PC version is $26... I could be wrong here, but my common sense is tingling and it's telling me that $26 is not half of $20...
This ^ and plus add taxes so round about $30 which is like 25% more than what we payed and besides its just a game, why not start fresh and get all these features gives you something to do, i mean if you dont want the update you dont have to.
I want the world size to be increased, or at least be able to travel to neighboring worlds in separate but connected saves, so that the new features will be implemented into my current world.
Once again, THE XBOX WOULD NOT HAVE TO LOAD MULTIPLE WORLDS SIMULTANEOUSLY. Here's now it would work:
1) You boat to the norther edge of the map.
2) A prompt appears, "Would you like to travel North?" You select 'Yes'.
3) You and everyone in your game gets transported to A DIFFERENT WORLD connected to your first one, but saved in a different save file. You'd keep your inventory and everything.
So your primary world could potentially extend forever. You'd just have to load different sections of it at different times, depending on which world you want to go to.
The problem is that such a change would probably require a complete reworking of the game engine in regard to how it handles other players. I realize what you are saying. But you also have to realize that the addition of split screen play involves a lot in terms of what the programmers had to do in order to allow it. So much so that they are making updates to the game take precedent over extending world size. Most likely, the time it would take to recode everything to connect all player to the map host, (or, in fact, even separate the split screen players in such a way that one of them would be, to the game, considered a host instead of all just being extensions of the first player) and work the bugs out of said system wasn't worth it at the moment.
Handling things from a single player perspective is always easier than from a multiplayer one. I'd actually go into more detail, but I'm feeling sick just thinking about it and will probably have to go chug some aspirin now. I love your ideal, and have even said the same thing before. I honestly feel like split screen play is holding everything back, and that they would be better served to just make it online only. With JUST that change...world size could easily increase, (well, thats not entirely true. The way the game currently handles loading areas of a map that have been explored actually presents another problem) and we could, without hesitation, probably have the very system you are talking about. MORE, even, said system could probably be made to handle having online players in different maps at different times. No different than how it handles the nether really...with the exception that new programming would need to be done in order to "link" map saves together.
I can't be on live all the time and am mostly offline. So if that happens, I, and probably many other people will not be happy with this.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"When life gives you lemons, give life back his lemons! I don't want your d*mn lemons! Do you know who I am? I'm Cave Johnson, the guy who set your house on fire with combustible lemons!" - Portal 2
Handling things from a single player perspective is always easier than from a multiplayer one. I'd actually go into more detail, but I'm feeling sick just thinking about it and will probably have to go chug some aspirin now. I love your ideal, and have even said the same thing before. I honestly feel like split screen play is holding everything back, and that they would be better served to just make it online only. With JUST that change...world size could easily increase, (well, thats not entirely true. The way the game currently handles loading areas of a map that have been explored actually presents another problem) and we could, without hesitation, probably have the very system you are talking about. MORE, even, said system could probably be made to handle having online players in different maps at different times. No different than how it handles the nether really...with the exception that new programming would need to be done in order to "link" map saves together.
I vote we kill split screen. Maybe thats just me.
There are numerous families who enjoy the splitscreen mode. They can engage the family in a common game without the hassles or worries of being online and having young children with online profiles and the added cost of having to pay for additional online profiles for each and every family member. It is a unique feature of this game on the XBox; and therefore, as valid reason to buy this version of the game for those who don't want to play with other players online all the time, like they must on the PC.
Dude, you're crying about something that maybe 1% of the people that play this game are worried about. The other 99% either don't care about starting a new world, or already said they'll just play 2 worlds at the same time. The only thing you'll miss out on are terrain features and pre-made structures, which you can recreate on your map if you're that worried about it. Adding a way to teleport between areas wouldn't solve anything. If that were implemented, you would more than likely need a save before everyone teleported anyway, so it would really not be any different than manually switching games. You act like it takes more than 30 seconds to save and exit, then load up your other world. It's a very small inconvenience to you, yet you feel they should be taking time to implement this instead of working on features that everyone could use.
I agree with this assessment. The addition of creative mode and ability to switch between will resolve the issue of how to take unavailable items into an old world. Those hosts who want to add these few items and then continue in survival mode just need to exercise a little self-control. The hosts can opt to transport only a few of each of the unavailable items into the old world and even hide them; and then only after they are done, opt to open the world up to their other players in survival mode. The game continues in survival mode with a few of the added items waiting to be found... no worries. What is being proposed by 4J is a reasonable solution for everyone... people, especially hosts of survival worlds, just need to implement the proposed changes using some discretion and integrity.
