I love resource packs. Ever since the day I bought Minecraft I have been changing the graphics of the default game to get new and interesting looks for my builds. I love realistic packs, I love artistic packs, I love cartoony packs, all packs in general. There is however one type of pack I dislike, and I know I am not alone in this.
They go by many names, but the most common name is "Bucket Fill" after the tool that is used to create such a pack. These packs are effortless, horrible to look at, a waste of space, large in number, and should be banned.
The expression "As boring as watching paint dry" means staring at one colour for long periods of time, and as the expression states... it is quite boring. That is what a bucket fill does, make you stare at a single colour (or if you are lucky three) with no shading or depth. Just flatness until you come to your senses and turn the pack off. Not to mention, they are all spam.
I am going to post a few pictures to illustrate my point, take a long look at them:
Each of those images are from a different bucketfill pack . Save for very slight deviation, they are all exactly the same. They use the same default palette, same shading (or lack their off), and they all lack quality. Pay very close attention to the dirt blocks on the latter few packs as there is no difference.
If you see one of these packs, you have seen them all so why do we keep allowing them on these forums? Planet Minecraft recently put in a rule (although not enforced well) to ban these packs, and that is a step in the right direction and we should do the same. No one wants to use these packs and there are no excuses for them. There are plenty guides on these forums to teach people how to texture and if someone is not willing to put the time and effort into learning I fear how much time and effort they would put into making their pack.
Edit: At the very least we should do as Goodlyay suggested and require moderator approval before a topic is posted.
They don't really bother me that much. Resource Packs will get what's coming to them, no need to ban ones that will die off in a few days anyways. Resource Packs that are truly good will stand the test of time, whereas every bucket fill pack will quickly be forgotten. And even if there is a bucket fill pack that a lot of people like, who are we to say that it's not allowed to be here?
I feel like this rule would just cause more hassle and not really stop them. If we REALLY want to insure quality content, ask for a rule that has mods review every post before it's made...
This topic comes up from time to time, and the answer is always the same: The staff won't do it.
I've personally argued this point with Lord_Ralex on several occasions. His stance on the matter seems to boil down to the idea that the forum doesn't want to stop people from having fun and enjoying the freedom to post their creations no matter what they happen to be. He doesn't want the staff here to have to judge the quality of a work to decide if it should be allowed or not since what people like or don't like is highly subjective.
Fair enough... but I still argue that there can be minimum standards that can be judged easily. When a pack has only a single shade for each tile, or just a border, it's easy to tell. Yea, anything above that can be allowed. Fine. But the worst examples can easily be judged and removed without any subjectivity or need for judgement calls.
The other point can be addressed as well. I understand that the forum wants to be welcoming to all... but there also comes a point where the forum staff have to think about the community and how a policy affects them. I see the point of not wanting to exclude people from posting what they want, an exclusive community can get toxic quickly; but I don't know that it's really any better to allow people to post garbage on the forum. We see how quickly a thread can degrade when people post bucket fills; usually with the community regulars trying to reach out to the newbie and getting their hands bitten.
That produces the same feelings, or worse ones, than just not allowing the bucket fill to be posted at all. The only difference is that instead of a moderator telling someone that minimum-effort packs aren't allowed on the forums, the person has dozens of regulars telling them things they don't want to hear. Getting it from a forum official is one thing; getting it from the community is another.
Meanwhile the frustration spreads out into the wider community and produces, well, threads like this one to be honest. So instead of putting off a few newbies the policy of allowing garbage to be posted on the forums infects the greater resource pack community and produces a culture of negativity. This is not better for the forum than having a minimum quality standard here. I'm sorry, but it isn't. Lord_Ralex or any other admin who cares to post here can disagree with me all they want... I stand by the idea that it would be better to do a bare minimum of filtering just to keep the pool a little cleaner.
If we REALLY want to insure quality content, ask for a rule that has mods review every post before it's made...
This would actually be a really good idea. At least this would catch the ones without pictures that come up. I'm not sure that the software this forum uses has the option to require moderator approval for new threads on a section-by-section basis, though. If it does, I'd love to have it switched on for Resource Packs. It's not like it would increase their workload much since about half the new threads in that section end up getting reported anyway...
I feel like this rule would just cause more hassle and not really stop them. If we REALLY want to insure quality content, ask for a rule that has mods review every post before it's made...
I put that option into the poll, that is a good idea.
The other point can be addressed as well. I understand that the forum wants to be welcoming to all... but there also comes a point where the forum staff have to think about the community and how a policy affects them. I see the point of not wanting to exclude people from posting what they want, an exclusive community can get toxic quickly; but I don't know that it's really any better to allow people to post garbage on the forum. We see how quickly a thread can degrade when people post bucket fills; usually with the community regulars trying to reach out to the newbie and getting their hands bitten.
