell well are the ones you like. How odd.

The illegal drug market is worth $320,000,000,000. Does that mean we should all go out, by some drugs and start speed-balling?
Sales means nothing. You have to look at the product, and then the sales, to see what the product is worth.

Plus, not that I care for an answer, but does it not seem utterly, utterly pointless exploring procedural terrain in the pursuit of...fuck all?

It helps if you look at the topic.

Jimbo1212:
Lets look at the biggest selling games.

When someone says, "Let's look at sales," and we then talk about sales, it makes no sense for you to respond to our conversation about sales by saying, "Sales mean nothing." Yeah, sales mean nothing. Except when they're what you're talking about, in which case they're the whole point.

Yes, it seems utterly pointless. That's okay though: 99% of video games are pointless. Their only "point" is to entertain the player. Do you think you're somehow contributing to society by shooting virtual terrorists in Modern Warfare because it gives you artificial goals to complete? No, it's also a pointless waste of time. That's what video games are. (The remaining 1% includes games that actually make some effort to be educational or productive in some way. This statistic is 37% accurate 80% of the time.)

I can't explain the exaggeration issue to you in any simpler terms, nor do I understand why you're fixated on this crayon comparison. You can express your imagination using either, and your judgmental point of view doesn't really help with either. It's possible to make impressive creations, and recreations, in Minecraft to an extent that you can't manage with crayons in that it's difficult to make things with crayon through which you can take a virtual tour in a manner that at least resembles three-dimensional movement and shape. You can, however, do things like this, which hardly looks like the results of using "poor tools to do anything with."

I don't understand the source of all this negativity bordering on hostility you're projecting, but it doesn't help anything. Be cool, Cool Kid. Chill.

Shjade:

The Cool Kid:

Shjade:

"With 20 million registrations and a paying player base quickly approaching 5 million..."
I guess MC has none of that...except the sales? Hunh. It's almost like you're assuming the only games that sell well are the ones you like. How odd.

The illegal drug market is worth $320,000,000,000. Does that mean we should all go out, by some drugs and start speed-balling?
Sales means nothing. You have to look at the product, and then the sales, to see what the product is worth.

Plus, not that I care for an answer, but does it not seem utterly, utterly pointless exploring procedural terrain in the pursuit of...fuck all?

It helps if you look at the topic.

It's helps if you read what I said.

"Sales means nothing. You have to look at the product, and then the sales, to see what the product is worth. "

I've highlighted the part you skimmed over. I wait with anticipation for your thought provoking words of wisdom.

The Cool Kid:
snip

I read it. I also pointed out it's irrelevant to the topic. Here, I'll give you the full excerpt of Jimbo's statement that prompted my response, since I guess you're not reading his posts.

Jimbo1212:
Actually all decent gamers know FarmVille is a joke and can't last. This is proven by Zynga about to go bust. I can make claims for most games based solely on sales and common sense. Lets look at the biggest selling games. They are all fast paced, have a storyline, characters, ok to good graphics, and a good multiplayer. MC has none of that.

Notice how Jimbo is looking at the sales first, then the content second? Therefore, given that is the form he apparently wanted to use to judge what constitutes a quality game, I responded in kind: by looking at sales first. Minecraft has sold well, therefore it defies Jimbo's standards of quality by lacking all the qualities he claims games that sell well share. I'm not saying I'd judge game quality that way, I was responding to a silly premise by following the rules given by that premise. If you have an objection to judging a product's worth by looking at sales over content, take it up with Jimbo - it was his claim, not mine.

Shjade:

The Cool Kid:
snip

I read it. I also pointed out it's irrelevant to the topic. Here, I'll give you the full excerpt of Jimbo's statement that prompted my response, since I guess you're not reading his posts.

Jimbo1212:
Actually all decent gamers know FarmVille is a joke and can't last. This is proven by Zynga about to go bust. I can make claims for most games based solely on sales and common sense. Lets look at the biggest selling games. They are all fast paced, have a storyline, characters, ok to good graphics, and a good multiplayer. MC has none of that.

Notice how Jimbo is looking at the sales first, then the content second? Therefore, given that is the form he apparently wanted to use to judge what constitutes a quality game, I responded in kind: by looking at sales first. Minecraft has sold well, therefore it defies Jimbo's standards of quality by lacking all the qualities he claims games that sell well share. I'm not saying I'd judge game quality that way, I was responding to a silly premise by following the rules given by that premise. If you have an objection to judging a product's worth by looking at sales over content, take it up with Jimbo - it was his claim, not mine.

With your following comment you didn't bother to look at the content. Try again.
It should be obvious you have to look at the whole picture, not part of it.

*sigh* Yes, yes I did, in pointing out that Minecraft lacks pretty much all the content Jimbo described high-selling games as having, thereby contradicting his assumptions.

