completely agree with every point except the community being terrible, there is a reason for that, minecraft is a game that caters to imaginative kids. I can safely assume that we can out right call this a kids game, so i am not all too surprised that this community has alot of 12 year olds but besides that your post is golden and we should email every single person who works there a slice of this post as if this is the holy bible
That's the thing, though; Minecraft wasn't intended as a kid's game, and as far as I can tell still isn't intended as a kid's game. It attracts kids because it's simple to pick up and lets you build ****, but then the kids start filtering into the general fandom and, eventually, become the majority. (Or a very vocal minority.)
Like TF2; even though the game is M-rated, more than a couple of items have been renamed to avoid being too dirty of a joke for the kiddies. Mad Milk was originally named Mann Milk, for example.
The community IS terrible. It's now infested with the kids who offer little creativity and make endless rageposts about how creepers are world-destroying or subscribe to Yogscast or some other person who makes Minecraft videos almost religiously. They shouldn't be consulted for their own opinion on the game, let alone for development advice.
8.The Enderdragon is a not an ultimate goal in Minecraft. It's just something to do. Let's look at Pokemon again (it's the only other game I play). If you don't want to beat the champion there's no point in playing the game. In Minecraft if you don't want to beat the Enderdragon it doesn't matter.
>The realm is called "The End"
>The single boss in the entire game is called the ENDerdragon
>Beating it and going through the resultant portal BRINGS UP THE ****ING END CREDITS
nope totally not the goal of the game at all is totally irrelevant to everything
PS. Jobbut and Insurrection, I wish there were more people like you here, to actually bring some... ... ... oh right, _intelligence_ to the discussions.
If you REALLY want to do such, learn java and program a mod, then well see how much effort you really want to put in this stuff, everyone can complain, but few can actually do something, complaining wont help.
Insurrection won’t bother with this regurgitated argument, so I’ll give you a quickie:
-The game shouldn’t require mods for content—Otherwise, you go the route of Skyrim and have ****-poor content, modding support, and a short longevity because players aren’t wiling to do what the developers couldn’t/wouldn’t. Only the occasional newcomer or returning player, and those who wish to use the updated GB engine remain playing it—And yet, the Oblivion community, which created it’s content foremost, and aided the modding community to expand it’s life-span is still vibrant today.
-This is an excuse, not an argument. You’re telling me to stop raising my voice when I want to be heard because I’m not part of a billion-dollar funded team of trained programmers currently owning the intellectual property of something.
1.) I love when you manage to prove my point in your rebuttal
Me: You misconstrue what people are saying so that you can counter the arguments you want to counter instead of the ones that are actually being made.
You: Where? I haven't edited people's quotes, unless to abridge their points or something. Even then, it's not like I do that all too often. What arguments am I "not hearing" or whatever?
You purposely misunderstand people so you can counter a different argument. At least it seems to be purposefully done. To clarify; I said you misunderstand the language people use and you reply with 'I don't edit people's quotes'. And actually you do edit people's quotes as I will show in a bit.
For the love of Christ; explain where he does this and how—otherwise you’re just pointing fingers, just putting up those 'quotes' and saying he misconstrued your statement doesn't mean anything.
2.) I get it, you're trying to imply I'm installing some kind of totalitarian/dictatorship kind of rule here, but come on. I'm a guy posting on a forum with an angry tone. Just because you say "totalitarianism" doesn't mean that's what's actually happening.
I just don't think using the same approach governments in dystopic novels use is a really fab way of inspiring change in people.
Unfortunately, he’s just taking the gloves off—He isn’t trying to forcefully become the Mojang Fuhrer – He simply wants his voice to be heard, and if not by the developers, then by the friends, romans, and countrymen of the MC Forums so they can help discuss how to make the game better, and he’s willing to take a forceful tone. That doesn’t equal the hostile takeover of the game and forcing something on everyone, other than having Mojang bother to actual follow through with change.
Me: I don’t need to provide evidence supporting my assertion
You: Do you get how intellectual discussion works? Yes you do, you can't just go "Here is what I think AND THAT'S THAT". That's actually being a "wall".
Me: That I wouldn’t enjoy your system because I’m capable of independent thought and thus fully qualified
You: Are you a game designer? Do you somehow trump my outline of how the game should be better? I don't think you understand that simply being "capable of independent thought" doesn't automatically make you "qualified". You have to at least provide some frame of reference for what you're talking about.
I get your point- there shouldn't need to be an explanation as to why you enjoy something, but this actually DOES lead to terrible things.
I'm going to quote myself here because you've hacked what I said to bits.
I don’t need to provide evidence supporting my assertion that I wouldn’t enjoy your system because I’m capable of independent thought and thus fully qualified to say that I know I wouldn’t enjoy changes to the difficulty changeability because I currently like changing the difficulty. Very very much.
