Really? You honestly don't understand how other people can have a different perspective than you on what's fun and entertaining?
Okay, let me try to explain .
Some people want a simplistic game. Others want it more realistic. Personally, I like realistic features for the feeling of depth, challenge, immersion, and achievement that they give me. To me, Minecraft became far more enjoyable when I got the full version and had to eat regularly to stay alive all of a sudden. I would have played with the Finite Liquid mod enabled had my laptop been strong enough, because realitic water is a) far more immersive, and far more challenging than Minecraft's water. Every time I make bread, I find it silly that you eat it raw and don't have to put it in an oven first (though I realize this is probably due to the fact that the process of farming involves enough steps as it does, from crafting the hoe and gathering seeds to "forging" the bread). I, personally (note how I realize this is only my perspective) would love to see more "sim" features like temperature, freezing, wet clothing, and so on, making it a challenge to say, traverse a cold biome as you couldn't simply swim through the icy waters without penalty. I could go on and on.
What I personally do not understand --at all-- is the widespread hostility to realistic features. Some people like "arcade" gameplay, while others like "realistic" gameplay, but there are those who seem to have declared it a Truth that the realistic approach is inferior to the arcade-approach, period. It's like the very term "realistic" has become a kind of insult or slur towards a feature. As I said in the beginning, is it really that difficult to understand that others might enjoy what you find unfun, and vice-versa?
I think these people have forgotten that this is a sandbox-survival video game. It is not supposed to be realistic.
Except originally it wasn't a survival game. You didn't have to eat to stay alive, for one thing, and i'm not sure if there even were monsters or resource gathering in the first releases. Notch has said that he likes to release early and often, and the game has evolved from early alpha to what we see today through a series of many, many, many releases and much trial-and-error. Trade is another new feature that has great potential, and which may push the game in a different direction, with more of a focus on AIs interacting with the player and each others, Dwarf Fortress-style (trade routes, sieges, migration, expansion of cities, warfare, etc.).
To say Minecraft is "supposed to be" anything is a bit disingenious. In my eyes, the only thing it's "supposed to be" is a LEGO-reminiscent block-based RPG where you can break apart and place blocks. Then it's evolved from there, and god, must it have been an exciting ride for those lucky enough to have followed it from the beginning.
6
Okay, let me try to explain
Some people want a simplistic game. Others want it more realistic. Personally, I like realistic features for the feeling of depth, challenge, immersion, and achievement that they give me. To me, Minecraft became far more enjoyable when I got the full version and had to eat regularly to stay alive all of a sudden. I would have played with the Finite Liquid mod enabled had my laptop been strong enough, because realitic water is a) far more immersive, and
What I personally do not understand --at all-- is the widespread hostility to realistic features. Some people like "arcade" gameplay, while others like "realistic" gameplay, but there are those who seem to have declared it a Truth that the realistic approach is inferior to the arcade-approach, period. It's like the very term "realistic" has become a kind of insult or slur towards a feature. As I said in the beginning, is it really that difficult to understand that others might enjoy what you find unfun, and vice-versa?
Except originally it wasn't a survival game. You didn't have to eat to stay alive, for one thing, and i'm not sure if there even were monsters or resource gathering in the first releases. Notch has said that he likes to release early and often, and the game has evolved from early alpha to what we see today through a series of many, many, many releases and much trial-and-error. Trade is another new feature that has great potential, and which may push the game in a different direction, with more of a focus on AIs interacting with the player and each others, Dwarf Fortress-style (trade routes, sieges, migration, expansion of cities, warfare, etc.).
To say Minecraft is "supposed to be" anything is a bit disingenious. In my eyes, the only thing it's "supposed to be" is a LEGO-reminiscent block-based RPG where you can break apart and place blocks. Then it's evolved from there, and god, must it have been an exciting ride for those lucky enough to have followed it from the beginning.