I understand the amount of people who think these are good ideas, but this would have quite a bit of problems.
The additional mob view distance would create quite a bit more lag because it has to check a 64³ or 32³ on easy Block radius for each and every individual mob.
The game calculates if the mob is aggressive or not by checking in a 16³ radius. if it outcomes to be true it then checks if there is a possible route to the player (the game counts that as at least a 1 block opening) a max there are 128 hostile mobs. There is on average 40 or so hostile mobs in a 8x8x8 chunk area centered around the player allowing them to check their targeting. On hard i presume our stated check would be 256 blocks (max for vanilla minecraft) which in reality will cause a HUGE amount of lag.
The enderman idea is in theory good but would take a huge amount of work to even get it to function properly.
Also, Increasing the mob de-spawn distance is completely unnecessary as that would just lead to additional memory usage since mobs don't move when at least 30 blocks away from the player.
I just wanted to say, thank you for this and for your previous post.
Honestly, I share many of the same ideas and opinions as you do, and I don't think a lot of people realize what you're saying and why you're saying it. There's really only minor things (from the old post) that I disagreed with, and it wasn't even the direction, it was just specifics.
Probably one of my favorite quotes was from someone saying, "Mojang is one of the most skilled programming companies in the world", to which I proceeded to laugh my ass off at how wrong that was.
I'm honestly tired of the lack of updates coming from Mojang, people making excuses all the time, "oh they do add stuff!". They add garbage that no one cares about, and I think it's because they know the modding community is going to keep the game alive, so they half ass everything they do and just call it a day. Sure, they're going to try to get the Mod API stuff going, I can't wait, but it's long ****ing overdue... and the only reason it will get anywhere is because they employed the Bukkit team.
I'm sick of the people defending Mojang saying the game is just fine, I'm sorry, but every single one of you payed for an unfinished game that was rushed for a release at a Minecraft conference that was voted on for a set price in Vegas that almost EVERYONE said no to, and was still done at an even greater price at the same location so that Notch could rake in all the cash he could. Hell, he's taken so many "breaks", it's not even funny...
Someone tried to discredit your post about taking advice from /v/. Yeah, /v/ is turning into ****, but the guy who laughed at that had the Russian singer who died that sings the Coming Home song or whatever that people associate with "trololo" which is so annoying I didn't even want to type that... and they're trying to make fun of... memes? Keep in mind that Notch VIRALED MINECRAFT ON /v/. It's ****ing true, he did, and he got so butthurt over people saying that the game was shitty he decided to go to the land of circle jerks, also known as Reddit, where everyone would give him a big pat on the fat back and tell him he did a great job on the game and to keep doing nothing and taking lots of vacations.
I want Minecraft to be good, but honestly it's not. Like you said, there's really in my opinion only 4 enemies in the game... that's ****ing ****. I want more enemies to fight, I want a challenge. People say "HUR RPG NO WEAPONS THERES NO FIGHTING IN MINECRAFT TITLE JUST MINE AND CRAFT LOL DUH", then why the **** is there armor and weapons? Survival tends to mean SURVIVING which includes defending yourself from your enemies.
You want some armor? Make iron, because that's literally the only useful armor to make unless you have a surplus of diamonds you don't care about. How about an armor set (chainmail) that you can't even physically get in the game yet it's still there... that's pretty cool.
GUYS ARE YOU ****ING PUMPED FOR THE ADVENTURE UPDATE!? YEEEAAAAAH!!! Oh... it's being delayed...? Okay I'll wait...
IT'S HERE...?! YEAAAAH!!! I CAN'T WAIT TO GO ON ALL THESE ADVEN-... what? Abandon mineshafts and... strongholds...? I gue- I guess that's... cool.
How about Minecraft launching the FULL RETAIL GAME that is COMPLETELY UNFINISHED! What would you do if you bought a game at the store that wasn't finished. Let's say you buy a game at your local retail store that sells games and you're really excited, the box art looks cool, the game looks promising, so you buy it and install it and get ready to play. You find NPCs in the game... that do nothing... wow, what the ****? You think it's a bug... no, it's just not ****ING DONE.
People say, "IT'S NOT SUPPOSED TO BE DONE THE GAME IS STILL GROWING!" well then why the **** is it gone full retail? The game isn't ****ing done! This isn't like DLC, this is like the game isn't done but you paid for a full retail game and sorry but we ****ing lied, we're still working on the game... deal with it.
People don't mind getting exploited for their money though, it's cool... I can just use mods! Stop complaining! They're trying their best! Yeah, I'm sure jeb was trying really hard when he added apple drops in trees for one of his "updates"... Yeah, great job implementing code used in servers for apple drops into a game without adding anything extra like... oh, I don't know... textures?! You know, like to show apples in the tree...? People might think, oh that probably takes a while to do though! But, it ****ing doesn't... all that needs to be added is that on leaf destroy/decay there's a random chance for an apple to drop... it would LITERALLY take 1-2 minutes to do. When I say LITERALLY I mean LITERALLY...
Anyways, I'm going to stop ranting, thanks for this, I wish you well on this project, maybe I'll visit back when the Mod API stuff comes out to help out, but I'll likely forget all about it.
Can somebody email this thread to some of the developers, especially Jeb? I'm going to do it, and if enough people do it this thread could be noticed.
Though it is becoming a broken record... and way off topic.
Call of Duty, Gears of War, and other first person shooters employ a tactic that involves mimicry of other games. "It worked for that first person shooter, lets do that but include this instead..."
Interestingly enough Minecraft is an amorpheus engine. There are literally hundreds of permutations and depending on the approach of the player Minecraft becomes whatever they wish it to be. Mods or no mods.
In survival mode (both single and multiplayer) there is a point in which the mastery of the game is at its peak and the entertainment value severly drops. Somewhere in between having a set of diamond tools and sighing after the 333th skeleton pings you into the lava using the same tired tactic. Its okay though... at spawn you have a full stack of diamonds (to be fair I never wear diamond armor while mining... only the off chance I want to PVP...). If the nether gets too hard you can always run or switch to peaceful in singleplayer... or build a wall of obsidian in a few seconds.