I agree with this. It gets to the point where I feel like I only want to post on well known members as anytime I try and be nice and help a newbie I get fought, no matter how nice I put it. The last thing we want is an echo chamber (places with no criticisim, constructive or otherwise) as they are detrimental to artistic growth.
The way I see it, the newbie is going to hear criticism no matter what (unless the powers that be decide to disallow criticism), whether from forum regulars such as us or if this idea is implemented, from a forum moderator . At least from a forum official it will come from a better source and save the member possible embarrassment if he/she does not take criticism well.
Click my signature and look at my 'Simpletech' and '4x4' packs.
Now, how exactly would you draw a line between those and say the 5 minute fill packs that pop up around here like daisies?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Tis far better to be a witty fool than a foolish wit.
Well Fool, your Simpletech is an excellent example of what a 'Simple' pack should be. Much like many of the 'Simple Pack Challenge.' That even though they have an air of simplicity, they do show great effort from the artist. Bucket fills (the first word I'd change a letter to express what I think the drafters of said packs usually say when creating some of the abominations...) show none of that rather they are abound with laziness and they usually have an adfly or adfocus link to try to rip people off... I don't like it because it just shows the sloth and greed of said individuals.
I would like to second the Moderator approved per thread creation. At least it would help weed out the wheat from the chaff.
Freedomna-
Even if criticism was disallowed... you can never stop me from doing so. I'd be banned in a matter of 2 days easily...
Click my signature and look at my 'Simpletech' and '4x4' packs.
Now, how exactly would you draw a line between those and say the 5 minute fill packs that pop up around here like daisies?
Quality and effort.
For starters in your simple pack the blocks tile. That is one major difference between bucketfills and simple packs. You managed to weave intricate patterns into your textures which easily separates it from the shoddy work that I wish removed.
If you look at your 4x4 pack (which I am disappointed to see at 1.6.4 as I would really love to download it), one can see the elegance. The textures do not look flat at all, instead having some "pop to them".
But they have less colors, so it helps reduce lag!
Quote from Random Person on the Internet »
It's just a Simplistic Pack, not a Bucket Fill Pack
Quote from Random Person on the Internet »
But I'm new to texturing!
Quote from Random Person on the Internet »
But I don't know how to make texture packs!
Quote from Random Person on the Internet »
But I couldn't find a guide (or tutorial) on how to make a texture pack!
Quote from Random Person on the Internet »
But I only have MSPaint!
Random BullS*** excuses people make when they post these packs. I think having a rule to ban packs like this will cause conflict, because some people might actually like these types of packs, or users might think that a pack is a Bucket Fill pack when it's actually a true Simplistic pack. Some people won't be able to tell the difference between the 2 (or will just call a pack a Bucket Fill pack because they hate it).
Also having a rule where a mod has to approve the post before it's viewable on the forums, I think, can be a problem to Mods(&higher) as they would have to do more work. BUT I think, it will only increase their workload if this rule is applies to the WHOLE site! If this rule is just applies to a few sections (or just the Resource Pack section), then their workload wouldn't really increase that much.
Although, it would mean less pages that don't have embedded screenshots (or videos) in their post, which means the less we(experienced Forum Users) have to tell the post author "Need to have screenshots in post" comments.
Criticism (constructive or otherwise) will ALWAYS be around, there is no way to stop people from criticizing your (or another user's) work. Sometimes criticism (even the bad kind) is what helps you improve better as an artist.
But the problem with stopping criticism is that it's impossible (unless you don't allow people to post comments or PMs). The people who post comments on a pack are mostly either the users who REALLY hates your pack, or the user who REALLY likes your pack. Those 2 types of people are the ones who post most of your comments. (I mean there are other types of people, but those 2 are the main ones you see a lot).
This just my thoughts on the matter.
(Oh & the excuse that Bucket Fill packs "But they have less colors, so it helps reduce lag" quote, I ACTUALLY saw somewhere a few years ago. I don't remember where I saw it though).
Personally I don't agree with banning bucket fill texture packs, my main reason is that it puts some person, or people in charge of deciding what art is. There are many examples of pieces of art in the real world which you could classify as bucket filled. For example take a look at this piece of modern art. http://images.artnet.com/images_de/magazine/features/ortland/ortland09-26-06-2.jpg
It's literally just a giant canvas painted one shade of red with one small blue stripe at the edge. To be honest I see no difference between this, and and a bucket fill pack, but pieces of modern art such as this are well respected and sometimes sell for a lot of money. Don't get me wrong, I frankly consider the piece of modern art I mentioned to be completely ridiculous, however I don't think I, or anyone else has the right to decide what art is and isn't. If the creator of that "artwork" wishes to show it off in public for all to see, then that's his business. The same goes for the artist of a bucket fill pack.
