• 0

    posted a message on This is why minecraft sucks
    Quote from KyoShinda

    Why are people still posting in this thread?

    Well, the OP was almost dead, but he decided to show a little back-bone when someone else FINALLY agreed with him. That someone shall remain unnameless... but I assure you, I have a passionate hatred for him because of previous experiences pertaining his involvement.
    Posted in: 1.0 Update Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on This is why minecraft sucks
    Quote from wolfendoom

    Oh boy, here we go, another mindless minecraft lover without his own opinion who's in love with Notch and can't put up a reasonable argument! Look, he's even telling people to play call of duty, his second favourite game! Baah, baah, look guys, there goes the sheep! :Sheep:



    A 4channer who plays minecraft and will utilize memes to defend the holy **** hairs of Notch? I can't facepalm any harder :blink.gif:

    Damnit, another irrational Notch hating spambot got past the spam guard. I think we need better protection to keep these blasted things out the forums. Like asking them what 2+2 is.

    Edit: I hope to ****ing god I don't have to deal with Amazingbob's ignorance again. Not after the whole "minecraft isn't a game that needs any sort of challenge" affair.
    Posted in: 1.0 Update Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Sniper Duel
    Here I thought I was the only person who was having a problem with it.
    Posted in: 1.0 Update Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on This is why minecraft sucks
    Quote from Netherspawn

    Yes, the video was created to mock the game, but well... it is VERY true in most places. Still, Notch Defense Force supresses even the most true complain in a few seconds.

    The Notch Defence Force isn't nearly as bad as the irrational haters that plague the forum.
    Posted in: 1.0 Update Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on Minecraft´s score
    8/10 IMO. Minecraft is overrated, but still a great game none the less. Worth the time and money I spent on it. I could argue it is worth more than I paid actually.
    Posted in: 1.0 Update Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Why do people hate minecraft on a minecraft website?
    Quote from DaBiggman

    Because paying customers have a right to voice their displeasure with the product they bought?

    God forbid people have freedom of speech and the right to criticize when their voices aren't being heard.

    The internetz is not governed by American laws contrary to popular belief(of some idiots). Freedom of speech would imply you could say (or type in this case) whatever you want here, which is not what you agreed to when you signed up to these forums. You agreed that if you break forums rules(which in this case, exercising your rights of the freedom of speech can) they can take actions from having you do it again. So freedom of speech does not technically apply to here. Just thought I'd point that out because I see so many American's acting like their first amendment is the law of the forum and some even thinking it applies to the entire internetz.
    Posted in: 1.0 Update Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on This is why minecraft sucks
    In my defence, a part of me knew that. I was just playing along.
    Posted in: 1.0 Update Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on I am coding the most simple client ever, would anyone be interested?
    Not that I'm hating on the client, but X-rays really only seem to be used to cheat in multiplayer. I thought they were finally banned from the forums? Also, wrong section.
    Posted in: Modification Development
  • 0

    posted a message on This is why minecraft sucks
    Like I said, they are probably being controversial on purpose. It gets them more attention. I've seen IGN reviewers do the exact same thing with popular games.
    Posted in: 1.0 Update Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on This is why minecraft sucks
    Quote from KyoShinda

    "Wow, I’m thinking this guy is about as biased as “Fox News”."
    Was that necessary? Like really?

    I said "as", so he isn't worse than them. Just on par in my opinion.
    Posted in: 1.0 Update Discussion
  • 3

    posted a message on This is why minecraft sucks
    Quote from SkarL

    video-snip
    Pretty much hit the nail on the head.

    Cliffs: (note his words, I only summarized)

    - Minecraft's retro graphics are lazily done, kept programmer art rather than hiring a good artist and giving minecraft it's own style. Provides various examples of games with retro graphics like minecraft that look better.

    Okay, I'm not even going address this one here because of all the other people who already have.

    Quote from SkarL

    - Notch promised many features but failed to deliver.

    Okay, upon reading this part, I'm questioning whether this person is reviewing Minecraft or not. What does this have to do with the game itself that you are buying? This seems to be a problem more with the developer than the game, so why it is in the review? That seems very biased.

    Quote from SkarL

    - Put of adding a modding API so Notch could make more money, updates in the last few months were just stolen mods. Wolves, pistons, etc.

    Try getsatifaction.com or whatever it is called. People asked for this content to be in the vanilla. So this person is calling Notch greedy for listening to the fans? Either that or he didn't review his facts of why this content was actually added, which would be failure on the reviewer's part then.

    Quote from SkarL

    - Provides example of game-breaking glitch (diamond block duping).
    - Not many minerals, easy to get diamond within an hour of playing.
    - Abrupt and ugly biome transitions.
    - Strongholds are boring and barren, treasure chests contain items that are much more easily obtained on your own or useless items. He provides an example with cocoa beans, which make cookies but there useless because you can just use other food items.
    - Poison foods don't make sense, you can still heal even if they are "poisonous". No reason to have poisonous foods if they heal you anyway.