Where are the Salamanders that are immune to lava and fire... or perhaps the Manticore which is hostile to players and mobs and absorbs the items of its prey to bolster attack, defense, or hp (which would could alter how mobspawners are created...)?
Every time a game mechanic can be abused is an opportunity for Mojang to enhance a new element of play without nerfing anything.
The updates released seem to leave me hungry for more I suppose and with every single block created, every mob added introduces the potential of bugs.
150^2 combinations of whatever is quite a lot of work, 151^2 is even more.
Considering you skipped the part where he went on a rant on about the quality being stagnant and you missed it.....
Right, stagnant... not entirely 100% lacking. I'm really hoping you don't pull out some variation of the definition of stagnant to somehow "prove" that I really meant they haven't developed anything at all. I've made it quite clear I'm aware they've made a few improvements, but again- few and far between.
But you did. Scroll back up. I said, "You can't make a bias with a single thing," to which you quoted and reply, "Except you can." Does that sound familiar?
I should probably stop using the comparison of quality to superiority and the like- when it comes to superiority, you use terms like bias, etc. I was still trying to use the idea of "Ok, so take the idea of superiority, then instead of applying it externally, apply it internally". Apparently it's not working very well for describing what I'm talking about...
It is very obvious that you are not the same person you were one second ago with a tiny amount of analytical effort.
We're not getting into 9th grade philosophy level stuff, though. Jesus, man, what does the word "improve" even mean to you, then? Again, it's not about whether something is technically different, it's about whether or not it's conceptually the same thing, just improved upon over time. A sword is refined to create a sharper and better sword, a building is built with layers of construction, etc... it can be applied to anything.
Furthermore, what's the point of stating that two things are technically different? That "quality" is somehow not an objective aspect simply because of "molecular differences"? If we're going down that road of logic, you wouldn't be able to call anything anything- a table is not a table, it's a composition of its wooden parts and its molecular structure and blahblahblah...
It's not about very minor technical differences. It's about it being conceptually the same thing. A table is a table. A person is a person. A game is a game. Minecraft is Minecraft.
Two "things" in two different states are two different things. If we were to measure a single thing in a single state, that would not produce a difference at all.
Right, I'm not arguing a "single thing in a single state", though.
SupaSaru in 1990 is different from SupaSaru in 2012 - there is no question. During the dictation of this post from the thoughts I have formed initially there has been a delta to the thoughts that I am dictating. The post before it existed is different than the post that was intended to exist and is different from the post that will exist when I hit that green button.
"Different" yes, but one would still consider you "SupaSaru". We generally do this thing in society called "classification" to keep things simple.
Just the same, you call Minecraft "Minecraft". Sure, it's always changing and is- in a very technical sense- always "different", but what does that have to do with it improving itself or not? You're making an extremely meta argument to somehow dissolve the immensely simplistic idea that quality is separate from ideas like superiority, enjoyment, and etc.
If you're so hung up on the idea that every single thing is always technically different, then here:
A dimension of quality is how much it improves upon its conceptual self over a period of time- how much it's improved over its past states, or its technically different past selves.
Happy? Or is this somehow invalid because there's somehow the possibility that the past version of Minecraft can maybe be a cat?
Quality is a metric itself. It is a measurement. You cannot say something has "lacking quality," "more quality," or "equal quality" without making a comparison to something else. 1 has the quality of 1. Always. There is no way to "unprove" this.
...
Yes, it's a measurement- therefore, I can use it as a measurement. It's like saying "Something is short" when I say "Something is lacking in quality". Are you serious?
I'm not sure what planet you guys live on, but here on Earth there are two businesses called Starbucks and McDonalds. Both of these providers have put significant work into a quality product - a consistent product. Wherever you go, you have the reasonable expectation that something you order at Starbucks A will be similar to what you get from Starbucks B. The same with McDonalds. This is defining quality in the production process.
Yes, sure- it's defining the quality of the production process. It doesn't say anything about the quality of the product itself.
Just the same, it says even less about the quality of game design in Minecraft.
by comparing Minecraft on Windows against Minecraft on Linux, you will find that you have a consistent experience. If you ever attempted to write Java before, especially java using different implementations of OpenGL, then you would know there was a reason people used to say, "Java - write once, debug everywhere." The consistency of the experience across the platforms is an indicator of quality. Consistency can be a quality of quality, and comparing Minecraft to other cross-platform games allows you to set an expectation to compare the experiences with - Minecraft is a higher quality than other Java applications since it consistently performs well on both platforms. We have an identifiable, measurable quality to judge the overall quality of Minecraft with.
...Yes, that might be an indication of quality for its cross-platform coding (even though IIRC it's had plenty of bugs and lacking content cross platform... see: mobile version, 360 version, etc). It still says nothing for the quality of its game design.
Consistency is not always a key metric when it comes to quality- is someone a quality NBA player because they never improve their shot rating? Maybe if they're already the best out there, but then that's because they're consistently the best. Not just because they're "consistent"- it's because they are continually doing what's right.
However, in an example like that, they're constantly challenged- each shot is its own challenge. Minecraft's game design is something that, if it never improved, would hardly be an indicator of quality. Because short of bugs and unintended consequences, the gameplay design will generally remain consistent (please, for the love of god do not go on about how "every game is different! because it's DYNAMIC!"). It will remain the same, and it will remain the same amount of quality. It does not somehow increase in quality simply because it never changes. Because consistency is not a universal indication of quality.
Talent is another metric formed from experiences. I cannot realistically say you are more or less talented than I am at playing the trumpet - I've never heard you play and I've never attempted to play the damn thing. There is nothing to be identified and compared here without sampling both of us playing the trumpet. Only then can a comparison be made and quality judged.
...yes, more or less talented than you. However, if compared to how I used to play the trumpet (given this example), you would still find a difference.
Improvements can be considered the an indicator of terrible quality.
Changes. Changes. Not improvements. You're still getting the two mixed up. The basic idea of "improvement" is to make it better towards a purpose. In this case, the purpose of the word "improvement" here refers to improving the quality (as quality is objective, therefore improvements made to it are presumed to be objectively better) would do nothing but objectively add to the game.