I suggest a different solution. The people who are making most of these bucket fill packs aren't doing it because they want to make true art(although they may say they do), they are just doing it for attention. They want good attention, but most of the time bad attention will give them their fix too. If we just stop responding to their threads and just ignore them, then they will get bored move on. Now I'm not saying we don't even try to help people improve, but I think if they are honestly trying to make art it will show in their textures, their textures may still look like terrible, but they won't be purely bucket fill. There is a fine line between being bad at texturing, and not even trying.
Personally I don't agree with banning bucket fill texture packs, my main reason is that it puts some person, or people in charge of deciding what art is.
No... it's deciding what forms of art are acceptable in the setting. Would the piece of modern art be acceptable in a community that reveres Renaissance masters? No. And while we're not quite that refined around here, I think that considering the venue is just as important as judging the art.
Also, comparing a bucket-fill pack to a work of abstract expressionism doesn't really work artistically speaking. Color Field paintings like that one aren't prized because they're comprised of large fields of color... but because of the intent behind the painting. As much as I HATE modern art and consider it the biggest fraud in art history, I do understand and appreciate it one some level... just not a visual level. A bucket fill pack can never be a true piece of expressionist artwork since when used in game the expression is applied to another artist's work, or the whim of the terrain generator.
I suggest a different solution. The people who are making most of these bucket fill packs aren't doing it because they want to make true art(although they may say they do), they are just doing it for attention. They want good attention, but most of the time bad attention will give them their fix too. If we just stop responding to their threads and just ignore them, then they will get bored move on. Now I'm not saying we don't even try to help people improve, but I think if they are honestly trying to make art it will show in their textures, their textures may still look like terrible, but they won't be purely bucket fill. There is a fine line between being bad at texturing, and not even trying.
That's why banning bucket fills would be a good solution. The ones that just want attention with minimal effort will be weeded out. If someone is really serious about their work, or is REALLY set on getting attention, they ate least have to put a minimum effort into it.
It also denies the contradiction inherent in the idea of continuing to try to help people... but not posting on their threads if it's a bucket fill. Though I do agree with you that after a bucket-fill maker becomes belligerent or shows that they have no wish to change it's generally better to abandon them to obscurity. I've said before in similar discussions that if there's one thing our little community is really awful at it's being quiet.
The Meaning of Life, the Universe, and Everything.
Join Date:
9/2/2011
Posts:
86
Member Details
Personally, i kind like bucket fill packs, i don't use them much, but they add a nice change every once in a while. though, as i see many do dislike them, i would suggest simply adding a specific sub category under texture packs made solely for bucket fill (maybe even simplistic) packs, that way, those who like them can still get them, and those who do not, can just avoid them, plus it does not add more work for moderators.
Don't forget all the 'CubeWorld' so called 'themed' packs.. that are again just bucket filled nonsense.
I've seen a number of so called cubeworld packs that end up becoming very popular but all it is is the name. People whom are a fan of Cubeworld will go for a pack based off it... yet take that very same back and call it something else, and it becomes just another bucketfilled pack that no one wants.
I fully agree with Alv. For a time there was nearly 20k, yes 20,000 packs just like the ones shown on Planet Minecraft. Thankfully mods have started to see these as spam and began removing some, it's now down to around 7k.
The big deal is these bucket filled pack are running wild, we see several of them a freaking day, and nearly all of them have the OP crying 'OMG HATE FLAME TROLLS' to whomever tries to help them and give them advice. Anything that isn't out right worshiping the flat colors they chose is seen as trolling and hate, spam and yada yada...
Very few, I mean VERY few, only THREE that I have personally seen sense 2011, have acually taken the feedback to heart, dropped their bucket filled ways and come back to make ok/really good packs.
There needs to be a standard around here.
Flat out, the shear number of bucket filled packs we see is bordering on spam. Really most of them you wouldn't be able to tell if someone stole it and claimed it as their own, most are the exact same thing over and over and over.
It is not hard at all to tell what is SPAM packs, and what is a true simple pack.
Simpletech is a good example of a good simple pack, lot of work going into it, theres detail.
Where as flat solid colored blocks and objects is not... and I am tierd of seeing them flooding the forums and the OP's wining and crying and playing the 'hate/spam/troll' nonsense.
No... it's deciding what forms of art are acceptable in the setting. Would the piece of modern art be acceptable in a community that reveres Renaissance masters? No. And while we're not quite that refined around here, I think that considering the venue is just as important as judging the art.