    This is the first point the reviewer actually addressed the game. All be it one could argue the significance of these points. Fallout 3: New Vegas and Dead Island were far worse with bugs upon there release. And do not say this is what the beta was for, to remove bugs. The beta was to add more content, whether the word "beta" means that or not. That was the function of Minecraft’s beta. Bugs came with that content. They will be fixed in online updates, just like Fallout and Dead Island were.

    Quote from SkarL

    - Doesn't see the appeal in multiplayer, far more entertaining multiplayer games.
    - Game loses appeal quickly.

    Last time I checked it is an amateur move of a reviewer to not give solid reason why. I don’t know if that is in the video or not but judging from here he is hating on these features without saying his exact reasoning, which I am even less inclined to believe him because I’ve been playing minecraft for nine months now and that is a lot more than I can say for any other game in my library. And as for multiplayer, playing competitively and cooperatively seem to be the some of the more wanted aspects. Not only that, you build creations and you wish others to view it, so multiplayer is a no brainer for a lot of people.

    Quote from SkarL

    - Any website that gives MC 10/10 should not be trusted, because there are obvious problems.

    Funny, I was going to say the same about this reviewer. He is obviously prejudice towards minecraft and makes a lot of mistakes in reviewing 101. Heck, it seems like he is trying to be controversial right here just for the attention. And it’s working too, look at how many people he has made mad just here with his ignorance.

    Quote from SkarL

    - Notch makes poll asking if people would come to minecon if it was $90, everyone says no and he ups the price to $140. Wat?

    Okay, if you are reviewing Minecraft, this information should affect the score why? That’s like reviewers giving Skyrim a lower score because their publisher is sewing Notch. This is the epitome of subjectiveness right here. I was calling him biased before but maybe I should’ve waited until now because at this point I’m just becoming redundant. It’s obvious at this point why this person hates minecraft, this is one of his bias reasons why and he was stupid enough to list it in the review.

    Quote from SkarL

    - People only want to play scrolls because notch made it, game is not original at all.

    I know it is going to get redundant with me saying redundant and biased so much, but here it is again. Wow, I’m thinking this guy is about as biased as “Fox News”. I’ve never seen a review quite this bad, this one even beats that movie review of Schindler’s list I saw, and that was pretty bad. A quote from it to prove my point “This movie is made by Jews, for Jews”.

    Yes, I am putting this review here as even worse than the review done by a reviewer who said that! AND I’M JEWISH!

    Quote from SkarL

    - Supports Yogscast criticizing Notch, from his twitter claims.
    - Mojang team are hypocrites, also curse in front of children vs yogscast.

    At this point, he just wants to get Yogscast fans to agree with him. It’s rather pathetic actually.

    Quote from SkarL

    - Could have been great game, special and unique gear, NPCs you can communicate with, all sorts of directions mc could have gone. Instead it went in multiple directions in a step or two, never really committing.
    - All notch's games based on previously existing games, did very little to innovate games. Yet he won an award for it.
    - Notes that minecraft is 1.0, RELEASE VERSION.

    Wow, the first signs of him actually reviewing the game again. Do I finally detect a hint of professionalism with him pointing out how the game could be improved or what it is lacking? Wait, no, it is immediately destroyed because he went back to attacking personally Notch again instead of reviewing the game itself. Which is about the worst thing you can do as a reviewer.

    Quote from SkarL

    - Overall, can't recommend minecraft to anyone for $30, $15, not even for $6.99 on the app store. Not even for free.
    - 2.25/10 score

    You’re pretty generous considering what I’d give this review. I’d give this review a 0.00/10000 if I was a reviewer. Worst review of my life. My life was utterly wasted even just reading the summary. Just some angry irrational hater trying to get some attention.
    Posted in: 1.0 Update Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Has anyone beat minecraft legitly on a world made after 1.0s release...
    Quote from KyoShinda

    Sorry to double post.

    I finally got to the end and killed the dragon. It only damaged me when I entered(once) and after that it pushed me(leather armor or naked). I even let it push me with every different part of its body and it still didn't damage me and like said with others, your sword endurance doesn't go down when you're hitting it(People said that only happened with diamond sword so I brang many stone swords thinking it would be different). I came in with 32 arrows and used arrows only on the towers.

    pic-snips
    The most difficult part was getting the blaze rods or fighting enderman since my defense blows w/o high grade armor. The only thing I usually had on was the leather top.

    Congrats, you're a better player than myself. I might actually try this sort of challenge.
    Posted in: 1.0 Update Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Notch steps down as Minecraft lead designer
    Notch used to be lead developer of Minecraft, but then he took an arrow to the knee.
    Posted in: Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Notch steps down as Minecraft lead designer
    Quote from MaGicBush

    Doubt that is the reason, he just got burnt out(which is sad honestly after only 2-3 years, most games take 6 years to complete especially for a indie company).