This is, again, assuming the improvements are improvements- not whether you or I think they're improvements. It's also assuming that quality is truly the objective aspect (which I'm not sure if you're arguing anymore or not).
Characters seemed to have more life (required more hits to kill) in Soul Calibur 4 than they do in Soul Calibur 5 - arguably, this is an indicator of quality. Which version has a more "quality" damage tracking system?
You're not giving all of the variables that the "damage tracking system" uses, though- it's like saying "Is X equal to Y?" without giving any other information as to what X or Y might contain. If you're referring solely to the idea of characters having more health or less health, I would say it's not something that quality can be assigned to. However, if you're referring to the overall game design idea of having more or less health... again, there's a ton of other variables that need to be considered first in order to judge its quality.
Remember, I'm not saying "Health in Minecraft is low/high quality". I'm not making the argument that every minor little thing contains quality as a measurable aspect (although there's quite a number of things that do have a measurable sense of quality). I'm not saying that quality is a universal variable that defines the entertainment value of the whole game. I'm saying the game design is lacking in quality. Quality is an aspect of game design. It is not THE sole aspect.
Unintended side effects may not necessarily reduce the quality of a product.
They at most do nothing. Yes, they may not necessarily reduce the quality, but their potential is only "downward" when it comes to quality. It's similar to how you say shooting someone will typically kill them- sure, it doesn't always kill people, but you're friggin shooting someone.
If unintended side effects occur that somehow "add" to the experience, why can't you add in whatever it is they "added" yourself?
Did bunny hops reduce the single player campaign experience of Half Life 2? It can certainly cause frustration by people not familiar with the mechanic. Those individuals will then argue indefinitely about how a "broken" mechanic is destroying the quality of their experience. Of course, the other side wills say bunny hopping increases their experience. Who is right?
Both of them. Because experience is subjective. If they're making the argument that their experiences somehow affect quality, then neither are right.
You have no way to judge without applying your own experiences.
Dude. No. That's not how truth works. Truth is truth regardless of experiences- this is why you do not consider subjectivity when it comes to quality. Because it muddles things like you just explained.
One person may be attacked by dogs and come to the conclusion that dogs are "obsessed with attacking". Are they right? On the merit of their experiences alone, no. If there is an actual truth that is not affacted by the personal experiences of one person or many people (AKA objective fact) that dogs are or are not obsessed with attacking, then that is what decides whether or not they're right.
TL;DR: There are other ways to judge without applying your own experiences. It's called being objective.
These are two drastically different games that aren't even in the same genre but are the same game (that is, the same franchise).
...Didn't you make the argument that "everything is different"? This is actually a case where one can say they're different, because they're different games. They are, conceptually, different. Sure, they may be the same franchise, but franchises are nothing more than the sum of all of its games put together.
I'm sure the team thought they were improving the game by adding a compelling story - that's another +1.
Nope. Because thinking you're improving something and actually improving something are two very different things (subjective vs objective). This is why we do not consider subjectivity to determine quality.
Guilty Gear isn't nearly as successful as the Street Fighter series - that counts for something, since the overall topic is that quality items being commercially successful is false.
Nope. As I said, it doesn't count for anything either way. It doesn't mean it's better or worse simply due to commercial success.
---
I would love to continue discussing this with you, SupaSaru, but it's not really going anywhere good. If you really want to keep discussing it, PM me, then- no one else seems to be joining in, anyway, and yeah.
I'd also like to say this, so no one else is confused:
Quality =/= the sole value to decide entertainment. When I said quality is objective, I'm not saying all of entertainment is objective. Simply put, quality is a part of entertainment. It's the thing that is objective about entertainment, wheras the rest is purely subjective (Enjoyment, personal experiences, etc). Entertainment is a mixture of quality (the objective part), and all of the other subjective parts combined into one. It is the end result of those elements.
Therefore, I'd really like it if people would stop getting this implication that I'm somehow saying quality is what decides a game to be good or not.
Why wouldn't I quote the massive post? I was talking about the whole thing friend.
Because you didn't address any of the points given in them. You just quoted it, without actually dissecting any of the points within. You didn't reply to X by going "X is not true, as...". You simply replied to X going "So Y, Y is Y, and Y is really Y because Y". That's not refutation, or even a counter argument- it's just blindly throwing out answers.
Anyways you contradicted yourself by disagreeing with me that minecraft has elements of a fighting game, and then saying later that it does have combat elements.
...Having combat elements does not make a game into a fighting game. Again, "fighting game" is a completely different genre of videogame that has a pretty well established set of definitions. Sure, they're not set in stone (because that'd be silly), but you don't call a dog a cat just because both of them eat meat.
I'm going to just edit the parts where you keep saying "Fighting game" to say "Combat oriented game", because that seems to fit a lot better...
Minecraft does have the option of not being [a combat oriented game] because that wasn't the main purpose of the game. That is why beds, and the peaceful button exist in the first place. Players are given the option to shut off the mobs so they don't have to play with them. They can still die (ex. falling into lava), but its a lot less difficult for them to mine, and make things. To say the peaceful button should go would call for a change in minecraft that wouldn't leave it as minecraft anymore. You would have Jeb make a completely different game from Notch by removing that button.
Actually, no- if you had read my suggestions, you'd know that I'm still ok with them adding in ways to avoid mobs. I just suggested a more sensible, gameplay oriented way than just a magic button that does it for you.
Furthermore... no. Just no. It's not a hugely integral part of the game. It wouldn't suddenly turn it into a "completely different game" just by removing peaceful. Some people may rely on it, but there's people who relied upon mobs falling into lava and stuff before, too. That didn't make it "a completely different game" when they improved AI.
Minecraft does have [combat] elements within the game when them mobs are enabled.
Yes, it does. Those elements can also be improved- not forced upon the player to improve it (as that wouldn't be an improvement, just an annoyance), just extended.
Its simple to code, and since mobs aren't all that important to the overall game anyway (As it is possible to gather some mob drop items) it doesn't require a whole lot of updating. It grants some players the challenge, and later the annoyance, of fighting mobs if the want to fight the mobs. If they do not wish to fight the mobs they can simply avoid combat were possible.
