I said this in another thread; "Feel free to have a dissonant opinion! Hell, feel free to post! But if you want this thread to die, then all you're doing by posting is bumping; it's easier to just press 'back' and let the problem take care of itself ."
I agree. I do love when people bump a thread to post something stupid.
... we need to look at the business end, and what reasons Mojang would have to shy away, rather than taking the stance that it's their game and we'll get used to it, like they have for other changes.
I think its the whole perception, right or wrong, that guns in media and games has an influence on children playing/watching the games and media.
So, if the answer there is more parental oversight, and the reality is that parents don't have / won't make the time to play with/watch their child, then there's not much room.
Another potential issue: One account, parent and child playing together. At the moment, they can not. A way to let one account host a LAN game, and allow duplicates of that account to join in (with a different player name) would be a first step.
(In regard to a mod that gives realistic animal genetics):
Would you really rather have bees that make diamonds and oil with magical genetic blocks?
... did I really ask that?
I think its the whole perception, right or wrong, that guns in media and games has an influence on children playing/watching the games and media.
So, if the answer there is more parental oversight, and the reality is that parents don't have / won't make the time to play with/watch their child, then there's not much room.
Another potential issue: One account, parent and child playing together. At the moment, they can not. A way to let one account host a LAN game, and allow duplicates of that account to join in (with a different player name) would be a first step.
I really doubt anyone would bat an eye at an arquebus. Most people don't even know enough about the subject to know what it is.
They are probably also aware of how polarizing an issue it is, which is a likely reason it wouldn't have happened. However, some Mojang team members have also expressed feelings that it shouldn't happen. It's their opinions, more than anyone's, that matter. So again, the big question - What does it take to change those opinions. If the answer is that their minds are made up and nothing can change them, then fine, that's the end of it right there. However, I think that anyone's mind can be changed if the right case is made, and maybe rather than focusing on what regular forum members tend to think about guns, we need to look at the business end, and what reasons Mojang would have to shy away, rather than taking the stance that it's their game and we'll get used to it, like they have for other changes.
Hmm, I never really thought about that. That's a good point.
Here are my thoughts: Have guns, but not modern guns from the past hundred years or so. Keep it simple like minecraft always has. Musket, maybe a bayonet attachment, flintlock pistol, and that is it. Support given provided modifications are made.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ever hear of something called running away? Its like running towards them, but without the confrontation and death.
Does minecraft really need guns!? Is there not enough violence in this world already?
Although I would like to see a bazooka
Because slicing a walking corpse open with a sword or sticking arrows into another players skull isn't violent at all. People and their double standards.
I daresay these exact words have been said before on this thread, probably many times, I shall say this only because I think it is important:
If a firearm were to be added to minecraft, I believe it should basically be a musket:
-Significally faster projectile speed than a bow.
-Slightly more powerful (1.5 hearts MAX)
-The projectile would have much less of an arc, but has a rather high chance of scattering; preventing it to be used as a sniping weapon requiring no skill
-Would require 1 gunpowder and 1 bullet (Presumably made out of iron) per shot.
-And would take around 10 seconds to reload, but is ready to be fired immediately.
-It's durability would be around half that of a bow (About 200 shots).
-Would be unenchantable
-Would produce a rather loud gunshot sound to alert other players (It'd assume this to be a very obvious one)
I am open to the idea of a musket-type thing in minecraft, but only if it was similiar in characteristics to what I have mentioned above.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"We live only to discover beauty. All else is a form of waiting." - Kahlil Gibran
Does minecraft really need guns!? Is there not enough violence in this world already?
Although I would like to see a bazooka
One could say the same for swords. Or bows. One could even say the same for TNT.
Here's the fact. The game doesn't need anything. By most people's standards it does not even need to exist. It's entertainment, and exists to be entertaining. Rules and structure are there, because it gives people a focus and goals, so they don't become bored. What everything comes down to, however, is having fun. For that reason, the question has nothing to do with whether or not Minecraft needs guns, and more to do with "Would Minecraft be fun with guns?" and also "Would it be more or less fun than it is now?"
