First i say a snowbiome jungle biome and a plains biome together i thought it was a rare thing but i kept seeing it so now i know thats the world gen that got screwed and now theres no use of exploring and looking for different biomes but i say instead of changing the whole gen i say theres a world gen toggle called classic gen so people who still want the gen now arent forced to use it.
I remember a seed I had that made the most amazing map. It was beautiful! Now I'm lucky to find anything neat. I am not a fan of how the NPC's look (Plus they make no sense how their arms are done.) It would be cool if they looked more like you or maybe pigmen. Also I am tired of the never-ending caves. It's unrealstic to have them as often as they are. And the ravines nd random pits to death are annoing. I died by hopping out of a tree to kill a cow and landed in a hidden pit. Not fun.
I miss the beauty minecraft had. I miss the thrill of discovering amazing features to live by. I miss not being paranoid about infinicaves just under plains.
What I want back is the vibrant green grass from late alpha/early Beta. Not the BRIGHT bright stuff from classic-early Alpha, but also not the boring dull green-grey grass we have now.
What I want back is the vibrant green grass from late alpha/early Beta. Not the BRIGHT bright stuff from classic-early Alpha, but also not the boring dull green-grey grass we have now.
Colors are same (Except swamp one), they are just placed differently.
What I want back is the vibrant green grass from late alpha/early Beta. Not the BRIGHT bright stuff from classic-early Alpha, but also not the boring dull green-grey grass we have now.
The dull grass you see in the Extreme Hills biome is the same grass that appears in Tundra biomes, there's just no snow covering it. I do agree though, not sure why they would want to make the game appear so dull.
I'm not certain, but I think the grass and leaf colours are slightly darker. The newer lighting probably effects this also.
The dull grass you see in the Extreme Hills biome is the same grass that has always appeared in Tundra biomes, there's just no snow covering it. I do agree though, not sure why they would want to make the game appear so dull.
Nope. grasscolor.png and foliagecolor.png are exactly same. And lighting is brighter now. Swamps are darker because their color is hardcoded. In 1.8.1 they were pleasant green, without purple overlay.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My UA on laptop: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Ubuntu; Linux i686; rv:27.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/27.0 SeaMonkey/2.24 Lightning/2.9b1; I use Ubuntu 13.10 here.
And on desktop: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:20.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/20.0; Here I use openSUSE 12.2.
Nope. grasscolor.png and foliagecolor.png are exactly same. And lighting is brighter now. Swamps are darker because their color is hardcoded. In 1.8.1 they were pleasant green, without purple overlay.
Who's to say the current biomes sample colors from the same locations of grasscolor.png and foliagecolor.png that older versions did? I didn't play 1.7, but just because those images are the same says nothing about what colors which biomes use.
The dull grass you see in the Extreme Hills biome is the same grass that appears in Tundra biomes, there's just no snow covering it. I do agree though, not sure why they would want to make the game appear so dull.
Actually, from screenshots taken of biomes side-by-side at the same time (I'm too lazy to actually check the code), I can tell you that the tundra and frozen ocean/river biomes have a different color than taigas, and taigas also have a different color than EH. In fact, EH is greener than either frozen group, but duller than grass in rivers/oceans/End.
Personally, the only grass colors I like are Forest, Jungle, and Mushroom (not mycelium; grass in the shroom biomes is almost the same as grass in Jungle biomes). Jungle/Mushroom are too bright for most of the world, however, so I'm not saying I'd want more of the world like that.
Also, am I the only one to dislike the color of grass in Plains and Beaches? (same color)
Who's to say the current biomes sample colors from the same locations of grasscolor.png and foliagecolor.png that older versions did? I didn't play 1.7, but just because those images are the same says nothing about what colors which biomes use.
Actually, from screenshots taken of biomes side-by-side at the same time (I'm too lazy to actually check the code), I can tell you that the tundra and frozen ocean/river biomes have a different color than taigas, and taigas also have a different color than EH. In fact, EH is greener than either frozen group, but duller than grass in rivers/oceans/End.
Personally, the only grass colors I like are Forest, Jungle, and Mushroom (not mycelium; grass in the shroom biomes is almost the same as grass in Jungle biomes). Jungle/Mushroom are too bright for most of the world, however, so I'm not saying I'd want more of the world like that.
Also, am I the only one to dislike the color of grass in Plains and Beaches? (same color)
Old colors were gradual, so they used entire image, and not just some points.
EH and taiga really have different color, but actually EH color is very close to Beta tundra one.