This is a very simple point. You can continue to not understand it if you must, but I don't have the patience to keep re-explaining it to you, so you go ahead and talk to yourself if you want (though it would be utterly, utterly pointless).

erttheking:
You know on this thread I'm seeing a lot of "NO IT'S A TOY, PEOPLE SHOULDN'T LIKE IT! I DON'T WANT TO HEAR WHY YOU ENJOY IT LALALALALALALALALALA IT'S NOT A TOY IT'S A GAME, OTHER GAMES HAVE BETTER GRAPHICS AND MECHANICS! YOU SHOULDN'T LIKE THIS ONE!" That doesn't really make much sense, should you not like Oblivion because Skyrim is a better game? Should you not enjoy pong because there are so many better things out there? Also keep in mind that "better" is purely subjective and there's no way to scientifically prove that one game is better than another, and even more impossible to prove that one game is more FUN than another. Also why does someone else enjoying a game get you so worked up? I think some games are overrated on this site but I don't feel the need to bash them and say that they're having fun for the wrong reasons.

In short, calm down, you're getting worked up over nothing. Also there seem to be some very elitist remarks here "all decent gamers know that farmvile is a joke"...what gives?

Look at who wrote that. Also look at who arguing with minecraft shouldn't be play by "adults" *points to jimbo and the cool kid*

So it's easy to say why this thread is the way it is. No idea why people have to go out of their way to insult someone who enjoys something they don't like. Though whatever, Minecraft looks fun if you can keep yourself entertain by making some amazing things.

Shjade:
*sigh* Yes, yes I did, in pointing out that Minecraft lacks pretty much all the content Jimbo described high-selling games as having, thereby contradicting his assumptions.

This is a very simple point. You can continue to not understand it if you must, but I don't have the patience to keep re-explaining it to you, so you go ahead and talk to yourself if you want (though it would be utterly, utterly pointless).

Quote someone unless you are trying to bail out of a debate in a very undignified manner.

Please tell me the content Minecraft has.

It's nothing more then virtual opium for those who want to sink countless hours into repetitive behaviour. That's pretty terrible.

Outcast107:

erttheking:
You know on this thread I'm seeing a lot of "NO IT'S A TOY, PEOPLE SHOULDN'T LIKE IT! I DON'T WANT TO HEAR WHY YOU ENJOY IT LALALALALALALALALALA IT'S NOT A TOY IT'S A GAME, OTHER GAMES HAVE BETTER GRAPHICS AND MECHANICS! YOU SHOULDN'T LIKE THIS ONE!" That doesn't really make much sense, should you not like Oblivion because Skyrim is a better game? Should you not enjoy pong because there are so many better things out there? Also keep in mind that "better" is purely subjective and there's no way to scientifically prove that one game is better than another, and even more impossible to prove that one game is more FUN than another. Also why does someone else enjoying a game get you so worked up? I think some games are overrated on this site but I don't feel the need to bash them and say that they're having fun for the wrong reasons.

In short, calm down, you're getting worked up over nothing. Also there seem to be some very elitist remarks here "all decent gamers know that farmvile is a joke"...what gives?

Look at who wrote that. Also look at who arguing with minecraft shouldn't be play by "adults" *points to jimbo and the cool kid*

So it's easy to say why this thread is the way it is. No idea why people have to go out of their way to insult someone who enjoys something they don't like. Though whatever, Minecraft looks fun if you can keep yourself entertain by making some amazing things.

If a decent review had been done that actually covered Minecraft in it's entirety rather then selectively picking parts to paint it in a good light, maybe the thread would be different. But then maybe the reviewer couldn't justify a high score.

Admittely though what reviewer would tell his audience, who are mainly minecraft addicts, that it's a crap game?

Nice catchy tune, but this isn't so much a review as it is a short indirect synopsis. There is barely any mention of the features added since the beta review, and the video is more a celebration of what people have done in the game.
That's great and all, but just about everything in this says to me that Mr. Clouse phoned it in.

I played Minecraft quite a bit last winter and spring and recently started it back up. I like that the food system was toned down, it really bothered me when it was introduced, and the new biome system is very nice. For the most part I'm having a blast.

However it still feels like a game in beta, and I'm not sure why Mojang decided that this was the build that would be the official release. I really think NPCs should have had some actual functionality at release, and I'm particularly disappointed by the fact that new biomes are planned. They either won't show up in existing worlds, or it will mess up world generation in them - neither of which seems appropriate for worlds created after the supposed official release.

Am I enjoying the game? Certainly. My gripe is really one of semantics used rather than the quality of the game.

Hungry Donner:
I like that the food system was toned down...

Do you mean "I like that the food system is broken"?
You can just munch on poisonous food and quantity works over quality, something Minecraft sales often reflect.

