What do you mean? 1.20 hasn't been announced as the final update to the game to my knowledge, so people will be free to theorize about future versions still, no?
What do you mean? 1.20 hasn't been announced as the final update to the game to my knowledge, so people will be free to theorize about future versions still, no?
Oh. Well in that case I'm going to go out on a limb and presume that anyone who wants to see a game stop development PURELY because they are done with it on a personal level, probably doesn't care about anyone else enough to worry whether those people can speculate about future changes or not.
Oh. Well in that case I'm going to go out on a limb and presume that anyone who wants to see a game stop development PURELY because they are done with it on a personal level, probably doesn't care about anyone else enough to worry whether those people can speculate about future changes or not.
It's not just about me. I've seen my friends leave the game as well, and as for me not being able to provide a better argument? That's literally the best I could do. I appreciate your input, but it sounds like you're simply not getting what I'm talking about, despite me having explained to the best of my ability. If I absolutely had to give a better argument, I simply can't. Just take my word for it. I'm not here to say that your argument is invalid or anything, I'm certainly not here to bash you for your side of the story. I'm just saying that Minecraft has gotten to a point where future updates will only muck up the game further, not to mention the myriad of features that have been cut for some ridiculous reason or another, like how fireflies were removed simply because they were toxic to (most) frogs; they could've simply made it so that frogs wouldn't eat them. Not to mention that like I said, there are certain frogs that can eat fireflies safely. Such a decision like this indicates a poor education within the team itself, and it just goes to show how AAA games have their advantages; they're not objectively worse than indie games, nor are AAA games obsolete and that indie games are here to fill in the gap.
This is also why I'm glad Microsoft had bought out Mojang back in September of 2014 (which, by the way, is almost 10 years ago!); it was becoming clear that Mojang was simply not cut out for game development, never mind a game like Minecraft that got as big as it did. By having Microsoft take over, they would have a more competent overlord by their side working on the game, even if it were merely on the side-lines rather than the driving force behind the game itself. The change in aesthetic and gameplay reflects such a smart move as this buyout; it shows that someone actually competent is finally going to be overseeing further development of the game itself, rather than someone who would just add wolves and prompt someone to create something "better than wolves". The mod going by that same quote is indicative of how Minecraft could've been a much better game overall. I also should mention that my signature has an idea for a mod called "Order of the Stone", another vision of what Minecraft could've been had it been developed by a competent AAA studio rather than an indie team that never intended to manage such a huge project as Minecraft in the first place.
Like I said, I'm totally fine with Minecraft being updated past 1.20. In fact, it's nice to see features that will add to the experience every once in a while, not to mention the myriad of features considered before but later abandoned. I'm just saying that I personally think that Minecraft should go ahead and terminate development by 1.20 because people like me just feel that feature creep has totally taken over the game itself, and certain features have been added while others that we'd actually want and/or need, such as vertical Redstone and a sensible way to build an elevator, have been totally ignored.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Order of the Stone - A mod idea of what Minecraft could've been had it been developed by a team with more expertise; by professional developers and producers.
See, now that is a better way of putting it. You're acknowledging that what you're putting forth is merely your subjective opinion, even if others share in that same opinion.
Your earlier posts were calling for the end of updates on the grounds that you're dissatisfied with the game (and that others agreed with it), and you were calling opinions which differ from yours flawed.
While I may not share in your opinion that Minecraft is unsatisfying, it's a FAR better argument on your part to acknowledge it's your opinion and leave it open to discussion, instead of calling different stances flawed and that things should simply go one way because there's opinions that it should. You can make that argument for anything. I was far more interested in hearing WHY you felt that way. I like hearing others' opinions.
Personally, I was getting bored of the game years ago. But at that point I had also been playing it for many years, so it was partly natural. Recent updates have made the game far more appealing to me again, and I'd say I find the game in the best state it's ever been in. Perfect? Oh heck no! But better than any other point for me.
Ultimately though, I was looking at things from a broader perspective rather than the perspective of singular opinions (be it yours or mine). What I mean is this. Let's say I totally agreed with you. Let's say I felt Minecraft was too aimless, wasn't hitting the spots i think it should, and it should just stop development. Let's say 1,000,000 people posted to this thread and 500,000 of them agreed with you. Well... it probably wouldn't matter. What if there's 1 million more who will continue buying and financing the game? I was trying to point out this bigger scope and reason that the people who have decided they are individually done with it, should individually move on, instead of "taking the game down with them". That just harms those who would want to see it continue on. And for no real reason. There is apparently a large enough amount of people that are still happy enough with Minecraft to warrant continued development. If not, development probably wouldn't have been continuing.
I was basically saying that things are bigger than any one of us. You can think one way. You can have friends who think the same way. You can have people in a thread think the same way. That's expected. There's billions of people alive and many millions in the Minecraft community, and between the two opinions of "Minecraft should keep developing if it wants to" and "Minecraft should stop development", you're going to have a lot of people on both sides. So it's hard to reason that something SHOULD go one way solely because an opinion exists that it should.
I'm not necessarily calling your opinion that "the game is not what it should be" wrong. That part is an opinion, and as I stated earlier, most people probably would agree with you that the game "should be" some degree different than what it is (and I'd expect those opinions would be less aligned and instead all over the place depending on who you ask). But extending that stance to say "it should stop development" is unlikely. As long as it is financially beneficial to continue development, then they will likely do so. And it should as long as there are enough people still happy enough with it, then that should happen in my opinion. After all, those who have moved on should simply individually move on, rather than trying to take the game down with them, so to speak. Or, put another way, it's the entire basis of "live and let live".