This exact same argument can be applied to my changes as well.
It is correct that the game could bear some minor improvements to the mob A.I. but they fulfill the job they were supposed to do quite well as they are. To radically change the mob system would radically change the game. Players aren't supposed to be able to travel at night without some risk. We all accept that fact in the game, and make sure we are prepared before we venture out. To make the mobs only appear underground would seem kinda lame to most players, and may actually make the game quality drop.
1: I've already said they should improve it, not just change it.
2: Again, "supposed to" doesn't matter.
Quality is in the eye of the beholder. It is generated by opinions of the game, and the overall quality is judged by the overall opinion.
Did you miss the several pages of this very issue being argued? I've made the pretty solid argument that quality is objective. Pretty much the rest of your post relies upon the idea that quality is subjective...
There is a saying: "Don't change a winning team" and that applies to products as well. When something sells as well as Minecraft, you would usually not go out of your way to change everything.
There's also another saying: "Loitering is illegal". I guess that disproves that, huh!
This reply is so unbelievable that I've started to think you are just trolling me. A little bit embarrassing, knowing that I've fallen for it with head and tail. Luckily I haven't let frustration and anger get the best of me so there aren't really anything for me to be ashamed of.
This reply is so unbelievable that I've started to think you are just trolling me. A little bit embarrassing, knowing that I've fallen for it with head and tail. Luckily I haven't let frustration and anger get the best of me so there aren't really anything for me to be ashamed of.
I hope you read the spoiler'd part. It explains the sarcastic reply.
I understood that you weren't serious, that you tried to be cool, but even with that in mind I think what you said was so far away from any reasonable response on my comment that I have lost word and given up on this discussion.
I'm starting to think this is turning into one of those, "You can't judge me!" threads.... I've asked quite a few times to go back to discussing the mod, but OP hasn't bothered to do that recently at all.
Instead, there's an argument about how objectively you can judge something's quality based on a specific categorization of features (subjective). Which is really kind of circular...... "Objectively" the quality is lacking except for certain specific areas where quality may or may not be subjectively applied. Nice.
The fundamental understanding of something like cross-platform compatibility with the Java version of a game (remember, the Linux/Mac/Windows clients and servers are all the same code) compared to the mobile edition (not the same code) or the 360 edition (not the same code or developer) seems to be excluded. When mistakes like this happen, it then turns into someone trying to cram excuses and reasons behind why it wasn't a mistake.
That's funny. But not productive at all. Maybe I was confused when someone said they were actively turning these ideas into something more than a random spiteful forum post......
Continuing on with the expectation that the "concept of quality" will be completely broken....
.... about that mod.....?
I've asked quite a few times to go back to discussing the mod, but OP hasn't bothered to do that recently at all.
Mostly because there hasn't been too much discussion put forward- I guess I can put forth some discussions myself, although there's plenty of private discussion on forums, IM, etc for actual development and discussion amongst peers.
A few things I (and others) have taken note of:
-Hunger is pretty poorly implemented. Thirst could be introduced, with hunger taking more of a "debuff" role in terms of punishment, and not be reduced by sprinting/etc. Sprinting/etc would reduce thirst instead. Also, a dedicated sprint button (a-la Smart Moving), with variable sprint time based on how thirsty you are(n't).
-Ambiance is pretty lacking. Things like 2D backdrops, music that changes based on location (not constant music still), ambient noises (birds chirping, wind rushing, leaves rustling, etc), and other stuff could be added to remedy this.
-Villagers are really really underdeveloped. Perhaps add a more sim city-esque element of management and etc? Maybe have more races of villagers, too- some might be neutral still (Pigmen?), others that are openly hostile (Goblins), and other such things. Ways to infiltrate hostile villagers could be cool.
Just some stuff that's been loosely brought up, but not covered very much by the actual modding team and such as of yet.
Agree with point 1a, I would prefer a tutorial from the main menu, that way you have an option to use the tutorial or not.
2a totally agree 100%, in 2b for the suggestions I like alot of them but it's important that they would only work if you cannot change the difficulty mid-game which i definetly agree with, because you lose so much of that tension when you know you can always just turn it to peaceful.
totally agree with 3a, in 3b endermen I would think a better suggestion than encasing you would be to keep where they will freeze you in place, and teleport behind you and hit you from behind once and the knockback would release you from the freeze.
As a suggestion to add to biome spawning, you could expand on villagers of sorts, and at nordic warriors that have camps set up in taiga biomes another could be tribes and tribesmen in the jungle which poison you. And these guys would all use hand to hand combat and have weapons, these could be different types of villagers, or anything of the sorts, just throwing some ideas out there.
6a/6b I disagree here, I actually like the programmer art, and I don't use texture packs because I like how the textures feel very simple and even a bit flawed at times.
7a/7b I like this alot, I agree, and I just thought this was an interesting point to bring up.
It's hard to stay objective when you're talking about theoretical improvements. You may think your being objective but you're still basing your suggested improvements off of your own views and desires which slants the quality end product you're trying to create. What ramifications will your 'improvement' have on gameplay as a whole, can you foresee every angle? Will you have to revise many other gameplay facets as a result? Will it tax the PC resources necessary to run the game thus alienating more users? Would that then necessitate looking for and spending time and money to migrate to a better solution that would lower the resources required to run the game causing it to stagnate development for a long period of time? All in the name of quality. Sometime, especially in business, quality is not the best answer, as much as we consumers hate to hear that.
Wow, that was quite a read! Good job! Anyway, this is all correct in my opinion, mainly the difficulty and the community. Especially the difficulty and community.
i agree with all your points, and you have put allot of reasoning int your complaints, and for that i take my hat off to you.\
BUT WHY YOU BASH ON BRONIES?!?!
i agree with all your points, and you have put allot of reasoning int your complaints, and for that i take my hat off to you.\
BUT WHY YOU BASH ON BRONIES?!?!