No, you are not only one. But this color is still much better than in EH. And I'm sad that biome color system doesn't allow to make grass as bright as in Alpha. (Even with custom non-grasscolor.png colors)
In addition, if you ever found one of these pre-1.8, you could always ignore them and look for an area with the kind of mountains you desire. That WAS the beauty of Minecraft. All of the terrain back then - no matter how much I hate this phrase - can be put into "if you don't like it don't use it." Now we're restricted to one type of terrain 100% of the time. You shouldn't be a terrain nazi... and you might get bored of that realistic type of terrain after a while, so it's good to have a motivator of exploration such as different kinds of terrain - whether that be mountains or whatever. This thread isn't about restrictions. It's about restoration.
Now tell me ub3rn00b6, did every mountainous area in every world before 1.8 look like the kinds of landforms you were describing? That's a rhetorical question. It's like asking if a bear DOESN'T **** in the woods. The answer should definitely be NO. And if it wasn't, you need to check out pre-1.8 again.
To be honest I cannot quite remember pre-1.8 terrain. What I do like about 1.2.5 terrain is the large biomes. If I see a messy mountain biomre. I can just walk somewhere else.
To be honest I cannot quite remember pre-1.8 terrain. What I do like about 1.2.5 terrain is the large biomes. If I see a messy mountain biomre. I can just walk somewhere else.
Here are few screenshots:
Just a beautiful view.
And a gravel beach.
Want some flat terrain?
And there are extreme mountains too!
But not all of them are cliffs.
And all screenshots were taken on same seed. (Visible on 4th screenshot)
As can be seen, terrain is VERY varied.
Well, I can see that I'm not the only one who thinks that some of the current biome colors could use some changing.
There are a couple more things I thought of that I think should be mentioned though.
1. While the rest of the biomes have remained the same, forests did actually have their biome colors changed. If you look at a forest in beta 1.7 and compare it to one in 1.2.5, the current ones have a much more pale color than the old forests. This doesn't have anything to do with lighting either, since sunlight is one thing that wasn't changed by the update to the lighting engine.
2. There are also some cases where technical biomes will have biome colors themselves, when they really shouldn't. The only ones I've seen this in are beaches and rivers, but it is still noticable enough to be an issue. The rivers have the same color that oceans have, which isn't too noticeable if a river is in a biome with similar colors, but it doesn't blend in well with biomes like deserts or jungles where the biome colors are completely different. The beaches have about the same biome color that deserts have, and again, it doesn't blend in well with most biomes because of that. I only noticed this after the release of 1.2.2, so either I've just been inattentive in the past or these structures used to have the same colors as the biome they were in and this issue can be solved by bringing that back.
Well, I can see that I'm not the only one who thinks that some of the current biome colors could use some changing.
There are a couple more things I thought of that I think should be mentioned though.
1. While the rest of the biomes have remained the same, forests did actually have their biome colors changed. If you look at a forest in beta 1.7 and compare it to one in 1.2.5, the current ones have a much more pale color than the old forests. This doesn't have anything to do with lighting either, since sunlight is one thing that wasn't changed by the update to the lighting engine.
2. There are also some cases where technical biomes will have biome colors themselves, when they really shouldn't. The only ones I've seen this in are beaches and rivers, but it is still noticable enough to be an issue. The rivers have the same color that oceans have, which isn't too noticeable if a river is in a biome with similar colors, but it doesn't blend in well with biomes like deserts or jungles where the biome colors are completely different. The beaches have about the same biome color that deserts have, and again, it doesn't blend in well with most biomes because of that. I only noticed this after the release of 1.2.2, so either I've just been inattentive in the past or these structures used to have the same colors as the biome they were in and this issue can be solved by bringing that back.
There were just Forests and also Seasonal Forests.
Color in forests was almost same as in current forests, while seasonal ones were greenier.
Also there were Rainforests, but they are closer to jungles than to forests — had more branched trees than forests, ferns and very green grass.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My UA on laptop: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Ubuntu; Linux i686; rv:27.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/27.0 SeaMonkey/2.24 Lightning/2.9b1; I use Ubuntu 13.10 here.
And on desktop: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:20.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/20.0; Here I use openSUSE 12.2.
wait why isnt this thred in the suggestions fourm??
I wouldn't really call this a suggestion... more of a wake-up call thread. Besides, I first made this thread in the 1.8 Review forum (or whatever it was called) and then a moderator moved it to this forum because when the previous forum got its name changed, it wasn't relevant.
There were just Forests and also Seasonal Forests.
Color in forests was almost same as in current forests, while seasonal ones were greenier.
Also there were Rainforests, but they are closer to jungles than to forests — had more branched trees than forests, ferns and very green grass.
I know that you know much more about the old biomes than I do, so if the regular forests really are the same as they used to be I won't argue. If they are the same though, maybe the seasonal forests should be added back in so there are green forests as well as the regular ones. It would definitely go along with my idea of adding in old biomes to make the biome placement seem less random.