The Cool Kid:
It's nothing more then virtual opium for those who want to sink countless hours into repetitive behaviour. That's pretty terrible.

"Repetitive behaviour"

Skyrim:
"Every dungeon/cave looks the same"
"I'm killing the same enemies everywhere I go"
"Enchanting/Smithing/Alchemy is a chore (and also very boring)"
"90% of the quests are fetch quests or clear dungeon quests"

Every game can be boiled down to actions that may be described as "repetitive behaviour".
Also "virtual opium"?, that's the whole point of video games.

You singled out Minecraft, I singled out Skyrim. They are what they are. In the end, if people enjoy them, what does it matter?

If you hate video games so much, why the fuck are you on a gaming site?

The Cool Kid:
If a decent review had been done that actually covered Minecraft in it's entirety rather then selectively picking parts to paint it in a good light, maybe the thread would be different. But then maybe the reviewer couldn't justify a high score.

Admittely though what reviewer would tell his audience, who are mainly minecraft addicts, that it's a crap game?

If you don't like a review someone has done, you're quite welcome to write your own.

TopazFusion:

The Cool Kid:
It's nothing more then virtual opium for those who want to sink countless hours into repetitive behaviour. That's pretty terrible.

"Repetitive behaviour"

Skyrim:
"Every dungeon/cave looks the same"
"I'm killing the same enemies everywhere I go"
"Enchanting/Smithing/Alchemy is a chore (and also very boring)"
"90% of the quests are fetch quests or clear dungeon quests"

Every game can be boiled down to actions that may be described as "repetitive behaviour".
Also "virtual opium"?, that's the whole point of video games.

You singled out Minecraft, I singled out Skyrim. They are what they are. In the end, if people enjoy them, what does it matter?

If you hate video games so much, why the fuck are you on a gaming site?

The Cool Kid:
If a decent review had been done that actually covered Minecraft in it's entirety rather then selectively picking parts to paint it in a good light, maybe the thread would be different. But then maybe the reviewer couldn't justify a high score.

Admittely though what reviewer would tell his audience, who are mainly minecraft addicts, that it's a crap game?

If you don't like a review someone has done, you're quite welcome to write your own.

But Skyrim has far, far more variety then Minecraft. You are essentially comparing Poker to flipping a coin. When you get bored of doing whatever in Skyrim, you can do something else within the mechanics of the game. Go explore, see what the world has to offer. Doing that in MC is a waste of time, whereas finding new better equipment and spells etc in Skyrim is not. Although I would still argue that Skyrim is crap compared to Morrowind.
I don't hate video games. Go blast strawmen somewhere else. Minecraft is not the only video game in the world.
What's the point in writing my own when illogical fans will just rage-bullshit and come out with crap like "it's a good creative tool"? If I was to write a review I would just get a torrent of "hater!" comments because absolutely not a single MC fan on this site will stop and evaluate the game, their actions and why they actually like it. They seem to have not progressed past the thought of "it's fun" & asked themselves why engaging in utterly repetitive behaviour is fun. But then again, if you do enjoy such behaviour, maybe it's inherently linked to a shallow level of thought?

The Cool Kid:
You are essentially comparing Poker to flipping a coin.

I was merely refuting your, quite frankly, pathetic argument.

The Cool Kid:
What's the point in writing my own when illogical fans will just rage-bullshit and come out with crap like "it's a good creative tool"? If I was to write a review I would just get a torrent of "hater!" comments because absolutely not a single MC fan on this site will stop and evaluate the game, their actions and why they actually like it.

Aw, what's that?
You like to dish out criticism, but can't take it?
And I thought you knew the definition of irony.

The Cool Kid:
But then again, if you do enjoy such behaviour, maybe it's inherently linked to a shallow level of thought?

So, you can't refute my argument, and have to resort to an ad hominem attack.
Typical.

TopazFusion:

The Cool Kid:
You are essentially comparing Poker to flipping a coin.

I was merely refuting your, quite frankly, pathetic argument.

The Cool Kid:
What's the point in writing my own when illogical fans will just rage-bullshit and come out with crap like "it's a good creative tool"? If I was to write a review I would just get a torrent of "hater!" comments because absolutely not a single MC fan on this site will stop and evaluate the game, their actions and why they actually like it.

Aw, what's that?
You like to dish out criticism, but can't take it?
And I thought you knew the definition of irony.

The Cool Kid:
But then again, if you do enjoy such behaviour, maybe it's inherently linked to a shallow level of thought?

So, you can't refute my argument, and have to resort to an ad hominem attack.
Typical.

Insult the argument instead of addressing it. Fantastic. And you wonder why I don't write a review?

