Relatively speaking, I don't think people really say that Minecraft architecture is amazing with the limitations it has on the building blocks.
Rather, people are amazed with the builds that we have in this game BECAUSE of the things we create despite those limitations.
I can see those exemplary castles you posted and say that for all the one meter blocks the creator had to use, he's done a fine job of making it look great despite the fact that 1 meter blocks don't allow for a lot of detail.
If you dont like the architecture then make your own game. I like you criticism on the games architectural capabilities but dont bag on them, there are very few games today that make architecture easy and fun, some people put alot of work and time on these constructions and also keep in mind, this game was never meant to be learning software for College architecture.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"It is not darkness that we fear, it is the danger which lies within the darkness." / "Trust is the highest honor."
-Samprules
The Meaning of Life, the Universe, and Everything.
Join Date:
11/20/2011
Posts:
61
Minecraft:
customgamer9
Member Details
Just because somthing isn't made in real life dosen't mean its not beatuiful. Its just your thoughts on minecraft architecture, and they have just been skewed by bad examples You should watch fryreuk videos on youtube, if that is not breathtaking to you, then you obviously don't know what true architecture is.
Well, sure, Minecraft isn't as good as real life. And I'll go ahead and claim 4-dimensional architecture is better than our real life architecture. I don't see how that affects my point that Minecraft is a bad medium for good architecture. If all we were doing was comparing Minecraft's worst to Minecraft's best, I'm sure we could call some stuff beautiful, but we're not.
Okay, so, if you're not comparing Minecraft architecture to real life, and you're not comparing it within itself... what ARE you comparing it to?
you make a good argument, but this is relative to the game. plus, some mc buildings do have some subtle architecture. if people use mc for real world architecture they're using it for the basic design, not the details.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
No, there has never, ever been a sandbox game with a story or ending... except Grand Theft Auto... and Saints Row... and Red Dead Redemption... and Crack Down... and Assassins Creed...
I just always assumed that people liked to work within Minecraft's limitations as an additional challenge to their creativity.
I'm kinda fuzzy on what you're trying to accomplish with this post. Are you just arguing against the idea that Minecraft is good for building stuff with, or arguing that people shouldn't be using Minecraft as a building sim at all? :/
Minecraft isn't completely bad for building or something. But it is bad for making good architecture. My focus is a little bit narrower than people seem to think, which I understand can cause confusion.
I can't tell if this topic is just written to provoke a reaction in people, or if you are really being serious. You offer very critical views about Minecraft structures that have been or would be highly-regarded in the Minecraft community, and then you show your own example of hand-drawn models as a contrast. And then, you end your message with the one-word sentence "discuss".
Yeah, that's exactly what I did. The discuss thing, by the way, is something I do at the end of all my threads. I have made a lot and they're primarily for the discussion of some controversial topic, and that's just a tradition I've kept going.
Please, if you think that you can do better, then by all means, sit down with Minecraft and show us what you do consider to be great from an architectural standpoint.
I really don't see why you would think I want to do that.
If you can't, or you think it isn't possible, then hey, we don't want to hear about it.
If by "we" you mean you, sure, go ahead and not like the message. I don't care if you decide to disagree with me. What I do want to do is make sure you're disagreeing with me for a worthwhile reason, not "omg you mentioned roblox."
-- we get it -- it isn't as nice looking. When someone here says "excellent building", "great architecture", etc. we all know and understand that what is being said is relative to the world of Minecraft, not to another game, and certainly not to real-world examples.
I really don't see how this applies to me. You may be misunderstanding me in that I'm directing this at a rather narrow group of people. I'm not saying Minecraft building is bad in every way. However, it's simply not fit to make architecture.
You make a reasonable argument. You are correct, minecraft will not give you realistic architecture skills. One thing it can help is getting your creativity out in ways that a piece of paper cannot do. I personally love building on minecraft. But you are correct I cannot make advanced piece of architecture in minecraft. Also your point of textures, that's what texture packs are for. Have you used the VoxelBox texture pack?
The limitations Minecraft gives you are nice in a way, but eventually they're just that: limitations. When I made my first few buildings on Minecraft, it had a definite charm, but it was so basic and I knew I wouldn't be able to make them look nice, just get them to somewhat resemble what I was going for. That hasn't changed all that much more than two years later. Architecture in this game is still very basic compared to what other games offer.
Limits like in your first post of how there are like 5 half-blocks.
Also,who cares that you think it looks bad? Everyone else thinks it would look good,and a castle like that probably took a lot of work and time,and that is another reason OTHER people like it. You are so incredibly picky.....
I was kidding in that last post and I addressed all of this.