Now that it's June, and 1.20 is almost here, I would like to state my final thoughts before putting this thread to rest. On that note, here we go.
The thing is, even though Minecraft might continue to be updated past 1.20, I'm certainly stopping updating my game at 1.20. In fact, the only reason I'd ever do such a thing is because newer versions are always going to become more popular than their previous versions, and therefore because of how the YouTube algorithm works, posting unique content like Thrillville and RCT3 has proven to be futile; it simply isn't recommended by it, since it's not popular.
The point is is that Minecraft has added pointless content instead of the many suggestions made by users of these very forums over the years. One of such which earned a lot of traction in its time was glowstone dust on the ground, which would've acted as redstone's polar opposite and made certain circuits finally possible, since the two wouldn't connect together, which is pretty much spot on with how slime and honey blocks act the same way. Glowstone torches and blocks would've also been implemented, among other such components. Another is colored light, which should've rightfully been in a game meant to provide a universally better alternative to AAA content, among many others like it. Yet even if people do manage to get it to the fine folks at Mojang, they either say it's too hard to program or it simply wouldn't fit the feel of the game, despite the OP literally saying otherwise. That's how genuinely good ideas like these die. Usually, it's us at fault for not making Minecraft a better game than it already is, but Mojang is clearly to blame this time around, since they're simply not willing to yield to our demands. Plus, the development cycle including the ever-present feature creep just goes to show that they barely even know what they're doing, and as a side note, proves that indie games are NOT universally better than AAA content. It's honestly depressing.
The real reason I said that Minecraft should stop updates at 1.20 is not just because it's clear that Mojang can't make a game, at least not a good one; mods happen to be a central point to this game, but without an official API to seamlessly enjoy mods even if we don't have them installed into our executable, we're still to this day having to go through tedious, error-prone processes just to get a simple mod to function. Plus, you'd have to take into account the anti-piracy obfuscation method, which only serves to prevent mods from ever working in versions outside of those that the mod in question was developed for, and has done next to nothing to actually prevent piracy, since it's been cracked long before today. Plus, I know for a fact that Minecraft only managed to survive its beta 1.8 phase because of the same servers that indie studios intend to stay away from at all costs. I'm of course talking about the ever-present pay-to-win server, which literally offers unfair advantages to those that pay, or might "donate" to the server itself. How do I know? Well, they happened to be an upper outlier in terms of popularity, and survival mode by all means had dipped harshly in popularity ever since the terrain was updated, which only served to make the landscapes completely uninteresting as with height variation locked to biome, once you've seen it, you've seen it all. Were it not for slimy servers like these - the very thing Mojang and co. swore to stay well away from - Minecraft would've been dead for a whopping 12 years now. It wouldn't have made it to 1.20. It wouldn't have even made it to the full release. It would've become so unpopular that it would've been abandoned then.
Plus, there's a reason I'd consider the Better Than Wolves mod my favorite "version" of Minecraft: hence its name, the addition of wolves prompted the mod's creator FlowerChild to make something "better than wolves", so the trouble with Minecraft originally cannot be completely traced back to beta 1.8; it's started much sooner than that. The mod itself, as well as others such as TerraFirmaCraft and even to an extent clones like Survivalcraft, prove that Minecraft could easily be better if meaningful features were added, and not randomness like wolves or phantoms (not that I hate the latter; I'm just going with popular opinion here) Mind you, that my first real bit of childhood trauma came from the cancelation of the original Super Mario Bros. Z. If Alvin Earthworm Jim couldn't even be bothered to finish something people have actually hyped up for in the indie world, despite the fact that it's the kindest thing to do at least in my own eyes, then what made Mojang think they could do better with their Minecraft game? It's ridiculous what people believe these days.
And to close it off, I'm still completely fine with Minecraft updating past 1.20. The reason that I think Mojang should stop updating the game at this point is because what they've added over the years recently has provided little to no value to the game itself. If anyone wants to send this message on to Mojang asking them to move on, then I'd appreciate the support. I'm certainly doing it myself, even if I happen to be the only supporter of this very suggestion here.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Order of the Stone - A mod idea of what Minecraft could've been had it been developed by a team with more expertise; by professional developers and producers.
Now that it's June, and 1.20 is almost here, I would like to state my final thoughts before putting this thread to rest. On that note, here we go.
The thing is, even though Minecraft might continue to be updated past 1.20, I'm certainly stopping updating my game at 1.20. In fact, the only reason I'd ever do such a thing is because newer versions are always going to become more popular than their previous versions, and therefore because of how the YouTube algorithm works, posting unique content like Thrillville and RCT3 has proven to be futile; it simply isn't recommended by it, since it's not popular.
The point is is that Minecraft has added pointless content instead of the many suggestions made by users of these very forums over the years. One of such which earned a lot of traction in its time was glowstone dust on the ground, which would've acted as redstone's polar opposite and made certain circuits finally possible, since the two wouldn't connect together, which is pretty much spot on with how slime and honey blocks act the same way. Glowstone torches and blocks would've also been implemented, among other such components. Another is colored light, which should've rightfully been in a game meant to provide a universally better alternative to AAA content, among many others like it. Yet even if people do manage to get it to the fine folks at Mojang, they either say it's too hard to program or it simply wouldn't fit the feel of the game, despite the OP literally saying otherwise. That's how genuinely good ideas like these die. Usually, it's us at fault for not making Minecraft a better game than it already is, but Mojang is clearly to blame this time around, since they're simply not willing to yield to our demands. Plus, the development cycle including the ever-present feature creep just goes to show that they barely even know what they're doing, and as a side note, proves that indie games are NOT universally better than AAA content. It's honestly depressing.
