Since there seems to be quite a bit of hate for simple texture packs, I decided to make a thread for an easier place to debate the subject.
Currently, the favorite argument of those against simple texture packs is that "there are tons of them." However, they seem to forget one thing; there are also tons of realistic texture packs, and tons of texture packs with no theme (which all seem to look quite similar). And then there's the type that I'll be focusing on: Doku edits. See, these really are worse than simple texture packs, as rather than using the same concept, they actually stem from the exact same texture pack. So why is it that simple texture packs are so terrible while Doku edits are acceptable?
Well, I think the main reason is that simple texture packs are usually very easy to make, also, the doku edits are there mostly because Doku isn't updating it anymore, resulting in fan-made updates.
Skill involved /= quality. In the art world, there are highly acclaimed paintings made by animals, or that look like a six year old could have made them. Does that make them bad? Absolutely not.
Regardless, there are about fifteen Doku edits. That's quite a lot for just one texture pack.
Well, anyone can take some pictures of outside, modify them to tile correctly, and call it a texture pack. I think simple packs in some cases can actually be HARDER to create, because it's hard to design one that's original but still looks good, and still have everything look unique and easy to identify. In other words, a complex texture pack is easier to design but harder to draw, while a simple texture pack is harder to design but easy to draw. If that makes sense.
On a related note, I think most super-high-def texture packs look out of place in Minecraft's blocky world anyway, but there's still some really good ones.
Personally i think if you prefer hd textures and dislike simple textures then you have no business trolling or spamming that persons thread saying how much you dislike it.It also goes the other way too. What ever you preferences are just stick to those packs that have what you are looking for and stop starting flame wars in other peoples threads. Simple as that!
As I said recently in another thread, most people do simple packs because they don't know how to do much else. And they have no real artistic inspiration, which ends up producing a subpar pack.
There's more to making a simple pack than just reducing the amount of colors/smoothing out the design. There are at least two dozen "smoothed out" packs that I've seen out there.
I like simple texture packs, but there's no bloody difference between most of them.
The ones you listed there's atleast some difference between, whilst most of these simple packs all look the same.
Now i know there's a difference between lets say Tronic and Billycraft, but really, most simple texture packs are billycraft with a 5 second edit.
Most Doku edits have the same base textures. Most unthemed texture packs I see look more or less the same. If you pay attention, you can find differences; but when you don't like it to begin with, there's not much to see.
Quote from thetonestarr »
As I said recently in another thread, most people do simple packs because they don't know how to do much else. And they have no real artistic inspiration, which ends up producing a subpar pack.
There's more to making a simple pack than just reducing the amount of colors/smoothing out the design. There are at least two dozen "smoothed out" packs that I've seen out there.
Define "artistic inspiration."
You are right. But that doesn't mean that simplified packs are bad, either. And the thing is, there are differences. Billycraft takes specific colors from each block and makes the whole block that color. On detailed blocks, it reduces the color count for a smoother, simpler look. Other smoothed out packs have custom blocks, or other things of that type. While the single-color blocks end up looking the same, there are still crucial differences.
I, personally, I have grown extremely tired of them.
At least with the numerous realistic or "no theme packs" (whatever that means), you can see much more variation between each pack than most of the "simple" packs I've seen. While it's true that effort does not directly correlate to quality, it's obvious that (most) all of the simple packs I've seen were only made because the makers did not have either the patience or the talent to make anything more complex or original.
This, of course, isn't to say that all "simple" packs are inherently bad, (I have seen a few that have taken an interesting twist on the concept) but they are certainly overdone.
Also, for the record, I really have no opinion on "realistic" packs, as I am unable to use the HD patcher. I am, however, quite interested in what you would consider a "no theme pack".
From a person's perspective that has made both terrain.pngs for a 64x64 hd pack, and 16x16 simple pack, the only thing that makes simple easier is the time it takes. It literally took me a week to make ClearCraft, and It has taken me 3 weeks to get through 2/3 of my banjo tooie pack. Really though; it all comes to artistic talent, and creativity.
the only thing that makes simple easier is the time it takes.
Agreed. Making the art for a simple pack may take less time, but you still need a good eye for color and a very good eye for design to make the materials read well even in their simplistic form. Designing simple textures that still look unique among the sea of texture packs is no easy feat either.
Also, while simple texture packs may take less time, they still take a good amount of time to do well. You can't expect to whip up a quality texture pack on a sunday afternoon.
The only actual problem here is the people uploading them. Why does your "personal compilation of 500 packs" need to be posted? Do you think anyone will actually care, when they can do one for themselves?
On the topic of Simple Packs: No one wants another cookie cutter, solid color, non-creative texture pack. Keep them to yourselves.
The only actual problem here is the people uploading them. Why does your "personal compilation of 500 packs" need to be posted? Do you think anyone will actually care, when they can do one for themselves?
On the topic of Simple Packs: No one wants another cookie cutter, solid color, non-creative texture pack. Keep them to yourselves.