Voxels and hardcoded resolution limits considering ease of playability to a wider audience range as well as hardware computational limits of said population range demands an equally stunted resolute on architectural specifications in conjunction with a more liberal stance on the intended allure.
No, it demands no such thing. If you want to consider Minecraft good for architecture you cannot just arbitrarily lower your standards.
If minecraft is so bad at supporting your architecture studies, go pay $3,000 for a professional CAD software, and don't rip on a game that we all think is fun. This is like ripping on mario because it badly portrays turtles and mushrooms.
He is right,so just stop complaining Catmando!
Who cares about your opinions?
You care, since you've responded several times. And there's really no point in telling me what to do in my own thread, so maybe you should be the one to stop complaining, and maybe your opinions are worthless here.
I agree completely. The size of the blocks we have to work with largely precludes any fine details we might want to put into any buildings we create. The only option we have is to oversize things, and the height limit largely precludes that. There's lots of preclusion going on, here. It's not the best at free expression : /
Definitely. Do you think the game is largely going to stay that way? I'm guessing Notch almost certainly doesn't have anything like the eighth block mod or 512th block mod or Redpower covers planned, although I'd certainly like it if something of the sort came along. After all, the game is already released. Creative mode feels barebones at this point.
Why, you've talked yourself out... Doesn't it take loads of creativity and expressive power to create if your materials are so few?
Yes, but all that extra creativity and expressive power doesn't go into making the work better, only making it overcome the limits imposed by the lack of materials. This is like saying you can win Solitaire faster using only one hand. You can play faster if you try really hard, but you still won't actually be faster than you would without the limits. You'll just have put more effort in to come out average.
I agree. Limiting one's limits is ideal. Although, interestingly, in a case like Sketchup I actually have too few limits to deal with at first and have to invent limits in order to start, but I gradually remove such limits.
this topic has sphere in it... FAIL.
uggg, you realy want to compare roblox and minecraft on building?? i personally like how every block is the same size, it makes building much more easy, its like building with legos.
Yeah, I do want to compare them on building. They're two building games. And one is evidently better. Minecraft is definitely easier to build with and I think it's controls are more intuitive than Minecraft, but you honestly cannot tell me it opens up more possibilities than Roblox. And I really don't see how you can compare it to legos. Roblox is a thousand times more like legos than Minecraft is or ever will be.
Most people who build in minecraft...do it for the fun. We don't care that it's not up to real life building standards, it was fun making it, which is the point. Hell, my first real house was pretty much just a huge 3 story wooden box. Thinking back, it was ugly.. But at the time, I thought it was awesome. Sure it's not something anyone would want to actually live in, and sure it's not something someone would build in real life, but it was still fun making it, whether it was realistic or not.
So you're admitting that evidently nothing in Minecraft can actually be good and it's just about having fun. Okay. So Minecraft is Not Good For Architecture. Wow, I never would've gotten that impression without your post.
When people say something looks good, or that it's awesome, they're judging it by what minecraft can do, as well as comparing it to other things in minecraft. You'd be stupid to compare something in minecraft to something in real life..even when making something based off a real life building.
If such a thing is stupid, then a lot of people are stupid.
Yes, you can use mods to get a greater variety of materials and block shapes to work with. Good job. You literally edited the game itself just to decorate more. Missing the point again.
You present a good argunment, but you can't expect much detail from structures composed of cubic meter-sized blocks. I think the game does a perfect job of allowing people with even the most basic construction skills to build a place they can call home (or whatever they may call it). In the end, it's really the decision of the person that builds a structure to say if it's "architecture" or otherwise. If one spent the time to build a non-existent structure in a video game, that person would have to be proud of it; if not, why would've that person taken the time to build it anyway?
Minecraft is supposed to be a simplistic, unrealistic game that is supposedly set in an "undetailed" world as you say. I beg people to say that they don't see that in their world; in the end, it is their creativity and imagination that allows them to see the grandest of structures in the simplest of building materials that is most important.
I shouldn't expect much detail? Why not? Certain people, after all, consider Minecraft good for architecture.
I would also say the examples you chose are rather poor and not representative of the full potential of the community's resourcefulness with the game's imposed limitations.
The first example, the little castle, was a bad one indeed. However, I didn't just go on about the things it lacked and should have had. I also went right down the checklist of what Minecraft actually didn't allow it to have. I really don't see how the second example, Castle Estel, was bad. I actually like that castle. What would you prefer I do? Shadowmarch?