Also, comparing a bucket-fill pack to a work of abstract expressionism doesn't really work artistically speaking. Color Field paintings like that one aren't prized because they're comprised of large fields of color... but because of the intent behind the painting. As much as I HATE modern art and consider it the biggest fraud in art history, I do understand and appreciate it one some level... just not a visual level. A bucket fill pack can never be a true piece of expressionist artwork since when used in game the expression is applied to another artist's work, or the whim of the terrain generator.
That's why banning bucket fills would be a good solution. The ones that just want attention with minimal effort will be weeded out. If someone is really serious about their work, or is REALLY set on getting attention, they ate least have to put a minimum effort into it.
It also denies the contradiction inherent in the idea of continuing to try to help people... but not posting on their threads if it's a bucket fill. Though I do agree with you that after a bucket-fill maker becomes belligerent or shows that they have no wish to change it's generally better to abandon them to obscurity. I've said before in similar discussions that if there's one thing our little community is really awful at it's being quiet.
Well I understand what you mean by letting staff decide what's acceptable in the forums setting, I think that you might be misunderstanding what the resource pack section of the forum was intended for. From my understanding this forum is meant for all texture artists to post their packs on. That's why it isn't called the realistic resource pack forums, or the cartoony resource pack forums. Yes many of the people in the community that has formed revere these kinds of packs above bucket fill ones, but I don't think that was what the people who created these forums had in mind. I don't think it would be a bad idea to have a sub-forum specifically for us more "refined" texture artists, that we had to pass some kind of basic skill test to be allowed to post in. As for my comparison of bucket fill packs to color field paintings I really don't understand the difference(not for lack of trying). About the same amount of effort is required to soak a canvas in paint, as it does to change all the mc textures to a bucket fill version(I think if it were just effort we were talking about it might take more work to change all the mc textures), and I don't see how the color field painting requires any more skill. Also sorry if I offended anyone who likes abstract expressionism. I am not trying to insult the style, just giving my honest opinion in order to make a point.
These are the things I'm seeing mentioned as dividers between 'bad' packs and 'good' packs. The problem is these are qualitative and not quantitative measurements. I don't think it's really healthy for the community to be barring packs based on someone's opinion, even if they are a trusted person. Catch the wrong mod on the wrong day and a well done 'simple' pack gets shut down along with the bucket brigade.
I'm personally not sure the problem is even the 'low quality' packs so much as it is the large volume of packs. It's hard for people to find stuff that they like among all the stuff they don't. With that in mind, I think it would be more productive (and better for the community) to have a review thread that just briefly lists and talks about new packs that come up that are worth looking at. Of course that's a bit more work and it can't just be relegated to the rather nebulous cloud of 'let the mods do it.' :-/
I find this discussion rather interesting as it parallels a similar problem in another community I follow. Specifically it sounds a lot like the discussions I see concerning what sorts of games should be allowed on App stores and Steam. "They should just ban all clone games!" "No more F2P garbage!" and other such lamentations about how things have gone downhill. Discoverability is a rather hot topic these days.
PS. Thanks for the kind words about my packs. I'm rather flattered.
PPS. Sorry for them not being all up to date. I really need to sit down and just set aside a block of time to work on them. I've been much more busy at work and not had the time I used to to fiddle with such things.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Tis far better to be a witty fool than a foolish wit.
As others here have said, this is a touchy subject, as the forum administration does not want to decide what is "good" and "bad" and turning MCF into a nanny state.
I think a much better solution to this is to not let people post in the main resource pack section, so everyone posts in the WIP section, and when it gets enough replies/votes and meets the rules for the main section, it can be moved.
In this scenario, bucket fill packs are NOT banned. This makes sense as they can still be on the forums, but in the WIP, where the authors of these can choose to improve or not. This would stop bucketfill packs from flooding the resource packs, they can still be posted. The packs in WIP that are good enough or improve can be moved, and those that don't will stay behind.
I'm pretty sure I've already mentioned something to this effect to Ralex, but I don't think he liked the idea of increasing mod workload or putting more work on the system if it was partially automated. Things have changed, so maybe this has, too, but I doubt it. Nice to think about, though.
Also, RE: Quality and effort: I don't think a big part of this is that bucketfill packs lack those (which, they clearly are at the rock-bottom of the spectrum), but that they lack originality, using most shapes and colors from the default pack, and that they are essentially non-distinct from most other bucketfill pack, as it's the same process. This is the same as invert, noise, and recolor packs are almost as bad, because it's just worsening default rather than making something new.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I'm an outsider by choice, but not truly.
It’s the unpleasantness of the system that keeps me out.
