You are tired of how someone else plays a game which in no way effects how you play the game? You must lead a very distressed life.
To be fair on Super Shotgunguy, I think he has clarified his position a bit and stepped back from what came across as a "thou shalt" viewpoint in his first post. I just can't find where or what he said.
He did though.
He's neutral on it.
Now if people could just read the entire thread and realize I'm advocating a creative in-between method, this conversation would likely be able to move on to something more interesting, such as 'HOW do we make this work so that everyone wins?"
But people don't want to read the whole thread, so they keep saying the same **** to me over and over again. I've had to repeat every point like 500 times .
Thheir laziness is keeping this from evolving to the more creative and interesting part of the conversation.
So, am I the only one who sees the major flaw in wintermuet's arguments? Maybe it's because I'm currently going to college to become a game developer, but for some reason I doubt this.
You go on and on about how other people's opinions are wrong because as a designer you should know what people want better than they do and to hell with what they think is good. Beyond the obvious problem with this idea(mainly because if you want to market something, you want to make something that is going to attract the largest audience*), there is a self-contradiction. You are implying that opinion is wrong, and then supplanting it with your own opinion. In a way, your argument shoots itself down, due to the fact that it is nothing more than personal opinion and you yourself have said repeatedly that personal opinion is wrong.
*To elaborate upon this point, let me give an example. Say I open a sandwich shop, and the majority** of my customers seem to enjoy their sandwiches on bagels. So I start trying to think of bagel sandwiches that I myself have made and think are quite tasty. One of my personal favorites being a cinnamon and raisin bagel with sharp cheddar cheese and Italian dry salami. While I may think this is a delicious combination myself, when I put it up for sale on my menu nobody buys it. Upon asking the customers, they all admit that it is because the combination just doesn't seem like something they would like. So, I try and think of ways that I could possibly get this to sell. Aha! I can just make it a "sharp cheddar and salami bagel sandwich" and let them choose from a variety of different bagels at their own discretion, and at the bottom put a little caption saying, "Try it on cinnamon raisin!". Suddenly, when presented with an option that they do find appealing, they first try their preferred bagel but later come back and try the cinnamon raisin.
Now, whether or not the cinnamon raisin bagel actually tastes "better" than the others(a purely subjective expression, as everyone has different tastes in food and one can never actually say something truly tastes better than another to everyone, making it rather invalid in marketing terms) or manages to sell better, it never would have caught on in the first place without giving the choice for the others. This is basically design 101, and I fail to see how it could be so overlooked by someone supposedly involved in game design prior to this discussion. If one were to actually consider making the difficulty setting permanent at all when it is currently quite flexible it would need to be phased in, not just dropped in on their heads. While I myself still fail to see the reasoning as to why people can't just keep the difficulty on one setting themselves(certainly didn't seem to stop just about every FPS and RPG I have ever played, which had the ability to change the difficulty at any point in time through the options menu) it is certainly not beyond the realm of possibility that one could add a check box at world gen asking whether the difficulty should be locked or not.
** And here is the other major flaw I see. The majority of game players are not "hardcore" players, which are likely the only large audience who find an attraction in this option. And to further compound this problem, the majority of "hardcore" players already set hard self-imposed limits on themselves when playing games that often times the games themselves don't enforce in any way. I know that I do, and I know that the majority of my hardcore gaming friends do this as well. Ever played through Halo: Combat Evolved using nothing but a plasma pistol and melee attacks? The game never enforces this limit, but it sure as hell didn't stop me or any of my friends from doing it on Legendary.
And herein lies the problem, this option would only truly be used by an incredibly small minority of players, a minority within a minority, and it is a game being made by an independent developer. To an independent developer time is precious, and every moment you spend on one piece of the project may mean delaying, or cutting out entirely, other features. Why should you spend your time on this, largely unmarketable, feature in a game that will only be used by perhaps 5% or less of the community when the time could be spent on something that would actually increase the game's marketability and be used by the majority of players? Besides that, it really isn't a feature at all, because it is something that the player could just as easily do themselves with a bit of self control.