Evidence of you purposefully mus-representing others' ideas here. I say 'I don't have to provide evidence for why I wouldn't like this because I know I wouldn't' and you quote me as saying 'I don't have to provide evidence.' That is ****ed up, man. No other word for it. And then I say 'I am fully qualified to determine for myself what I like' and you spout some **** about how I'm not qualified to do that because I'm not a game designer. To clarify: You can't cut someone's sentence in half and just target that in your reply.
Two problems with this: He’s never cut a statement so far as to utterly misconstrue what’s been said, and if you’ve read the post he’s quoting, you should be able to realize the full point of the quote anyways.
The other: When he does slice up a quote, he responds to each part individually, but still references each part of the section quoted as if it was in it’s entirety—That format simply makes it easier to read and write for.
4.) Me: There are things that could be fixed but I don’t happen to argree that what you think is flawed is flawed. You: That's your opinion. Your opinions don't exactly counter the facts presented in this thread.
That you think Minecraft is flawed in these ways is an opinion not a fact.
If they aren’t flawed: Why aren’t they flawed? The only thing I see you bicker about is your precious tension-killing magic button; and you still fail to convince anyone that you are correct.
And in your quote ‘He’ is correct: He’s provided the evidence on ‘why’, but everything you seem to state appears to be opinion, as you’ve said he’s stated—or at leat, otherwise not backed by the same reasoning, other than ‘I don’t like this. You can’t sa that’s wrong because you’re not me’.
5. I do not want to play creative mode. We don't need some sort of freaky hybrid survial-creative mode. I play ****ing survival. I'm good with that. I don't want to play creative and flick a switch to have access to all blocks. That's what TMI's for.
I don’t think you understand—You want to play on peaceful, he wants to let you play on peaceful—However, he doesn’t want what applies to Peaceful encroaching on Survival. You say you want to play peaceful and then claim you’re playing ‘Survival’; and Peaceful is exactly the game type he wants to have separated from Survival, or at least, the ability to instantly switch to it.
6. What if you could still technically change the difficulty, just through different ways? Because that's exactly what I've been suggesting. Just not with a magical button.
The system isn't broken as far as I'm concerned and thus does not need to be fixed. Magical button take me away.
Fine then, just move your Magic Button to the main menu so that I can’t remove any sort of danger with 2 clicks; I don’t mind that it exists, and in Insurrection’s ideal ‘difficulty system’ it doesn’t matter because difficulty is based on player action.
8.The Enderdragon is a not an ultimate goal in Minecraft. It's just something to do. Let's look at Pokemon again (it's the only other game I play). If you don't want to beat the champion there's no point in playing the game. In Minecraft if you don't want to beat the Enderdragon it doesn't matter.
It isn’t the ‘Ultimate over-arching element and focus’ of the game, but it’s still an Ultimate Goal—The ‘thing’ you strive for that ‘completes’ the game. It’s even got a credits sequence.
And I personally know tournament-oriented players that avidly play pokemon and have ignored the Elite Four in several generations.
9.You don't want Mojang listening to the masses. Okay. You are proposing changes to the game that would be a turn off to the masses, aka, the people who buy this game, I found out about Minecraft from the people who play Minecraft. If you alienate the players they'll stop playing the game, word of mouth will dry up and sales will lag. There is zero reason they would made fundamental gameplay changes at this point.
No, we don’t want him to stop listening—The droolers at the front of shakespeare’s stage were still there and an avid part of the community, but when one of them thinks that Romeo and Juliet were cooler if they tamed horses, you need to ignore the suggestion and focus on fixing the few flaws in your play, whether it be the actors, the script, or the stage—As improving these.
10. I don't care about hostiles' AI. The AI I want improved is the animals'. The stupid mobs are kinda fun in their stupidity sometimes.
…
If you don’t care, then why ****ing speak out against it?
And yes, stupidity can be funny—But should we laugh at the retarded child walking into the window, or try and get him help?
PS. Jobbut and Insurrection, I wish there were more people like you here, to actually bring some... ... ... oh right, _intelligence_ to the discussions.
Not gonna circlejerk here, but thank you, I appreciate the comment~
Evidence you of purposefully mis-representing others' ideas here. I say 'I don't have to provide evidence for why I wouldn't like this because I know I wouldn't' and you quote me as saying 'I don't have to provide evidence.'
I split it up because I was responding to those individual points. It's annoying going back and forth between several paragraphs to see what point is being talked about. I didn't cut things out. If I did, yeah, that'd be ****ed up. But all your points are there.
If you see it as misrepresentation, that's your fault. I don't intend for that whatsoever, and it's not like I'm silencing your posts somehow.
That is ****ed up, man. No other word for it. And then I say 'I am fully qualified to determine for myself what I like' and you spout some **** about how I'm not qualified to do that because I'm not a game designer.
