Don't get me wrong, I love minecraft, but it could be so much better and involving. It has the potential to be in the God-Tier of games and there's absolutely no reason why it shouldn't be.
Sadly, a lot of people already feel it is. This is why Mojang doesn't really put much effort into it- they can't really see HOW they can improve. Of course, if they read and thoroughly understood my post, I'm sure they'd get a few ideas. Regardless, I still want to make a mod to show that it's not only possible to improve Minecraft, but that you can improve it by a lot.
Also, curious of what you think of the remodeled Skeleton and Zombie AI in the 1.5 update.
I don't really touch snapshots/pre-release updates, but from what I've read, they seem pretty nice. I'm glad they're putting more effort into the AI- it's sorely needed.
I was putting off work for 1.5 (because it didn't seem that far away, and 1.4.6 and 1.4.7 made me not want to continuously port over code), and then of course, 1.5 got significantly delayed. Still, progress is always being made on the design front- both for overall design, and for small ideas on how to improve the game (AKA easy to implement things that I can and do throw in whenever I can).
If you had what you want, Minecraft wouldn't be Minecraft.
What makes Minecraft "Minecraft", then? To me, Minecraft is a game that was initially built upon the idea of survival & adventure in a fully interactive world, but then stopped going in that direction and then became just a game that has voxels and is really, really popular.
The moderators are well aware of this thread (they'd have to be blind to have not seen it by now). It's pretty loose, but the thread tackles the entire game mode of survival. It's not just suggestions- it's observations, criticisms, and discussion on the general game mode and how to make it better. It fits here more than anywhere else.
To me, Minecraft is a game that was initially built upon the idea of survival & adventure in a fully interactive world, but then stopped going in that direction and then became just a game that has voxels and is really, really popular.
I'm not sure if that's something worth keeping.
Something "really, really popular " is probably worth keeping. I have a hard time believing that you don't see the logic in that.
There will be plenty of room for a mod that takes everything a few steps further than what Mojang can do to their game. They need to balance the popular parts and introduce new things a little slower than you can do in a mod.
What they really need to do to improve the game is get the damn mod API out. They've been promising it forever, and just keep procrastinating. I like the changes to mob AI, I like the comparator, but all this stuff can be added by modders. Modders have already shown that they are capable of making additions that are just as good, if not better, than what Mojang can do. Extra BiomesXL and Biomes o' Plenty do biomes better than Mojang. Aether, Twilight Forest, and Better Dungeons tackle the exploration side of the game nicely, certainly better than vanilla dungeons, or the End(In my opinion). Mojang can make cool stuff, like the comparator, but given the game's massive fanbase, they can do things that Mojang doesn't have the time to. I'm pretty certain that the whole reason that people enjoy the game is the community. Remember the post on here a while back about how many posts were made about mods? The ability to play Minecraft your own way is a major drawing point. Why hasn't the ability to play the game your own way by choosing what you have in your world been added?
Sorry, I just needed to get all that off my chest. I hope that made sense.
There will be plenty of room for a mod that takes everything a few steps further than what Mojang can do to their game. They need to balance the popular parts and introduce new things a little slower than you can do in a mod.
Except for, you know, they continuously break mods to add content that modders could easily have added in a much shorter time frame. The main things modders can't do are things like
-Rewriting the lighting engine
-Rewriting the chunk logic
-Rewriting the netcode
-Rewriting the rendering system
-Making a properly built-in mod API
Mojang hasn't done one of these since release. At most, they fix a few bugs here and there relating to those systems- but they opt out of adding that to instead add stuff like:
-Cats
-Witches
-Jungles
-"Temples" that are static and essentially are free diamond machines
-Lamps
and plenty of other generic content that modders can add (and often have). Don't get me wrong- some of the updates have been nice (AI improvements), but they come at such a snail's pace because they add in content that modders could've easily added. Mojang needs to work on the technical parts- the things modders can't do. The things I listed above, which would help make the game a much better base engine for others to work off of- instead of continuously breaking mods every few weeks because they still end up with game-breaking bugs even after having snapshots.
What they really need to do to improve the game is get the damn mod API out. They've been promising it forever, and just keep procrastinating. I like the changes to mob AI, I like the comparator, but all this stuff can be added by modders. Modders have already shown that they are capable of making additions that are just as good, if not better, than what Mojang can do. Extra BiomesXL and Biomes o' Plenty do biomes better than Mojang. Aether, Twilight Forest, and Better Dungeons tackle the exploration side of the game nicely, certainly better than vanilla dungeons, or the End(In my opinion). Mojang can make cool stuff, like the comparator, but given the game's massive fanbase, they can do things that Mojang doesn't have the time to. I'm pretty certain that the whole reason that people enjoy the game is the community. Remember the post on here a while back about how many posts were made about mods? The ability to play Minecraft your own way is a major drawing point. Why hasn't the ability to play the game your own way by choosing what you have in your world been added?
Sorry, I just needed to get all that off my chest. I hope that made sense.
Amen. We're getting the API in 1.6- at the earliest. That's utterly shameful.
"Probably" is the key word here. There's nothing that says "if something is popular, it MUST be good!".
Yes, that's exactly what it means. It's very good. That doesn't mean that its popularity will last forever, but when so many players play a game for so long, then it is good. Very good.
Yes, that's exactly what it means. It's very good. That doesn't mean that its popularity will last forever, but when so many players play a game for so long, then it is good. Very good.
I hate bringing out these cliche examples, but
-Does that mean Twilight is a good series of books?
-Does that mean FIFA and Madden are good games?
-Does that mean Justin Bieber is a good musician?
I hate bringing out these cliche examples, but
-Does that mean Twilight is a good series of books?
-Does that mean FIFA and Madden are good games?
-Does that mean Justin Bieber is a good musician?
Argumentum ad populum.
Let me rephrase then. Minecraft is a game that in it's current form is enjoyed by many players. Making changes that are too large will upset this base. It can't be predicted if any change will cause bad influence or good influence on said base so it's generally best to take things slow.
With "Very good" I don't talk about code quality, design, difficulty or any single technical quality mark you might pick. I'm talking about the fact that the game has a high entertainment value for a lot of players. In this context the answers to your questions above would all be "yes".
Minecraft didn't win it's rewards for the technical achievements. Good game balance or craftsmanship on any level. I think every review of the game complained about the same things as you do, but they still gave it the highest score.
Let me rephrase then. Minecraft is a game that in it's current form is enjoyed by many players. Making changes that are too large will upset this base.
See: Point #7 of my rant. This holds back the game immensely. People who play and "enjoy" a game because of "iconic" things essentially play it because it's a fad. They will jump ship once the next best thing comes out. They are not the types of fans you want, as you end up driving yourself straight into the ground after long enough. Building a decent product to gain core followers who stick with you because you make an actually good game is a lot better than appealing to the lowest common denominator.
It can't be predicted if any change will cause bad influence or good influence on said base so it's generally best to take things slow.
Every single update always has somebody complaining. Every single one. I would rather they make something good and annoy some people, than take it extremely slow and add content that modders could have (and frequently already have) added and still upset people.