The real reason I said that Minecraft should stop updates at 1.20 is not just because it's clear that Mojang can't make a game, at least not a good one; mods happen to be a central point to this game, but without an official API to seamlessly enjoy mods even if we don't have them installed into our executable, we're still to this day having to go through tedious, error-prone processes just to get a simple mod to function. Plus, you'd have to take into account the anti-piracy obfuscation method, which only serves to prevent mods from ever working in versions outside of those that the mod in question was developed for, and has done next to nothing to actually prevent piracy, since it's been cracked long before today. Plus, I know for a fact that Minecraft only managed to survive its beta 1.8 phase because of the same servers that indie studios intend to stay away from at all costs. I'm of course talking about the ever-present pay-to-win server, which literally offers unfair advantages to those that pay, or might "donate" to the server itself. How do I know? Well, they happened to be an upper outlier in terms of popularity, and survival mode by all means had dipped harshly in popularity ever since the terrain was updated, which only served to make the landscapes completely uninteresting as with height variation locked to biome, once you've seen it, you've seen it all. Were it not for slimy servers like these - the very thing Mojang and co. swore to stay well away from - Minecraft would've been dead for a whopping 12 years now. It wouldn't have made it to 1.20. It wouldn't have even made it to the full release. It would've become so unpopular that it would've been abandoned then.
Plus, there's a reason I'd consider the Better Than Wolves mod my favorite "version" of Minecraft: hence its name, the addition of wolves prompted the mod's creator FlowerChild to make something "better than wolves", so the trouble with Minecraft originally cannot be completely traced back to beta 1.8; it's started much sooner than that. The mod itself, as well as others such as TerraFirmaCraft and even to an extent clones like Survivalcraft, prove that Minecraft could easily be better if meaningful features were added, and not randomness like wolves or phantoms (not that I hate the latter; I'm just going with popular opinion here) Mind you, that my first real bit of childhood trauma came from the cancelation of the original Super Mario Bros. Z. If Alvin Earthworm Jim couldn't even be bothered to finish something people have actually hyped up for in the indie world, despite the fact that it's the kindest thing to do at least in my own eyes, then what made Mojang think they could do better with their Minecraft game? It's ridiculous what people believe these days.
And to close it off, I'm still completely fine with Minecraft updating past 1.20. The reason that I think Mojang should stop updating the game at this point is because what they've added over the years recently has provided little to no value to the game itself. If anyone wants to send this message on to Mojang asking them to move on, then I'd appreciate the support. I'm certainly doing it myself, even if I happen to be the only supporter of this very suggestion here.
They rarely listen to fans, it's evident by the fact they don't even come on these forums to look at suggestions people make, and when they do listen, they usually end up bringing out divisive updates that ruin the experience for another group of people, and up until now they haven't really optimized the game properly, if they did then why are modded versions of Minecraft Java, depending on the mods in question, running the game so much better?
So I couldn't care less that at an eventual date the updates will stop, it won't stop at 1.20, but it is inevitable that at some point the video game will meet its demise, if they keep releasing updates that upset people enough, there are people on Youtube who are expressing their misgivings about what 1.20 is doing to the Netherite upgrade mechanics and why they were upgrading to netherite gear before the update gets released, that isn't a sign that people will be well received, quite the opposite in fact.
No consulting of the fans was done, no alternatives given, if we want the actual good features from 1.20, like pottery patterns, hanging signs and armour trims which mostly just affect the aesthetics of the armour itself, we have to take the negatives with them, and because Bedrock edition doesn't give players the ability to load up an older version in the official launcher, we've essentially been walked all over, and the sandbox aspect of the game is dying because of this.
Some of the complaints are very valid though; consider these maps of worlds created in 1.18, 1.6, and my own modded version:
A world created in 1.18+ (6x7 level 3 maps or 6144x7168 blocks):
A world created in my own modded version of the game (instead of updating I just modded the game in my own vision), the mapped area is about 4000x4000 blocks:
A world created in 1.5-1.6, close to the same mapped area as the 1.18+ world; there are only 7 major land biomes but the small-scale variation is vastly greater than since 1.7:
Uh, seems like more of a personal preference but to me your modded version looks like the absolute worst with 1.18 looking the best. Your modded version looks way too crowded with way too much variety packed together. The 1.18 version gives me a sense of scale in the world and also encourages large distances of exploration.
A lot of the biome transitions in your modded version don't look nice or even make sense. Like I said, it's not even about realism more-so as giving it a nice natural pixel look that the game has.
(Well your map does look pretty in its own way, but I mean more-so from a gameplay and world perspective)
I do agree that glances at those maps make the newer version look better, and I also agree that TheMasterCaver's world goes in the extreme opposite direction (though with his play style and mod focus, I see why).
But the points of 1.7 and newer versions having too strict of a "climate zone feature", leading to extreme repetition of the same handful of biomes on a smaller scale, is definitely valid in my opinion. I say that as someone who likes building up larger scale worlds and exploring. It's fun, but it shouldn't be THIS far in that direction as it just leads to most players having less varied experiences on a smaller scale and early game.