Incidentally, am I right in thinking that the world size limitation has little to do with the processing power of the 360, but is rather about the MS save game size limit?
I think the MS limit must be REALLY large, so I doubt it is exclusively the factor in limiting world size. I have saved games from other programs on my XBox that far exceed (more than double) the size of any of my Minecraft worlds. 4J has also already said that eliminating the splitscreen mode would make essentially no difference to increasing world size. Why don't we all just stop speculating and give 4J some breathing room to A. implement the 1.8 update as they have currently planned and B. hopefully resolve some of the serious bugs that are currently in the game (e.g. world's not saving correctly and then not being openable afterwards). Then, after that, perhaps a more logical and informed discussion on increasing the world size can be undertaken.
You really expect me to start a new world 2 months after release so i can get clay.
Then u expect me to start a new world again for 1.8(ravines/strongholds/etc)
Then again restart when 1.2 comes so i can get jungle biomes.
Did we not spend more than 2x the amount of money on this game than the pc players?
They should have just charged 800 msp than just left it at 1.6
4j you need to get your priorities straight bc this is going to lose some of your players.
1600 MSP = $20. PC payed a few dollars more.
So you have to start another world to get all of the changes, so?
Just keep your old world.
4J really isn't doing anything wrong.
If you really want to complain, get off your nice, comfortable sofa and go hunch over a computer desk. I would rather start a new world than get off of my couch.
There are numerous families who enjoy the splitscreen mode. They can engage the family in a common game without the hassles or worries of being online and having young children with online profiles and the added cost of having to pay for additional online profiles for each and every family member. It is a unique feature of this game on the XBox; and therefore, as valid reason to buy this version of the game for those who don't want to play with other players online all the time, like they must on the PC.
I agree with this assessment. The addition of creative mode and ability to switch between will resolve the issue of how to take unavailable items into an old world. Those hosts who want to add these few items and then continue in survival mode just need to exercise a little self-control. The hosts can opt to transport only a few of each of the unavailable items into the old world and even hide them; and then only after they are done, opt to open the world up to their other players in survival mode. The game continues in survival mode with a few of the added items waiting to be found... no worries. What is being proposed by 4J is a reasonable solution for everyone... people, especially hosts of survival worlds, just need to implement the proposed changes using some discretion and integrity.
Finally! Someone else understands my point!
I don't see how the rest of you don't get it.
The only difference between a portal between worlds, and saving, exiting, and using creative are all of about 30 seconds. Sorry you don't have your magic portal to switch you between worlds, and just magically teleport everyone else on your map at the same time, even if they're no where near the portal. It makes no sense at all that something like that could happen. I mean, I could see maybe if you got everyone to the portal at the same time, but that would probably take even longer than saving and exiting.
Really though, some of you are way too attached to your worlds, you act like they're just going to disappear whenever you start a new one.
I'm the one with the attention span of an earthworm though? right? So you'd expect to see my game with hundreds of game saves and a bunch of little tiny houses right? Wellllllllll kid, you're wrong. I have 2 worlds, my first world, that was started the day I got the game, and the world I'm currently playing in, which I started about 3 weeks after the first one. My current world is very developed and has a ton of work into it, but guess what? As soon as the update hits, I'm going to make a new one to check everything out, annnnd not one tear will be shed.
I have the attention span of an earthworm? Well you have the hormones of a woman going through menopause. I'd take the earthworm anyday....
Why dont 4J actually expalin what it is thats stopping them making the world sizes bigger? they seem to be avoiding the question a hell of a lot, which dosnt bode well for the future.
4J have actually been far more forthcoming about details regarding Minecraft than MOST gaming software companies are about their products. The gaming industry is widely known to be a very secretive one. Also, keep in mind that 4J probably has some contractual limits being imposed on them by Microsoft and by Mojang that they are unable to reveal publicly. Furthermore, no business can afford to rewrite their business plans every time a few people express a concern over the internet. If they did, they be running willy nilly in every direction, arguing among themselves (the same way these posts do) and... as a result, getting NOTHING done. It's just not good business.
Back on topic. This is actually the best idea i have read. The whole boats to the outer edge that would then ask u if u would like to travel to another area.
This would solve everything. This would sastisfy everyone that doesnt want to restart, and not impact anyone that has multiple worlds.
In fact i would like to build on this idea a little more. They could even just do it for one side for now.