With "Very good" I don't talk about code quality, design, difficulty or any single technical quality mark you might pick. I'm talking about the fact that the game has a high entertainment value for a lot of players. In this context the answers to your questions above would all be "yes".
Entertainment value =/= "good". You can say it's entertaining, fun, whatever- that doesn't make up for the lack of everything else. Especially given how much potential Minecraft has (as a game). Appealing to the masses because it makes you money is just the epitome of greedy. Especially when you can be lazy about it- that's two vices in one.
Minecraft didn't win it's rewards for the technical achievements. Good game balance or craftsmanship on any level. I think every review of the game complained about the same things as you do, but they still gave it the highest score.
Congratulations on discovering why modern "gaming journalism" is a joke. They don't review anything critically.
Entertainment value =/= "good". You can say it's entertaining, fun, whatever- that doesn't make up for the lack of everything else. Especially given how much potential Minecraft has (as a game). Appealing to the masses because it makes you money is just the epitome of greedy. Especially when you can be lazy about it- that's two vices in one.
Entertainment value is the point of any game. Improved quality will improve entertainment value, but unfortunately for you isn't the most important aspect beyond a certain minimum level. Minecraft unfortunately is just barely above that minimum level when it comes to entity behavior.
Maybe mass-appeal for money is greedy. How about appealing to the masses because you want to make as many people happy as possible? They are succeeding at this, and good for them.
I am not choosing sides here, at least I hope I'm not, and I will at least put my input of what I think.
You can't make everyone happy, and trying to appeal to everyone will create complexity that no game will ever need. Complexity is good, depending on your point of view, but too much just complicates things. Right now, we are discussing the decisions Jeb has made concerning the updates of Minecraft, and what people think of it as good or bad. Really, in order to determine a person's personality you need to know their actions and why they do it, and then look at the big picture. What the current developer (Jeb) is doing is adding some slight modifications to the game at a snail's pace. The idea is if this is a good path for Minecraft to take.
One could argue that they wish to appeal to an unsavory minority who clings to things "old" Minecraft is about. Others could say that they wish to make changes small and to allow people to choose whether they like it or not and to preserve Minecraft's feel. Ex: Not making radical changes to the features already in the game. Either way, this is putting a positive and negative connotation to a similar statement: "The game 'Minecraft' is being updated with small additions and preventing changes to features already in the game besides bug fixes. So we have the action, but now the motive is still at large and how it is interpreted will determine how one will think of Minecraft's path; do mind that desipte this the Big Picture is still needed. Is this really the best way progress Minecraft? Let's think about the statement I just made.
Now, how one views this statement depends on the entertainment value of the game and how it is affected with each change, and I will agree that the entertainment value of a game is the point of a game, but the more they increase certain things like code quality, it will make things better in the long run. The entertainment value is entirely subjective and is determined by how one finds appeal to a game. Now, with this in mind, using the entertainment value of Minecraft to discuss whether or not it should have updates to pre-existing things such as mobs or the learning curve at the start of the game will be difficult as it is entirely subject to opinions, even if you could argue about those things in a different context. Do you like salty, or sweet treats? There is no way to get one side to become superior to another, but will salty or sweet treats get you more money if you were to distribute them in a certain place or way? THIS can be decided and is fact depending on what the preferences are for the people in that place. So? Whether or not they update some core parts of the game, it will be subject to opinion. However, if it will be good for the game in the long run is up for debate. However, let's think about the reasons Minecraft was so likable in the first place.
One thing that Minecraft was liked for was that almost everything was optional. You don't need a bed, you don't need potions, and you don't need mobs to enjoy the game; plus the things that are unavoidable aren't that much of a hassle to deal with. Yet, one might wonder if they could improve the core features that are unavoidable (Smart Moving, etc.) and see how the players like it. One could say that it might anger and disrupt the base for detracting from the origins of the game, while others might claim that this will improve it a lot more with many core features being fleshed out much more. What happens will depend on what they change and how they do it. Like buffing the AI of existing mobs or perhaps making the Enderdragon more of a threat. All in all, how the impact of the game and its entertainment changes depends on the opinion and values of the players; and that while certain updates to the core of the game will be nice, it will ultimately depend on how they take such an update, and if they are willing to risk some of their players to appease the ones willing to remain and make the game more enjoyable to their experiences.
Thanks for reading, and please take what I say with a grain of salt.
Entertainment value is the point of any game. Improved quality will improve entertainment value, but unfortunately for you isn't the most important aspect beyond a certain minimum level. Minecraft unfortunately is just barely above that minimum level when it comes to entity behavior.
Entertainment value certainly needs to be there, but when it's all you have, then it just ends up becoming a fad game of sorts (see: Tony Hawk series, Call of Duty, basically any game by Activision that gets milked to death... so, any game by Activision). I'm not one of those types who's all about "VIDEO GAMES SHOULD ALL BE ARTISTIC, HURR", but there's something to be said about the difference in games that only deliver "fun" or the like in the forms of extremely shallow and borderline (if not outright) addicting gameplay, and games that have more to them than just that (Legend of Zelda series, The Elder Scrolls II & III etc).
Minecraft falls into the former category, when it could easily fall into the latter. Games in the latter category can, obviously, still be very profitable- so it's not like it's even a bad business decision.
Maybe mass-appeal for money is greedy. How about appealing to the masses because you want to make as many people happy as possible? They are succeeding at this, and good for them.
It's much more complex than saying "well there's this percentage of people who are happy and those who are not", or something. I would say attempting to appeal to the masses to make as many people as happy as possible is a fallacy- you simply can't make everyone happy, and your product will end up hurting in the end.
You can't make everyone happy, and trying to appeal to everyone will create complexity that no game will ever need. Complexity is good, depending on your point of view, but too much just complicates things.
Complexity isn't inherently bad- it's how that complexity is presented that matters. If the game is immediately complex and boggles your mind upon starting the game to the point that you need to be a wizard to understand it almost immediately (see: Dwarf Fortress), then you've done something wrong. However, if you have a fairly simple game structure to begin with, yet deep gameplay mechanics and rich amounts of content, then you'll end up with a pretty nice game.
Right now, we are discussing the decisions Jeb has made concerning the updates of Minecraft, and what people think of it as good or bad. Really, in order to determine a person's personality you need to know their actions and why they do it, and then look at the big picture. What the current developer (Jeb) is doing is adding some slight modifications to the game at a snail's pace. The idea is if this is a good path for Minecraft to take.
I don't think taking somebody's "personality" into account really matters. What they do is what matters.
One could argue that they wish to appeal to an unsavory minority who clings to things "old" Minecraft is about. Others could say that they wish to make changes small and to allow people to choose whether they like it or not and to preserve Minecraft's feel. Ex: Not making radical changes to the features already in the game. Either way, this is putting a positive and negative connotation to a similar statement: "The game 'Minecraft' is being updated with small additions and preventing changes to features already in the game besides bug fixes. So we have the action, but now the motive is still at large and how it is interpreted will determine how one will think of Minecraft's path; do mind that desipte this the Big Picture is still needed. Is this really the best way progress Minecraft? Let's think about the statement I just made.