I said you're not more qualified than I am to talk about game design, yeah. I further explained that objectively good game design does exist, and that it's not purely subjective- thus, it's important to know who has the leg up on qualifications when it comes to discussing game design. You still didn't answer my question about "Do you agree that Minecraft- like anything- can be better?", because it's sorta kinda really important for determining whether or not something "you like" can be considered the best possible choice.
Before you go all up in arms about how I'm "treading on you" or whatever, realize that your personal likes are- in fact- not what makes this game better. A better game is a better game, regardless of the subjective viewpoints of individuals who play said game. That's what I want- a better game. Not a form of government. Not a game more people like. That's why I said your opinion on this matter is irrelevant, because you don't seem to care about the game being better. If you did, you'd be refuting my points, then providing your own suggestions that are better than mine. Saying "The game is fine, I like it how it is" isn't refutation in the least. If I'm misrepresenting your viewpoints on "The game is fine, I like it how it is", please correct me.
Also, talk about misrepresentation and strawman arguments- "spout some ****"?
That you think Minecraft is flawed in these ways is an opinion not a fact.
I don't just think it, though. I've provided evidence of how it's flawed. You've yet to refute that, or even bring up any of the things you claim I'm wrong on.
That's your prerogative, then. What makes your wants more important than mine, though? Why should your opinions and viewpoints be considered over mine? This is the basic principle of debate- why your opinions and viewpoints should be considered over your opponent's. This is something you really do need to answer in order to be considered relevant to the discussion.
We don't need some sort of freaky hybrid survial-creative mode.
But if creative had those options, it'd play exactly like how survival plays right now if you wanted it to be as such. Isn't the basis of your argument "I should have the choice to do what I want"?
I don't want to play creative and flick a switch to have access to all blocks. That's what TMI's for.
You wouldn't have to, if the system was set up right. It would play virtually the same in every way as you'd want it to. You wouldn't need to "flick a switch to have access to all blocks".
I'm talking because I disagree. Not disagreeing because I want to talk. Bit of a difference there. But you wanted to know why I'm here so that's the reason.
You're within your right to disagree, but I don't remember asking "why you're here". Maybe I did in a dickish sense, but that would be the kind of snarky response you shouldn't be taking too seriously.
The Enderdragon is a not an ultimate goal in Minecraft. It's just something to do. Let's look at Pokemon again (it's the only other game I play). If you don't want to beat the champion there's no point in playing the game.
Pokemon is a pretty nice example, because you actually don't "need" to fight the champion there, either. Pokemon is pretty loose with its exploration, and although it does have progression and an endgame, it's not a fully linear game like Half Life where the only option is to go forward.
Yet, as you said, the champion is considered the goal.
The Enderdragon is basically the same exact thing as the champion in Pokemon.
In Minecraft if you don't want to beat the Enderdragon it doesn't matter.
But it's still there. It was flat out intended to be an end, and there's a (loose) sense of progression. Besides, even if it WASN'T intended to be the goal, that doesn't excuse it being ****.
You are proposing changes to the game that would be a turn off to the masses, aka, the people who buy this game,
I dunno. I'm pretty confident a lot of people would still play. They'd enjoy it just the same- sure, they may whine, but I already said they need to stop listening to people who whine just to whine.
If you alienate the players they'll stop playing the game, word of mouth will dry up and sales will lag.
They've already alienated players- their original playerbase, no less. Why should I care that a much more immature playerbase with little taste would get peeved? I'm not saying the whole playerbase fits that description, by the way. I'm saying those who would flat out quit because of my changes are. If they were intelligent, yet disliked my changes (hypothetically saying they added them to the official game), they would intelligently try to change them, as I had hypothetically done to get my changes done.
This is one of the most well thought out and perfectly reasonable posts in minecraft forum history. Sure what I'm saying to everyone here will be dismissed as a opinion but nevertheless I will say to all of you here that what Insurrection has said is completely achievable and in the end will make SURVIVAL a better experience. Yes there are a lot of you whose only excuse is to say "if you don't like it then don't use it", however, that in itself is not a good excuse. Just because its there and its not obligatory to use it does not mean it should be there because frankly it isn't smart. It doesn't push the player to "survive" one good example as previously stated is the difficulty level. The fact that it can be changed at any single point in time. Sure many of you say minecraft isn't a survival game is a building game. Again as previously stated by Insurrection. Survival is a game mode, so is Creative. They each have their own requirement. Each have their own point. Whereas Creative Mode fulfills it perfectly, Survival Mode does not. It is severely lacking. Sure you get the occasional thrill but it occurs mostly by chance.