Like just the northern sea boundary. Then when 1.2 come they could open up a new section on the eastern side. And so on...
This would also solve the whole argument between creative/survival being toggleable.
People would be able to get access to the material/biomes that they never had. Thus legitimizing peoples survival only worlds
I understand they have been giving the community information regarding updates and stuff, but they arnt addressing the questions that everybody is asking, they seem to be avoiding it which I dont understand after they've been so forthcoming with everything else.
When things go wrong with their products, companies tend to clam up until they have solutions implemented, or at least on the way. I agree it is very frustrating. Just try to be patient, and keep providing constructive feedback.
I understand they have been giving the community information regarding updates and stuff, but they arnt addressing the questions that everybody is asking, they seem to be avoiding it which I dont understand after they've been so forthcoming with everything else.
Probably for the same reason that parents of terminally ill children don't tell their children that they're sick.
I understand they have been giving the community information regarding updates and stuff, but they arnt addressing the questions that everybody is asking, they seem to be avoiding it which I dont understand after they've been so forthcoming with everything else.
First of all, it's not the question "everybody" is asking. Judging from the number of "when the update coming threads?" and the "what's in the unpdate?" threads, and the number of people who have responded in this very thread saying that world size is pretty low on their priority list, I'd say tht saying "everybody is asking" is a bit of a stretch.
Second, they probably haven't even given it any serious thought. They are focused on porting the 1.8 code, looking into "bring-forwards" from 1.9 and trying to find the intermittent bugs that are constantly being reported. Look, I run a research department for a major NGO, when someone is pestering me for a project that doesn't show up on my production schedule until next quarter, I say, "we're looking into it." What do you think 4J meant when they said (pretty much) the exact same thing several months ago?
Finally, internet forum goers are notorious for taking generic statements and turning them into expect business plans. Even if 4J has started considered whether to do anything about world size (which I suspect they won't - see echocrack's comments), they certainly will not say anything about how they plan to address it until they are certain which path they are going to take. To do otherwise would get all the children in a twist.
I suspect that it comes down to resources.. Not resources on the XBox, but resources within 4J. There is a great deal of work in going to 1.8. It's been stated many places that it's pretty much a complete rewrite of the game. So there are going to be a lot of man-hours tied up in trying to get that out. Considering the outcry from people wanting to know when the update is going to be out I'm sure that is taking up most of their energies right now and it's enough just getting all this stuff within the parameters of the game as it is defined now.
On top of that they really have people pulling them in all directions asking for just about every manor of DLC under the sun. As a programmer myself sometimes it just comes down to a line in and the sand that you just have to draw and say enough is enough for this version. I'm sure that at some point maps will expand and maybe even be unlimited. When it comes down to it they have to weigh feature X vs feature Y and what is going to be the most bang for the buck.
I actually totally agree with what your saying, and i've said it myself on here before, and promptly got flamed by everybody for saying it
Okey saying 'everybody' wants the world size to increase is a little bit of an overstatement, but the backlash I got from suggesting that the world size might never change was huge. A lot of people were saying they'd simply stop playing the game if this was the case.
My bad - I got which "side" you were on confused :-s
I understand they have been giving the community information regarding updates and stuff, but they arnt addressing the questions that everybody is asking, they seem to be avoiding it which I dont understand after they've been so forthcoming with everything else.
Maybe I need to be a little more direct - We don't know all the clauses of all the contractual agreements that must have been signed to enable 4J to port Minecraft into Xbox. They didn't invent Minecraft and they didn't invent the Xbox, so there may well be limitations set by either Mojang or Microsoft (or more likely both) that limits what 4J can do AND what 4J can disclose to the public about what is being done. This may not be the issue, but it's as good a guess as anything else. The reality is that WE don't know everything involved. Everything is just a guess and pure speculation... including the statement below (which I agree is also a possibility, but may also not be what's happening at all). I do completely agree with the last sentence of it.
When things go wrong with their products, companies tend to clam up until they have solutions implemented, or at least on the way. I agree it is very frustrating. Just try to be patient, and keep providing constructive feedback.
I don't see how the rest of you don't get it.
The only difference between a portal between worlds, and saving, exiting, and using creative are all of about 30 seconds. Sorry you don't have your magic portal to switch you between worlds, and just magically teleport everyone else on your map at the same time, even if they're no where near the portal. It makes no sense at all that something like that could happen. I mean, I could see maybe if you got everyone to the portal at the same time, but that would probably take even longer than saving and exiting.