So, from a pure marketability standpoint, this really is not a particularly good option. Instead of locking the difficulty it may be a better idea to simply have rewards for staying in a particular difficulty for a set period of time. This would give incentive to not change the difficulty to those that lack the self control to do it themselves for arbitrary reasons and also increase marketability by giving players a reason to keep playing, so that they can attain these rewards.
I hope you're glad that you got me to register on the forums just so that I could make this point.
I'm sorry, but really don't see why you always have a problem with how everyone else plays the game. I mean really, the threads that I always see about this are worse than other people trying to force a certain religion on someone.
You are really just degrading yourselves when you post these. You seem to think everyone plays while constantly changing the difficulty when really it's only the people who want to play like that who do.
Thank you!
-NinjaCow
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from Horrendus »
If Character Levels and stats were put into Minecraft I would stop playing it that very moment then dedicate the time I would have used playing minecraft to destroying it out of love, to save it from itself.
If the chef changes the menu, he does so because he understands food better than you do. You think to yourself "but I like being able to put pickles on my sandwiches!" but chef has decided that there are no more pickles on any sandwiches.
That Chef would see dwindling customers, just as Notch would if he attempted to alienate his audience.
Quote from wintermuet »
So you get the roasted chicken sandwich you always get. But this time you;re not allowed to have pickles.
You take a bite, already beset with disappointment and then, suddenly, you think about.
OMG THIS IS BETTER WITHOUT PICKLES!?
Well, yeah, I might like it more without pickles. But that's an unknown, an X variable; unlike what we're discussing here. I know having a forced locked difficulty would only make the game worse for me, and from looking at the topic, many others as well. So your mix of my original analogy doesn't work here.
Quote from wintermuet »
An artist has just effected you by making you do something you never expected to enjoy.
Now, you are not only enjoying a sandwich like always, but you are now enjoying a NEW experience.
Think about that.
Look above.
Quote from wintermuet »
Most people will always do what seems easiest and most comfortable within their own sphere of knowledge, but there is always more than 'what you know you like'. That is where artists and designers come in to help.
Look above.
Also, I love how you're trying to go all philosophical on me and we're just discussing the difficulty of a game.
Quote from wintermuet »
Does Notch just want you to have throw-away fun, or does he want you to have profound opinion altering fun about what is challenging and interesting? That is up to him.
Yes, it is up to him, and I think we all can see the direction he's heading. User-friendly that is accepted by gaming audiences of many levels. Thank goodness.
Quote from wintermuet »
Some people are content just making shitty games. Other want their games to stand out. Notch will decide these things, and he will decide how to do them. You or I may agree, or may disagree, but I'm leaning towards the fact that he probably wants this to be more than just another arcade game or lego building game or Sims.
Well I hope so. But this has nothing to do with the difficulty.
Quote from wintermuet »
You = missing the point
That argument is utter crap.
Has been since the beginning.
I've already completely destroyed that stance, so I suggest you pick one of the arguments that is still pretty good (there are a good number of them).
Pretending options are not in a game, for me, and many others, cheapens the game experience. A lot.
Being asked to 'pretend this is not part of the game' is stupid as hell.
Uh... that's a completely valid argument; one that snaps any I've seen so far (from the opposing side) in half. No one said to, "pretend this is not part of the game", we're saying people could show some self-control. It's an option, an option to change the difficulty, an option that is essentially a standard in modern gaming, an option that is optional. Optional. Optional. It's your fault if you use it, so don't try to get things removed or changed for others just because you don't have self-control.
I used the difficulty slider all the freaking time in Oblivion. If an area was too easy, I turned it up. If I wanted to go on a murder spree in the city, I lowered it. It made the game fun. When I wanted to actually roleplay and 'survive' in a dangerous world, I turned it way up. I was a very happy man.
Quote from wintermuet »
You feel it is restricted because the fact that he currently has it one way, but I feel almost absolutely sure that in the end, the option is in fact creating a more boring environment by destroying part of the unique value of each individual world. I've said it over and over. If you can do EVERYTHING on one play-through, why would you play through twice?