There is a difference between criticism and whining. Considering the above, it looks as if you do not understand the difference between constructive criticism and whining.

No it's not an ad hominem, it's an honest comment. Would you give 5 yr olds a 2000 word critique of "The Cat in the Hat"? No, you wouldn't bother because they wouldn't understand it. The only thing typical here is how you don't address my argument, instead you attack it, coincidentally with shallow, groundless criticisms. You didn't mention anything to do with my rebuttal of your comparison between MC and Skyrim which makes your argument as shallow as possible.

TopazFusion:
pathetic argument

The Cool Kid:
your argument as shallow as possible

Attacking the argument huh?
Pot - kettle?

The criticisms you made of Minecraft can also be applied to a multitude of other (hugely popular) games as well. (Jimbo made exactly the same mistake.) These games still sell well.
However, you keep singling out Minecraft. And you accuse others of cherry picking.
Pot - kettle?



No, nope, not getting into another argument with you. Your self-superiority keeps getting in the way.

And to quote what someone else said to you . . .

Shjade:
you go ahead and talk to yourself if you want (though it would be utterly, utterly pointless).

TopazFusion:

TopazFusion:
pathetic argument

The Cool Kid:
your argument as shallow as possible

Attacking the argument huh?
Pot - kettle?

The criticisms you made of Minecraft can also be applied to a multitude of other (hugely popular) games as well. (Jimbo made exactly the same mistake.) These games still sell well.
However, you keep singling out Minecraft. And you accuse others of cherry picking.
Pot - kettle?



No, nope, not getting into another argument with you. Your self-superiority keeps getting in the way.

And to quote what someone else said to you . . .

Shjade:
you go ahead and talk to yourself if you want (though it would be utterly, utterly pointless).

I said your argument was shallow, which is a comment which indicates the content of the argument, and then explained why it was shallow.

You said mine was pathetic, which is emotive, and never explained why.

This is about as pot & kettle as a scientist (me) arguing debating with a creationist (you).

I stated my view, and then gave you a reason. That is called "logic". You simply said that my argument was pathetic and didn't even address why that is so.

This is why I don't bother writing a review because many MC fans on this site have an inability to maturely debate a point. They stamp their feet, say I'm wrong and when I ask why they never give a reason. The only one with a problem here is you as you feel no need to explain your reasoning:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-righteousness

The Cool Kid:

Hungry Donner:
I like that the food system was toned down...

Do you mean "I like that the food system is broken"?
You can just munch on poisonous food and quantity works over quality, something Minecraft sales often reflect.

I haven't tried eating poisonous food.

For me food requirements in games are an enormous pet peeve: if a realistic amount of food is required you need to carry a ton of food around with you and the task is laborious. If the amounts aren't realistic what's the point? When I first tried 1.8 I was disappointed by how rapidly the food meter went down, and unless I'm mistaken eating food replenished the bar but didn't slow it down much. When I jumped into the current version it didn't annoy me nearly as much, although it does feel stupid that all I need to do is eat a few loaves of bread now and then and I'm set.

Hungry Donner:

The Cool Kid:

Hungry Donner:
I like that the food system was toned down...

Do you mean "I like that the food system is broken"?
You can just munch on poisonous food and quantity works over quality, something Minecraft sales often reflect.

I haven't tried eating poisonous food.

For me food requirements in games are an enormous pet peeve: if a realistic amount of food is required you need to carry a ton of food around with you and the task is laborious. If the amounts aren't realistic what's the point? When I first tried 1.8 I was disappointed by how rapidly the food meter went down, and unless I'm mistaken eating food replenished the bar but didn't slow it down much. When I jumped into the current version it didn't annoy me nearly as much, although it does feel stupid that all I need to do is eat a few loaves of bread now and then and I'm set.

The issue is that it just is utterly, utterly pointless. It has been toned back to a scale where it is a minor annoyance and doesn't, at all, offer any value to the game, more so when you consider how hard some foods are to make.
To give this game the score that it received is clearly an attempt to appease the audience rather then to give a good, honest review of the game free of bias.

GrandmaFunk:

The Cool Kid:

This is why I don't bother writing a review because many MC fans on this site have an inability to maturely debate a point.

and yet you troll every minecraft thread, posting the same things over and over, month after month. Didn't you already get suspended for one of these back in the fall?

Just a heads up, calling someone a troll, or saying there actions are trolling is actually against the rules.
Everytime I see someone spout the same nonsense about MC, I feel obliged to correct them. There should be no harm in the truth, but your post implies otherwise.

Chairman Miaow:
"if you're able to lose yourself in finding your own fun, there isn't a better game than Minecraft." except Terraria.

yeah except for you can't really build awesome buildings in terraria, not on the scale of minecraft, i just don't find them as satisfying

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 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
Registered for a free account here