I’d rather be in, in a good system. That’s where my discontent comes from:
being forced to choose to stay outside.
My advice: Just keep movin’ straight ahead.
Every now and then you find yourself in a different place."
-George Carlin
Absolutely not. Forgive if what I mentioned has already been said; I didn't bother to read the posts above my own.
There are many people who suck at texturing and simply try to make one in Paint or with bucket fill, and they feel proud of their work, albeit a horrendous texture pack. Just because someone posts a texture pack here, it doesn't mean it has to meet any particular standard set by your own taste. This forum is open to anyone to post. I'd never support anything like this.
As others here have said, this is a touchy subject, as the forum administration does not want to decide what is "good" and "bad" and turning MCF into a nanny state.
I think a much better solution to this is to not let people post in the main resource pack section, so everyone posts in the WIP section, and when it gets enough replies/votes and meets the rules for the main section, it can be moved.
In this scenario, bucket fill packs are NOT banned. This makes sense as they can still be on the forums, but in the WIP, where the authors of these can choose to improve or not. This would stop bucketfill packs from flooding the resource packs, they can still be posted. The packs in WIP that are good enough or improve can be moved, and those that don't will stay behind.
I'm pretty sure I've already mentioned something to this effect to Ralex, but I don't think he liked the idea of increasing mod workload or putting more work on the system if it was partially automated. Things have changed, so maybe this has, too, but I doubt it. Nice to think about, though.
Also, RE: Quality and effort: I don't think a big part of this is that bucketfill packs lack those (which, they clearly are at the rock-bottom of the spectrum), but that they lack originality, using most shapes and colors from the default pack, and that they are essentially non-distinct from most other bucketfill pack, as it's the same process. This is the same as invert, noise, and recolor packs are almost as bad, because it's just worsening default rather than making something new.
I think this is a great compromise, I would vote for this solution if it were an option.
Absolutely not. Forgive if what I mentioned has already been said; I didn't bother to read the posts above my own.
There are many people who suck at texturing and simply try to make one in Paint or with bucket fill, and they feel proud of their work, albeit a horrendous texture pack. Just because someone posts a texture pack here, it doesn't mean it has to meet any particular standard set by your own taste. This forum is open to anyone to post. I'd never support anything like this.
So you do not believe in any sort of quality control what so ever just so we can give everyone who posts a horrible pack delusions of being an artist? Not to mention these are not my standards. Look at any bucket fill thread on these forums, tell me if you see a regular like one of these packs. These packs only benefit the author and that sole benefit is a false sense of artistic merit. Unless I am five years old, I do not expect any praise nor should I be proud of spending ten seconds (that is how long a "quality" bucketfill takes to make) on a single texture.
1. It´s an open forum, it regulates itself. If a subjectively called "bad" pack is posted, it will most likely not get much attention. If it gets a lot of attention, it is worth something for someone and you shoudn´t complain.
2. If you fear that this pack is pushing your pack off the first page, don´t post in it´s thread, not even to point out that it is a "bad" pack.
1. So all attention is good attention right? If we get a bucketfill pack with a thousand comments decrying it, and a Cynip's quality pack with a dozen comments praising it (both posted on same day), obviously the bucketfill is a higher quality and the Cynip's level of pack is just bad by this logic.
2. So we should refrain from criticism what so ever now too?
So we should refrain from criticism what so ever now too?
There's a difference between criticizing someone that needs improvement but is honestly trying to make art, and criticizing someone who made a no-effort, bucket fill pack to get attention. The difference is that the former actually helps people, and the latter just fuels the bucket fill pack creators need for attention. Of course we should try to help people that are actually trying to make art, but I see absolutely no point at all in trying to offer helpful criticism to someone who doesn't want it and will refuse to use it.
They go by many names, but the most common name is "Bucket Fill" after the tool that is used to create such a pack. These packs are effortless, horrible to look at, a waste of space, large in number, and should be banned.
The expression "As boring as watching paint dry" means staring at one colour for long periods of time, and as the expression states... it is quite boring. That is what a bucket fill does, make you stare at a single colour (or if you are lucky three) with no shading or depth. Just flatness until you come to your senses and turn the pack off. Not to mention, they are all spam.
I am going to post a few pictures to illustrate my point, take a long look at them:
Each of those images are from a different bucketfill pack . Save for very slight deviation, they are all exactly the same. They use the same default palette, same shading (or lack their off), and they all lack quality. Pay very close attention to the dirt blocks on the latter few packs as there is no difference.
If you see one of these packs, you have seen them all so why do we keep allowing them on these forums? Planet Minecraft recently put in a rule (although not enforced well) to ban these packs, and that is a step in the right direction and we should do the same. No one wants to use these packs and there are no excuses for them. There are plenty guides on these forums to teach people how to texture and if someone is not willing to put the time and effort into learning I fear how much time and effort they would put into making their pack.