Now, how one views this statement depends on the entertainment value of the game and how it is affected with each change, and I will agree that the entertainment value of a game is the point of a game, but the more they increase certain things like code quality, it will make things better in the long run. The entertainment value is entirely subjective and is determined by how one finds appeal to a game. Now, with this in mind, using the entertainment value of Minecraft to discuss whether or not it should have updates to pre-existing things such as mobs or the learning curve at the start of the game will be difficult as it is entirely subject to opinions, even if you could argue about those things in a different context. Do you like salty, or sweet treats? There is no way to get one side to become superior to another, but will salty or sweet treats get you more money if you were to distribute them in a certain place or way? THIS can be decided and is fact depending on what the preferences are for the people in that place. So? Whether or not they update some core parts of the game, it will be subject to opinion. However, if it will be good for the game in the long run is up for debate.
Yeah. I think- at the moment- they seem to be appealing to their biggest userbase currently, which is the extremely casual gamer who genuinely thinks "Call of Duty" is a "hardcore game" or something. The thing is, this would be like- to take your analogy- selling only salty treats to a demographic (video game players, in this analogy) that likes both salty and sweet treats. Sure, you'll make money, but why not sell both?
Now, I'm sure somebody will say "But selling a salty and sweet treat would taste disgusting!". That's why you don't throw multiple game mechanics all at the player at once and let them figure things out (like it currently is). You split the game up into noticeable categories- the casual player can have creative mode, and the more dedicated player (or just somebody who wants an actual game with proper challenges) would have survival mode. Well, that, and even the casual player could still find enjoyment in survival, if done as I suggested- they wouldn't be immediately bombarded by mobs as soon as it turns nighttime, for example.
Also, I have to agree that entertainment value is subjective, which is why it's silly to try and pin it to some magical scale to judge whether or not Minecraft is going in a good direction or not. Especially since it inevitably leads to argumentum ad populum.
However, let's think about the reasons Minecraft was so likable in the first place.
One thing that Minecraft was liked for was that almost everything was optional. You don't need a bed, you don't need potions, and you don't need mobs to enjoy the game; plus the things that are unavoidable aren't that much of a hassle to deal with. Yet, one might wonder if they could improve the core features that are unavoidable (Smart Moving, etc.) and see how the players like it. One could say that it might anger and disrupt the base for detracting from the origins of the game, while others might claim that this will improve it a lot more with many core features being fleshed out much more. What happens will depend on what they change and how they do it. Like buffing the AI of existing mobs or perhaps making the Enderdragon more of a threat. All in all, how the impact of the game and its entertainment changes depends on the opinion and values of the players; and that while certain updates to the core of the game will be nice, it will ultimately depend on how they take such an update, and if they are willing to risk some of their players to appease the ones willing to remain and make the game more enjoyable to their experiences.
I would say it comes down to who you want to appeal to- those who want an actually good game, or those who are easily pleased.
Sadly, the latter is of course easier to make money with.
Entertainment value certainly needs to be there, but when it's all you have, then it just ends up becoming a fad game of sorts (see: Tony Hawk series, Call of Duty, basically any game by Activision that gets milked to death... so, any game by Activision). I'm not one of those types who's all about "VIDEO GAMES SHOULD ALL BE ARTISTIC, HURR", but there's something to be said about the difference in games that only deliver "fun" or the like in the forms of extremely shallow and borderline (if not outright) addicting gameplay, and games that have more to them than just that (Legend of Zelda series, The Elder Scrolls II & III etc).
Minecraft falls into the former category, when it could easily fall into the latter. Games in the latter category can, obviously, still be very profitable- so it's not like it's even a bad business decision.
Yeah. I think- at the moment- they seem to be appealing to their biggest userbase currently, which is the extremely casual gamer who genuinely thinks "Call of Duty" is a "hardcore game" or something. The thing is, this would be like- to take your analogy- selling only salty treats to a demographic (video game players, in this analogy) that likes both salty and sweet treats. Sure, you'll make money, but why not sell both?
I would say it comes down to who you want to appeal to- those who want an actually good game, or those who are easily pleased.
Sadly, the latter is of course easier to make money with.
I contend that minecraft is an actual good game, just not the kind you want to play. No seriously: It has excellent gameplay, Some aspects of the play are less excellent, such as combat, but that's not the key aspect of minecraft. I understand you wish certain kinds of improvements be made like Smart Moving, but I'd be worried that goes against what most people want in this game. They like that it's not very complicated, that it's left-click to hit, right-click to use, and simple direction movement. Clearly you want something more, but that doesn't necessarily fit the sandbox.
I don't know what you mean when you say Zelda is deep and minecraft is shallow. Zelda is a quest-oriented game, and minecraft is a building game. You could make a Zelda world in minecraft. Obviously the combat system and the story presentation wouldn't be as good because minecraft isn't focused on that. But you couldn't do Minecraft in Zelda, could you?
No seriously: It has excellent gameplay, Some aspects of the play are less excellent, such as combat, but that's not the key aspect of minecraft.
Then what makes it "excellent"? Excellent is pretty high praise for something, so I'd imagine you have a lot to back it up. Combat is almost the focus of survival mode (Mobs existing, XP, enchanting, an end-game boss fight), yet it falls incredibly short. The only things Minecraft has going for it are:
-Redstone
-Fully transformable terrain
That's about it. It's not really "building" because you don't have any physics to work with, and structures serve virtually no purpose other than to keep mobs out (you can have a long corridor full of everything you need, and it'd serve same function as a cathedral). As a 3D painting tool, it also falls flat- there's no extra functions, just place and remove 1 block at a time. Would you consider "paint" good for 2D painting if you could only place and remove 1 pixel at a time? Certainly not.
Even its positives don't really work within the game. Redstone contraptions are pretty much only useful in the game for convenience (or for making ridiculous things to show off). Traps are hardly needed, because mobs are laughably simple and lacking. Things like automated farming are nice, but again- convenience.
As for fully changeable terrain, again- there's no real physics in the game, and no real mining methods outside of removing blocks one at a time. Everything feels dull and lifeless- trees are just blocks placed in a certain formation, caves are just holes into the ground... it's all so simple and lacking in design. There could be so much more.
I understand you wish certain kinds of improvements be made like Smart Moving, but I'd be worried that goes against what most people want in this game. They like that it's not very complicated, that it's left-click to hit, right-click to use, and simple direction movement.
Clearly you want something more, but that doesn't necessarily fit the sandbox.
Why do people assume "sandbox" must mean "incredibly simple and lacking in design"? The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind is a sandbox game. Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas is a sandbox game. Red Dead Redemption is a sandbox game. Dwarf Fortress is a sandbox game (and is honestly the definitive sandbox game). Do they lack content? Are they not sandbox games because they have actual content? Absolutely not.
Sticking to a (false) definition of sandbox is bad on principle, anyway. Even if "sandbox" meant "completely devoid of content", why is that okay? Because a lot of people like it? Once more, argumentum ad populum.