I've come to like new new biome shapes themselves of 1.18 (or was it 1.19?) and newer though, as well as the terrain generation (above and below ground). It would have been perfect if the climate zone was able to be less strict. I don't understand the details of this stuff, but I think someone else commented before that it's not easy without leading to some undesired effects in edge cases, like slivers of biomes or something, I don't remember, but I would want to say couldn't you counteract that by making the biomes a bit bigger, but fewer in count per climate zone?
Uh, seems like more of a personal preference but to me your modded version looks like the absolute worst with 1.18 looking the best. Your modded version looks way too crowded with way too much variety packed together. The 1.18 version gives me a sense of scale in the world and also encourages large distances of exploration.
A lot of the biome transitions in your modded version don't look nice or even make sense. Like I said, it's not even about realism more-so as giving it a nice natural pixel look that the game has.
(Well your map does look pretty in its own way, but I mean more-so from a gameplay and world perspective)
Too much stuff to do" is the defacto reason I avoid mods and a lot of newer versions' content. I started in 1.5 and I rarely use mechanics for anything added after 1.2 or 1.3 really. Except structures and village trading, sparingly if not in a server.
Uh, seems like more of a personal preference but to me your modded version looks like the absolute worst with 1.18 looking the best. Your modded version looks way too crowded with way too much variety packed together. The 1.18 version gives me a sense of scale in the world and also encourages large distances of exploration.
A lot of the biome transitions in your modded version don't look nice or even make sense. Like I said, it's not even about realism more-so as giving it a nice natural pixel look that the game has.
(Well your map does look pretty in its own way, but I mean more-so from a gameplay and world perspective)
Yes, and like I'd have any hope of finding any variety in the world if I played in 1.7+:
The seed "TMCWv4" in 1.7 (biomes in 1.18 are even larger on average):
A world I made using the same seed in the same version of TMCW, covering the same area (less the southeast corner, plus an offshoot to the northwest when I located a stronghold):
Consider also that my playstyle entirely revolves around exploration (caving) and I play WAY more than the average "gamer", at least 3.5 hours per session (in my first world, closer to 4 hours in modded worlds):
22.46 days of playtime (no AFKing whatsoever) is 539 hours; if I only played as long as the average gamer it would have taken me about 446 days to explore that area, a bit larger than a single level 4 map with about 3/4 of that actually explored when trimming away chunks without torches placed in caves (part of those 539 hours were spent on gathering resources, building bases, etc but caving represents well over 90% of the time I spend on a world and is the only time I actually explore the world, except when I locate a stronghold to get to the End).
For another example, I've made posts like these (it should be noted that I'd only spent about half of the time playing on the first world, which is still a long time; the second village was from a world which was played on continuously):
Notably, the village was the first one that I've found in nearly four years, due to spending much of the time until recently exploring a snowy region (more or less the same as 1.7+'s snowy areas, which are actually placed the same way initially.
Just when I was thinking that I'd never find one in this world I found a jungle temple while digging a rail tunnel to the 8th and final secondary base in this world, within the map to the southwest, after more than 64 days of playtime.
While others say that (surface) structures are too common (while newer versions do have more structures I've added my own structures and decreased their spacing to offset the decreased rarity of spawn biomes; the Wiki indicates that in modern versions villages still have the same spacing as they did in vanilla 1.6.4, where about two generate per level 4 map based on my first world, which is about the same as I found in my last modded world, 5 within about 40,000 chunks explored).
Of course, my experience is the exact opposite with regards to underground structures (I often see posts asking how to find a dungeon, while I find them multiple times per day, within an area averaging about 160x160 blocks; mineshafts are rare? They are the most common large structure by far, even in newer versions, where they are a lot rarer); this is what I found in TMCWv5 (the world I showed before):
425 out of 449 sessions spent caving; 1642.08 out of 1744.56 hours
41834 chunks explored (within 1 chunk of a torch, 49997 total), 98.43 per caving session
Structures/caves found (by number):
855 normal dungeons (2 intersecting x3, normal+double x1)
205 mineshafts
64 double dungeons (a special type of dungeon)
5 villages (1 Desert, 2 Meadow, 1 Plains, 1 Savanna)
4 desert temples
4 shipwrecks (1 large, 2 medium, 1 small)
4 strongholds (3 found by caving)
4 witch huts
2 mesa mineshafts
2 pumpkin houses
2 quartz desert pyramids
1 jungle temple
(going back to the "average gamer", it would take about 4 years for them to play as much as I did on this world over about 15 months; at the same time, flying via elytra (30 m/s) can generate 41834 chunks in only 22 minutes even at 8 chunk render distance (17 chunks for every 16 blocks traveled), 4500 times faster than my exploration rate. This is also why I've said that elytra were added because of the world generation in 1.7+, though the real reason was probably the End itself)
Yeah most people are filthy casuals, capische. I will note though that villages seem more common because of the biome temperature and biome size/odds changes. If more of the world on average is village-friendly and more contiguously, you should expect more villages.
Disclaimer: Haven't read any of the other posts except for the initial one, so this might be retreading some ground.
I agree that Minecraft is mostly a pile of disjointed systems and mechanics with no cohesion, and are sometimes even anti-cohesive, (e.g. preparing for nighttime and phantoms/beds) that only exist because of mere historical coincidence.
I agree that Minecraft's systems and mechanics aren't even close to optimal when it comes to stimulating creativity or building, especially in survival mode.