Edit: At the very least we should do as Goodlyay suggested and require moderator approval before a topic is posted.
What problems would arise?
I feel like this rule would just cause more hassle and not really stop them. If we REALLY want to insure quality content, ask for a rule that has mods review every post before it's made...
I've personally argued this point with Lord_Ralex on several occasions. His stance on the matter seems to boil down to the idea that the forum doesn't want to stop people from having fun and enjoying the freedom to post their creations no matter what they happen to be. He doesn't want the staff here to have to judge the quality of a work to decide if it should be allowed or not since what people like or don't like is highly subjective.
Fair enough... but I still argue that there can be minimum standards that can be judged easily. When a pack has only a single shade for each tile, or just a border, it's easy to tell. Yea, anything above that can be allowed. Fine. But the worst examples can easily be judged and removed without any subjectivity or need for judgement calls.
The other point can be addressed as well. I understand that the forum wants to be welcoming to all... but there also comes a point where the forum staff have to think about the community and how a policy affects them. I see the point of not wanting to exclude people from posting what they want, an exclusive community can get toxic quickly; but I don't know that it's really any better to allow people to post garbage on the forum. We see how quickly a thread can degrade when people post bucket fills; usually with the community regulars trying to reach out to the newbie and getting their hands bitten.
That produces the same feelings, or worse ones, than just not allowing the bucket fill to be posted at all. The only difference is that instead of a moderator telling someone that minimum-effort packs aren't allowed on the forums, the person has dozens of regulars telling them things they don't want to hear. Getting it from a forum official is one thing; getting it from the community is another.
Meanwhile the frustration spreads out into the wider community and produces, well, threads like this one to be honest. So instead of putting off a few newbies the policy of allowing garbage to be posted on the forums infects the greater resource pack community and produces a culture of negativity. This is not better for the forum than having a minimum quality standard here. I'm sorry, but it isn't. Lord_Ralex or any other admin who cares to post here can disagree with me all they want... I stand by the idea that it would be better to do a bare minimum of filtering just to keep the pool a little cleaner.
This would actually be a really good idea. At least this would catch the ones without pictures that come up. I'm not sure that the software this forum uses has the option to require moderator approval for new threads on a section-by-section basis, though. If it does, I'd love to have it switched on for Resource Packs. It's not like it would increase their workload much since about half the new threads in that section end up getting reported anyway...
I put that option into the poll, that is a good idea.
I agree with this. It gets to the point where I feel like I only want to post on well known members as anytime I try and be nice and help a newbie I get fought, no matter how nice I put it. The last thing we want is an echo chamber (places with no criticisim, constructive or otherwise) as they are detrimental to artistic growth.
The way I see it, the newbie is going to hear criticism no matter what (unless the powers that be decide to disallow criticism), whether from forum regulars such as us or if this idea is implemented, from a forum moderator . At least from a forum official it will come from a better source and save the member possible embarrassment if he/she does not take criticism well.
Now, how exactly would you draw a line between those and say the 5 minute fill packs that pop up around here like daisies?
I would like to second the Moderator approved per thread creation. At least it would help weed out the wheat from the chaff.
Freedomna-
Even if criticism was disallowed... you can never stop me from doing so. I'd be banned in a matter of 2 days easily...
Quality and effort.
For starters in your simple pack the blocks tile. That is one major difference between bucketfills and simple packs. You managed to weave intricate patterns into your textures which easily separates it from the shoddy work that I wish removed.
If you look at your 4x4 pack (which I am disappointed to see at 1.6.4 as I would really love to download it), one can see the elegance. The textures do not look flat at all, instead having some "pop to them".
Myself included. I disagree with "babying" people. Being nice, yes. Not giving people the truth, no.
Random BullS*** excuses people make when they post these packs. I think having a rule to ban packs like this will cause conflict, because some people might actually like these types of packs, or users might think that a pack is a Bucket Fill pack when it's actually a true Simplistic pack. Some people won't be able to tell the difference between the 2 (or will just call a pack a Bucket Fill pack because they hate it).
Also having a rule where a mod has to approve the post before it's viewable on the forums, I think, can be a problem to Mods(&higher) as they would have to do more work. BUT I think, it will only increase their workload if this rule is applies to the WHOLE site! If this rule is just applies to a few sections (or just the Resource Pack section), then their workload wouldn't really increase that much.
Although, it would mean less pages that don't have embedded screenshots (or videos) in their post, which means the less we(experienced Forum Users) have to tell the post author "Need to have screenshots in post" comments.