Somewhere in this thread somebody said that Minecraft is a finished game and that Mojang doesn't have the obligation to add more stuff. I'm not saying that they do. But the fact of the matter is Notch himself stated that the Minecraft name change from "Minecraft Beta" to "Minecraft" was merely just that a name change, purely cosmetic. That Minecraft itself was still far from finished (still is) and that he just wanted to get rid of the "beta" name. So Minecraft is not finished. On the contrary, it still has a long way to go. I am thankful for that. Because there is still hope that this game can be better than it already is, bugs and all.
Reminds me of the post i made a few weeks back but went under...
I really have to agree with almost everything you've said. The game has nearly infinite potential but very little of it is tapped. Instead of getting diversification which would make the game better, we get **** like mushroom cows. Instead of some sort of manual that explains how to play the game, I have to direct every new player to the wiki because there is no other alternative. Instead of diversified equipment, we have diamond > iron > stone > wood. Iron is ubiquitous which completely renders stone and wood obsolete. Diamond is generally too rare to be considered useful. Instead of expanding this base, we get snowmen. If we want a white building we have to build out of snow or wool (wtf?) because one of the most common building materials on the planet, marble, has never been introduced. We can eat cookies though...
Mobs are a joke. I turn them off because they're neither useful nor challenging. Creeper asplodes omg. Big deal. Put down some torches and a fence and I'll never be bothered with one again. Where's the challenge or the point?
Over the weekend I started looking for replacements to MC because I share almost every gripe you've got. This started out as a great game but never really went anywhere. There's some interesting voxel games out there on the horizon that are going to slaughter this joke of a game if they don't get their **** straight. Minecraft is a great outlet for creativity, but within the next six months there will be better alternatives.
As for idiots saying "just use mods": I shouldn't have to resort to content generated by unpaid players to make a product interesting and fun. A little diversity? Maybe. But to actually make the game playable? You're kidding me. When crap like hmod and worldguard are staples amongst any SMP server worth a damn and Mojang has yet to incorporate their efforts.. you've got real problems.
Anyway, it's great to see some constructive criticism that's layed out in a legible and thought out format.
First time I've even entertained the thought of signing up to this shithole. You have my full support OP. I loved this game when in beta, but grew tired when nothing happened, and every update was as small as the one before. The completely uninspired "The End" was the final nail in the coffin of hope I had for this game.
Agreed until you got up to chapter seven. Yes, we could fix the game and it would be excellent, but the only problem is that if you had looked at the forums lately, everyone is posting update topics. and if we had to add all of those features that you had listed then imagine how many people will be complaining and whining. I know you are about to say "I really don't give a **** unless they fix the game!" but the forums I think would actually die of all the topics. and with the Creepers suggestion you made that they should be underground, that would ruin the whole concept of them destroying your structures and creations. But anyway, this topic is based on the features that you want so I think I'll just leave it at that. Hope this helped!
By the way, yes this may be a so called "shithole" but to others it's a great place to share ideas and creations together, so if you don't like the forums, then why the hell did you join? simple as that. and if you don't have anything nice to say, then I recommend you go away.
I agree with all of the survival elements, but the part about the community is ridiculous. The community on the forums is massive, and when you have a large amount of people, some will think one way, and another group the other. Everyone will never agree 100% on one thing. I could go farther, but people already have explained a lot already, but good work on the survival part.
If your upset about an open community, get off the ****ing internet.
Trolling and flaming is all the Internet contains, have you never been ANY other forum? They're all 99% mindless dribble and 1% constructive anything.
Also, on the Brony comment. Stop judging a group by a minority of its members or people who just put an MLP avatar on their account (Seriously, not everyone with a MLP avatar is a brony.)
Only thing I remotely agreed with was the Terrain generation, it's become so stagnant as of late.
That was an unnecessary rant, all of those can be fixed with mods that take minutes to install, that rant probably took a lot longer. But the minecraft community one can't be changed, for the minecraft community to change would be as hard as stopping wars and crime, I hope you realise that
After reading through the new additions, I think I know a solution that would fix most of these, and without turning Creative (which from the way it's currently set up I assume has the entire point be simply the building of maps without risk of dying or harvesting, NOT what many people want) into a hybrid. Two game modes, one of which, probably named Survival, is based around the combat, which would have much more emphasis on the bumping up mob AI and abilities, and giving compensation to the player in more varied weapons and armor, then a mode that would be something like Civilization or such, which would be where to go for the harvesting to build, and have fighting mobs be more side than main purpose. Where Survival would have the progression you mention, this new mode would be far more open-world. It would, hopefully, still have things like dungeons, the nether, and such, but they would be mainly to get more blocks to build. In Survival the dungeons, nether, and updated End, on the other hand, would be more like the changes you have suggested, less decoration and more combat. This option would be far more likely to appeal to those of us who use Survival to have a more challenging build mode, as well as appeal to those of you who use Survival as a combat mode. This would also eliminate the option-cluttering you seem so dead set against.