Are you talking to me about the "personal compilation of 500 packs"?
I don't really see how having lots of "no theme" packs is bad at all. I can see tons of variation between each of these.
On the subject of colors, I absolutely agree. Take Girlcraft, for instance. That's a simple pack, but since she took a creative (and not only creative, but visually appealing) route with the colors, it's a great pack.
No theme packs aren't very bad, no, but just as most people find simple packs to be generic (when I can see lots of differences), I find no theme packs to be generic (while others can see lots of differences). It all comes down to opinion; some like simple texture packs, so they make them and there's an abundance, so there's enough for different people with different styles. Most like no theme texture packs, and there are plenty of them for people who like them.
I don't have a problem with those who don't like simple texture packs. But I do have a problem with those who force their opinions on others, going in to every simple texture pack thread and going "this is generic and ugly you're an idiot for making this."
I like simple texture packs, but there's no bloody difference between most of them.
The ones you listed there's atleast some difference between, whilst most of these simple packs all look the same.
Now i know there's a difference between lets say Tronic and Billycraft, but really, most simple texture packs are billycraft with a 5 second edit.
Most Doku edits have the same base textures. Most unthemed texture packs I see look more or less the same. If you pay attention, you can find differences; but when you don't like it to begin with, there's not much to see.
You're calling me out for not paying any attention, when you didn't even read the ****ing post that you quoted. I LIKE SIMPLE TEXTURE PACKS.
I don't like that they all look the same.
You're right; I missed that part. However, the rest of my point still stands; simple texture packs look similar, but so do many other themes.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
In the middle ages, pink was a manly color!
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Currently, the favorite argument of those against simple texture packs is that "there are tons of them." However, they seem to forget one thing; there are also tons of realistic texture packs, and tons of texture packs with no theme (which all seem to look quite similar). And then there's the type that I'll be focusing on: Doku edits. See, these really are worse than simple texture packs, as rather than using the same concept, they actually stem from the exact same texture pack. So why is it that simple texture packs are so terrible while Doku edits are acceptable?
Skill involved /= quality. In the art world, there are highly acclaimed paintings made by animals, or that look like a six year old could have made them. Does that make them bad? Absolutely not.
Regardless, there are about fifteen Doku edits. That's quite a lot for just one texture pack.
On a related note, I think most super-high-def texture packs look out of place in Minecraft's blocky world anyway, but there's still some really good ones.
There's more to making a simple pack than just reducing the amount of colors/smoothing out the design. There are at least two dozen "smoothed out" packs that I've seen out there.
Most Doku edits have the same base textures. Most unthemed texture packs I see look more or less the same. If you pay attention, you can find differences; but when you don't like it to begin with, there's not much to see.
Define "artistic inspiration."
You are right. But that doesn't mean that simplified packs are bad, either. And the thing is, there are differences. Billycraft takes specific colors from each block and makes the whole block that color. On detailed blocks, it reduces the color count for a smoother, simpler look. Other smoothed out packs have custom blocks, or other things of that type. While the single-color blocks end up looking the same, there are still crucial differences.
At least with the numerous realistic or "no theme packs" (whatever that means), you can see much more variation between each pack than most of the "simple" packs I've seen. While it's true that effort does not directly correlate to quality, it's obvious that (most) all of the simple packs I've seen were only made because the makers did not have either the patience or the talent to make anything more complex or original.
This, of course, isn't to say that all "simple" packs are inherently bad, (I have seen a few that have taken an interesting twist on the concept) but they are certainly overdone.
Also, for the record, I really have no opinion on "realistic" packs, as I am unable to use the HD patcher. I am, however, quite interested in what you would consider a "no theme pack".
I would call things like Quandary, Xenocontendi, and John Smith to be no theme packs.
Agreed. Making the art for a simple pack may take less time, but you still need a good eye for color and a very good eye for design to make the materials read well even in their simplistic form. Designing simple textures that still look unique among the sea of texture packs is no easy feat either.
Also, while simple texture packs may take less time, they still take a good amount of time to do well. You can't expect to whip up a quality texture pack on a sunday afternoon.
On the topic of Simple Packs: No one wants another cookie cutter, solid color, non-creative texture pack. Keep them to yourselves.
Sleekcraft! Check it out!
Are you talking to me about the "personal compilation of 500 packs"?
I don't really see how having lots of "no theme" packs is bad at all. I can see tons of variation between each of these.
On the subject of colors, I absolutely agree. Take Girlcraft, for instance. That's a simple pack, but since she took a creative (and not only creative, but visually appealing) route with the colors, it's a great pack.
I don't have a problem with those who don't like simple texture packs. But I do have a problem with those who force their opinions on others, going in to every simple texture pack thread and going "this is generic and ugly you're an idiot for making this."
You're right; I missed that part. However, the rest of my point still stands; simple texture packs look similar, but so do many other themes.