I agree that Minecraft is disappointing.
That being said, ceasing to update after 1.20 does not solve any of these problems.
At least with newer updates, Minecraft is at least pretending to have more cohesion and integration between its mechanics, unlike in the past where there was no pretense of it at all, and I'm only really seeing improvement as time goes on, as well as on delivering on promises.
Even if the situation did not improve, what we get in a world with Minecraft updates is not less than what we have now. The existence of updates after 1.20 does not magically make 1.20 worse.
I think there are good reasons to stop updating, even if they aren't enough to entirely tip the cost-benefit analysis on the side of not updating. For example, stopping updates would benefit the modding community, since mods wouldn't have to continuously update to newer and newer versions, and we'd have a bunch of mods on one big definitive version. It would be like 1.7.10 or 1.12.2 but for all time.But these aren't the reasons you've cited.
I wanna do more than just complain about Minecraft so I'm going to bring up some things you might like:
Create mod - Yeah you've definitely heard of this one.
Crucial 2 - Vanilla+ pack which is carefully designed to have integration and cohesion between all of the mods. Also comes with Create integration so you can just plop Create in there. For 1.16.5 but has backported content. IMO doesn't do enough to fix the fundamental problems with vanilla but its a big improvement.
Rebirth of the Night - Modpack about making the night more challenging, and also incentivizing building, and basically fixing every problem with vanilla Minecraft. Inspired by and positively reviewed by Whitelight himself. It's on 1.12.2 but has backported content, and more to come, if you care about that. It's still very much in development but what it has so far is really good. Has some mechanics in common with Better than Wolves which is...
Better than Wolves - A total overhaul mod that enhances survival and adds some Create-like mechanical motion stuff. A 1.5.2 mod which is now open source and actively developed by its community. The original "Vanilla sucks and this is how I would fix it" mod. Somewhat grindy.
On the point about AAA games, I continue to not understand why you think that AAA games tend to be better than indie games. You mention that Minecraft is not that good and is an indie game (arguably it's not even an indie game, it's made by Microsoft for athe's sake), and that Pokemon Legends: Arceus is good and is a AAA game.
Firstly, you listed a whole two examples to support your point. I can do that too! Celeste is good and an indie game, Cyberpunk 2077 is bad and a AAA game. You can defend literally any point about games ever by selecting two games, just by virtue of there being so many games of all types. You can say that most of all games are first-person shooters or about gardening or made by furries or for kids or any number of other things by selecting two games.
Secondly, you also mention that people have been lying about how actually good AAA games are and about their development goes or whatever. Sure, I can believe that. It's still completely irrelevant to how good indie games are. It only tells you how good AAA games are. A world where the indie game is the prime art form, for which no other art form can even compare, and where AAA games are the worst most garbage thing that doesn't even deserve to be called a craft or art, is still consistent with the statement "people lie that AAA games are worse than they actually are".
Thirdly, you fail to bring up any object-level causative factor for why indie games might be worse than AAA games, which uhhh seems like the most important part of your argument???? Like, I don't think two whole games being bad or good or some people lying are really what convinced you that AAA games are better. I can't really argue with you if you don't even bring up what you think makes indie games worse than AAA games unless you have some methodologically sound peer-reviewed study looking at how good different games are or something.
Yeah, this isn't really relevant to your main point about Minecraft specifically, but it still annoyed me enough to make me write four paragraphs about it. On a more meta note, I think bringing AAA games vs indie games up at all was a horrible idea since, again, it doesn't have much to do with your main point about Minecraft and distracts from the main topic because of how controversial it is and makes everyone hate you and talk about that instead of the actual main point which is about Minecraft.
What do you mean? 1.20 hasn't been announced as the final update to the game to my knowledge, so people will be free to theorize about future versions still, no?
Yeah I mean in OP's perspective lol.
Oh. Well in that case I'm going to go out on a limb and presume that anyone who wants to see a game stop development PURELY because they are done with it on a personal level, probably doesn't care about anyone else enough to worry whether those people can speculate about future changes or not.
It's not just about me. I've seen my friends leave the game as well, and as for me not being able to provide a better argument? That's literally the best I could do. I appreciate your input, but it sounds like you're simply not getting what I'm talking about, despite me having explained to the best of my ability. If I absolutely had to give a better argument, I simply can't. Just take my word for it. I'm not here to say that your argument is invalid or anything, I'm certainly not here to bash you for your side of the story. I'm just saying that Minecraft has gotten to a point where future updates will only muck up the game further, not to mention the myriad of features that have been cut for some ridiculous reason or another, like how fireflies were removed simply because they were toxic to (most) frogs; they could've simply made it so that frogs wouldn't eat them. Not to mention that like I said, there are certain frogs that can eat fireflies safely. Such a decision like this indicates a poor education within the team itself, and it just goes to show how AAA games have their advantages; they're not objectively worse than indie games, nor are AAA games obsolete and that indie games are here to fill in the gap.
This is also why I'm glad Microsoft had bought out Mojang back in September of 2014 (which, by the way, is almost 10 years ago!); it was becoming clear that Mojang was simply not cut out for game development, never mind a game like Minecraft that got as big as it did. By having Microsoft take over, they would have a more competent overlord by their side working on the game, even if it were merely on the side-lines rather than the driving force behind the game itself. The change in aesthetic and gameplay reflects such a smart move as this buyout; it shows that someone actually competent is finally going to be overseeing further development of the game itself, rather than someone who would just add wolves and prompt someone to create something "better than wolves". The mod going by that same quote is indicative of how Minecraft could've been a much better game overall. I also should mention that my signature has an idea for a mod called "Order of the Stone", another vision of what Minecraft could've been had it been developed by a competent AAA studio rather than an indie team that never intended to manage such a huge project as Minecraft in the first place.