Because... you want to play more? It's fun playing those early few days in a dirt house, listening to zombies gnawing on your walls just a few blocks away. The randomly generated world will always provide a new location for you, and with multiplayer you can build stuff together with friends or play in a roleplaying server. This 'fast fun' as you seem to view it is lasting pretty long and has a powerful appeal. Probably because it's so open to users. -cough-
Quote from wintermuet »
These are concepts that the self-fulfilling users don't seem to grasp, and since he now has employees, he has to pay paychecks, which means he needs to do what is best in the long run, not what satisfies you for 1 week before you get bored of it because you have no incentive to seek higher rewards by playing new save files on different difficulties and with different settings.
It almost appears as if you are pretending to be Notch. I think I should remind you that you are not. The man has his own goals and you need to stop pretending you somehow know them and what is best for the community.
Quote from wintermuet »
Now if people could just read the entire thread and realize I'm advocating a creative in-between method, this conversation would likely be able to move on to something more interesting, such as 'HOW do we make this work so that everyone wins?"
Well, this has already been stated; several times, in fact. You make it an option. Derp.
And actually Halley is nailing a very valid point. It's pretty much the entire debate here. There is no pressure for people to move the slider or not move it, that is a personal choice. You want to remove that choice, apparently because people are so stupid they can't enjoy their own game properly, and you will lead them from the darkness of their ignorance with the light of restricted gameplay! That is sheer arrogance.
How is that arrogance?
And even if it is arrogance, that doesn't mean it is wrong.
I don't care if something is or isn't arrogant, to be honest.
Arguments stand on their own merit, not on the perceived merit of whether it hurts your self esteem.
You feel it is restricted because the fact that he currently has it one way, but I feel almost absolutely sure that in the end, the option is in fact creating a more boring environment by destroying part of the unique value of each individual world. I've said it over and over. If you can do EVERYTHING on one play-through, why would you play through twice? These are concepts that the self-fulfilling users don't seem to grasp, and since he now has employees, he has to pay paychecks, which means he needs to do what is best in the long run, not what satisfies you for 1 week before you get bored of it because you have no incentive to seek higher rewards by playing new save files on different difficulties and with different settings.
It's not what I feel is restrictive, that is actually restrictive. That is removing an option already present in the game. That option lets people play in their own manner. Fact. Your decision to remove such is based on that you BELIEVE the end-user should not have as much say in their own experience, because your particular view is better than most other peoples'. That is arrogance.
Also, one play-through? You realize this is Minecraft? How is there only one play-through? This game has literally endless options for gameplay. That is the entire concept of emergent games. There isn't a BEST way to play them, and certainly not just a few ways. It's more a game construction kit, where you build your fun out of the tools provided. You want to do nothing but make giant penis statues for kilometres along your beaches, go ahead. You want to be terrified of monsters and live in a cave, do that. You want to remake the world into your own personal spaceship, do that. You want to wander for literally years on an ever-expanding map, do that. You HAVE looked at other threads on the board, yes? The massive massive amounts of things people have done and built and thought of for this game? People making automated subway systems. People creating solid-state circuitry to make rudimentary computers. Massive fantasy worlds in anticipation of Adventure mode, or just because they think it's really cool. That's not even mentioning the amazing people who have come up with mods for this game, not only to aid construction or mapping, but to add their own elements. There is literally no way one player can do EVERYTHING EVER in Minecraft, that is not technically possible. This is not a game of restrictions. You have an extremely narrow perspective to miss this point so completely.
Also, Notch obtained the money to start this company because people really like this game and wanted to support it. He got a complete head-start on his future because his incomplete little cuboid game appeals to basically everyone on the planet; they were willing to cough up their lunch money so that they could have a game that will last them until they need to emulate Windows7 to still keep running it in 2023. So he's not behind the 8-ball, he's ahead of the pack. If no one liked it, he'd be a guy in Sweden working for someone else, still piddling around with some Java-based block thing. That is not the case.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from will_holmes »
Quote from anon »
Every time I come to these forums, I think more and more that I'm the only person who plays Minecraft normally.