Zelda is a quest-oriented game, and minecraft is a building game. You could make a Zelda world in minecraft. Obviously the combat system and the story presentation wouldn't be as good because minecraft isn't focused on that. But you couldn't do Minecraft in Zelda, could you?
What does that have to do with depth of content? What does that even mean? Yes, you can't "do Minecraft in Zelda", but you can't "do" Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare in Minecraft, either. Does that mean Minecraft has less depth than CoD4? Does that mean CoD4 is a better game? Does that mean anything at all? The answer is "no" to all.
I find point by point discussion in a forum leads nowhere because it's too big a topic to discuss everything at once. So I shall focus on this:
Then what makes it "excellent"? Excellent is pretty high praise for something, so I'd imagine you have a lot to back it up. Combat is almost the focus of survival mode (Mobs existing, XP, enchanting, an end-game boss fight), yet it falls incredibly short.
I think you miss here. The focus of survival mode is NOT combat, but resource gathering. The idea is to make a game of getting stuff and to provide small obstacles that encourage players to get better equipment so they can be more efficient at gathering. Consider each thing you cite as combat oriented and think instead about how they make resource gathering more interesting. This is why XP is for both ores and mob killing, and why XP is used to make better tools for getting more.
It's also why combat isn't hard. They want people to succeed in getting resources, and want them to become pros at getting more faster. The End exists only to provide an ultimate goal for all the resource collection, to give people a drive to move forward, but not for combat. The whole dragon thing is stupid but they don't work on it because that isn't important to them. Providing things to collect and build with is what matters. Challenges in gathering is important. Difficulty in combat is secondary.
As a collect to build game, survival minecraft has extremely lasting play value.
I contend that minecraft is an actual good game, just not the kind you want to play. No seriously: It has excellent gameplay, Some aspects of the play are less excellent, such as combat, but that's not the key aspect of minecraft. I understand you wish certain kinds of improvements be made like Smart Moving, but I'd be worried that goes against what most people want in this game. They like that it's not very complicated, that it's left-click to hit, right-click to use, and simple direction movement. Clearly you want something more, but that doesn't necessarily fit the sandbox.
I don't know what you mean when you say Zelda is deep and minecraft is shallow. Zelda is a quest-oriented game, and minecraft is a building game. You could make a Zelda world in minecraft. Obviously the combat system and the story presentation wouldn't be as good because minecraft isn't focused on that. But you couldn't do Minecraft in Zelda, could you?
Complexity actually makes things more interesting and engaging, it is only in overdoses that it becomes a bad thing (like anything else). Besides, Smart Moving is actually not complicated at all and easy to use. It adds interest to movement and navigating around the world.
Zelda is not a quest-oriented game, I don't even know where that description came from.
Yes, you can make Hyrule or Termina or any other Zelda place in Minecraft. Most people that actually do anything on a large scale, however, mod their clients heavily (shaders to make it look pretty, WorldBuilder to actually place and remove more than a single block at a time, other mods to add blocks, etc). In vanilla, trying to do such feats is near madness. In this sense, vanilla Minecraft fails to do even what it's made for: a building game. (Also, said feats are almost always done in creative mode as well.)
No, you can not do Minecraft in Zelda. That is because Zelda is an action-adventure. However, It does excellently at being itself, unlike Minecraft.
I think you miss here. The focus of survival mode is NOT combat, but resource gathering. The idea is to make a game of getting stuff and to provide small obstacles that encourage players to get better equipment so they can be more efficient at gathering. Consider each thing you cite as combat oriented and think instead about how they make resource gathering more interesting. This is why XP is for both ores and mob killing, and why XP is used to make better tools for getting more.
It's also why combat isn't hard. They want people to succeed in getting resources, and want them to become pros at getting more faster. The End exists only to provide an ultimate goal for all the resource collection, to give people a drive to move forward, but not for combat. The whole dragon thing is stupid but they don't work on it because that isn't important to them. Providing things to collect and build with is what matters. Challenges in gathering is important. Difficulty in combat is secondary.
As a collect to build game, survival minecraft has extremely lasting play value.
If the game is about resource gathering, then why are all the methods of gathering subpar? For simplicity? See above. There is nothing to fishing, nothing to combat, nothing to mining/block gathering (and you can only do it one block at a time), and so forth. For the collective overall of resource gathering, these ARE important! Combat IS important, as are the other methods. You don't get anywhere in survival without combat (and farming and other things), yet combat and everything else is mind-numbingly undeveloped.
While I'm at it, here's a fun fact: The argument is that because Minecraft's focus is a building game, it does not need its side aspects to actually have anything to it. Since Zelda has been brought up, might I point out that even in games such as Zelda, side aspects are given complexity? It is an action-adventure, but it does not leave other aspects to be rubbish just because that is not the focus. There are mini-games and sidequests strewn about (which are not the main beef of the game, thank you very much, and are hardly so much quests as they are mini-stories).
For example, some Zelda games have fishing. Zelda is NOT a fishing game, but this doesn't stop Zelda from making the mini-game an absolute addiction by making it more than:
1. Throw out rod
2. Pull back rod at right time and get fish
No, in Zelda, you need to be choosy about where you cast your line (and in the case of Twilight Princess, consider the season). You need to be patient. You can see the shadows of fish. You need to try waiting or luring them in. When you snag them, you need to react in a timely manner and struggle to pull them in. You have different baits and can catch differently sized fish. They go into a fishing journal in Twilight Princess, even.
You know what does the two steps of fishing I mentioned? That's right, Minecraft. Because Minecraft leaves itself and its other aspects half-baked.
Frustrations =/= challenges, by the way. Similarily, complexity =/= difficulty.
Lastly: The dragon is more or less the only content to The End. By admitting the dragon is stupid (which, it is), that is saying The End is stupid (which, it is). The End is a rather pathetic at an ultimate goal/end-game. The block does not really serve a purpose, and the only thing dropped by the ugly dragon cannot even be used. There is practically no point to even go to The End other than, perhaps, an ender pearl farm (which you already needed to farm to get there in survival anyway). The only other reason to go is this false sense of having achieved something where there is nothing.
I find point by point discussion in a forum leads nowhere because it's too big a topic to discuss everything at once. So I shall focus on this:
Point-by-point discussion is precisely what makes forums great for discussing things. That's why things like the multi-quote function exist. Would you prefer face-to-face discussion, where forgetfulness and who talks louder plays a bigger role?
I think you miss here. The focus of survival mode is NOT combat, but resource gathering. The idea is to make a game of getting stuff and to provide small obstacles that encourage players to get better equipment so they can be more efficient at gathering. Consider each thing you cite as combat oriented and think instead about how they make resource gathering more interesting. This is why XP is for both ores and mob killing, and why XP is used to make better tools for getting more.
There's more enchantments for weapons and armor than there are for tools. Also, what's the point of resource gathering if the entire point of those resources is to get more resources? Furthermore, why are mobs everywhere and why do things like critical hits exist if it's not combat focused?