Summation, just so you don't misinterpret, leave Creative as it is, and split Suvival into Combat-based Survival and Building-based Survival.
The reason I'm going against the just set up a Peaceful mode, is that sometimes, even in building a Civilization, mobs have their uses. Both for their drops and to provide that extra touch of challenge.
Oh, and one last thing, you do still seem to be misconstruing what I'm getting at with the raise in difficulty = raise in health/power. I'm not saying that it's only good because it's widely used. I'm just saying that, in conjunction with other stuff, it does make for an extra touch of challenge. I totally agree that when it's the ONLY thing used, it's a bit of a forced pseudo-challenge, but if it's used in combination of all these other ideas, it becomes a bit more of an icing on the cake. After all, with all these boosts, unless you make the mobs OP in the easier modes, taking this progression of power out will make them too weak in the harder modes.
That was an unnecessary rant, all of those can be fixed with mods that take minutes to install, that rant probably took a lot longer. But the minecraft community one can't be changed, for the minecraft community to change would be as hard as stopping wars and crime, I hope you realise that
This argument was made for changes for the vanilla game. He has stated many times mods are just not an acceptable alternative to fix Notch's/Jeb's screw-ups.
After seeing a lot of people that agree with the OP, I'm starting to think why they even play minecraft still if they detest it so much.
Am I reading this wrong, or are you seriously stupid enough to think people want Minecraft to be IMPROVED because they DON'T like it? The only reason I posted my support for change at all was because I legitimately care about the quality of the game. If I detested Minecraft I would simply move on to something else and be done with it, but the fact that I love it (or at least the idea of it) so much is why it truly pains me to see the game completely fail to meet its potential. I'd imagine Insurrection cares greatly about the game as well, or he wouldn't spend so much time fighting for it on these forumns.
The "love it or leave it" attitude a lot the posters in this topic have is really terrible, especially considering how the community has affected the development of the game in the past. The internet has given this fanbase, and many others, the amazing power to voice real problems with the things they like, and have those problems actually addressed by real change if the voice is loud enough. Why ANYONE would want to settle for anything less than the absolute best, when they have the opportunity to make things better just by 'complaining', I cannot imagine.
Agreed until you got up to chapter seven. Yes, we could fix the game and it would be excellent, but the only problem is that if you had looked at the forums lately, everyone is posting update topics. and if we had to add all of those features that you had listed then imagine how many people will be complaining and whining. I know you are about to say "I really don't give a **** unless they fix the game!" but the forums I think would actually die of all the topics and with the Creepers suggestion you made that they should be underground, that would ruin the whole concept of them destroying your structures and creations. But anyway, this topic is based on the features that you want so I think I'll just leave it at that. Hope this helped!
By the way, yes this may be a so called "shithole" but to others it's a great place to share ideas and creations together, so if you don't like the forums, then why the hell did you join? simple as that. and if you don't have anything nice to say, then I recommend you go away.
I agree with all of the survival elements, but the part about the community is ridiculous. The community on the forums is massive, and when you have a large amount of people, some will think one way, and another group the other. Everyone will never agree 100% on one thing. I could go farther, but people already have explained a lot already, but good work on the survival part.
If your upset about an open community, get off the ****ing internet.
Trolling and flaming is all the Internet contains, have you never been ANY other forum? They're all 99% mindless dribble and 1% constructive anything.
Also, on the Brony comment. Stop judging a group by a minority of its members or people who just put an MLP avatar on their account (Seriously, not everyone with a MLP avatar is a brony.)
He isn’t insulting any individual, or ALL of the MC community, just the plagues to it that any other community has (IE: Bronies are plagued by Jackasses, Hipsters, Redditfags, Furries, Manchildren who don’t know when something isn’t appropriate for a situation (IE: Those assholes shoving ponies into the middle of a conversation for no relevant reason. Seriously. Stop. I introduced you to the online community for a reason) and 12 year olds that give the otherwise incredible, active fandom a poor name.)
I completely agree with what you are saying, I would love to see the majority of what you suggested implemented. I thought I'd add a few more ideas to consider…
These have all been suggested so far in the thread, good to see others thinking along the same lines as us—More suggestions like this would be appreciated; suggestions that expand upon existing content with a purpose, providing depth, usefulness, or flexibility to a mechanic.
That was an unnecessary rant, all of those can be fixed with mods that take minutes to install, that rant probably took a lot longer. But the minecraft community one can't be changed, for the minecraft community to change would be as hard as stopping wars and crime, I hope you realise that
This is about Vanilla Survival; not about mods that shouldn’t be required for the full experience. Look back to my ‘Skyrim Effect’ statements.
And we aren’t looking to change the community; we’re looking to find out what makes a better game, and, hopefully, do it.