Every time I come to these forums, I think more and more that there is no such thing as playing Minecraft normally.
See how ungenerated worlds and worlds 3 and 5 have the check box available? These worlds have not been locked to a particular difficulty setting. World1 has been changed to permanent difficulty and now the box has been greyed. To make a difficulty setting permanent, you check the box and then load (or generate) the world - both checking and loading (plus possibly an "are you sure") would be required to lock the game. From that point on, that world is locked.
An unlocked world can be locked at any time.
The main problem with this is that there is no way of telling which difficulty a world is locked at. Perhaps instead of a X the check box could show P, E, M, H. You could change the difficulty by clicking the box to cycle through the settings (P, E, M, H, [null]) and then click the main button when you were happy with the setting. Actually, the whole thing would need to be prettier.
I still object to it on principle and I don't like the idea that I could lock a world then change my mind and not have the option to revert but I can also accept that if I have locked a world after being asked if I was sure, I get what is coming to me.
[edit] Dethraivn posted while I was 'shopping. I agree with much of what you said with you analogies. [/edit]
Ok, very simple question: What's the point?
People who want to change the slider simply won't check the box.
People who don't want to change the slider can simply...not change the slider. What purpose does your method, which would require extra coding and thus take away from other features the game could have, actually serve? The current system is fine, why fix what isn't broken?
OP is a massive moron, hes getting annoyed and pissy over something that people are doing in single player. A mode where he can't see them doing it and it doesn't affect his gameplay at all, in fact, I don't even know how he knows that it happens unless he has hidden cameras all over the houses of people who play Minecraft or has friends that do it. Just play the game the way you want to and let others do the same. I'm sure that when multiplayer survival servers are finished the server will have a universal difficulty that cannot be changed by an individual player, maybe if it didn't then you would have some justification for it but as of now you don't.
Also, Notch wants the game to be challenging.
He said so himself.
Having cheat codes in the options menu undermines that goal.
So think about that.
Your idiocy could kill an infant. If Notch wanted the game to be challenging', he would add a harder diffi- Oh, wait... he did. As for cheat codes, Minecraft has no cheats codes. You must be confusing this game with something else.
Quote from wintermuet »
Quote from Arlo »
What "cheat codes?"
god mode.
They see me trollin', they hatin'...
Quote from wintermuet »
OMG IM GONNA DIE
*switch to peace mode*
how is that different than using a cheat code?
The outcome isn't really any different, but it's still not a cheat code. It's a difficulty adjuster. I guess having the sound on to hear enemies behind you is also a cheat code. Hell, having diamond armor is now cheating. Let's remove everything from the game because you may classify it as cheating now. -rollseyes.jpg-
Hell, even IF it was a cheat code... so ****ing what!? It's OPTIONAL.
The idea of a lockable slider is actually kind of appealing to me though, if I am battling 2 skeletons, my house is miles away, and I happen to be holding all of my diamonds in my inventory and I know for a fact I would never be able to find where I died should I die here, I press esc and switch to peaceful at speeds rivalling the speed of sound because I don't want to take the risk of dying. A mode where the inability to do this forced me to fight that adrenaline filled battle would actually be far more exciting, but options for both are still important.
Also, Notch wants the game to be challenging.
He said so himself.
Having cheat codes in the options menu undermines that goal.
So think about that.
Your idiocy could kill an infant. If Notch wanted the game to be challenging', he would add a harder diffi- Oh, wait... he did. As for cheat codes, Minecraft has no cheats codes. You must be confusing this game with something else.
I don't believe that notch said "I would rather the game be too hard AND too easy."
I believe he said "I would rather the game be too hard THAN too easy."
This implies that he wants the game to be a challenge.
Is that really hard to figure out?
QUOTED FROM NOTCH
I strongly believe that all good stories have a conflict, and that all good games tell a good story regardless of if it's pre-written or emergent. Free building mode is fine and dandy, but for many people it will ultimately become boring once you've got it figured out. It's like playing a first person shooter in god mode, or giving yourself infinite funds in a strategy game.. a lack of challenge kills the fun.
