Not unless you're a victim of the "They Changed It Now It Sucks" mentality the Poppy looks more like a rose than the rose did. Heck, the rose looked more like a red dandelion. I think they should have taken the head of the rose and turned it dandelion yellow and pasted that onto the dandelion and THEN replaced the rose with the poppy. In fact, I'm gonna do that right now...
Shears used on a rose bush gives the "single rose" item. Plant; use bonemeal (or wait) Rose turns into rose bush. (wait longer) Rose bush spawns roses around it; cycle repeats.
Also, rose bush with roses removed becomes brambles, but will return to being a rose bush with time; Sword or Axe harvests the bush/brambles. Continued harvesting kills the bush, and it becomes a dead shrub. Rose bush/Brambles causes damage like a cactus, but can still be passed through/won't destroy items.
Really? You never saw the fan art? You never saw rose cut-outs at Minecraft events? You've never seen a YouTube video with someone giving someone else a rose for the symbolism?
Yes, Yes,Yes and Yes respectively. But tell me this: How would changing it to a Poppy and tweaking about 5 pixels in the item suddenly disparage that?
New Minecraft: "I love you so much, here, have this giant bush!"
Why would you be declaring your love through a computer game and why does such a declaration require a specific 16x16 item picture with a specific name?
Don't get me wrong, I think there's poetry in the giant bush too. But you can't convince me that the original rose needed to be deleted in order to make that happen.
The original Rose was not deleted. It's texture had a half dozen pixels changed and it was renamed to the Poppy. Red roses in existing worlds will become poppies.
I'm hoping they'll do the same with the rose. At least put the old rose back in, is all I'm asking for. I don't hate the new rose bush, nor the new poppy. I kind of like them, but why did the rose have to be deleted?
The Rose wasn't deleted. It was changed to the Poppy. The purpose was because you cannot have two Rose items. The only way to feasibly have two Roses in that manner would be to have two of each other flower as well. One bushy-multiple flower plant, and another more pruned variety. I could get behind that idea, if only so that all flowers would have a variety that can be placed in potted plants. The bushy/wild type could be harvested into multiple pruned flowers, and one of those can be planted into tilled soil to grow a new bush over time. farmable flowers would be neat, and would make an interesting specialization for greenhouses.
Uh, roses were already renewable.
Roses are not a renewable resource. Renewable resources are things that can be farmed and/or grown. Being able to explore new chunks does not count as "renewable" because then everything is renewable.
Even you put "promoted" in scare quotes. Even you don't believe it's a real promotion.
I put promoted in quotes because I don't think gardens and flowers have a ranking system.
Also, visually it removes the thorns. I don't expect everyone to be able to agree with me on a matter of artistic interpretation, but I think the original Minecraft rose was a work of art. I think it's disrespectful to the original artist who came up with that sprite (not sure if Notch or Junkboy).
The thorns are a single pixel each. Makes sense to remove them since it's supposed to be a Poppy now. I'm not even going to comment on your interpretation that it was a work of art.
When I said "we" I'm only including those who voluntarily include themselves.
Right. and more fool me for not automatically knowing that which was not stated.
However, can you tell me you didn't get at least a little bit comfortable with the old rose?
It was an item. I didn't get any more attached to roses or dandelions or their appearance than I did the black outline around food items. You know, that black outline that, when removed, people made the same sort of topics but which has been pretty much forgotten about entirely.
Or are you telling me you were wishing for its destruction the moment you loaded up your first Minecraft world?
No. Awfully black and white options there. Either I was 'comfortable' with the Rose, or I wanted it to be removed. I fall into the set of people that are indifferent to what specific items are present or what they look like and think those that do make a big deal out of such trivial changes are making a big deal out of nothing.
Are you telling me you never even once planted a rose on one of your builds?
I have a rose and a dandelion planted in potted plants at the entrance of my main base. it will become a poppy. I have a red rose in a item frame in my dye workshop. That will become a poppy. I will be unaffected. I am indifferent. I find nothing iconic about any of the textures or elements of the game, with the possible exception of creepers and perhaps the Steve head. I believe Notch's blog mentions the flowers and how their art is "only a stand-in" until they get proper art for them.
You never once stopped to admire a rose in the game world?