I didn't have Minecraft until 1.0 full release, so I've never had the old world generation except on xbox but they don't have biomes
but those pictures look AWESOME!
SUPPORT AND DIAMOND PANTS!!!!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm going to mash signature stuff together: I tested 100% positive for MC addiction, I'm a black knight, support crappy trees, my color is red, and microsoft destroys to a cactus.
I didn't have Minecraft until 1.0 full release, so I've never had the old world generation except on xbox but they don't have biomes
but those pictures look AWESOME!
SUPPORT AND DIAMOND PANTS!!!!
I miss the beauty minecraft had. I miss the thrill of discovering amazing features to live by. I miss not being paranoid about infinicaves just under plains.
//Offtop: Alpha bright color is better!
I'm not certain, but I think the grass and leaf colours are slightly darker. The newer lighting probably effects this also.
The dull grass you see in the Extreme Hills biome is the same grass that appears in Tundra biomes, there's just no snow covering it. I do agree though, not sure why they would want to make the game appear so dull.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumWho's to say the current biomes sample colors from the same locations of grasscolor.png and foliagecolor.png that older versions did? I didn't play 1.7, but just because those images are the same says nothing about what colors which biomes use.
Actually, from screenshots taken of biomes side-by-side at the same time (I'm too lazy to actually check the code), I can tell you that the tundra and frozen ocean/river biomes have a different color than taigas, and taigas also have a different color than EH. In fact, EH is greener than either frozen group, but duller than grass in rivers/oceans/End.
Personally, the only grass colors I like are Forest, Jungle, and Mushroom (not mycelium; grass in the shroom biomes is almost the same as grass in Jungle biomes). Jungle/Mushroom are too bright for most of the world, however, so I'm not saying I'd want more of the world like that.
Also, am I the only one to dislike the color of grass in Plains and Beaches? (same color)
EH and taiga really have different color, but actually EH color is very close to Beta tundra one.
No, you are not only one. But this color is still much better than in EH. And I'm sad that biome color system doesn't allow to make grass as bright as in Alpha. (Even with custom non-grasscolor.png colors)
To be honest I cannot quite remember pre-1.8 terrain. What I do like about 1.2.5 terrain is the large biomes. If I see a messy mountain biomre. I can just walk somewhere else.
Just a beautiful view.
And all screenshots were taken on same seed. (Visible on 4th screenshot)
As can be seen, terrain is VERY varied.
There are a couple more things I thought of that I think should be mentioned though.
1. While the rest of the biomes have remained the same, forests did actually have their biome colors changed. If you look at a forest in beta 1.7 and compare it to one in 1.2.5, the current ones have a much more pale color than the old forests. This doesn't have anything to do with lighting either, since sunlight is one thing that wasn't changed by the update to the lighting engine.
2. There are also some cases where technical biomes will have biome colors themselves, when they really shouldn't. The only ones I've seen this in are beaches and rivers, but it is still noticable enough to be an issue. The rivers have the same color that oceans have, which isn't too noticeable if a river is in a biome with similar colors, but it doesn't blend in well with biomes like deserts or jungles where the biome colors are completely different. The beaches have about the same biome color that deserts have, and again, it doesn't blend in well with most biomes because of that. I only noticed this after the release of 1.2.2, so either I've just been inattentive in the past or these structures used to have the same colors as the biome they were in and this issue can be solved by bringing that back.
Color in forests was almost same as in current forests, while seasonal ones were greenier.
Also there were Rainforests, but they are closer to jungles than to forests — had more branched trees than forests, ferns and very green grass.
I wouldn't really call this a suggestion... more of a wake-up call thread. Besides, I first made this thread in the 1.8 Review forum (or whatever it was called) and then a moderator moved it to this forum because when the previous forum got its name changed, it wasn't relevant.
I know that you know much more about the old biomes than I do, so if the regular forests really are the same as they used to be I won't argue. If they are the same though, maybe the seasonal forests should be added back in so there are green forests as well as the regular ones. It would definitely go along with my idea of adding in old biomes to make the biome placement seem less random.
but those pictures look AWESOME!
SUPPORT AND DIAMOND PANTS!!!!
Biomes was introduced at early Alpha, Xbox version does have biomes infact heres proof-
http://www.minecraftwiki.net/wiki/History_of_biomes_and_generated_structures
You should read this...
Just saying.
Biomes was intoduced before then1.2.0 was the halloween update(i think so, Alpha was a pretty short versionNevermind XD
Before it was 1.1.2_01, without biomes.
And it's late too.
http://www.minecraftwiki.net/wiki/Version_history/Alpha
And it's interesting that while generation itself is almost same as in post-Halloween Alpha/Beta, there were chunk walls.