Like I said, I'm totally fine with Minecraft being updated past 1.20. In fact, it's nice to see features that will add to the experience every once in a while, not to mention the myriad of features considered before but later abandoned. I'm just saying that I personally think that Minecraft should go ahead and terminate development by 1.20 because people like me just feel that feature creep has totally taken over the game itself, and certain features have been added while others that we'd actually want and/or need, such as vertical Redstone and a sensible way to build an elevator, have been totally ignored.
Order of the Stone - A mod idea of what Minecraft could've been had it been developed by a team with more expertise; by professional developers and producers.
See, now that is a better way of putting it. You're acknowledging that what you're putting forth is merely your subjective opinion, even if others share in that same opinion.
Your earlier posts were calling for the end of updates on the grounds that you're dissatisfied with the game (and that others agreed with it), and you were calling opinions which differ from yours flawed.
While I may not share in your opinion that Minecraft is unsatisfying, it's a FAR better argument on your part to acknowledge it's your opinion and leave it open to discussion, instead of calling different stances flawed and that things should simply go one way because there's opinions that it should. You can make that argument for anything. I was far more interested in hearing WHY you felt that way. I like hearing others' opinions.
Personally, I was getting bored of the game years ago. But at that point I had also been playing it for many years, so it was partly natural. Recent updates have made the game far more appealing to me again, and I'd say I find the game in the best state it's ever been in. Perfect? Oh heck no! But better than any other point for me.
Ultimately though, I was looking at things from a broader perspective rather than the perspective of singular opinions (be it yours or mine). What I mean is this. Let's say I totally agreed with you. Let's say I felt Minecraft was too aimless, wasn't hitting the spots i think it should, and it should just stop development. Let's say 1,000,000 people posted to this thread and 500,000 of them agreed with you. Well... it probably wouldn't matter. What if there's 1 million more who will continue buying and financing the game? I was trying to point out this bigger scope and reason that the people who have decided they are individually done with it, should individually move on, instead of "taking the game down with them". That just harms those who would want to see it continue on. And for no real reason. There is apparently a large enough amount of people that are still happy enough with Minecraft to warrant continued development. If not, development probably wouldn't have been continuing.
I was basically saying that things are bigger than any one of us. You can think one way. You can have friends who think the same way. You can have people in a thread think the same way. That's expected. There's billions of people alive and many millions in the Minecraft community, and between the two opinions of "Minecraft should keep developing if it wants to" and "Minecraft should stop development", you're going to have a lot of people on both sides. So it's hard to reason that something SHOULD go one way solely because an opinion exists that it should.
I'm not necessarily calling your opinion that "the game is not what it should be" wrong. That part is an opinion, and as I stated earlier, most people probably would agree with you that the game "should be" some degree different than what it is (and I'd expect those opinions would be less aligned and instead all over the place depending on who you ask). But extending that stance to say "it should stop development" is unlikely. As long as it is financially beneficial to continue development, then they will likely do so. And it should as long as there are enough people still happy enough with it, then that should happen in my opinion. After all, those who have moved on should simply individually move on, rather than trying to take the game down with them, so to speak. Or, put another way, it's the entire basis of "live and let live".
Mfw environmentalists have to ruin the fun of entertainment with real world moralizing in fiction
Now that it's June, and 1.20 is almost here, I would like to state my final thoughts before putting this thread to rest. On that note, here we go.
The thing is, even though Minecraft might continue to be updated past 1.20, I'm certainly stopping updating my game at 1.20. In fact, the only reason I'd ever do such a thing is because newer versions are always going to become more popular than their previous versions, and therefore because of how the YouTube algorithm works, posting unique content like Thrillville and RCT3 has proven to be futile; it simply isn't recommended by it, since it's not popular.
The point is is that Minecraft has added pointless content instead of the many suggestions made by users of these very forums over the years. One of such which earned a lot of traction in its time was glowstone dust on the ground, which would've acted as redstone's polar opposite and made certain circuits finally possible, since the two wouldn't connect together, which is pretty much spot on with how slime and honey blocks act the same way. Glowstone torches and blocks would've also been implemented, among other such components. Another is colored light, which should've rightfully been in a game meant to provide a universally better alternative to AAA content, among many others like it. Yet even if people do manage to get it to the fine folks at Mojang, they either say it's too hard to program or it simply wouldn't fit the feel of the game, despite the OP literally saying otherwise. That's how genuinely good ideas like these die. Usually, it's us at fault for not making Minecraft a better game than it already is, but Mojang is clearly to blame this time around, since they're simply not willing to yield to our demands. Plus, the development cycle including the ever-present feature creep just goes to show that they barely even know what they're doing, and as a side note, proves that indie games are NOT universally better than AAA content. It's honestly depressing.