It's hard to stay objective when you're talking about theoretical improvements. You may think your being objective but you're still basing your suggested improvements off of your own views and desires which slants the quality end product you're trying to create. What ramifications will your 'improvement' have on gameplay as a whole, can you foresee every angle? Will you have to revise many other gameplay facets as a result? Will it tax the PC resources necessary to run the game thus alienating more users? Would that then necessitate looking for and spending time and money to migrate to a better solution that would lower the resources required to run the game causing it to stagnate development for a long period of time? All in the name of quality. Sometime, especially in business, quality is not the best answer, as much as we consumers hate to hear that.
If one person can code a mod that boosts Minecraft's performance almost exponentially, then I'm sure Mojang is quite capable of hard-coding the same kind of improvements.
Also, your argument about "theoretical improvements" is kind of weak. Everything is a "theoretical improvement", like when someone makes a suggestion or when Mojang adds something to the game itself.
If one person can code a mod that boosts Minecraft's performance almost exponentially, then I'm sure Mojang is quite capable of hard-coding the same kind of improvements.
Also, your argument about "theoretical improvements" is kind of weak. Everything is a "theoretical improvement", like when someone makes a suggestion or when Mojang adds something to the game itself.
I assume your alluding to optifine? If so I'm glad it exists and that it helps people. But your statement is very general in nature and likely not based on any factual findings, numbers and likely truth. I'm sure that it has greatly helped SOME people with certain PC configurations, but certainly it doesn't help everyone 'almost exponentially'. I bet if I installed it on my PC I would realize a fractional increase in my FPS which is already very good.
My point is that's nothing about this thread is truly objective. You can 'SAY' all the things wrong with something and suggest improvements all day. But the reality is that nothing said is truly objective when discussing proposed improvements to a game not based on any kind of reality. The only real facts involved are that the code is going to do what it's programmed to do and that it has real limitiations. Otherwise the games reality and all facts in the game are defined by its creator. So what this topic is really about is someone who doesn't like the reality created and wants to define it himself. If others agree with him it doesn't make his statements any more factual, real, better, or quality. Proof is in the pudding. Lets see some pudding and we can all be critics of his work then. Perhaps if we got his game version we'd say it was crap or perhaps we'd think it was the best thing since sliced bread. Ideas, suggestions, concepts, are all just unrealized unproven thoughts.
I assume your alluding to optifine? If so I'm glad it exists and that it helps people. But your statement is very general in nature and likely not based on any factual findings, numbers and likely truth. I'm sure that it has greatly helped SOME people with certain PC configurations, but certainly it doesn't help everyone 'almost exponentially'. I bet if I installed it on my PC I would realize a fractional increase in my FPS which is already very good.
My point is that's nothing about this thread is truly objective. You can 'SAY' all the things wrong with something and suggest improvements all day. But the reality is that nothing said is truly objective when discussing proposed improvements to a game not based on any kind of reality. The only real facts involved are that the code is going to do what it's programmed to do and that it has real limitiations. Otherwise the games reality and all facts in the game are defined by its creator. So what this topic is really about is someone who doesn't like the reality created and wants to define it himself. If others agree with him it doesn't make his statements any more factual, real, better, or quality. Proof is in the pudding. Lets see some pudding and we can all be critics of his work then. Perhaps if we got his game version we'd say it was crap or perhaps we'd think it was the best thing since sliced bread. Ideas, suggestions, concepts, are all just unrealized unproven thoughts.
Optifine increased my performance substantially. And it's helped many others as well. That's proof enough that minecraft's optimization is sub-par, at best. Not everyone can afford a 1000$ computer.
At that very least, the only real problem with minecraft is the ease of survival. This needs increased, and for many reasons outlined in the OP. Many people agree, as do I. If Mojang is so into "fan-pandering" then they can create an entirely different game-type for the way survival is as of now. It's not about being objective; people support the ideas presented here, so why are they automatically discredited because "nothing can be objective"?
The additional mob view distance would create quite a bit more lag because it has to check a 64³ or 32³ on easy Block radius for each and every individual mob.
The game calculates if the mob is aggressive or not by checking in a 16³ radius. if it outcomes to be true it then checks if there is a possible route to the player (the game counts that as at least a 1 block opening) a max there are 128 hostile mobs. There is on average 40 or so hostile mobs in a 8x8x8 chunk area centered around the player allowing them to check their targeting. On hard i presume our stated check would be 256 blocks (max for vanilla minecraft) which in reality will cause a HUGE amount of lag.
The enderman idea is in theory good but would take a huge amount of work to even get it to function properly.
Also, Increasing the mob de-spawn distance is completely unnecessary as that would just lead to additional memory usage since mobs don't move when at least 30 blocks away from the player.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumHonestly, I share many of the same ideas and opinions as you do, and I don't think a lot of people realize what you're saying and why you're saying it. There's really only minor things (from the old post) that I disagreed with, and it wasn't even the direction, it was just specifics.
Probably one of my favorite quotes was from someone saying, "Mojang is one of the most skilled programming companies in the world", to which I proceeded to laugh my ass off at how wrong that was.
I'm honestly tired of the lack of updates coming from Mojang, people making excuses all the time, "oh they do add stuff!". They add garbage that no one cares about, and I think it's because they know the modding community is going to keep the game alive, so they half ass everything they do and just call it a day. Sure, they're going to try to get the Mod API stuff going, I can't wait, but it's long ****ing overdue... and the only reason it will get anywhere is because they employed the Bukkit team.
I'm sick of the people defending Mojang saying the game is just fine, I'm sorry, but every single one of you payed for an unfinished game that was rushed for a release at a Minecraft conference that was voted on for a set price in Vegas that almost EVERYONE said no to, and was still done at an even greater price at the same location so that Notch could rake in all the cash he could. Hell, he's taken so many "breaks", it's not even funny...