    But if that is the reason, then shame on Notch. You should never just quit because of a few whiners on a game forum, every game in existence has them(for a recent example check the Skyrim or SWTOR forums lmao). Your in it for the customers, and if you can't handle that then your game deserves to fail(Note: MC is not a fail, just needs to be finished).

    Well, you haven't seen "Super Paper Mario". It mocked those whiners on their own forums BIG time. Those "whiners" must have gotten to the developers on some level or another.
    Posted in: Discussion
  • 6

    posted a message on Minecraft 1.0 an RPG?
    Coming up with taxonomic criteria is a tricky thing, as it often happens in reverse - you deliberately design them to exclude the games you don't want in a category, and to include the ones you do. And I'm going to admit that there's a little bit of subjectiveness in each of my criteria.

    Some of this thread was spurred on by some people (who shall remain nameless) saying Minecraft is an RPG(or even "pseudo RPG" in one case), but that is not the only reason behind this discussion. There are some folks who maintain that "hack-and-slash" style games no longer qualify as RPGs, especially if they are heavy on the action. Or at least they belong in their own category. And there are some who maintain that Diablo wasn't a "true" RPG, too.

    Now, I'm not going to argue against RPGs being a broad enough category that it couldn't use some additional subdivision. If there were more RPGs coming out each year, I'm sure many gaming sites would be happy to break the category up a little more. After all, I’ve seen an entire category devoted to "Aquanoid Clones" back in the day, because there were just so many of them. But I'm going to go for a more general, inclusive classification here. Here's my criteria for determining whether or not a game is worthy of the "RPG" label (even as a hybrid... a "slash-rpg?")

    Note that when I say "Avatar" in the context of this discussion, this can actually mean a set of characters that fall under the player's control. So the Avatar may switch in mid-game (as in the Final Fantasy games), or it may be an entire party of characters (I'm thinking Dragon Age when I say this).

    So if all these tests come up positive, I'd be hard-pressed NOT to call the game an RPG. If you have an example of a false positive or false negative, I'd like to hear it. We can create a new rules or modify the old ones. In fact, I'd love to hear some arguments.

    However because this is the Minecraft forums and first and most importantly I am looking address why Minecraft is NOT an RPG. I will start with some very common false criteria for RPGs especially the ones being applies here to Minecraft.



    Some False Criteria:


    Okay, now here are some false criteria that I often see applied, and why I think they are false:

    Roleplaying Games Are Fantasy Games?
    Nope, nope, nope. Twilight: 2000 is an old RPG that took on a gritty 'realistic' view of a post-apocalyptic speculative fiction. In fact, there wasn't anything really "sci-fi" about it. It was a fun dice-and-paper RPG, too. Fallout has some really fantastic elements, but it's not what most people think of when they think "fantasy." And it's considered by many to be the best computer RPG of all time.

    Literary genre has nothing to do with it. Fantasy RPGs are certainly among the best-selling computer and console RPGs, but in the tabletop realm there is a plethora of different genres. Pulp detective / adventure fiction, westerns, science fiction, martial arts, cyberpunk (also science fiction), even classic Saturday-morning cartoons... these have all been fodder for pen-and-paper.

    RPG means Role-Playing-Game, so I choose “role-playing” for 100$

    Okay, this is perhaps the worst false criteria here on the Minecraft Forums. I wasn’t even going to stick this one in here but I was surprised how many times I can see this argument on the internetz.

    There are two problems with appealing to the term "role-playing games." That became really popular during the 90's as more story-heavy, less mechanically-focused pen-and-paper RPGs hit the market (specifically, the World of Darkness games, which I really enjoyed!).

    The first is that the games predate the term. The term "role-playing game" didn't hit common usage until 1978 or 1979 or so, about half a decade after this type of game become popular. Before then, it was called all kinds of names, including "Fantasy Gaming," and "Adventure Gaming." Role-Playing Games seemed to be the best fit.

    Secondly, there are many, many types of games out there that let you play a role, and put you in the virtual shoes of somebody else. In fact, that's practically a central theme of most core games.

    The top priority of the developers of Falcon 4.0 was to give the player the "feeling" of being a fighter pilot (minus the boring parts). Does that make it an RPG? Thief probably made me feel more like I was a medieval burglar than any fantasy RPG where I rolled up a thief (though a couple of games - mainly the Elder Scrolls games - came close). Does that make it an RPG?


    A levelling system or experience bar?

    This might be the number one reason on the MC forums why Minecraft is being called an RPG. First off, a level system is just a progression system of sorts. Money can act the exact same as experience. Usually currency is just another form of a progression system in a game.