Is there not enough violence in this world already?
Although I would like to see a bazooka
zOMG, I can see your point! guns are so friggin violent, luckily we have bazookas for those wishing for a more subtle approach. We all know how bazookas are far less dangerous and violent then guns. Good call there.
zOMG, I can see your point! guns are so friggin violent, luckily we have bazookas for those wishing for a more subtle approach. We all know how bazookas are far less dangerous and violent then guns. Good call there.
^If so minecraft would receive a M rating from ESRB.
The sad thing is, ESRB ratings are more strict, but less well known.
The funny thing is that the ratings can often be influenced strongly by aesthetics. Case in point, "Ocarina of Time" or "Majora's Mask" vs. "Twilight Princess". The first two games both received E ratings, while the other received a rating of T. However, the content in "Twilight Princess" wasn't significantly more mature than its predecessors. In fact, "Majora's Mask" in particular had strong themes of death, an implied alcohol reference, and a great deal of what could be called "horror content". It was arguably the most "mature" game out of the three. So, why the higher rating for "Twilight Princess" and not "Ocarina" or "Majora's Mask", then? Simply put, art style. When they made "Twilight Princess", they gave it not only a less cartoonish style, but also a darker, overall more bleak and grim visual aesthetic. The result? People found the content of the game more worrisome, despite it basically following the same formula as previous games. Note that in the next game in the series, "Skyward Sword", they returned to a more brightly coloured, cell-shaded and cartoonlike art style. The gameplay continues to focus heavily on swordplay and fighting, and if anything it is more realistic than ever, thanks to faithful motion controls. However, "Skyward Sword" went back down to an E10 rating.
It's important to understand why that is when discussing potential ratings changes. While some subjects are clearly taboo, in others, presentation can be everything. This is important to keep in mind with Minecraft, which is after all a highly stylized game. Its depictions will never reach the wholly realistic, and also fall into the by-and-large "cheerfully non-threatening" range, making it very difficult for it to get a high rating unless it trespasses into taboo subject matter. At worst, the inclusion of a firearm might push the rating to a T, however there are other factors as well, such as how cartoonishly the weapon behaves, the possible educational merits of introducing players to historical firearms that they might never have heard of, or even something as simple as how much of a fuss Mojang makes about its hypothetical inclusion. It might sound silly, but again, presentation is everything. If a firearm were made one of the primary features of an update, it would seem like a much bigger deal than if it were, for example, part of a large update that also added several new village structures, villager types, biomes, rare items only found as dungeon loot or by trading, a spyglass, and other small utility items.
Since most people who post here seem to be...a little sloppy with their reading skills.
TL;DR:
There's a difference between cartoon-y arquebusses and hyper-realistic assault rifles.
I agree. I do love when people bump a thread to post something stupid.
I think its the whole perception, right or wrong, that guns in media and games has an influence on children playing/watching the games and media.
So, if the answer there is more parental oversight, and the reality is that parents don't have / won't make the time to play with/watch their child, then there's not much room.
Another potential issue: One account, parent and child playing together. At the moment, they can not. A way to let one account host a LAN game, and allow duplicates of that account to join in (with a different player name) would be a first step.
* Promoting this week: Captive Minecraft 4, Winter Realm. Aka: Vertical Vanilla Viewing. Clicky!
* My channel with Mystcraft, and general Minecraft Let's Plays: http://www.youtube.com/user/Keybounce.
* See all my video series: http://www.minecraftforum.net/forums/minecraft-editions/minecraft-editions-show-your/2865421-keybounces-list-of-creation-threads
(In regard to a mod that gives realistic animal genetics):
Would you really rather have bees that make diamonds and oil with magical genetic blocks?
... did I really ask that?
I really doubt anyone would bat an eye at an arquebus. Most people don't even know enough about the subject to know what it is.
Hmm, I never really thought about that. That's a good point.
The crafting recipe would be something like this:
=blank
Why gold?
Obviously, it's used as a limiting factor as it's difficult to obtain.
But well, yet another use for gold!