Someone tried to discredit your post about taking advice from /v/. Yeah, /v/ is turning into ****, but the guy who laughed at that had the Russian singer who died that sings the Coming Home song or whatever that people associate with "trololo" which is so annoying I didn't even want to type that... and they're trying to make fun of... memes? Keep in mind that Notch VIRALED MINECRAFT ON /v/. It's ****ing true, he did, and he got so butthurt over people saying that the game was shitty he decided to go to the land of circle jerks, also known as Reddit, where everyone would give him a big pat on the
fatback and tell him he did a great job on the game and to keep doing nothing and taking lots of vacations.I want Minecraft to be good, but honestly it's not. Like you said, there's really in my opinion only 4 enemies in the game... that's ****ing ****. I want more enemies to fight, I want a challenge. People say "HUR RPG NO WEAPONS THERES NO FIGHTING IN MINECRAFT TITLE JUST MINE AND CRAFT LOL DUH", then why the **** is there armor and weapons? Survival tends to mean SURVIVING which includes defending yourself from your enemies.
You want some armor? Make iron, because that's literally the only useful armor to make unless you have a surplus of diamonds you don't care about. How about an armor set (chainmail) that you can't even physically get in the game yet it's still there... that's pretty cool.
GUYS ARE YOU ****ING PUMPED FOR THE ADVENTURE UPDATE!? YEEEAAAAAH!!! Oh... it's being delayed...? Okay I'll wait...
IT'S HERE...?! YEAAAAH!!! I CAN'T WAIT TO GO ON ALL THESE ADVEN-... what? Abandon mineshafts and... strongholds...? I gue- I guess that's... cool.
How about Minecraft launching the FULL RETAIL GAME that is COMPLETELY UNFINISHED! What would you do if you bought a game at the store that wasn't finished. Let's say you buy a game at your local retail store that sells games and you're really excited, the box art looks cool, the game looks promising, so you buy it and install it and get ready to play. You find NPCs in the game... that do nothing... wow, what the ****? You think it's a bug... no, it's just not ****ING DONE.
People say, "IT'S NOT SUPPOSED TO BE DONE THE GAME IS STILL GROWING!" well then why the **** is it gone full retail? The game isn't ****ing done! This isn't like DLC, this is like the game isn't done but you paid for a full retail game and sorry but we ****ing lied, we're still working on the game... deal with it.
People don't mind getting exploited for their money though, it's cool... I can just use mods! Stop complaining! They're trying their best! Yeah, I'm sure jeb was trying really hard when he added apple drops in trees for one of his "updates"... Yeah, great job implementing code used in servers for apple drops into a game without adding anything extra like... oh, I don't know... textures?! You know, like to show apples in the tree...? People might think, oh that probably takes a while to do though! But, it ****ing doesn't... all that needs to be added is that on leaf destroy/decay there's a random chance for an apple to drop... it would LITERALLY take 1-2 minutes to do. When I say LITERALLY I mean LITERALLY...
Anyways, I'm going to stop ranting, thanks for this, I wish you well on this project, maybe I'll visit back when the Mod API stuff comes out to help out, but I'll likely forget all about it.
Take care, and I'll leave you with this picture.
Though it is becoming a broken record... and way off topic.
Call of Duty, Gears of War, and other first person shooters employ a tactic that involves mimicry of other games. "It worked for that first person shooter, lets do that but include this instead..."
Interestingly enough Minecraft is an amorpheus engine. There are literally hundreds of permutations and depending on the approach of the player Minecraft becomes whatever they wish it to be. Mods or no mods.
In survival mode (both single and multiplayer) there is a point in which the mastery of the game is at its peak and the entertainment value severly drops. Somewhere in between having a set of diamond tools and sighing after the 333th skeleton pings you into the lava using the same tired tactic. Its okay though... at spawn you have a full stack of diamonds (to be fair I never wear diamond armor while mining... only the off chance I want to PVP...). If the nether gets too hard you can always run or switch to peaceful in singleplayer... or build a wall of obsidian in a few seconds.
Where are the Salamanders that are immune to lava and fire... or perhaps the Manticore which is hostile to players and mobs and absorbs the items of its prey to bolster attack, defense, or hp (which would could alter how mobspawners are created...)?
Every time a game mechanic can be abused is an opportunity for Mojang to enhance a new element of play without nerfing anything.
The updates released seem to leave me hungry for more I suppose and with every single block created, every mob added introduces the potential of bugs.
150^2 combinations of whatever is quite a lot of work, 151^2 is even more.
Right, stagnant... not entirely 100% lacking. I'm really hoping you don't pull out some variation of the definition of stagnant to somehow "prove" that I really meant they haven't developed anything at all. I've made it quite clear I'm aware they've made a few improvements, but again- few and far between.
I should probably stop using the comparison of quality to superiority and the like- when it comes to superiority, you use terms like bias, etc. I was still trying to use the idea of "Ok, so take the idea of superiority, then instead of applying it externally, apply it internally". Apparently it's not working very well for describing what I'm talking about...
We're not getting into 9th grade philosophy level stuff, though. Jesus, man, what does the word "improve" even mean to you, then? Again, it's not about whether something is technically different, it's about whether or not it's conceptually the same thing, just improved upon over time. A sword is refined to create a sharper and better sword, a building is built with layers of construction, etc... it can be applied to anything.
Furthermore, what's the point of stating that two things are technically different? That "quality" is somehow not an objective aspect simply because of "molecular differences"? If we're going down that road of logic, you wouldn't be able to call anything anything- a table is not a table, it's a composition of its wooden parts and its molecular structure and blahblahblah...
It's not about very minor technical differences. It's about it being conceptually the same thing. A table is a table. A person is a person. A game is a game. Minecraft is Minecraft.
Right, I'm not arguing a "single thing in a single state", though.
"Different" yes, but one would still consider you "SupaSaru". We generally do this thing in society called "classification" to keep things simple.
Just the same, you call Minecraft "Minecraft". Sure, it's always changing and is- in a very technical sense- always "different", but what does that have to do with it improving itself or not? You're making an extremely meta argument to somehow dissolve the immensely simplistic idea that quality is separate from ideas like superiority, enjoyment, and etc.
If you're so hung up on the idea that every single thing is always technically different, then here:
A dimension of quality is how much it improves upon its conceptual self over a period of time- how much it's improved over its past states, or its technically different past selves.
Happy? Or is this somehow invalid because there's somehow the possibility that the past version of Minecraft can maybe be a cat?
...
Yes, it's a measurement- therefore, I can use it as a measurement. It's like saying "Something is short" when I say "Something is lacking in quality". Are you serious?