If you say detail in Minecraft is simply unattainable, what would you build in a Minecraft world? I suppose you wouldn't bother trying to build anything of any aesthetic value as that would be impossible, as implied in your topic. Not to be offensive or anything, but I feel that the most you'd be willing to build is a hole in the ground to wait the night away in.
I actually am working on a very large project. Unfortunately, it's scale is literally of this work just so I could get some detail on it and it still looks mediocre. Besides that, there are things you can make in Minecraft that aren't about aesthetic appeal. Redstone creations, for example. I can't use redstone, but if I become bored of Minecraft's building entirely I think I learn for the sake of continuing to play this game.
Minecraft relies on a concept called "suspension of disbelief". This concept basically means that you choose to disregard errors in exchange for entertainment. Books with omnipotent narrators and movies with plot gaps have been using this for centuries (well the books not the movies but you get my point). Imagine the game to be a cartoon. Not everything in a cartoon has to be realistic, it just has to be close enough to reality to be identifiable.
Minecraft is relatively easy to use and very accessible. It offers many other features besides building, and that's what makes it fun. For most people, this is enough to sacrifice for a non-realistically sized block based world. If you want to make realistic buildings then get something like Autodesk's CAD. Although, that also requires a suspension of disbelief as you can just pop in walls and you dont have to get recourses and what-not. I'm sure there is a game better suited to a realistic building simulator but it will also have it's limitations.
Minecraft is the architecture simulator for the rest off us.
So you're saying Minecraft is not good for architecture. Okay.
I believe the OP has missed something when the community find certain buildings are great in architecture. It's not compared to realworld buildings (at least into detail) it's compared to what you got to build with (1 cubic meter blocks, that's one hell of a restriction).
Also, what is architecture? It's not always beautiful or amazing, sometimes it's basic, functional or even ugly. .
Architectural at its most basic form is just the style in which a structure was built. While this is general enough to constitute Minecraft architecture, it also becomes a useless term. If I defined architecture as liberally as that in the first place I might as well call a cardboard box architecture.
Is Minecraft good for architecture? Yes, it provides people with limits to work around with. Is it good to create or recreate realworld architecture? No, as the blocks aren't detailed enough.
It's not just that it's not good enough to recreate real world architecture, it's not even close. Minecraft is deliberately made in such a way as to be brain-bustingly simple. Despite your poetic waxing about what you can do in spite of Minecraft's limits, Minecraft has limits that make it a poor tool to emulate architecture as we know it or anything near that. That is a problem and I'm not going to go redefining words right along with my standards.
I think half the people who have commented in this thread have missed the point.
OP is saying that Minecraft's architectural capability is not very good. Literally, that is all he is saying.
He is not saying that Minecraft sucks. He is not saying that anything created within Minecraft sucks. He is not saying that people who play Minecraft suck or that they should stop using Minecraft to build. He has certainly not warranted personal attack. All he is saying is that Minecraft does not have very much architectural capability.
With that said, I agree with OP. Minecraft does not offer that much in the way of building. But I certainly wouldn't call that a flaw with the game. I don't think Minecraft needs complex building systems. I think the idea is to be able to create complex, pretty structures using a simple block structure.
I think the one thing I'm trying to say is this. OP, think pixel art.
+1 to you. You understood. Regarding pixel art, I think it's cool. I haven't made much, though. I'm not a good pixel artist. There's just some stuff on my server.
Relatively speaking, I don't think people really say that Minecraft architecture is amazing with the limitations it has on the building blocks.
Rather, people are amazed with the builds that we have in this game BECAUSE of the things we create despite those limitations.
I can see those exemplary castles you posted and say that for all the one meter blocks the creator had to use, he's done a fine job of making it look great despite the fact that 1 meter blocks don't allow for a lot of detail.
At least, that's how it's always been for me
Other people have said that already and more eloquently than you and it doesn't make them any more right that you repeated it.
If you dont like the architecture then make your own game. I like you criticism on the games architectural capabilities but dont bag on them, there are very few games today that make architecture easy and fun, some people put alot of work and time on these constructions and also keep in mind, this game was never meant to be learning software for College architecture.
I don't really see why I should make my own game. That isn't relevant at all.
Just because somthing isn't made in real life dosen't mean its not beatuiful. Its just your thoughts on minecraft architecture, and they have just been skewed by bad examples You should watch fryreuk videos on youtube, if that is not breathtaking to you, then you obviously don't know what true architecture is.
Breathtaking, sure, but not because it's good architecture, it's because it tried to blind me with size. I've seen all of their creation videos and that's how all of those buildings are.
you make a good argument, but this is relative to the game. plus, some mc buildings do have some subtle architecture. if people use mc for real world architecture they're using it for the basic design, not the details.