Lastly, even if it is focused on "resource gathering", why does that mean the combat and everything else needs to be so under-developed? As Izalveri put it, just because a game is focused on something doesn't mean its other aspects need to suffer.
Besides, resource gathering itself is under-developed. You can only break blocks one at a time (even for trees!), farming is stupidly simple (place item>wait for it to grow>harvest>repeat), there's next to nothing to collect in the underground, etc. The only resources that are worth getting are the ones to help you get better equipment... which is the same crap as grinding for gear on World of Warcraft, or something. I shouldn't have to explain why this is a bad thing.
It's also why combat isn't hard. They want people to succeed in getting resources, and want them to become pros at getting more faster.
It's less about combat being "hard" or not, and more about the complete lack of depth to it. You just click. That's it. There's nothing more to it than that. You click a lot, and stuff happens. That's the same crap as "PRESS X TO WIN" seen so frequently in modern games. At its best, it's hand holding- at its worst, they seriously can't think of a better system than that, which is just shameful.
The whole dragon thing is stupid but they don't work on it because that isn't important to them. Providing things to collect and build with is what matters. Challenges in gathering is important. Difficulty in combat is secondary.
And yet Minecraft still has none of those. There's virtually nothing to collect, the challenge is little to none, and difficulty is still lacking.
As a collect to build game, survival minecraft has extremely lasting play value.
But again, there's nothing to collect, and building is stupidly simple. Once you have access to cobblestone, congratulations- you have the most effective building material in the entire game. So there goes the whole idea of "building" past simply making something look cool. And if that's all you care about, that's what creative is for.
In my experience, debating point by point just leads to a proliferation of points. If you want to get anywhere you need to focus on one or two points and discuss until there is understanding. Yes I would prefer face to face conversations, because then when I say something and you disagree you can interrupt me before I build point on point of invalid statements on top of the initial invalid statement. I'm making sense in my own mind, but if you don't get the same sense, all the detailed discussion is irrelevant.
"Also, what's the point of resource gathering if the entire point of those resources is to get more resources? Furthermore, why are mobs everywhere and why do things like critical hits exist if it's not combat focused?"
The point of resource gathering is to use those resources in building things. Mobs exist to make the process more interesting, and critical hits also add interest. It's not the focus, but it definitely adds to the game versus not having mobs.
What I care about is having to "work for my supper". Those who just like building will use creative. Those who want a whole experience of finding in order to build, and building with what's been found use survival. So don't say there's nothing to collect because that's just wrong. A lot of people like interesting structures and the challenge of acquiring resources to create them.
Me, I'm a little different. I like the game physics, as simple as it is, and the challenge of using those physics to make things happen. The mobs and hazards of minecraft give an interesting environment to play with that physics. For me, creative play is boring.
In my experience, debating point by point just leads to a proliferation of points. If you want to get anywhere you need to focus on one or two points and discuss until there is understanding.
If you're only discussing core points, sure- but then this might lead to one person believing they're attacking a core point, when in reality they're just scraping the surface. It might lead to a huge, expanded discussion if you do things quote-by-quote, but this isn't really a bad thing. At worst, you're grasping at straws for a number of points, but still address a core point somewhere in your post. You have all the time in the world to follow what's going on.
The point of resource gathering is to use those resources in building things.
But there isn't really anything to build. Once you have a shelter, that's really about all you need. Sure, you can build traps... but by the time you've fought off enough mobs to get the needed redstone and such, you'd likely have access to enough iron for a full set of armor (it's only 24 ingots). Anything past the basic cobblestone (or even wood) shelter is superfluous. The thing is, it doesn't have to be- there actually is so much more you can add to make building a lot more interesting and interactive. That's what I'm suggesting. That's what I've been suggesting.
Mobs exist to make the process more interesting, and critical hits also add interest. It's not the focus, but it definitely adds to the game versus not having mobs.
If it wasn't the focus, it'd be avoidable, then- but it isn't. It's virtually impossible to avoid combat in Minecraft (and literally impossible if you ever want to "complete" Minecraft...). Besides, again, even if that is the case, what would be wrong with making combat more interesting and interactive? Not D&D or Dwarf Fortress levels of complex- just a little bit more than rapidly clicking with the same animations over and over and over again.
What I care about is having to "work for my supper". Those who just like building will use creative. Those who want a whole experience of finding in order to build, and building with what's been found use survival. So don't say there's nothing to collect because that's just wrong. A lot of people like interesting structures and the challenge of acquiring resources to create them.
But again, there isn't really much to build with, or much to build other than just making cool looking things. It's all superfluous. I'm suggesting they add more to the building- more to find, more to explore, more to experience.
Also, when I say there's "nothing to collect", I don't mean it literally. Look at Terraria- it has so much more to collect and build with, and building isn't even the focus! Minecraft has the development team, the community power, and just so much more resources to work with- but it forgoes all of that. And for what? To keep it "simple"? To appease extremely easy to please people? We could have so much more- why are we letting people like that hold this game back from its true potential?
Me, I'm a little different. I like the game physics, as simple as it is, and the challenge of using those physics to make things happen. The mobs and hazards of minecraft give an interesting environment to play with that physics. For me, creative play is boring.
But there are no physics. They offer literally no physics to work with at all- it's just place and remove. Sand and gravel is the only thing remotely resembling physics. That's not a challenge- that's a complete lack of challenge.
And again, I'm suggesting they add more to make it more interesting. No, I don't mean tacking on mobs, making it needlessly harder, or etc- I don't want Mo' Creatures. But if you had read my initial post, you'd understand that.
I'm not saying Minecraft needs to completely destroy itself and then start over again. I'm saying virtually everything needs to be expanded upon- because virtually everything is extremely simple (to a fault), poorly thought out, and almost entirely lacking in cohesiveness.
Sadly, a lot of people already feel it is. This is why Mojang doesn't really put much effort into it- they can't really see HOW they can improve. Of course, if they read and thoroughly understood my post, I'm sure they'd get a few ideas. Regardless, I still want to make a mod to show that it's not only possible to improve Minecraft, but that you can improve it by a lot.
I don't really touch snapshots/pre-release updates, but from what I've read, they seem pretty nice. I'm glad they're putting more effort into the AI- it's sorely needed.
I was putting off work for 1.5 (because it didn't seem that far away, and 1.4.6 and 1.4.7 made me not want to continuously port over code), and then of course, 1.5 got significantly delayed. Still, progress is always being made on the design front- both for overall design, and for small ideas on how to improve the game (AKA easy to implement things that I can and do throw in whenever I can).
What makes Minecraft "Minecraft", then? To me, Minecraft is a game that was initially built upon the idea of survival & adventure in a fully interactive world, but then stopped going in that direction and then became just a game that has voxels and is really, really popular.
I'm not sure if that's something worth keeping.
The moderators are well aware of this thread (they'd have to be blind to have not seen it by now). It's pretty loose, but the thread tackles the entire game mode of survival. It's not just suggestions- it's observations, criticisms, and discussion on the general game mode and how to make it better. It fits here more than anywhere else.