Really though, some of you are way too attached to your worlds, you act like they're just going to disappear whenever you start a new one.
I'm the one with the attention span of an earthworm though? right? So you'd expect to see my game with hundreds of game saves and a bunch of little tiny houses right? Wellllllllll kid, you're wrong. I have 2 worlds, my first world, that was started the day I got the game, and the world I'm currently playing in, which I started about 3 weeks after the first one. My current world is very developed and has a ton of work into it, but guess what? As soon as the update hits, I'm going to make a new one to check everything out, annnnd not one tear will be shed.
I have the attention span of an earthworm? Well you have the hormones of a woman going through menopause. I'd take the earthworm anyday....
Thats not the only difference. The main difference u seem not to be able to grasp is
Being able to transport material/resources between these worlds.
This would solve the issue of people not having certain resources in their current world(clay,sugarcane, pumpkins,snow,ect)
Without compromising the integrity of peoples survival only worlds, by making creative mode toggleable
4J has confirmed that you can switch in an out of creative mode at load time. Doesn't that make this sort of a non-issue? If your only concern is access to certain raw materials then you really can get them anytime you want.
The only thing that you need to create a new world for is if you want to get some of the new terrian, biomes, and NPC stuff. If you can live without those things your still golden with the map you have now.
I couldn't bring myself to read this entire thread (and I usually HAVE to read the entire thread because of my OCD) because of all the insults and name calling. Really sad.
I bought this game because I had heard my young nephew talking about it. I figured, what the heck, I have heard it was fun, so why not give it a spin? It has displaced every game on my list of most played games. I bought it a month ago, and I am obsessed with it. Was it disappointing to hear that it was not as full-featured as the PC version? Yes, I will admit that. But with everything I read about the PC version, knowing that most of it will likely eventually come to X-Box 360, I am eagerly anticipating it. I cannot in any reasonable way claim I have been ripped off, and anyone who has had even a fraction of the fun with this that I have should either.
To the OP that said something like he feels ripped off because he'll have to restart his world to get new features, I ask this; why are you so attached to your old world that you are so hesitant to start from scratch? Is it because you so thoroughly enjoyed building the world you're in now that you don't want to start over? So how can that be a rip off when you spent $20 for something that entertained you so thoroughly?
I've gotten more enjoyment out of this $20 game in one month than I did out of NHL 12 (on which I spent $65, plus probably about $50 in MSP just to get the boosts so I could play online with my mates without having to trudge through 4+ seasons worth of off-line play) in a year.
Frankly, I have gotten to the point where I have explored every inch of overland, about 70% of the caves, and mined more ore than I can possibly contemplate in my seed. I LOVE the castle I have constructed, and continue to expand it, even knowing that in a few days/weeks/months I will start all over again. It's like the old saying "to stand on the edge of one world and from there, look to the next." (unknown) Just when I feel like I've become the master of my world, to know that new world await conquering... that's the entire point!
I say, money well spent, and looking forward to the next update.
First thing: get the PC version. You will not regret it. Second thing (idk if this works on Xbox), don't explore the whole world right away. Leave some chucks un-loaded so you can load them in future updates.
Why dont 4J actually expalin what it is thats stopping them making the world sizes bigger? they seem to be avoiding the question a hell of a lot, which dosnt bode well for the future.
/\
This
If they addressed it then people could stop speculating why they can or cant.
the game is supposed to feel like an adventure in the next update, but wont the limited worlds feel cramped.
I mean it will feel adventurous for a day or two, then the one npc village, ravine, and one stronghold will be explored.
Castle miner z had unlimited worlds.
total miner had a similar sized upper world but it went underground like 2500 blocks or so.
both of these games were indie games and they both seemed to create a more adventurous feeling while i played it
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This ^ and plus add taxes so round about $30 which is like 25% more than what we payed and besides its just a game, why not start fresh and get all these features gives you something to do, i mean if you dont want the update you dont have to.
The problem is that such a change would probably require a complete reworking of the game engine in regard to how it handles other players. I realize what you are saying. But you also have to realize that the addition of split screen play involves a lot in terms of what the programmers had to do in order to allow it. So much so that they are making updates to the game take precedent over extending world size. Most likely, the time it would take to recode everything to connect all player to the map host, (or, in fact, even separate the split screen players in such a way that one of them would be, to the game, considered a host instead of all just being extensions of the first player) and work the bugs out of said system wasn't worth it at the moment.