For survival mode, I'd rather make the game too difficult than too easy. That also means I'm going to have to include some way of winning the game (or some other climax) to prevent it becoming too exhausting.
THE END.
If you have a problem with that, you're **** out of luck.
Because notch seems to feel strongly about it (as do I).
Also, Notch wants the game to be challenging.
He said so himself.
Having cheat codes in the options menu undermines that goal.
So think about that.
Your idiocy could kill an infant. If Notch wanted the game to be challenging', he would add a harder diffi- Oh, wait... he did. As for cheat codes, Minecraft has no cheats codes. You must be confusing this game with something else.
I don't believe that notch said "I would rather the game be too hard AND too easy."
I believe he said "I would rather the game be too hard THAN too easy."
This implies that he wants the game to be a challenge.
Is that really hard to figure out?
QUOTED FROM NOTCH
I strongly believe that all good stories have a conflict, and that all good games tell a good story regardless of if it's pre-written or emergent. Free building mode is fine and dandy, but for many people it will ultimately become boring once you've got it figured out. It's like playing a first person shooter in god mode, or giving yourself infinite funds in a strategy game.. a lack of challenge kills the fun.
For survival mode, I'd rather make the game too difficult than too easy. That also means I'm going to have to include some way of winning the game (or some other climax) to prevent it becoming too exhausting.
THE END.
If you have a problem with that, you're **** out of luck.
Because notch seems to feel strongly about it (as do I).
He also said he wanted to include a slider that would go from "Creative" to "Starve"
He did though.
He's neutral on it.
Now if people could just read the entire thread and realize I'm advocating a creative in-between method, this conversation would likely be able to move on to something more interesting, such as 'HOW do we make this work so that everyone wins?"
But people don't want to read the whole thread, so they keep saying the same **** to me over and over again. I've had to repeat every point like 500 times .
Thheir laziness is keeping this from evolving to the more creative and interesting part of the conversation.
http://notch.tumblr.com/post/123343045/my-vision-for-survival (follow this link if you need proof)
You go on and on about how other people's opinions are wrong because as a designer you should know what people want better than they do and to hell with what they think is good. Beyond the obvious problem with this idea(mainly because if you want to market something, you want to make something that is going to attract the largest audience*), there is a self-contradiction. You are implying that opinion is wrong, and then supplanting it with your own opinion. In a way, your argument shoots itself down, due to the fact that it is nothing more than personal opinion and you yourself have said repeatedly that personal opinion is wrong.
*To elaborate upon this point, let me give an example. Say I open a sandwich shop, and the majority** of my customers seem to enjoy their sandwiches on bagels. So I start trying to think of bagel sandwiches that I myself have made and think are quite tasty. One of my personal favorites being a cinnamon and raisin bagel with sharp cheddar cheese and Italian dry salami. While I may think this is a delicious combination myself, when I put it up for sale on my menu nobody buys it. Upon asking the customers, they all admit that it is because the combination just doesn't seem like something they would like. So, I try and think of ways that I could possibly get this to sell. Aha! I can just make it a "sharp cheddar and salami bagel sandwich" and let them choose from a variety of different bagels at their own discretion, and at the bottom put a little caption saying, "Try it on cinnamon raisin!". Suddenly, when presented with an option that they do find appealing, they first try their preferred bagel but later come back and try the cinnamon raisin.
Now, whether or not the cinnamon raisin bagel actually tastes "better" than the others(a purely subjective expression, as everyone has different tastes in food and one can never actually say something truly tastes better than another to everyone, making it rather invalid in marketing terms) or manages to sell better, it never would have caught on in the first place without giving the choice for the others. This is basically design 101, and I fail to see how it could be so overlooked by someone supposedly involved in game design prior to this discussion. If one were to actually consider making the difficulty setting permanent at all when it is currently quite flexible it would need to be phased in, not just dropped in on their heads. While I myself still fail to see the reasoning as to why people can't just keep the difficulty on one setting themselves(certainly didn't seem to stop just about every FPS and RPG I have ever played, which had the ability to change the difficulty at any point in time through the options menu) it is certainly not beyond the realm of possibility that one could add a check box at world gen asking whether the difficulty should be locked or not.