Something "really, really popular " is probably worth keeping. I have a hard time believing that you don't see the logic in that.
There will be plenty of room for a mod that takes everything a few steps further than what Mojang can do to their game. They need to balance the popular parts and introduce new things a little slower than you can do in a mod.
Sorry, I just needed to get all that off my chest. I hope that made sense.
"Probably" is the key word here. There's nothing that says "if something is popular, it MUST be good!". Plenty of popular things are awful.
Except for, you know, they continuously break mods to add content that modders could easily have added in a much shorter time frame. The main things modders can't do are things like
-Rewriting the lighting engine
-Rewriting the chunk logic
-Rewriting the netcode
-Rewriting the rendering system
-Making a properly built-in mod API
Mojang hasn't done one of these since release. At most, they fix a few bugs here and there relating to those systems- but they opt out of adding that to instead add stuff like:
-Cats
-Witches
-Jungles
-"Temples" that are static and essentially are free diamond machines
-Lamps
and plenty of other generic content that modders can add (and often have). Don't get me wrong- some of the updates have been nice (AI improvements), but they come at such a snail's pace because they add in content that modders could've easily added. Mojang needs to work on the technical parts- the things modders can't do. The things I listed above, which would help make the game a much better base engine for others to work off of- instead of continuously breaking mods every few weeks because they still end up with game-breaking bugs even after having snapshots.
Amen. We're getting the API in 1.6- at the earliest. That's utterly shameful.
Yes, that's exactly what it means. It's very good. That doesn't mean that its popularity will last forever, but when so many players play a game for so long, then it is good. Very good.
I hate bringing out these cliche examples, but
-Does that mean Twilight is a good series of books?
-Does that mean FIFA and Madden are good games?
-Does that mean Justin Bieber is a good musician?
Argumentum ad populum.
Let me rephrase then. Minecraft is a game that in it's current form is enjoyed by many players. Making changes that are too large will upset this base. It can't be predicted if any change will cause bad influence or good influence on said base so it's generally best to take things slow.
With "Very good" I don't talk about code quality, design, difficulty or any single technical quality mark you might pick. I'm talking about the fact that the game has a high entertainment value for a lot of players. In this context the answers to your questions above would all be "yes".
Minecraft didn't win it's rewards for the technical achievements. Good game balance or craftsmanship on any level. I think every review of the game complained about the same things as you do, but they still gave it the highest score.
See: Point #7 of my rant. This holds back the game immensely. People who play and "enjoy" a game because of "iconic" things essentially play it because it's a fad. They will jump ship once the next best thing comes out. They are not the types of fans you want, as you end up driving yourself straight into the ground after long enough. Building a decent product to gain core followers who stick with you because you make an actually good game is a lot better than appealing to the lowest common denominator.
Every single update always has somebody complaining. Every single one. I would rather they make something good and annoy some people, than take it extremely slow and add content that modders could have (and frequently already have) added and still upset people.
Entertainment value =/= "good". You can say it's entertaining, fun, whatever- that doesn't make up for the lack of everything else. Especially given how much potential Minecraft has (as a game). Appealing to the masses because it makes you money is just the epitome of greedy. Especially when you can be lazy about it- that's two vices in one.
Congratulations on discovering why modern "gaming journalism" is a joke. They don't review anything critically.
Entertainment value is the point of any game. Improved quality will improve entertainment value, but unfortunately for you isn't the most important aspect beyond a certain minimum level. Minecraft unfortunately is just barely above that minimum level when it comes to entity behavior.
Maybe mass-appeal for money is greedy. How about appealing to the masses because you want to make as many people happy as possible? They are succeeding at this, and good for them.
My thread: Life as a Nomadic Trapper: http://www.minecraftforum.net/topic/1664475-my-life-as-a-nomadic-trapper
You can't make everyone happy, and trying to appeal to everyone will create complexity that no game will ever need. Complexity is good, depending on your point of view, but too much just complicates things. Right now, we are discussing the decisions Jeb has made concerning the updates of Minecraft, and what people think of it as good or bad. Really, in order to determine a person's personality you need to know their actions and why they do it, and then look at the big picture. What the current developer (Jeb) is doing is adding some slight modifications to the game at a snail's pace. The idea is if this is a good path for Minecraft to take.
One could argue that they wish to appeal to an unsavory minority who clings to things "old" Minecraft is about. Others could say that they wish to make changes small and to allow people to choose whether they like it or not and to preserve Minecraft's feel. Ex: Not making radical changes to the features already in the game. Either way, this is putting a positive and negative connotation to a similar statement: "The game 'Minecraft' is being updated with small additions and preventing changes to features already in the game besides bug fixes. So we have the action, but now the motive is still at large and how it is interpreted will determine how one will think of Minecraft's path; do mind that desipte this the Big Picture is still needed. Is this really the best way progress Minecraft? Let's think about the statement I just made.
Now, how one views this statement depends on the entertainment value of the game and how it is affected with each change, and I will agree that the entertainment value of a game is the point of a game, but the more they increase certain things like code quality, it will make things better in the long run. The entertainment value is entirely subjective and is determined by how one finds appeal to a game. Now, with this in mind, using the entertainment value of Minecraft to discuss whether or not it should have updates to pre-existing things such as mobs or the learning curve at the start of the game will be difficult as it is entirely subject to opinions, even if you could argue about those things in a different context. Do you like salty, or sweet treats? There is no way to get one side to become superior to another, but will salty or sweet treats get you more money if you were to distribute them in a certain place or way? THIS can be decided and is fact depending on what the preferences are for the people in that place. So? Whether or not they update some core parts of the game, it will be subject to opinion. However, if it will be good for the game in the long run is up for debate. However, let's think about the reasons Minecraft was so likable in the first place.
One thing that Minecraft was liked for was that almost everything was optional. You don't need a bed, you don't need potions, and you don't need mobs to enjoy the game; plus the things that are unavoidable aren't that much of a hassle to deal with. Yet, one might wonder if they could improve the core features that are unavoidable (Smart Moving, etc.) and see how the players like it. One could say that it might anger and disrupt the base for detracting from the origins of the game, while others might claim that this will improve it a lot more with many core features being fleshed out much more. What happens will depend on what they change and how they do it. Like buffing the AI of existing mobs or perhaps making the Enderdragon more of a threat. All in all, how the impact of the game and its entertainment changes depends on the opinion and values of the players; and that while certain updates to the core of the game will be nice, it will ultimately depend on how they take such an update, and if they are willing to risk some of their players to appease the ones willing to remain and make the game more enjoyable to their experiences.
Thanks for reading, and please take what I say with a grain of salt.
I just want to.
Entertainment value certainly needs to be there, but when it's all you have, then it just ends up becoming a fad game of sorts (see: Tony Hawk series, Call of Duty, basically any game by Activision that gets milked to death... so, any game by Activision). I'm not one of those types who's all about "VIDEO GAMES SHOULD ALL BE ARTISTIC, HURR", but there's something to be said about the difference in games that only deliver "fun" or the like in the forms of extremely shallow and borderline (if not outright) addicting gameplay, and games that have more to them than just that (Legend of Zelda series, The Elder Scrolls II & III etc).