After reading through the new additions, I think I know a solution that would fix most of these, and without turning Creative (which from the way it's currently set up I assume has the entire point be simply the building of maps without risk of dying or harvesting, NOT what many people want) into a hybrid. Two game modes, one of which, probably named Survival, is based around the combat, which would have much more emphasis on the bumping up mob AI and abilities, and giving compensation to the player in more varied weapons and armor, then a mode that would be something like Civilization or such, which would be where to go for the harvesting to build, and have fighting mobs be more side than main purpose. Where Survival would have the progression you mention, this new mode would be far more open-world. It would, hopefully, still have things like dungeons, the nether, and such, but they would be mainly to get more blocks to build. In Survival the dungeons, nether, and updated End, on the other hand, would be more like the changes you have suggested, less decoration and more combat. This option would be far more likely to appeal to those of us who use Survival to have a more challenging build mode, as well as appeal to those of you who use Survival as a combat mode. This would also eliminate the option-cluttering you seem so dead set against.
Summation, just so you don't misinterpret, leave Creative as it is, and split Suvival into Combat-based Survival and Building-based Survival.
The reason I'm going against the just set up a Peaceful mode, is that sometimes, even in building a Civilization, mobs have their uses. Both for their drops and to provide that extra touch of challenge.
That last statement—I think you’ve missed the point of Peaceful. The point of mobs is to be dangerous, even a little spooky. Peaceful is about taking away the monsters.
Your Building-Based Survival is essentially the ‘Peaceful’ gametype we’ve proposed, where the player gathers all they want, builds how they please, and doesn’t encroach on Survival Mode.
Like TF2; even though the game is M-rated, more than a couple of items have been renamed to avoid being too dirty of a joke for the kiddies. Mad Milk was originally named Mann Milk, for example.
The community IS terrible. It's now infested with the kids who offer little creativity and make endless rageposts about how creepers are world-destroying or subscribe to Yogscast or some other person who makes Minecraft videos almost religiously. They shouldn't be consulted for their own opinion on the game, let alone for development advice.
>The single boss in the entire game is called the ENDerdragon
>Beating it and going through the resultant portal BRINGS UP THE ****ING END CREDITS
nope totally not the goal of the game at all is totally irrelevant to everything
PS. Jobbut and Insurrection, I wish there were more people like you here, to actually bring some... ... ... oh right, _intelligence_ to the discussions.
Insurrection won’t bother with this regurgitated argument, so I’ll give you a quickie:
-The game shouldn’t require mods for content—Otherwise, you go the route of Skyrim and have ****-poor content, modding support, and a short longevity because players aren’t wiling to do what the developers couldn’t/wouldn’t. Only the occasional newcomer or returning player, and those who wish to use the updated GB engine remain playing it—And yet, the Oblivion community, which created it’s content foremost, and aided the modding community to expand it’s life-span is still vibrant today.
-This is an excuse, not an argument. You’re telling me to stop raising my voice when I want to be heard because I’m not part of a billion-dollar funded team of trained programmers currently owning the intellectual property of something.
For the love of Christ; explain where he does this and how—otherwise you’re just pointing fingers, just putting up those 'quotes' and saying he misconstrued your statement doesn't mean anything.
Unfortunately, he’s just taking the gloves off—He isn’t trying to forcefully become the Mojang Fuhrer – He simply wants his voice to be heard, and if not by the developers, then by the friends, romans, and countrymen of the MC Forums so they can help discuss how to make the game better, and he’s willing to take a forceful tone. That doesn’t equal the hostile takeover of the game and forcing something on everyone, other than having Mojang bother to actual follow through with change.
Two problems with this: He’s never cut a statement so far as to utterly misconstrue what’s been said, and if you’ve read the post he’s quoting, you should be able to realize the full point of the quote anyways.
The other: When he does slice up a quote, he responds to each part individually, but still references each part of the section quoted as if it was in it’s entirety—That format simply makes it easier to read and write for.
If they aren’t flawed: Why aren’t they flawed? The only thing I see you bicker about is your precious tension-killing magic button; and you still fail to convince anyone that you are correct.
And in your quote ‘He’ is correct: He’s provided the evidence on ‘why’, but everything you seem to state appears to be opinion, as you’ve said he’s stated—or at leat, otherwise not backed by the same reasoning, other than ‘I don’t like this. You can’t sa that’s wrong because you’re not me’.
I don’t think you understand—You want to play on peaceful, he wants to let you play on peaceful—However, he doesn’t want what applies to Peaceful encroaching on Survival. You say you want to play peaceful and then claim you’re playing ‘Survival’; and Peaceful is exactly the game type he wants to have separated from Survival, or at least, the ability to instantly switch to it.