    Consider it a choice of words. You kill the bad creature it drops coins(instead of experience for example) and you take those coins to upgrade your character with new goodies being purchased. Many games that are not RPG’s incorporate a progression system. Some popular games that come to mind would be some of the more recent Call of Duty games with their online play and Gears of War III‘s hoard mode. Grand Theft auto: San Andreas also used a skill level system too I might add.

    At the very least I can name Final Fantasy II doesn’t have experience or levels. Your stats increase only if they were used severally in a battle, but they had no experience bar nor were they governed by levels.

    An RPG Must Have a Story?
    Yes, RPGs are a form of cooperative storytelling. I think this is a false requirement because a story can be a simple one-sentence premise next to the controls of an arcade machine. It can even be implied. "These heroes are seeking fame and fortune by exploring a dangerous dungeon" is a story. Not a very compelling one, no, but then we're getting into qualitative measures.

    This doesn't mean an RPG can't be judged by the quality of its story (or by its ability to let the player create his own story). I just don't think there is a binary answer to the question of whether or not a game has a story. Only the most abstract of games have no story whatsoever that the player can't infer from the action.

    An RPG is Combat-Oriented?
    Oooh, oooh! I've got this one! My answer is "no, not necessarily" only because it shouldn't have to be. But I don't think anybody has taken on the challenge of making a non-combat RPG. I have fuzzy little desired to take on the challenge someday.

    An RPG Must Have A Conversation / Equipment / Quest System!
    Nope! Like combat systems, these are common but not defining or necessary features of an RPG. I can imagine an RPG without them. I have a very tough time imagining a GOOD modern RPG without any of these systems, but that doesn't mean it's impossible. Maybe you play a some mute kung-fu master who wanders from town to town without possessions, trying to avenge your master's death or something.









    Is This Game An RPG?

    #1 - The success or failure of the player's actions are significantly influenced by (or modified by) the attributes of the player's avatar.

    For example, even if the game makes you aim your bow manually (as in an action / RPG), whether or not you hit and / or the damage you do is based upon the avatar's attributes (a combination of inherent ability and the attributes of any active equipment or effects in use by the avatar).

    Many games might pass this test, for very small values of the word "significantly." FPS games, for example, have attributes of your avatar - principally determined by power-ups and current health status. However, with such a small variety of changes to the attributes, and the fact that rocket launcher doesn't really vary from player to player (unless they have quad damage, but that's a small variant), I'd argue that it fails this rule.


    #2 - Some non-determinism should influence the outcome of critical player actions.

    This is something of an artifact of criterion #1. I have a tough time accepting a game as an RPG if attacking monster A with weapon B with a character with stats set C will ALWAYS hit for X points of damage. I'd start looking for Adventure or Strategy labels for the game.

    I BELIEVE that the range of damage done by an attack in Oblivion was determined randomly (at least I couldn't perceive a deterministic pattern). There seemed to be some randomness in creatures detecting you when you were hidden too, but that might not be the case. And if you chose to let the game automatically handle lockpicking for you, it seemed to be a random determination of success or failure as well (depending upon your character's skill level). So Oblivion counts. Though it really walks near the edge between FPS and RPG.

    This is one rule I could give some leeway on, as there are non-computer examples of RPGs with little randomness. The Amber "diceless" RPG comes to mind, as well as some Live Action Role Playing (LARP) games. But I'd be really, really suspicious in a computer / console game.


    #3 - There is a strong correlation between the player's progress in the game, and the level of the player-avatar's attributes.

    In other words, the longer you play, the better your avatar becomes. Generally. There can be exceptions here and there. For example, I can envision a Call of Cthulhu computer RPG where your character's sanity might drop during the course of the game, even though his other attributes improve.

    If a game gives you a "level" that governs your in-game capabilities as a reward as you make progress, it easily qualifies under this rule.



    #4 - The Game Encourages the Player to Identify With the Avatar

    This one is very subjective. But it helps rule out certain games that would apply under the previous criteria. For example, X-Com is a game which would fit under the other criteria. While most people would say it has RPG elements, it's really not an RPG. The game encourages you to take an omniscient role as a commander over your squaddies. Likewise, while Falcon 3.0 had a squadron of pilots with different abilities that you could control (and their ability to hit their target certainly FELT random), when you jumped into the cockpit you 'took over' as the pilot. Ditto for wargames.

    Some legitimate RPGs are weak in this area, particularly early ones. They made no attempt to integrate your character (or your party) into the fiction of the game. But they still took on the conceit that the character (or party) were "you" in the game. If the last party member died, the game was over. You saw the game from their perspective. You "play" those characters, rather than just playing the game.



    So.... there's my latest attempt at defining the genre. Please feel free to challenge this... I'm sure I'm leaving stuff out. Let me hear your own ideas! Especially if you have counter-examples.
    Posted in: 1.0 Update Discussion
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.