Minecraft falls into the former category, when it could easily fall into the latter. Games in the latter category can, obviously, still be very profitable- so it's not like it's even a bad business decision.
It's much more complex than saying "well there's this percentage of people who are happy and those who are not", or something. I would say attempting to appeal to the masses to make as many people as happy as possible is a fallacy- you simply can't make everyone happy, and your product will end up hurting in the end.
Complexity isn't inherently bad- it's how that complexity is presented that matters. If the game is immediately complex and boggles your mind upon starting the game to the point that you need to be a wizard to understand it almost immediately (see: Dwarf Fortress), then you've done something wrong. However, if you have a fairly simple game structure to begin with, yet deep gameplay mechanics and rich amounts of content, then you'll end up with a pretty nice game.
TL;DR: Complexity isn't inherently bad or good.
I don't think taking somebody's "personality" into account really matters. What they do is what matters.
Yeah. I think- at the moment- they seem to be appealing to their biggest userbase currently, which is the extremely casual gamer who genuinely thinks "Call of Duty" is a "hardcore game" or something. The thing is, this would be like- to take your analogy- selling only salty treats to a demographic (video game players, in this analogy) that likes both salty and sweet treats. Sure, you'll make money, but why not sell both?
Now, I'm sure somebody will say "But selling a salty and sweet treat would taste disgusting!". That's why you don't throw multiple game mechanics all at the player at once and let them figure things out (like it currently is). You split the game up into noticeable categories- the casual player can have creative mode, and the more dedicated player (or just somebody who wants an actual game with proper challenges) would have survival mode. Well, that, and even the casual player could still find enjoyment in survival, if done as I suggested- they wouldn't be immediately bombarded by mobs as soon as it turns nighttime, for example.
Also, I have to agree that entertainment value is subjective, which is why it's silly to try and pin it to some magical scale to judge whether or not Minecraft is going in a good direction or not. Especially since it inevitably leads to argumentum ad populum.
I would say it comes down to who you want to appeal to- those who want an actually good game, or those who are easily pleased.
Sadly, the latter is of course easier to make money with.
I contend that minecraft is an actual good game, just not the kind you want to play. No seriously: It has excellent gameplay, Some aspects of the play are less excellent, such as combat, but that's not the key aspect of minecraft. I understand you wish certain kinds of improvements be made like Smart Moving, but I'd be worried that goes against what most people want in this game. They like that it's not very complicated, that it's left-click to hit, right-click to use, and simple direction movement. Clearly you want something more, but that doesn't necessarily fit the sandbox.
I don't know what you mean when you say Zelda is deep and minecraft is shallow. Zelda is a quest-oriented game, and minecraft is a building game. You could make a Zelda world in minecraft. Obviously the combat system and the story presentation wouldn't be as good because minecraft isn't focused on that. But you couldn't do Minecraft in Zelda, could you?
My thread: Life as a Nomadic Trapper: http://www.minecraftforum.net/topic/1664475-my-life-as-a-nomadic-trapper
Based on what? What do you judge a game by to consider it "good"?
Then what makes it "excellent"? Excellent is pretty high praise for something, so I'd imagine you have a lot to back it up. Combat is almost the focus of survival mode (Mobs existing, XP, enchanting, an end-game boss fight), yet it falls incredibly short. The only things Minecraft has going for it are:
-Redstone
-Fully transformable terrain
That's about it. It's not really "building" because you don't have any physics to work with, and structures serve virtually no purpose other than to keep mobs out (you can have a long corridor full of everything you need, and it'd serve same function as a cathedral). As a 3D painting tool, it also falls flat- there's no extra functions, just place and remove 1 block at a time. Would you consider "paint" good for 2D painting if you could only place and remove 1 pixel at a time? Certainly not.
Even its positives don't really work within the game. Redstone contraptions are pretty much only useful in the game for convenience (or for making ridiculous things to show off). Traps are hardly needed, because mobs are laughably simple and lacking. Things like automated farming are nice, but again- convenience.
As for fully changeable terrain, again- there's no real physics in the game, and no real mining methods outside of removing blocks one at a time. Everything feels dull and lifeless- trees are just blocks placed in a certain formation, caves are just holes into the ground... it's all so simple and lacking in design. There could be so much more.
See: Point #7.
Why do people assume "sandbox" must mean "incredibly simple and lacking in design"? The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind is a sandbox game. Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas is a sandbox game. Red Dead Redemption is a sandbox game. Dwarf Fortress is a sandbox game (and is honestly the definitive sandbox game). Do they lack content? Are they not sandbox games because they have actual content? Absolutely not.
Sticking to a (false) definition of sandbox is bad on principle, anyway. Even if "sandbox" meant "completely devoid of content", why is that okay? Because a lot of people like it? Once more, argumentum ad populum.
Zelda isn't necessarily deep, but it has more to it than just "entertainment value".
What does that have to do with depth of content? What does that even mean? Yes, you can't "do Minecraft in Zelda", but you can't "do" Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare in Minecraft, either. Does that mean Minecraft has less depth than CoD4? Does that mean CoD4 is a better game? Does that mean anything at all? The answer is "no" to all.
I think you miss here. The focus of survival mode is NOT combat, but resource gathering. The idea is to make a game of getting stuff and to provide small obstacles that encourage players to get better equipment so they can be more efficient at gathering. Consider each thing you cite as combat oriented and think instead about how they make resource gathering more interesting. This is why XP is for both ores and mob killing, and why XP is used to make better tools for getting more.
It's also why combat isn't hard. They want people to succeed in getting resources, and want them to become pros at getting more faster. The End exists only to provide an ultimate goal for all the resource collection, to give people a drive to move forward, but not for combat. The whole dragon thing is stupid but they don't work on it because that isn't important to them. Providing things to collect and build with is what matters. Challenges in gathering is important. Difficulty in combat is secondary.
As a collect to build game, survival minecraft has extremely lasting play value.
My thread: Life as a Nomadic Trapper: http://www.minecraftforum.net/topic/1664475-my-life-as-a-nomadic-trapper
Complexity actually makes things more interesting and engaging, it is only in overdoses that it becomes a bad thing (like anything else). Besides, Smart Moving is actually not complicated at all and easy to use. It adds interest to movement and navigating around the world.
Zelda is not a quest-oriented game, I don't even know where that description came from.
Yes, you can make Hyrule or Termina or any other Zelda place in Minecraft. Most people that actually do anything on a large scale, however, mod their clients heavily (shaders to make it look pretty, WorldBuilder to actually place and remove more than a single block at a time, other mods to add blocks, etc). In vanilla, trying to do such feats is near madness. In this sense, vanilla Minecraft fails to do even what it's made for: a building game. (Also, said feats are almost always done in creative mode as well.)
No, you can not do Minecraft in Zelda. That is because Zelda is an action-adventure. However, It does excellently at being itself, unlike Minecraft.