Fine then, just move your Magic Button to the main menu so that I can’t remove any sort of danger with 2 clicks; I don’t mind that it exists, and in Insurrection’s ideal ‘difficulty system’ it doesn’t matter because difficulty is based on player action.
It isn’t the ‘Ultimate over-arching element and focus’ of the game, but it’s still an Ultimate Goal—The ‘thing’ you strive for that ‘completes’ the game. It’s even got a credits sequence.
And I personally know tournament-oriented players that avidly play pokemon and have ignored the Elite Four in several generations.
No, we don’t want him to stop listening—The droolers at the front of shakespeare’s stage were still there and an avid part of the community, but when one of them thinks that Romeo and Juliet were cooler if they tamed horses, you need to ignore the suggestion and focus on fixing the few flaws in your play, whether it be the actors, the script, or the stage—As improving these.
…
If you don’t care, then why ****ing speak out against it?
And yes, stupidity can be funny—But should we laugh at the retarded child walking into the window, or try and get him help?
Not gonna circlejerk here, but thank you, I appreciate the comment~
A strawman? Again, where have I done that? Just being contrary doesn't mean you're right.
But I'm not using that approach. I'm ranting angrily in a forum. On the internet.
I split it up because I was responding to those individual points. It's annoying going back and forth between several paragraphs to see what point is being talked about. I didn't cut things out. If I did, yeah, that'd be ****ed up. But all your points are there.
If you see it as misrepresentation, that's your fault. I don't intend for that whatsoever, and it's not like I'm silencing your posts somehow.
I said you're not more qualified than I am to talk about game design, yeah. I further explained that objectively good game design does exist, and that it's not purely subjective- thus, it's important to know who has the leg up on qualifications when it comes to discussing game design. You still didn't answer my question about "Do you agree that Minecraft- like anything- can be better?", because it's sorta kinda really important for determining whether or not something "you like" can be considered the best possible choice.
Before you go all up in arms about how I'm "treading on you" or whatever, realize that your personal likes are- in fact- not what makes this game better. A better game is a better game, regardless of the subjective viewpoints of individuals who play said game. That's what I want- a better game. Not a form of government. Not a game more people like. That's why I said your opinion on this matter is irrelevant, because you don't seem to care about the game being better. If you did, you'd be refuting my points, then providing your own suggestions that are better than mine. Saying "The game is fine, I like it how it is" isn't refutation in the least. If I'm misrepresenting your viewpoints on "The game is fine, I like it how it is", please correct me.
Also, talk about misrepresentation and strawman arguments- "spout some ****"?
I don't just think it, though. I've provided evidence of how it's flawed. You've yet to refute that, or even bring up any of the things you claim I'm wrong on.
That's your prerogative, then. What makes your wants more important than mine, though? Why should your opinions and viewpoints be considered over mine? This is the basic principle of debate- why your opinions and viewpoints should be considered over your opponent's. This is something you really do need to answer in order to be considered relevant to the discussion.
But if creative had those options, it'd play exactly like how survival plays right now if you wanted it to be as such. Isn't the basis of your argument "I should have the choice to do what I want"?
You play a butchered version of survival, abusing an game menu option for likely unintended purposes.
You wouldn't have to, if the system was set up right. It would play virtually the same in every way as you'd want it to. You wouldn't need to "flick a switch to have access to all blocks".
"as far as I'm concerned" being the key operative word here. Again, why should your opinions and viewpoints be considered over mine?
You're within your right to disagree, but I don't remember asking "why you're here". Maybe I did in a dickish sense, but that would be the kind of snarky response you shouldn't be taking too seriously.
Pokemon is a pretty nice example, because you actually don't "need" to fight the champion there, either. Pokemon is pretty loose with its exploration, and although it does have progression and an endgame, it's not a fully linear game like Half Life where the only option is to go forward.
Yet, as you said, the champion is considered the goal.
The Enderdragon is basically the same exact thing as the champion in Pokemon.
But it's still there. It was flat out intended to be an end, and there's a (loose) sense of progression. Besides, even if it WASN'T intended to be the goal, that doesn't excuse it being ****.
I dunno. I'm pretty confident a lot of people would still play. They'd enjoy it just the same- sure, they may whine, but I already said they need to stop listening to people who whine just to whine.
They've already alienated players- their original playerbase, no less. Why should I care that a much more immature playerbase with little taste would get peeved? I'm not saying the whole playerbase fits that description, by the way. I'm saying those who would flat out quit because of my changes are. If they were intelligent, yet disliked my changes (hypothetically saying they added them to the official game), they would intelligently try to change them, as I had hypothetically done to get my changes done.
They could, would, and more importantly, should- because the gameplay is fundamentally flawed for survival mode.
So... you don't care for one of the most popular aspects of Minecraft survival mode?