If you're talking about "quality of consistency", uh, sure. It doesn't exactly relate to quality of game design.
Yes, sure- it's defining the quality of the production process. It doesn't say anything about the quality of the product itself.
Just the same, it says even less about the quality of game design in Minecraft.
...Yes, that might be an indication of quality for its cross-platform coding (even though IIRC it's had plenty of bugs and lacking content cross platform... see: mobile version, 360 version, etc). It still says nothing for the quality of its game design.
Consistency is not always a key metric when it comes to quality- is someone a quality NBA player because they never improve their shot rating? Maybe if they're already the best out there, but then that's because they're consistently the best. Not just because they're "consistent"- it's because they are continually doing what's right.
However, in an example like that, they're constantly challenged- each shot is its own challenge. Minecraft's game design is something that, if it never improved, would hardly be an indicator of quality. Because short of bugs and unintended consequences, the gameplay design will generally remain consistent (please, for the love of god do not go on about how "every game is different! because it's DYNAMIC!"). It will remain the same, and it will remain the same amount of quality. It does not somehow increase in quality simply because it never changes. Because consistency is not a universal indication of quality.
...yes, more or less talented than you. However, if compared to how I used to play the trumpet (given this example), you would still find a difference.
Changes. Changes. Not improvements. You're still getting the two mixed up. The basic idea of "improvement" is to make it better towards a purpose. In this case, the purpose of the word "improvement" here refers to improving the quality (as quality is objective, therefore improvements made to it are presumed to be objectively better) would do nothing but objectively add to the game.
This is, again, assuming the improvements are improvements- not whether you or I think they're improvements. It's also assuming that quality is truly the objective aspect (which I'm not sure if you're arguing anymore or not).
Yes, change. Not improve.
Change
Improve
They are different words for a reason.
You're not giving all of the variables that the "damage tracking system" uses, though- it's like saying "Is X equal to Y?" without giving any other information as to what X or Y might contain. If you're referring solely to the idea of characters having more health or less health, I would say it's not something that quality can be assigned to. However, if you're referring to the overall game design idea of having more or less health... again, there's a ton of other variables that need to be considered first in order to judge its quality.
Remember, I'm not saying "Health in Minecraft is low/high quality". I'm not making the argument that every minor little thing contains quality as a measurable aspect (although there's quite a number of things that do have a measurable sense of quality). I'm not saying that quality is a universal variable that defines the entertainment value of the whole game. I'm saying the game design is lacking in quality. Quality is an aspect of game design. It is not THE sole aspect.
Which a lot of people- apparently including yourself- seem to be making. Your point?
Also, I'm not only saying "improve the quality". I'm saying "the quality is low, therefore the quality should be improved".
They at most do nothing. Yes, they may not necessarily reduce the quality, but their potential is only "downward" when it comes to quality. It's similar to how you say shooting someone will typically kill them- sure, it doesn't always kill people, but you're friggin shooting someone.
If unintended side effects occur that somehow "add" to the experience, why can't you add in whatever it is they "added" yourself?
Both of them. Because experience is subjective. If they're making the argument that their experiences somehow affect quality, then neither are right.
Dude. No. That's not how truth works. Truth is truth regardless of experiences- this is why you do not consider subjectivity when it comes to quality. Because it muddles things like you just explained.
One person may be attacked by dogs and come to the conclusion that dogs are "obsessed with attacking". Are they right? On the merit of their experiences alone, no. If there is an actual truth that is not affacted by the personal experiences of one person or many people (AKA objective fact) that dogs are or are not obsessed with attacking, then that is what decides whether or not they're right.
TL;DR: There are other ways to judge without applying your own experiences. It's called being objective.
...Didn't you make the argument that "everything is different"? This is actually a case where one can say they're different, because they're different games. They are, conceptually, different. Sure, they may be the same franchise, but franchises are nothing more than the sum of all of its games put together.
Nope. Talent alone doesn't account for quality- it's the application of the talent that affects quality.
Nope. Improvement =/= change.
Nope. Because thinking you're improving something and actually improving something are two very different things (subjective vs objective). This is why we do not consider subjectivity to determine quality.
Nope. As I said, it doesn't count for anything either way. It doesn't mean it's better or worse simply due to commercial success.
---
I would love to continue discussing this with you, SupaSaru, but it's not really going anywhere good. If you really want to keep discussing it, PM me, then- no one else seems to be joining in, anyway, and yeah.
I'd also like to say this, so no one else is confused:
Quality =/= the sole value to decide entertainment. When I said quality is objective, I'm not saying all of entertainment is objective. Simply put, quality is a part of entertainment. It's the thing that is objective about entertainment, wheras the rest is purely subjective (Enjoyment, personal experiences, etc). Entertainment is a mixture of quality (the objective part), and all of the other subjective parts combined into one. It is the end result of those elements.
Therefore, I'd really like it if people would stop getting this implication that I'm somehow saying quality is what decides a game to be good or not.
Because you didn't address any of the points given in them. You just quoted it, without actually dissecting any of the points within. You didn't reply to X by going "X is not true, as...". You simply replied to X going "So Y, Y is Y, and Y is really Y because Y". That's not refutation, or even a counter argument- it's just blindly throwing out answers.
...Having combat elements does not make a game into a fighting game. Again, "fighting game" is a completely different genre of videogame that has a pretty well established set of definitions. Sure, they're not set in stone (because that'd be silly), but you don't call a dog a cat just because both of them eat meat.
I'm going to just edit the parts where you keep saying "Fighting game" to say "Combat oriented game", because that seems to fit a lot better...
Actually, no- if you had read my suggestions, you'd know that I'm still ok with them adding in ways to avoid mobs. I just suggested a more sensible, gameplay oriented way than just a magic button that does it for you.
Furthermore... no. Just no. It's not a hugely integral part of the game. It wouldn't suddenly turn it into a "completely different game" just by removing peaceful. Some people may rely on it, but there's people who relied upon mobs falling into lava and stuff before, too. That didn't make it "a completely different game" when they improved AI.
Yes, it does. Those elements can also be improved- not forced upon the player to improve it (as that wouldn't be an improvement, just an annoyance), just extended.