If the game is about resource gathering, then why are all the methods of gathering subpar? For simplicity? See above. There is nothing to fishing, nothing to combat, nothing to mining/block gathering (and you can only do it one block at a time), and so forth. For the collective overall of resource gathering, these ARE important! Combat IS important, as are the other methods. You don't get anywhere in survival without combat (and farming and other things), yet combat and everything else is mind-numbingly undeveloped.
While I'm at it, here's a fun fact: The argument is that because Minecraft's focus is a building game, it does not need its side aspects to actually have anything to it. Since Zelda has been brought up, might I point out that even in games such as Zelda, side aspects are given complexity? It is an action-adventure, but it does not leave other aspects to be rubbish just because that is not the focus. There are mini-games and sidequests strewn about (which are not the main beef of the game, thank you very much, and are hardly so much quests as they are mini-stories).
For example, some Zelda games have fishing. Zelda is NOT a fishing game, but this doesn't stop Zelda from making the mini-game an absolute addiction by making it more than:
1. Throw out rod
2. Pull back rod at right time and get fish
No, in Zelda, you need to be choosy about where you cast your line (and in the case of Twilight Princess, consider the season). You need to be patient. You can see the shadows of fish. You need to try waiting or luring them in. When you snag them, you need to react in a timely manner and struggle to pull them in. You have different baits and can catch differently sized fish. They go into a fishing journal in Twilight Princess, even.
You know what does the two steps of fishing I mentioned? That's right, Minecraft. Because Minecraft leaves itself and its other aspects half-baked.
Frustrations =/= challenges, by the way. Similarily, complexity =/= difficulty.
Lastly: The dragon is more or less the only content to The End. By admitting the dragon is stupid (which, it is), that is saying The End is stupid (which, it is). The End is a rather pathetic at an ultimate goal/end-game. The block does not really serve a purpose, and the only thing dropped by the ugly dragon cannot even be used. There is practically no point to even go to The End other than, perhaps, an ender pearl farm (which you already needed to farm to get there in survival anyway). The only other reason to go is this false sense of having achieved something where there is nothing.
Point-by-point discussion is precisely what makes forums great for discussing things. That's why things like the multi-quote function exist. Would you prefer face-to-face discussion, where forgetfulness and who talks louder plays a bigger role?
There's more enchantments for weapons and armor than there are for tools. Also, what's the point of resource gathering if the entire point of those resources is to get more resources? Furthermore, why are mobs everywhere and why do things like critical hits exist if it's not combat focused?
Lastly, even if it is focused on "resource gathering", why does that mean the combat and everything else needs to be so under-developed? As Izalveri put it, just because a game is focused on something doesn't mean its other aspects need to suffer.
Besides, resource gathering itself is under-developed. You can only break blocks one at a time (even for trees!), farming is stupidly simple (place item>wait for it to grow>harvest>repeat), there's next to nothing to collect in the underground, etc. The only resources that are worth getting are the ones to help you get better equipment... which is the same crap as grinding for gear on World of Warcraft, or something. I shouldn't have to explain why this is a bad thing.
It's less about combat being "hard" or not, and more about the complete lack of depth to it. You just click. That's it. There's nothing more to it than that. You click a lot, and stuff happens. That's the same crap as "PRESS X TO WIN" seen so frequently in modern games. At its best, it's hand holding- at its worst, they seriously can't think of a better system than that, which is just shameful.
But the whole entire section of "The End" is a fight
a fight is combat
combat is fighting
what
And yet Minecraft still has none of those. There's virtually nothing to collect, the challenge is little to none, and difficulty is still lacking.
But again, there's nothing to collect, and building is stupidly simple. Once you have access to cobblestone, congratulations- you have the most effective building material in the entire game. So there goes the whole idea of "building" past simply making something look cool. And if that's all you care about, that's what creative is for.
"Also, what's the point of resource gathering if the entire point of those resources is to get more resources? Furthermore, why are mobs everywhere and why do things like critical hits exist if it's not combat focused?"
The point of resource gathering is to use those resources in building things. Mobs exist to make the process more interesting, and critical hits also add interest. It's not the focus, but it definitely adds to the game versus not having mobs.
What I care about is having to "work for my supper". Those who just like building will use creative. Those who want a whole experience of finding in order to build, and building with what's been found use survival. So don't say there's nothing to collect because that's just wrong. A lot of people like interesting structures and the challenge of acquiring resources to create them.
Me, I'm a little different. I like the game physics, as simple as it is, and the challenge of using those physics to make things happen. The mobs and hazards of minecraft give an interesting environment to play with that physics. For me, creative play is boring.
My thread: Life as a Nomadic Trapper: http://www.minecraftforum.net/topic/1664475-my-life-as-a-nomadic-trapper
If you're only discussing core points, sure- but then this might lead to one person believing they're attacking a core point, when in reality they're just scraping the surface. It might lead to a huge, expanded discussion if you do things quote-by-quote, but this isn't really a bad thing. At worst, you're grasping at straws for a number of points, but still address a core point somewhere in your post. You have all the time in the world to follow what's going on.
But there isn't really anything to build. Once you have a shelter, that's really about all you need. Sure, you can build traps... but by the time you've fought off enough mobs to get the needed redstone and such, you'd likely have access to enough iron for a full set of armor (it's only 24 ingots). Anything past the basic cobblestone (or even wood) shelter is superfluous. The thing is, it doesn't have to be- there actually is so much more you can add to make building a lot more interesting and interactive. That's what I'm suggesting. That's what I've been suggesting.
If it wasn't the focus, it'd be avoidable, then- but it isn't. It's virtually impossible to avoid combat in Minecraft (and literally impossible if you ever want to "complete" Minecraft...). Besides, again, even if that is the case, what would be wrong with making combat more interesting and interactive? Not D&D or Dwarf Fortress levels of complex- just a little bit more than rapidly clicking with the same animations over and over and over again.
But again, there isn't really much to build with, or much to build other than just making cool looking things. It's all superfluous. I'm suggesting they add more to the building- more to find, more to explore, more to experience.
Also, when I say there's "nothing to collect", I don't mean it literally. Look at Terraria- it has so much more to collect and build with, and building isn't even the focus! Minecraft has the development team, the community power, and just so much more resources to work with- but it forgoes all of that. And for what? To keep it "simple"? To appease extremely easy to please people? We could have so much more- why are we letting people like that hold this game back from its true potential?
But there are no physics. They offer literally no physics to work with at all- it's just place and remove. Sand and gravel is the only thing remotely resembling physics. That's not a challenge- that's a complete lack of challenge.
And again, I'm suggesting they add more to make it more interesting. No, I don't mean tacking on mobs, making it needlessly harder, or etc- I don't want Mo' Creatures. But if you had read my initial post, you'd understand that.
I'm not saying Minecraft needs to completely destroy itself and then start over again. I'm saying virtually everything needs to be expanded upon- because virtually everything is extremely simple (to a fault), poorly thought out, and almost entirely lacking in cohesiveness.
To be honest OP, that is a lot of good ideas,i io agree with everything you said.