Criticism (constructive or otherwise) will ALWAYS be around, there is no way to stop people from criticizing your (or another user's) work. Sometimes criticism (even the bad kind) is what helps you improve better as an artist.
But the problem with stopping criticism is that it's impossible (unless you don't allow people to post comments or PMs). The people who post comments on a pack are mostly either the users who REALLY hates your pack, or the user who REALLY likes your pack. Those 2 types of people are the ones who post most of your comments. (I mean there are other types of people, but those 2 are the main ones you see a lot).
This just my thoughts on the matter.
(Oh & the excuse that Bucket Fill packs "But they have less colors, so it helps reduce lag" quote, I ACTUALLY saw somewhere a few years ago. I don't remember where I saw it though).
http://images.artnet.com/images_de/magazine/features/ortland/ortland09-26-06-2.jpg
It's literally just a giant canvas painted one shade of red with one small blue stripe at the edge. To be honest I see no difference between this, and and a bucket fill pack, but pieces of modern art such as this are well respected and sometimes sell for a lot of money. Don't get me wrong, I frankly consider the piece of modern art I mentioned to be completely ridiculous, however I don't think I, or anyone else has the right to decide what art is and isn't. If the creator of that "artwork" wishes to show it off in public for all to see, then that's his business. The same goes for the artist of a bucket fill pack.
I suggest a different solution. The people who are making most of these bucket fill packs aren't doing it because they want to make true art(although they may say they do), they are just doing it for attention. They want good attention, but most of the time bad attention will give them their fix too. If we just stop responding to their threads and just ignore them, then they will get bored move on. Now I'm not saying we don't even try to help people improve, but I think if they are honestly trying to make art it will show in their textures, their textures may still look like terrible, but they won't be purely bucket fill. There is a fine line between being bad at texturing, and not even trying.
Also, comparing a bucket-fill pack to a work of abstract expressionism doesn't really work artistically speaking. Color Field paintings like that one aren't prized because they're comprised of large fields of color... but because of the intent behind the painting. As much as I HATE modern art and consider it the biggest fraud in art history, I do understand and appreciate it one some level... just not a visual level. A bucket fill pack can never be a true piece of expressionist artwork since when used in game the expression is applied to another artist's work, or the whim of the terrain generator.
That's why banning bucket fills would be a good solution. The ones that just want attention with minimal effort will be weeded out. If someone is really serious about their work, or is REALLY set on getting attention, they ate least have to put a minimum effort into it.
It also denies the contradiction inherent in the idea of continuing to try to help people... but not posting on their threads if it's a bucket fill. Though I do agree with you that after a bucket-fill maker becomes belligerent or shows that they have no wish to change it's generally better to abandon them to obscurity. I've said before in similar discussions that if there's one thing our little community is really awful at it's being quiet.
I've seen a number of so called cubeworld packs that end up becoming very popular but all it is is the name. People whom are a fan of Cubeworld will go for a pack based off it... yet take that very same back and call it something else, and it becomes just another bucketfilled pack that no one wants.
I fully agree with Alv. For a time there was nearly 20k, yes 20,000 packs just like the ones shown on Planet Minecraft. Thankfully mods have started to see these as spam and began removing some, it's now down to around 7k.
The big deal is these bucket filled pack are running wild, we see several of them a freaking day, and nearly all of them have the OP crying 'OMG HATE FLAME TROLLS' to whomever tries to help them and give them advice. Anything that isn't out right worshiping the flat colors they chose is seen as trolling and hate, spam and yada yada...
Very few, I mean VERY few, only THREE that I have personally seen sense 2011, have acually taken the feedback to heart, dropped their bucket filled ways and come back to make ok/really good packs.
There needs to be a standard around here.
Flat out, the shear number of bucket filled packs we see is bordering on spam. Really most of them you wouldn't be able to tell if someone stole it and claimed it as their own, most are the exact same thing over and over and over.
It is not hard at all to tell what is SPAM packs, and what is a true simple pack.
Simpletech is a good example of a good simple pack, lot of work going into it, theres detail.
Where as flat solid colored blocks and objects is not... and I am tierd of seeing them flooding the forums and the OP's wining and crying and playing the 'hate/spam/troll' nonsense.