If by subtle architecture you mean virtually no architecture, sure. I really don't see the point of building the "basic design" of something and then calling it beautiful. I guess this emoticon is beautiful because it captured the basic design of a face.
The Meaning of Life, the Universe, and Everything.
Join Date:
8/4/2011
Posts:
5,008
Location:
Canada
Minecraft:
CAN_Archer
Member Details
Do I care that you sir think Minecraft architecture is horrendous surely not. Minecraft has a game with a 16-bit cube look, you're supposed to use your imagination, but kids like you don't have an imagination so have fun writing reply stating "Why did you write this? It's ****ing short and gay."
Eventually I'll finish it and I do agree with a lot of your points.
The thing is is that this city(?) is pleasing to the eye; More so in survival.
I do however wish to one day have blocks to add more detail. This is how it happened when I switched to survival from creative. I now have tons of blocks that are useful and the map is being made even more detailed with these blocks. Mushrooms no more. Make room for bars and fencing, etc
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
All you purple hippies bang your heads on the wall!
Do I care that you sir think Minecraft architecture is horrendous surely not. Minecraft is a game with a 16-bit cube look, you're supposed to use your imagination, but kids like you don't have an imagination so have fun writing reply stating "Why did you write this? It's ****ing short and gay."
Of course you care, even though that's not what I said. If you didn't care you wouldn't have responded. And "use your imagination" is not a valid excuse.
I somewhat agree. The blocky shapes of Minecraft can never live up to the circular arches of the real world. However, as has been said before, people are discussing architecture relative to the game, and not compared to real standards.
On a side note, I have some ****ing retarded friends who believe Minecraft teaches "survival skills."
In my opinion, people are overestimating Minecraft for what it really is, a fun sandbox game. They think Minecraft can be used as an educational tool, a "survival teacher", learning about advanced logic gates, create architects, and the like. Many of these things can only be learned through real life experience. So, people, Minecraft can't teach people very much. Let's just enjoy it as is.
For the people that actually read the whole post i think he put up
a fair arguement.
My friend always make these 3x3 cobbblestone towers and says there beatiful.
Though there is some stuff out there that people can make that are outstanding
the point you wanted to make was that building anything doesn't look good? do you know how difficult it is to recreate the sistine chapel in minecraft? it's very difficult, i've tried it. some are great with blocks, and some aren't, and the best thing about minecraft is that it limits you with what you have, but it can also be limitless.
Rather, people are amazed with the builds that we have in this game BECAUSE of the things we create despite those limitations.
I can see those exemplary castles you posted and say that for all the one meter blocks the creator had to use, he's done a fine job of making it look great despite the fact that 1 meter blocks don't allow for a lot of detail.
At least, that's how it's always been for me
-Samprules
Okay, so, if you're not comparing Minecraft architecture to real life, and you're not comparing it within itself... what ARE you comparing it to?
What a great explanation you have made over here, Its truly mind blowing.
Minecraft isn't completely bad for building or something. But it is bad for making good architecture. My focus is a little bit narrower than people seem to think, which I understand can cause confusion.
And if people, ergo me, want to think of other people as architects and judge their work according, let them, ergo me.
Yeah, that's exactly what I did. The discuss thing, by the way, is something I do at the end of all my threads. I have made a lot and they're primarily for the discussion of some controversial topic, and that's just a tradition I've kept going.
I really don't see why you would think I want to do that.
If by "we" you mean you, sure, go ahead and not like the message. I don't care if you decide to disagree with me. What I do want to do is make sure you're disagreeing with me for a worthwhile reason, not "omg you mentioned roblox."
Ahem, you mean stop comparing architecture with Minecraft stuff.
I really don't see how this applies to me. You may be misunderstanding me in that I'm directing this at a rather narrow group of people. I'm not saying Minecraft building is bad in every way. However, it's simply not fit to make architecture.
The limitations Minecraft gives you are nice in a way, but eventually they're just that: limitations. When I made my first few buildings on Minecraft, it had a definite charm, but it was so basic and I knew I wouldn't be able to make them look nice, just get them to somewhat resemble what I was going for. That hasn't changed all that much more than two years later. Architecture in this game is still very basic compared to what other games offer.
I was kidding in that last post and I addressed all of this.
No, it demands no such thing. If you want to consider Minecraft good for architecture you cannot just arbitrarily lower your standards.
I already have a CAD software.
You care, since you've responded several times. And there's really no point in telling me what to do in my own thread, so maybe you should be the one to stop complaining, and maybe your opinions are worthless here.