Although I would like to see a bazooka
Because slicing a walking corpse open with a sword or sticking arrows into another players skull isn't violent at all. People and their double standards.
If a firearm were to be added to minecraft, I believe it should basically be a musket:
-Significally faster projectile speed than a bow.
-Slightly more powerful (1.5 hearts MAX)
-The projectile would have much less of an arc, but has a rather high chance of scattering; preventing it to be used as a sniping weapon requiring no skill
-Would require 1 gunpowder and 1 bullet (Presumably made out of iron) per shot.
-And would take around 10 seconds to reload, but is ready to be fired immediately.
-It's durability would be around half that of a bow (About 200 shots).
-Would be unenchantable
-Would produce a rather loud gunshot sound to alert other players (It'd assume this to be a very obvious one)
I am open to the idea of a musket-type thing in minecraft, but only if it was similiar in characteristics to what I have mentioned above.
OFFICIAL POSTING/REPLYING GUIDELINES
UNOFFICIAL POSTING GUIDE (PRT)
UNOFFICIAL REPLYING GUIDE (FTC)
One could say the same for swords. Or bows. One could even say the same for TNT.
Here's the fact. The game doesn't need anything. By most people's standards it does not even need to exist. It's entertainment, and exists to be entertaining. Rules and structure are there, because it gives people a focus and goals, so they don't become bored. What everything comes down to, however, is having fun. For that reason, the question has nothing to do with whether or not Minecraft needs guns, and more to do with "Would Minecraft be fun with guns?" and also "Would it be more or less fun than it is now?"
OFFICIAL POSTING/REPLYING GUIDELINES
UNOFFICIAL POSTING GUIDE (PRT)
UNOFFICIAL REPLYING GUIDE (FTC)
nice balance!
^If so minecraft would receive a M rating from ESRB.
Because shooting someone, killing them with little bloodloss, is somehow more violent then hacking someone apart with a sword.
The funny thing is that the ratings can often be influenced strongly by aesthetics. Case in point, "Ocarina of Time" or "Majora's Mask" vs. "Twilight Princess". The first two games both received E ratings, while the other received a rating of T. However, the content in "Twilight Princess" wasn't significantly more mature than its predecessors. In fact, "Majora's Mask" in particular had strong themes of death, an implied alcohol reference, and a great deal of what could be called "horror content". It was arguably the most "mature" game out of the three. So, why the higher rating for "Twilight Princess" and not "Ocarina" or "Majora's Mask", then? Simply put, art style. When they made "Twilight Princess", they gave it not only a less cartoonish style, but also a darker, overall more bleak and grim visual aesthetic. The result? People found the content of the game more worrisome, despite it basically following the same formula as previous games. Note that in the next game in the series, "Skyward Sword", they returned to a more brightly coloured, cell-shaded and cartoonlike art style. The gameplay continues to focus heavily on swordplay and fighting, and if anything it is more realistic than ever, thanks to faithful motion controls. However, "Skyward Sword" went back down to an E10 rating.
It's important to understand why that is when discussing potential ratings changes. While some subjects are clearly taboo, in others, presentation can be everything. This is important to keep in mind with Minecraft, which is after all a highly stylized game. Its depictions will never reach the wholly realistic, and also fall into the by-and-large "cheerfully non-threatening" range, making it very difficult for it to get a high rating unless it trespasses into taboo subject matter. At worst, the inclusion of a firearm might push the rating to a T, however there are other factors as well, such as how cartoonishly the weapon behaves, the possible educational merits of introducing players to historical firearms that they might never have heard of, or even something as simple as how much of a fuss Mojang makes about its hypothetical inclusion. It might sound silly, but again, presentation is everything. If a firearm were made one of the primary features of an update, it would seem like a much bigger deal than if it were, for example, part of a large update that also added several new village structures, villager types, biomes, rare items only found as dungeon loot or by trading, a spyglass, and other small utility items.
You are the master of speech and debate. Also, your idea for the update is amazing.
Since most people who post here seem to be...a little sloppy with their reading skills.
TL;DR:
There's a difference between cartoon-y arquebusses and hyper-realistic assault rifles.