Well I understand what you mean by letting staff decide what's acceptable in the forums setting, I think that you might be misunderstanding what the resource pack section of the forum was intended for. From my understanding this forum is meant for all texture artists to post their packs on. That's why it isn't called the realistic resource pack forums, or the cartoony resource pack forums. Yes many of the people in the community that has formed revere these kinds of packs above bucket fill ones, but I don't think that was what the people who created these forums had in mind. I don't think it would be a bad idea to have a sub-forum specifically for us more "refined" texture artists, that we had to pass some kind of basic skill test to be allowed to post in. As for my comparison of bucket fill packs to color field paintings I really don't understand the difference(not for lack of trying). About the same amount of effort is required to soak a canvas in paint, as it does to change all the mc textures to a bucket fill version(I think if it were just effort we were talking about it might take more work to change all the mc textures), and I don't see how the color field painting requires any more skill. Also sorry if I offended anyone who likes abstract expressionism. I am not trying to insult the style, just giving my honest opinion in order to make a point.
These are the things I'm seeing mentioned as dividers between 'bad' packs and 'good' packs. The problem is these are qualitative and not quantitative measurements. I don't think it's really healthy for the community to be barring packs based on someone's opinion, even if they are a trusted person. Catch the wrong mod on the wrong day and a well done 'simple' pack gets shut down along with the bucket brigade.
I'm personally not sure the problem is even the 'low quality' packs so much as it is the large volume of packs. It's hard for people to find stuff that they like among all the stuff they don't. With that in mind, I think it would be more productive (and better for the community) to have a review thread that just briefly lists and talks about new packs that come up that are worth looking at. Of course that's a bit more work and it can't just be relegated to the rather nebulous cloud of 'let the mods do it.' :-/
I find this discussion rather interesting as it parallels a similar problem in another community I follow. Specifically it sounds a lot like the discussions I see concerning what sorts of games should be allowed on App stores and Steam. "They should just ban all clone games!" "No more F2P garbage!" and other such lamentations about how things have gone downhill. Discoverability is a rather hot topic these days.
PS. Thanks for the kind words about my packs. I'm rather flattered.
PPS. Sorry for them not being all up to date. I really need to sit down and just set aside a block of time to work on them. I've been much more busy at work and not had the time I used to to fiddle with such things.
I think a much better solution to this is to not let people post in the main resource pack section, so everyone posts in the WIP section, and when it gets enough replies/votes and meets the rules for the main section, it can be moved.
In this scenario, bucket fill packs are NOT banned. This makes sense as they can still be on the forums, but in the WIP, where the authors of these can choose to improve or not. This would stop bucketfill packs from flooding the resource packs, they can still be posted. The packs in WIP that are good enough or improve can be moved, and those that don't will stay behind.
I'm pretty sure I've already mentioned something to this effect to Ralex, but I don't think he liked the idea of increasing mod workload or putting more work on the system if it was partially automated. Things have changed, so maybe this has, too, but I doubt it. Nice to think about, though.
Also, RE: Quality and effort: I don't think a big part of this is that bucketfill packs lack those (which, they clearly are at the rock-bottom of the spectrum), but that they lack originality, using most shapes and colors from the default pack, and that they are essentially non-distinct from most other bucketfill pack, as it's the same process. This is the same as invert, noise, and recolor packs are almost as bad, because it's just worsening default rather than making something new.
"I'm an outsider by choice, but not truly.
It’s the unpleasantness of the system that keeps me out.
I’d rather be in, in a good system. That’s where my discontent comes from:
being forced to choose to stay outside.
My advice: Just keep movin’ straight ahead.
Every now and then you find yourself in a different place."
-George Carlin
There are many people who suck at texturing and simply try to make one in Paint or with bucket fill, and they feel proud of their work, albeit a horrendous texture pack. Just because someone posts a texture pack here, it doesn't mean it has to meet any particular standard set by your own taste. This forum is open to anyone to post. I'd never support anything like this.
I think this is a great compromise, I would vote for this solution if it were an option.
So you do not believe in any sort of quality control what so ever just so we can give everyone who posts a horrible pack delusions of being an artist? Not to mention these are not my standards. Look at any bucket fill thread on these forums, tell me if you see a regular like one of these packs. These packs only benefit the author and that sole benefit is a false sense of artistic merit. Unless I am five years old, I do not expect any praise nor should I be proud of spending ten seconds (that is how long a "quality" bucketfill takes to make) on a single texture.
1. So all attention is good attention right? If we get a bucketfill pack with a thousand comments decrying it, and a Cynip's quality pack with a dozen comments praising it (both posted on same day), obviously the bucketfill is a higher quality and the Cynip's level of pack is just bad by this logic.
2. So we should refrain from criticism what so ever now too?
There's a difference between criticizing someone that needs improvement but is honestly trying to make art, and criticizing someone who made a no-effort, bucket fill pack to get attention. The difference is that the former actually helps people, and the latter just fuels the bucket fill pack creators need for attention. Of course we should try to help people that are actually trying to make art, but I see absolutely no point at all in trying to offer helpful criticism to someone who doesn't want it and will refuse to use it.