No... Why would I do that. I've smacked them down in flowerpots and the like and said "there, that looks nice". And guess what- they still look nice as Poppies.
You never once gathered a rose without immediately crushing it into dye?
Of course.... I'm not sure what you are trying to say. It's like you are arguing that if I ever gathered or used a Rose, I have to instantly be attached to it in some way. I wasn't attached to the old Iron Block, either; nor the old Gold Block., or the old Redstone ore block (changed in 1.2.5). I wasn't attached to the black outline around all food items. I cannot think of a single such minor change that I wasn't overall in favour of. Changing the Storage blocks made them each more unique beyond colour; removing the black outline gave an extra pixel in each direction to express new foodstuffs. Changing Roses into poppies makes them more consistent with the new flowers. Only alternative I can think of would be to have the bush be some other red flower, and keep the Rose. I'd be inclined to to support it the way it is just to spite those that have gotten attached to a 16x16 pixel representation.
If we're being slaves to reality, a wild rose probably wouldn't look very visually interesting anyways.
Alberta, Canada's Provincial Flower is the Wild Rose. It is Pink. Red Roses are more or less only a domesticated flower, but one could imagine them growing in the wild in freeform bushes. My point here is mostly that wild roses do exist and they are visually interesting.
Besides, when a player wants a rose, they want the iconic rose.
You've not yet provided anything beyond emotional appeals as to why the Rose as it is in 1.6.2 and previous is in any way "iconic". The same logic could apply to any of the default textures, people have made the SAME argument when Iron Blocks, Gold Blocks, Foods, Cobblestone, Mossy Cobblestone, Bricks, Planks, Lapis Blocks, Saplings, And the various sounds were changed. Tell me how this one is somehow different.
This is what bothers me about the change. "It wasn't deleted, it was changed." That's just semantics, and it's not going to work. A rose by any other name and texture IS NOT A FREAKING ROSE.
"What's in a name? That which we call a rose, By any other name would smell as sweet."
And if we're going to talk about the inappropriateness of a flower dominating a 1-meter square of earth, then lets examine every other flower Jeb_ just put in. Do poppies make sense occupying a square meter each? Of course not!
Duh. It's clearly a symbol. Guidelines for military graveyards is one cross per meter. And thus the symbol is CLEARLY about Flanders Fields, "Between the crosses row on row".
(btw I was totally making light of the whole "it's a symbol" nonsense. See that? I used that same "it's a symbol" logic with totally fabricated but entirely believable reasoning to contradict your point. It works for anything. That's why it's extraneous and useless.
What I don't understand is why you can't just let my argument be. "I like it the way it was" is a perfectly reasonable argument for a feature to be left in.
No it's not.
The burden should be on the person who wants to delete a feature.
Why must you insist: "No, we can't have the old rose!" Was the old rose so bad that it must be excised from everyone's version of Minecraft? Was it so bad that Jeb_ has to punish me by making me do the work of adding the old texture and name back?
Oh, I thought they removed anything that looked like a red rose and just had bushes instead of flowers, I think they look very cool, roses never got removed, it's just that red flowers became red flowers, hmmm.
DONT ANYONE TELL ME ABOUT REMOVING RED FLOWERS, I WAS THERE FOR 1.8 WHEN THE gone red flowers glitch.
Traveled like 4kms in pretzels looking for them and became outraged.
I guess I have to concede that point. Though I was more or less thinking of the farming aspect as in being able to grow them type thing. eg. Have a big flower garden and be able to grow roses among other flowers. I don't think this is implemented as it is but as I understand it that is the plan with some or all of the new flowers.
All what I said above being said, I wouldn't be opposed to the Rose as it is staying, as long as it can be made to work with the changes to how flowers are going to work. eg all the "bushy" flowers, or flowers that are two blocks tall, could be sheared to drop multiple actual flowers, and those flowers could be planted in soil to grow new flower bushes. I mean we could use bone meal on grass for dandelions and roses as a "farm" but it's so much different than farming wheat/melons/carrots/etc.
I absolutely love the new snapshot and everything about it... except the beloved rose is gone. Sure, it is more realistic with a rose bush and the poppy does look like the rose, but you can't take away the iconic rose. I think that Jeb should add back in the rose, but at the same time keep the poppy and rose bush. I want the rose back so much