Handling things from a single player perspective is always easier than from a multiplayer one. I'd actually go into more detail, but I'm feeling sick just thinking about it and will probably have to go chug some aspirin now. I love your ideal, and have even said the same thing before. I honestly feel like split screen play is holding everything back, and that they would be better served to just make it online only. With JUST that change...world size could easily increase, (well, thats not entirely true. The way the game currently handles loading areas of a map that have been explored actually presents another problem) and we could, without hesitation, probably have the very system you are talking about. MORE, even, said system could probably be made to handle having online players in different maps at different times. No different than how it handles the nether really...with the exception that new programming would need to be done in order to "link" map saves together.
I vote we kill split screen. Maybe thats just me.
I'm no expert but I think that will be a problem.
I can't be on live all the time and am mostly offline. So if that happens, I, and probably many other people will not be happy with this.
There are numerous families who enjoy the splitscreen mode. They can engage the family in a common game without the hassles or worries of being online and having young children with online profiles and the added cost of having to pay for additional online profiles for each and every family member. It is a unique feature of this game on the XBox; and therefore, as valid reason to buy this version of the game for those who don't want to play with other players online all the time, like they must on the PC.
I agree with this assessment. The addition of creative mode and ability to switch between will resolve the issue of how to take unavailable items into an old world. Those hosts who want to add these few items and then continue in survival mode just need to exercise a little self-control. The hosts can opt to transport only a few of each of the unavailable items into the old world and even hide them; and then only after they are done, opt to open the world up to their other players in survival mode. The game continues in survival mode with a few of the added items waiting to be found... no worries. What is being proposed by 4J is a reasonable solution for everyone... people, especially hosts of survival worlds, just need to implement the proposed changes using some discretion and integrity.
I think the MS limit must be REALLY large, so I doubt it is exclusively the factor in limiting world size. I have saved games from other programs on my XBox that far exceed (more than double) the size of any of my Minecraft worlds. 4J has also already said that eliminating the splitscreen mode would make essentially no difference to increasing world size. Why don't we all just stop speculating and give 4J some breathing room to A. implement the 1.8 update as they have currently planned and B. hopefully resolve some of the serious bugs that are currently in the game (e.g. world's not saving correctly and then not being openable afterwards). Then, after that, perhaps a more logical and informed discussion on increasing the world size can be undertaken.
1600 MSP = $20. PC payed a few dollars more.
So you have to start another world to get all of the changes, so?
Just keep your old world.
4J really isn't doing anything wrong.
If you really want to complain, get off your nice, comfortable sofa and go hunch over a computer desk. I would rather start a new world than get off of my couch.
Finally! Someone else understands my point!
I don't see how the rest of you don't get it.
The only difference between a portal between worlds, and saving, exiting, and using creative are all of about 30 seconds. Sorry you don't have your magic portal to switch you between worlds, and just magically teleport everyone else on your map at the same time, even if they're no where near the portal. It makes no sense at all that something like that could happen. I mean, I could see maybe if you got everyone to the portal at the same time, but that would probably take even longer than saving and exiting.
Really though, some of you are way too attached to your worlds, you act like they're just going to disappear whenever you start a new one.
I'm the one with the attention span of an earthworm though? right? So you'd expect to see my game with hundreds of game saves and a bunch of little tiny houses right? Wellllllllll kid, you're wrong. I have 2 worlds, my first world, that was started the day I got the game, and the world I'm currently playing in, which I started about 3 weeks after the first one. My current world is very developed and has a ton of work into it, but guess what? As soon as the update hits, I'm going to make a new one to check everything out, annnnd not one tear will be shed.
I have the attention span of an earthworm? Well you have the hormones of a woman going through menopause. I'd take the earthworm anyday....
4J have actually been far more forthcoming about details regarding Minecraft than MOST gaming software companies are about their products. The gaming industry is widely known to be a very secretive one. Also, keep in mind that 4J probably has some contractual limits being imposed on them by Microsoft and by Mojang that they are unable to reveal publicly. Furthermore, no business can afford to rewrite their business plans every time a few people express a concern over the internet. If they did, they be running willy nilly in every direction, arguing among themselves (the same way these posts do) and... as a result, getting NOTHING done. It's just not good business.
Epic idea!!!!!
When things go wrong with their products, companies tend to clam up until they have solutions implemented, or at least on the way. I agree it is very frustrating. Just try to be patient, and keep providing constructive feedback.
Probably for the same reason that parents of terminally ill children don't tell their children that they're sick.