The real reason I said that Minecraft should stop updates at 1.20 is not just because it's clear that Mojang can't make a game, at least not a good one; mods happen to be a central point to this game, but without an official API to seamlessly enjoy mods even if we don't have them installed into our executable, we're still to this day having to go through tedious, error-prone processes just to get a simple mod to function. Plus, you'd have to take into account the anti-piracy obfuscation method, which only serves to prevent mods from ever working in versions outside of those that the mod in question was developed for, and has done next to nothing to actually prevent piracy, since it's been cracked long before today. Plus, I know for a fact that Minecraft only managed to survive its beta 1.8 phase because of the same servers that indie studios intend to stay away from at all costs. I'm of course talking about the ever-present pay-to-win server, which literally offers unfair advantages to those that pay, or might "donate" to the server itself. How do I know? Well, they happened to be an upper outlier in terms of popularity, and survival mode by all means had dipped harshly in popularity ever since the terrain was updated, which only served to make the landscapes completely uninteresting as with height variation locked to biome, once you've seen it, you've seen it all. Were it not for slimy servers like these - the very thing Mojang and co. swore to stay well away from - Minecraft would've been dead for a whopping 12 years now. It wouldn't have made it to 1.20. It wouldn't have even made it to the full release. It would've become so unpopular that it would've been abandoned then.
Plus, there's a reason I'd consider the Better Than Wolves mod my favorite "version" of Minecraft: hence its name, the addition of wolves prompted the mod's creator FlowerChild to make something "better than wolves", so the trouble with Minecraft originally cannot be completely traced back to beta 1.8; it's started much sooner than that. The mod itself, as well as others such as TerraFirmaCraft and even to an extent clones like Survivalcraft, prove that Minecraft could easily be better if meaningful features were added, and not randomness like wolves or phantoms (not that I hate the latter; I'm just going with popular opinion here) Mind you, that my first real bit of childhood trauma came from the cancelation of the original Super Mario Bros. Z. If Alvin Earthworm Jim couldn't even be bothered to finish something people have actually hyped up for in the indie world, despite the fact that it's the kindest thing to do at least in my own eyes, then what made Mojang think they could do better with their Minecraft game? It's ridiculous what people believe these days.
And to close it off, I'm still completely fine with Minecraft updating past 1.20. The reason that I think Mojang should stop updating the game at this point is because what they've added over the years recently has provided little to no value to the game itself. If anyone wants to send this message on to Mojang asking them to move on, then I'd appreciate the support. I'm certainly doing it myself, even if I happen to be the only supporter of this very suggestion here.
Order of the Stone - A mod idea of what Minecraft could've been had it been developed by a team with more expertise; by professional developers and producers.
They rarely listen to fans, it's evident by the fact they don't even come on these forums to look at suggestions people make, and when they do listen, they usually end up bringing out divisive updates that ruin the experience for another group of people, and up until now they haven't really optimized the game properly, if they did then why are modded versions of Minecraft Java, depending on the mods in question, running the game so much better?
So I couldn't care less that at an eventual date the updates will stop, it won't stop at 1.20, but it is inevitable that at some point the video game will meet its demise, if they keep releasing updates that upset people enough, there are people on Youtube who are expressing their misgivings about what 1.20 is doing to the Netherite upgrade mechanics and why they were upgrading to netherite gear before the update gets released, that isn't a sign that people will be well received, quite the opposite in fact.
No consulting of the fans was done, no alternatives given, if we want the actual good features from 1.20, like pottery patterns, hanging signs and armour trims which mostly just affect the aesthetics of the armour itself, we have to take the negatives with them, and because Bedrock edition doesn't give players the ability to load up an older version in the official launcher, we've essentially been walked all over, and the sandbox aspect of the game is dying because of this.
Yeah, it's lol random, but that's fine by me. I can play an old version if I want.
Uh, seems like more of a personal preference but to me your modded version looks like the absolute worst with 1.18 looking the best. Your modded version looks way too crowded with way too much variety packed together. The 1.18 version gives me a sense of scale in the world and also encourages large distances of exploration.
A lot of the biome transitions in your modded version don't look nice or even make sense. Like I said, it's not even about realism more-so as giving it a nice natural pixel look that the game has.
(Well your map does look pretty in its own way, but I mean more-so from a gameplay and world perspective)
I do agree that glances at those maps make the newer version look better, and I also agree that TheMasterCaver's world goes in the extreme opposite direction (though with his play style and mod focus, I see why).
But the points of 1.7 and newer versions having too strict of a "climate zone feature", leading to extreme repetition of the same handful of biomes on a smaller scale, is definitely valid in my opinion. I say that as someone who likes building up larger scale worlds and exploring. It's fun, but it shouldn't be THIS far in that direction as it just leads to most players having less varied experiences on a smaller scale and early game.
I've come to like new new biome shapes themselves of 1.18 (or was it 1.19?) and newer though, as well as the terrain generation (above and below ground). It would have been perfect if the climate zone was able to be less strict. I don't understand the details of this stuff, but I think someone else commented before that it's not easy without leading to some undesired effects in edge cases, like slivers of biomes or something, I don't remember, but I would want to say couldn't you counteract that by making the biomes a bit bigger, but fewer in count per climate zone?
Too much stuff to do" is the defacto reason I avoid mods and a lot of newer versions' content. I started in 1.5 and I rarely use mechanics for anything added after 1.2 or 1.3 really. Except structures and village trading, sparingly if not in a server.