** And here is the other major flaw I see. The majority of game players are not "hardcore" players, which are likely the only large audience who find an attraction in this option. And to further compound this problem, the majority of "hardcore" players already set hard self-imposed limits on themselves when playing games that often times the games themselves don't enforce in any way. I know that I do, and I know that the majority of my hardcore gaming friends do this as well. Ever played through Halo: Combat Evolved using nothing but a plasma pistol and melee attacks? The game never enforces this limit, but it sure as hell didn't stop me or any of my friends from doing it on Legendary.
And herein lies the problem, this option would only truly be used by an incredibly small minority of players, a minority within a minority, and it is a game being made by an independent developer. To an independent developer time is precious, and every moment you spend on one piece of the project may mean delaying, or cutting out entirely, other features. Why should you spend your time on this, largely unmarketable, feature in a game that will only be used by perhaps 5% or less of the community when the time could be spent on something that would actually increase the game's marketability and be used by the majority of players? Besides that, it really isn't a feature at all, because it is something that the player could just as easily do themselves with a bit of self control.
So, from a pure marketability standpoint, this really is not a particularly good option. Instead of locking the difficulty it may be a better idea to simply have rewards for staying in a particular difficulty for a set period of time. This would give incentive to not change the difficulty to those that lack the self control to do it themselves for arbitrary reasons and also increase marketability by giving players a reason to keep playing, so that they can attain these rewards.
I hope you're glad that you got me to register on the forums just so that I could make this point.
I'm sorry, but really don't see why you always have a problem with how everyone else plays the game. I mean really, the threads that I always see about this are worse than other people trying to force a certain religion on someone.
You are really just degrading yourselves when you post these. You seem to think everyone plays while constantly changing the difficulty when really it's only the people who want to play like that who do.
Thank you!
-NinjaCow
That Chef would see dwindling customers, just as Notch would if he attempted to alienate his audience.
Well, yeah, I might like it more without pickles. But that's an unknown, an X variable; unlike what we're discussing here. I know having a forced locked difficulty would only make the game worse for me, and from looking at the topic, many others as well. So your mix of my original analogy doesn't work here.
Look above.
Look above.
Also, I love how you're trying to go all philosophical on me and we're just discussing the difficulty of a game.
Yes, it is up to him, and I think we all can see the direction he's heading. User-friendly that is accepted by gaming audiences of many levels. Thank goodness.
Well I hope so. But this has nothing to do with the difficulty.
Uh... that's a completely valid argument; one that snaps any I've seen so far (from the opposing side) in half. No one said to, "pretend this is not part of the game", we're saying people could show some self-control. It's an option, an option to change the difficulty, an option that is essentially a standard in modern gaming, an option that is optional. Optional. Optional. It's your fault if you use it, so don't try to get things removed or changed for others just because you don't have self-control.
I used the difficulty slider all the freaking time in Oblivion. If an area was too easy, I turned it up. If I wanted to go on a murder spree in the city, I lowered it. It made the game fun. When I wanted to actually roleplay and 'survive' in a dangerous world, I turned it way up. I was a very happy man.
Because... you want to play more? It's fun playing those early few days in a dirt house, listening to zombies gnawing on your walls just a few blocks away. The randomly generated world will always provide a new location for you, and with multiplayer you can build stuff together with friends or play in a roleplaying server. This 'fast fun' as you seem to view it is lasting pretty long and has a powerful appeal. Probably because it's so open to users. -cough-
It almost appears as if you are pretending to be Notch. I think I should remind you that you are not. The man has his own goals and you need to stop pretending you somehow know them and what is best for the community.
Well, this has already been stated; several times, in fact. You make it an option. Derp.