First of all, it's not the question "everybody" is asking. Judging from the number of "when the update coming threads?" and the "what's in the unpdate?" threads, and the number of people who have responded in this very thread saying that world size is pretty low on their priority list, I'd say tht saying "everybody is asking" is a bit of a stretch.
Second, they probably haven't even given it any serious thought. They are focused on porting the 1.8 code, looking into "bring-forwards" from 1.9 and trying to find the intermittent bugs that are constantly being reported. Look, I run a research department for a major NGO, when someone is pestering me for a project that doesn't show up on my production schedule until next quarter, I say, "we're looking into it." What do you think 4J meant when they said (pretty much) the exact same thing several months ago?
Finally, internet forum goers are notorious for taking generic statements and turning them into expect business plans. Even if 4J has started considered whether to do anything about world size (which I suspect they won't - see echocrack's comments), they certainly will not say anything about how they plan to address it until they are certain which path they are going to take. To do otherwise would get all the children in a twist.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Retired StaffOn top of that they really have people pulling them in all directions asking for just about every manor of DLC under the sun. As a programmer myself sometimes it just comes down to a line in and the sand that you just have to draw and say enough is enough for this version. I'm sure that at some point maps will expand and maybe even be unlimited. When it comes down to it they have to weigh feature X vs feature Y and what is going to be the most bang for the buck.
That's my take at least.
My bad - I got which "side" you were on confused :-s
Maybe I need to be a little more direct - We don't know all the clauses of all the contractual agreements that must have been signed to enable 4J to port Minecraft into Xbox. They didn't invent Minecraft and they didn't invent the Xbox, so there may well be limitations set by either Mojang or Microsoft (or more likely both) that limits what 4J can do AND what 4J can disclose to the public about what is being done. This may not be the issue, but it's as good a guess as anything else. The reality is that WE don't know everything involved. Everything is just a guess and pure speculation... including the statement below (which I agree is also a possibility, but may also not be what's happening at all). I do completely agree with the last sentence of it.
Thats not the only difference. The main difference u seem not to be able to grasp is
Being able to transport material/resources between these worlds.
This would solve the issue of people not having certain resources in their current world(clay,sugarcane, pumpkins,snow,ect)
Without compromising the integrity of peoples survival only worlds, by making creative mode toggleable
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Retired StaffThe only thing that you need to create a new world for is if you want to get some of the new terrian, biomes, and NPC stuff. If you can live without those things your still golden with the map you have now.
I bought this game because I had heard my young nephew talking about it. I figured, what the heck, I have heard it was fun, so why not give it a spin? It has displaced every game on my list of most played games. I bought it a month ago, and I am obsessed with it. Was it disappointing to hear that it was not as full-featured as the PC version? Yes, I will admit that. But with everything I read about the PC version, knowing that most of it will likely eventually come to X-Box 360, I am eagerly anticipating it. I cannot in any reasonable way claim I have been ripped off, and anyone who has had even a fraction of the fun with this that I have should either.
To the OP that said something like he feels ripped off because he'll have to restart his world to get new features, I ask this; why are you so attached to your old world that you are so hesitant to start from scratch? Is it because you so thoroughly enjoyed building the world you're in now that you don't want to start over? So how can that be a rip off when you spent $20 for something that entertained you so thoroughly?
I've gotten more enjoyment out of this $20 game in one month than I did out of NHL 12 (on which I spent $65, plus probably about $50 in MSP just to get the boosts so I could play online with my mates without having to trudge through 4+ seasons worth of off-line play) in a year.
Frankly, I have gotten to the point where I have explored every inch of overland, about 70% of the caves, and mined more ore than I can possibly contemplate in my seed. I LOVE the castle I have constructed, and continue to expand it, even knowing that in a few days/weeks/months I will start all over again. It's like the old saying "to stand on the edge of one world and from there, look to the next." (unknown) Just when I feel like I've become the master of my world, to know that new world await conquering... that's the entire point!
I say, money well spent, and looking forward to the next update.
Kenn (ARTISTIK), Quest & Lore Writer, Renatus RPG Server
Development Team, ARK_REALMS RPG Server
/\
This
If they addressed it then people could stop speculating why they can or cant.
the game is supposed to feel like an adventure in the next update, but wont the limited worlds feel cramped.
I mean it will feel adventurous for a day or two, then the one npc village, ravine, and one stronghold will be explored.
Castle miner z had unlimited worlds.
total miner had a similar sized upper world but it went underground like 2500 blocks or so.
both of these games were indie games and they both seemed to create a more adventurous feeling while i played it