Yes, and like I'd have any hope of finding any variety in the world if I played in 1.7+:
A world I made using the same seed in the same version of TMCW, covering the same area (less the southeast corner, plus an offshoot to the northwest when I located a stronghold):
Consider also that my playstyle entirely revolves around exploration (caving) and I play WAY more than the average "gamer", at least 3.5 hours per session (in my first world, closer to 4 hours in modded worlds):
8 hours and 27 minutes. That’s how long the average gamer plays each week
22.46 days of playtime (no AFKing whatsoever) is 539 hours; if I only played as long as the average gamer it would have taken me about 446 days to explore that area, a bit larger than a single level 4 map with about 3/4 of that actually explored when trimming away chunks without torches placed in caves (part of those 539 hours were spent on gathering resources, building bases, etc but caving represents well over 90% of the time I spend on a world and is the only time I actually explore the world, except when I locate a stronghold to get to the End).
For another example, I've made posts like these (it should be noted that I'd only spent about half of the time playing on the first world, which is still a long time; the second village was from a world which was played on continuously):
While others say that (surface) structures are too common (while newer versions do have more structures I've added my own structures and decreased their spacing to offset the decreased rarity of spawn biomes; the Wiki indicates that in modern versions villages still have the same spacing as they did in vanilla 1.6.4, where about two generate per level 4 map based on my first world, which is about the same as I found in my last modded world, 5 within about 40,000 chunks explored).
Of course, my experience is the exact opposite with regards to underground structures (I often see posts asking how to find a dungeon, while I find them multiple times per day, within an area averaging about 160x160 blocks; mineshafts are rare? They are the most common large structure by far, even in newer versions, where they are a lot rarer); this is what I found in TMCWv5 (the world I showed before):
(going back to the "average gamer", it would take about 4 years for them to play as much as I did on this world over about 15 months; at the same time, flying via elytra (30 m/s) can generate 41834 chunks in only 22 minutes even at 8 chunk render distance (17 chunks for every 16 blocks traveled), 4500 times faster than my exploration rate. This is also why I've said that elytra were added because of the world generation in 1.7+, though the real reason was probably the End itself)
TheMasterCaver's First World - possibly the most caved-out world in Minecraft history - includes world download.
TheMasterCaver's World - my own version of Minecraft largely based on my views of how the game should have evolved since 1.6.4.
Why do I still play in 1.6.4?
Yeah most people are filthy casuals, capische. I will note though that villages seem more common because of the biome temperature and biome size/odds changes. If more of the world on average is village-friendly and more contiguously, you should expect more villages.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumDisclaimer: Haven't read any of the other posts except for the initial one, so this might be retreading some ground.
I agree that Minecraft is mostly a pile of disjointed systems and mechanics with no cohesion, and are sometimes even anti-cohesive, (e.g. preparing for nighttime and phantoms/beds) that only exist because of mere historical coincidence.
I agree that Minecraft's systems and mechanics aren't even close to optimal when it comes to stimulating creativity or building, especially in survival mode.
I agree that Minecraft is disappointing.
That being said, ceasing to update after 1.20 does not solve any of these problems.
At least with newer updates, Minecraft is at least pretending to have more cohesion and integration between its mechanics, unlike in the past where there was no pretense of it at all, and I'm only really seeing improvement as time goes on, as well as on delivering on promises.
Even if the situation did not improve, what we get in a world with Minecraft updates is not less than what we have now. The existence of updates after 1.20 does not magically make 1.20 worse.
I think there are good reasons to stop updating, even if they aren't enough to entirely tip the cost-benefit analysis on the side of not updating. For example, stopping updates would benefit the modding community, since mods wouldn't have to continuously update to newer and newer versions, and we'd have a bunch of mods on one big definitive version. It would be like 1.7.10 or 1.12.2 but for all time.But these aren't the reasons you've cited.
I wanna do more than just complain about Minecraft so I'm going to bring up some things you might like:
On the point about AAA games, I continue to not understand why you think that AAA games tend to be better than indie games. You mention that Minecraft is not that good and is an indie game (arguably it's not even an indie game, it's made by Microsoft for athe's sake), and that Pokemon Legends: Arceus is good and is a AAA game.
Firstly, you listed a whole two examples to support your point. I can do that too! Celeste is good and an indie game, Cyberpunk 2077 is bad and a AAA game. You can defend literally any point about games ever by selecting two games, just by virtue of there being so many games of all types. You can say that most of all games are first-person shooters or about gardening or made by furries or for kids or any number of other things by selecting two games.
Secondly, you also mention that people have been lying about how actually good AAA games are and about their development goes or whatever. Sure, I can believe that. It's still completely irrelevant to how good indie games are. It only tells you how good AAA games are. A world where the indie game is the prime art form, for which no other art form can even compare, and where AAA games are the worst most garbage thing that doesn't even deserve to be called a craft or art, is still consistent with the statement "people lie that AAA games are worse than they actually are".
Thirdly, you fail to bring up any object-level causative factor for why indie games might be worse than AAA games, which uhhh seems like the most important part of your argument???? Like, I don't think two whole games being bad or good or some people lying are really what convinced you that AAA games are better. I can't really argue with you if you don't even bring up what you think makes indie games worse than AAA games unless you have some methodologically sound peer-reviewed study looking at how good different games are or something.
Yeah, this isn't really relevant to your main point about Minecraft specifically, but it still annoyed me enough to make me write four paragraphs about it. On a more meta note, I think bringing AAA games vs indie games up at all was a horrible idea since, again, it doesn't have much to do with your main point about Minecraft and distracts from the main topic because of how controversial it is and makes everyone hate you and talk about that instead of the actual main point which is about Minecraft.