...Right, so wouldn't this work in favor of saying that they are an integral part of the game and thus the game is combat oriented?
quote equals name apostrophe Ins... you know what, no. I'm tired of quoting myself saying "Intentions don't matter".
This exact same argument can be applied to my changes as well.
1: I've already said they should improve it, not just change it.
2: Again, "supposed to" doesn't matter.
Did you miss the several pages of this very issue being argued? I've made the pretty solid argument that quality is objective. Pretty much the rest of your post relies upon the idea that quality is subjective...
This reply is so unbelievable that I've started to think you are just trolling me. A little bit embarrassing, knowing that I've fallen for it with head and tail. Luckily I haven't let frustration and anger get the best of me so there aren't really anything for me to be ashamed of.
I hope you read the spoiler'd part. It explains the sarcastic reply.
Instead, there's an argument about how objectively you can judge something's quality based on a specific categorization of features (subjective). Which is really kind of circular...... "Objectively" the quality is lacking except for certain specific areas where quality may or may not be subjectively applied. Nice.
The fundamental understanding of something like cross-platform compatibility with the Java version of a game (remember, the Linux/Mac/Windows clients and servers are all the same code) compared to the mobile edition (not the same code) or the 360 edition (not the same code or developer) seems to be excluded. When mistakes like this happen, it then turns into someone trying to cram excuses and reasons behind why it wasn't a mistake.
That's funny. But not productive at all. Maybe I was confused when someone said they were actively turning these ideas into something more than a random spiteful forum post......
Continuing on with the expectation that the "concept of quality" will be completely broken....
.... about that mod.....?
Mostly because there hasn't been too much discussion put forward- I guess I can put forth some discussions myself, although there's plenty of private discussion on forums, IM, etc for actual development and discussion amongst peers.
A few things I (and others) have taken note of:
-Hunger is pretty poorly implemented. Thirst could be introduced, with hunger taking more of a "debuff" role in terms of punishment, and not be reduced by sprinting/etc. Sprinting/etc would reduce thirst instead. Also, a dedicated sprint button (a-la Smart Moving), with variable sprint time based on how thirsty you are(n't).
-Ambiance is pretty lacking. Things like 2D backdrops, music that changes based on location (not constant music still), ambient noises (birds chirping, wind rushing, leaves rustling, etc), and other stuff could be added to remedy this.
-Villagers are really really underdeveloped. Perhaps add a more sim city-esque element of management and etc? Maybe have more races of villagers, too- some might be neutral still (Pigmen?), others that are openly hostile (Goblins), and other such things. Ways to infiltrate hostile villagers could be cool.
Just some stuff that's been loosely brought up, but not covered very much by the actual modding team and such as of yet.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse Premium2a totally agree 100%, in 2b for the suggestions I like alot of them but it's important that they would only work if you cannot change the difficulty mid-game which i definetly agree with, because you lose so much of that tension when you know you can always just turn it to peaceful.
totally agree with 3a, in 3b endermen I would think a better suggestion than encasing you would be to keep where they will freeze you in place, and teleport behind you and hit you from behind once and the knockback would release you from the freeze.
As a suggestion to add to biome spawning, you could expand on villagers of sorts, and at nordic warriors that have camps set up in taiga biomes another could be tribes and tribesmen in the jungle which poison you. And these guys would all use hand to hand combat and have weapons, these could be different types of villagers, or anything of the sorts, just throwing some ideas out there.
6a/6b I disagree here, I actually like the programmer art, and I don't use texture packs because I like how the textures feel very simple and even a bit flawed at times.
7a/7b I like this alot, I agree, and I just thought this was an interesting point to bring up.
by c0yote
I tried it with terrible results. I gave my wife my glasses for a second, a creeper showed up and now my wife is pregnant.
Stupid 3D..
BUT WHY YOU BASH ON BRONIES?!?!
Because he's being objective.
by c0yote
I tried it with terrible results. I gave my wife my glasses for a second, a creeper showed up and now my wife is pregnant.
Stupid 3D..
If one person can code a mod that boosts Minecraft's performance almost exponentially, then I'm sure Mojang is quite capable of hard-coding the same kind of improvements.
Also, your argument about "theoretical improvements" is kind of weak. Everything is a "theoretical improvement", like when someone makes a suggestion or when Mojang adds something to the game itself.
I assume your alluding to optifine? If so I'm glad it exists and that it helps people. But your statement is very general in nature and likely not based on any factual findings, numbers and likely truth. I'm sure that it has greatly helped SOME people with certain PC configurations, but certainly it doesn't help everyone 'almost exponentially'. I bet if I installed it on my PC I would realize a fractional increase in my FPS which is already very good.
My point is that's nothing about this thread is truly objective. You can 'SAY' all the things wrong with something and suggest improvements all day. But the reality is that nothing said is truly objective when discussing proposed improvements to a game not based on any kind of reality. The only real facts involved are that the code is going to do what it's programmed to do and that it has real limitiations. Otherwise the games reality and all facts in the game are defined by its creator. So what this topic is really about is someone who doesn't like the reality created and wants to define it himself. If others agree with him it doesn't make his statements any more factual, real, better, or quality. Proof is in the pudding. Lets see some pudding and we can all be critics of his work then. Perhaps if we got his game version we'd say it was crap or perhaps we'd think it was the best thing since sliced bread. Ideas, suggestions, concepts, are all just unrealized unproven thoughts.
by c0yote
I tried it with terrible results. I gave my wife my glasses for a second, a creeper showed up and now my wife is pregnant.
Stupid 3D..
I agreed with the vast majority of your points.
This topic really got me thinking
Optifine increased my performance substantially. And it's helped many others as well. That's proof enough that minecraft's optimization is sub-par, at best. Not everyone can afford a 1000$ computer.
At that very least, the only real problem with minecraft is the ease of survival. This needs increased, and for many reasons outlined in the OP. Many people agree, as do I. If Mojang is so into "fan-pandering" then they can create an entirely different game-type for the way survival is as of now. It's not about being objective; people support the ideas presented here, so why are they automatically discredited because "nothing can be objective"?