Definitely. Do you think the game is largely going to stay that way? I'm guessing Notch almost certainly doesn't have anything like the eighth block mod or 512th block mod or Redpower covers planned, although I'd certainly like it if something of the sort came along. After all, the game is already released. Creative mode feels barebones at this point.
Yes, but all that extra creativity and expressive power doesn't go into making the work better, only making it overcome the limits imposed by the lack of materials. This is like saying you can win Solitaire faster using only one hand. You can play faster if you try really hard, but you still won't actually be faster than you would without the limits. You'll just have put more effort in to come out average.
I agree. Limiting one's limits is ideal. Although, interestingly, in a case like Sketchup I actually have too few limits to deal with at first and have to invent limits in order to start, but I gradually remove such limits.
Yeah, I do want to compare them on building. They're two building games. And one is evidently better. Minecraft is definitely easier to build with and I think it's controls are more intuitive than Minecraft, but you honestly cannot tell me it opens up more possibilities than Roblox. And I really don't see how you can compare it to legos. Roblox is a thousand times more like legos than Minecraft is or ever will be.
So you're admitting that evidently nothing in Minecraft can actually be good and it's just about having fun. Okay. So Minecraft is Not Good For Architecture. Wow, I never would've gotten that impression without your post.
If such a thing is stupid, then a lot of people are stupid.
I shouldn't expect much detail? Why not? Certain people, after all, consider Minecraft good for architecture.
The first example, the little castle, was a bad one indeed. However, I didn't just go on about the things it lacked and should have had. I also went right down the checklist of what Minecraft actually didn't allow it to have. I really don't see how the second example, Castle Estel, was bad. I actually like that castle. What would you prefer I do? Shadowmarch?
I actually am working on a very large project. Unfortunately, it's scale is literally of this work just so I could get some detail on it and it still looks mediocre. Besides that, there are things you can make in Minecraft that aren't about aesthetic appeal. Redstone creations, for example. I can't use redstone, but if I become bored of Minecraft's building entirely I think I learn for the sake of continuing to play this game.
So you're saying Minecraft is not good for architecture. Okay.
Architectural at its most basic form is just the style in which a structure was built. While this is general enough to constitute Minecraft architecture, it also becomes a useless term. If I defined architecture as liberally as that in the first place I might as well call a cardboard box architecture.
It's not just that it's not good enough to recreate real world architecture, it's not even close. Minecraft is deliberately made in such a way as to be brain-bustingly simple. Despite your poetic waxing about what you can do in spite of Minecraft's limits, Minecraft has limits that make it a poor tool to emulate architecture as we know it or anything near that. That is a problem and I'm not going to go redefining words right along with my standards.
You heard that, green and red.
Nonsense. You really can't extrapolate my behavior in a situation like that based on how I react to the classification of a Minecraft building.
+1 to you. You understood. Regarding pixel art, I think it's cool. I haven't made much, though. I'm not a good pixel artist. There's just some stuff on my server.
Other people have said that already and more eloquently than you and it doesn't make them any more right that you repeated it.
I don't really see why I should make my own game. That isn't relevant at all.
Breathtaking, sure, but not because it's good architecture, it's because it tried to blind me with size. I've seen all of their creation videos and that's how all of those buildings are.
Where did you get the idea I'm not comparing Minecraft to real life? I am.
If by subtle architecture you mean virtually no architecture, sure. I really don't see the point of building the "basic design" of something and then calling it beautiful. I guess this emoticon is beautiful because it captured the basic design of a face.
You heard that, green and red.
Eventually I'll finish it and I do agree with a lot of your points.
The thing is is that this city(?) is pleasing to the eye; More so in survival.
I do however wish to one day have blocks to add more detail. This is how it happened when I switched to survival from creative. I now have tons of blocks that are useful and the map is being made even more detailed with these blocks. Mushrooms no more. Make room for bars and fencing, etc
No, I don't.
Of course you care, even though that's not what I said. If you didn't care you wouldn't have responded. And "use your imagination" is not a valid excuse.
You heard that, green and red.
On a side note, I have some ****ing retarded friends who believe Minecraft teaches "survival skills."
In my opinion, people are overestimating Minecraft for what it really is, a fun sandbox game. They think Minecraft can be used as an educational tool, a "survival teacher", learning about advanced logic gates, create architects, and the like. Many of these things can only be learned through real life experience. So, people, Minecraft can't teach people very much. Let's just enjoy it as is.
a fair arguement.
My friend always make these 3x3 cobbblestone towers and says there beatiful.
Though there is some stuff out there that people can make that are outstanding
what is this i don't even
I bet you grew up hating legos also.
My what intelligent and articulate arguments.
http://www.youtube.com/user/miguelsz2