It's not what I feel is restrictive, that is actually restrictive. That is removing an option already present in the game. That option lets people play in their own manner. Fact. Your decision to remove such is based on that you BELIEVE the end-user should not have as much say in their own experience, because your particular view is better than most other peoples'. That is arrogance.
Also, one play-through? You realize this is Minecraft? How is there only one play-through? This game has literally endless options for gameplay. That is the entire concept of emergent games. There isn't a BEST way to play them, and certainly not just a few ways. It's more a game construction kit, where you build your fun out of the tools provided. You want to do nothing but make giant penis statues for kilometres along your beaches, go ahead. You want to be terrified of monsters and live in a cave, do that. You want to remake the world into your own personal spaceship, do that. You want to wander for literally years on an ever-expanding map, do that. You HAVE looked at other threads on the board, yes? The massive massive amounts of things people have done and built and thought of for this game? People making automated subway systems. People creating solid-state circuitry to make rudimentary computers. Massive fantasy worlds in anticipation of Adventure mode, or just because they think it's really cool. That's not even mentioning the amazing people who have come up with mods for this game, not only to aid construction or mapping, but to add their own elements. There is literally no way one player can do EVERYTHING EVER in Minecraft, that is not technically possible. This is not a game of restrictions. You have an extremely narrow perspective to miss this point so completely.
Also, Notch obtained the money to start this company because people really like this game and wanted to support it. He got a complete head-start on his future because his incomplete little cuboid game appeals to basically everyone on the planet; they were willing to cough up their lunch money so that they could have a game that will last them until they need to emulate Windows7 to still keep running it in 2023. So he's not behind the 8-ball, he's ahead of the pack. If no one liked it, he'd be a guy in Sweden working for someone else, still piddling around with some Java-based block thing. That is not the case.
Ok, very simple question: What's the point?
People who want to change the slider simply won't check the box.
People who don't want to change the slider can simply...not change the slider. What purpose does your method, which would require extra coding and thus take away from other features the game could have, actually serve? The current system is fine, why fix what isn't broken?
http://notch.tumblr.com/post/123343045/my-vision-for-survival (follow this link if you need proof)
Out of sight, out of mind.
Also, Notch wants the game to be challenging.
He said so himself.
Having cheat codes in the options menu undermines that goal.
So think about that.
http://notch.tumblr.com/post/123343045/my-vision-for-survival (follow this link if you need proof)
Yes notch is the developer, but I'm pretty certain he still wants us the players to have options.
People paid the 13 dollars...So let em play how they want?
god mode.
http://notch.tumblr.com/post/123343045/my-vision-for-survival (follow this link if you need proof)
What is "god mode?" What "cheat code" enables "god mode?"
You can still die on peaceful, you just gotta be a little stupid.
OMG IM GONNA DIE
*switch to peace mode*
how is that different than using a cheat code?
http://notch.tumblr.com/post/123343045/my-vision-for-survival (follow this link if you need proof)
Your idiocy could kill an infant. If Notch wanted the game to be challenging', he would add a harder diffi- Oh, wait... he did. As for cheat codes, Minecraft has no cheats codes. You must be confusing this game with something else.
They see me trollin', they hatin'...
The outcome isn't really any different, but it's still not a cheat code. It's a difficulty adjuster. I guess having the sound on to hear enemies behind you is also a cheat code. Hell, having diamond armor is now cheating. Let's remove everything from the game because you may classify it as cheating now. -rollseyes.jpg-
Hell, even IF it was a cheat code... so ****ing what!? It's OPTIONAL.
I don't believe that notch said "I would rather the game be too hard AND too easy."
I believe he said "I would rather the game be too hard THAN too easy."
This implies that he wants the game to be a challenge.
Is that really hard to figure out?
QUOTED FROM NOTCH
THE END.
If you have a problem with that, you're **** out of luck.
Because notch seems to feel strongly about it (as do I).
http://notch.tumblr.com/post/123343045/my-vision-for-survival (follow this link if you need proof)
He also said he wanted to include a slider that would go from "Creative" to "Starve"