How is your opinion worthwhile, again?
e;fb
Thanks for the posts, Jobbut. Even just a few, it helps.
Somewhere in this thread somebody said that Minecraft is a finished game and that Mojang doesn't have the obligation to add more stuff. I'm not saying that they do. But the fact of the matter is Notch himself stated that the Minecraft name change from "Minecraft Beta" to "Minecraft" was merely just that a name change, purely cosmetic. That Minecraft itself was still far from finished (still is) and that he just wanted to get rid of the "beta" name. So Minecraft is not finished. On the contrary, it still has a long way to go. I am thankful for that. Because there is still hope that this game can be better than it already is, bugs and all.
Reminds me of the post i made a few weeks back but went under...
Mobs are a joke. I turn them off because they're neither useful nor challenging. Creeper asplodes omg. Big deal. Put down some torches and a fence and I'll never be bothered with one again. Where's the challenge or the point?
Over the weekend I started looking for replacements to MC because I share almost every gripe you've got. This started out as a great game but never really went anywhere. There's some interesting voxel games out there on the horizon that are going to slaughter this joke of a game if they don't get their **** straight. Minecraft is a great outlet for creativity, but within the next six months there will be better alternatives.
As for idiots saying "just use mods": I shouldn't have to resort to content generated by unpaid players to make a product interesting and fun. A little diversity? Maybe. But to actually make the game playable? You're kidding me. When crap like hmod and worldguard are staples amongst any SMP server worth a damn and Mojang has yet to incorporate their efforts.. you've got real problems.
Anyway, it's great to see some constructive criticism that's layed out in a legible and thought out format.
Check out my Minecraft Let's Play!
If your upset about an open community, get off the ****ing internet.
Trolling and flaming is all the Internet contains, have you never been ANY other forum? They're all 99% mindless dribble and 1% constructive anything.
Also, on the Brony comment. Stop judging a group by a minority of its members or people who just put an MLP avatar on their account (Seriously, not everyone with a MLP avatar is a brony.)
Only thing I remotely agreed with was the Terrain generation, it's become so stagnant as of late.
http://www.minecraftforum.net/topic/1270833-survadv-questville/
Summation, just so you don't misinterpret, leave Creative as it is, and split Suvival into Combat-based Survival and Building-based Survival.
The reason I'm going against the just set up a Peaceful mode, is that sometimes, even in building a Civilization, mobs have their uses. Both for their drops and to provide that extra touch of challenge.
Oh, and one last thing, you do still seem to be misconstruing what I'm getting at with the raise in difficulty = raise in health/power. I'm not saying that it's only good because it's widely used. I'm just saying that, in conjunction with other stuff, it does make for an extra touch of challenge. I totally agree that when it's the ONLY thing used, it's a bit of a forced pseudo-challenge, but if it's used in combination of all these other ideas, it becomes a bit more of an icing on the cake. After all, with all these boosts, unless you make the mobs OP in the easier modes, taking this progression of power out will make them too weak in the harder modes.
And darn it, why the hell am I even here?
PlanetSide 2 Megathread because why not?
Generate Minecraft Tellraw Commands, Books, and Signs!
Am I reading this wrong, or are you seriously stupid enough to think people want Minecraft to be IMPROVED because they DON'T like it? The only reason I posted my support for change at all was because I legitimately care about the quality of the game. If I detested Minecraft I would simply move on to something else and be done with it, but the fact that I love it (or at least the idea of it) so much is why it truly pains me to see the game completely fail to meet its potential. I'd imagine Insurrection cares greatly about the game as well, or he wouldn't spend so much time fighting for it on these forumns.
The "love it or leave it" attitude a lot the posters in this topic have is really terrible, especially considering how the community has affected the development of the game in the past. The internet has given this fanbase, and many others, the amazing power to voice real problems with the things they like, and have those problems actually addressed by real change if the voice is loud enough. Why ANYONE would want to settle for anything less than the absolute best, when they have the opportunity to make things better just by 'complaining', I cannot imagine.
See:
But… The fact that we agree with the OP means we like the game, and want to make it better.
These have all been suggested so far in the thread, good to see others thinking along the same lines as us—More suggestions like this would be appreciated; suggestions that expand upon existing content with a purpose, providing depth, usefulness, or flexibility to a mechanic.
This is about Vanilla Survival; not about mods that shouldn’t be required for the full experience. Look back to my ‘Skyrim Effect’ statements.
And we aren’t looking to change the community; we’re looking to find out what makes a better game, and, hopefully, do it.
That last statement—I think you’ve missed the point of Peaceful. The point of mobs is to be dangerous, even a little spooky. Peaceful is about taking away the monsters.
Your Building-Based Survival is essentially the ‘Peaceful’ gametype we’ve proposed, where the player gathers all they want, builds how they please, and doesn’t encroach on Survival Mode.