next »

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

the son of one of my cousins is a minecraft fan; i never met him since he lives a few states away but apparently he was awed when his mother told him that her cousin had named it

[Graham-]

you named it?

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

you named it?

someone just asked me that very question in this very thread a few pages ago, haha, keep up with the times

[Eendhoorn]

I didn't understood and therefore never played minecraft until a year ago. Some friend introduced me to it in a LAN session, so they were there to help me with the basic crafting and stuff. I instantly fell in love, it truely feels like going on an adventure.

[handCraftedRadio]

and what's the deal with minecraft? it sounds like a how-to make arts & crafts book written by adolf hitler. am i right people?

[Dragonmaw]

HOW COME PEOPLE LIKE THIS THING I DON'T LIKE

[feminazi]

stop quoting urself it dum

[baconman]

Because they haven't played Terraria.

[Oskuro]

If my experience with playing Minecraft online is any indication, the game is rather popular with 12-year olds... Whether that's physical 12-year olds or mental 12-year olds I can't tell.  



Edit:

Bouhouhou why so blocky minecraft?
Cry no more, for you dual contouring:
http://procworld.blogspot.fr/2013/01/dont-be-square.html

That site is awesome for all things procedural, but never forget that the bottleneck for a voxel based game is data processing. Having simpler data structures makes the thing playable, specially if they are supposed to be modified on real time.

I liked the voxel engine of the 3d Worms games (used polygonal tiles instead of boxes), for example, but real time terrain deformation was so slow it could only work in a turn based game.

I think the way forward, technological advancements in raw processing power notwithstanding, would be a similar approach to classic LOD (level of detail) rendering, using detailed structures near the player and simplified ones far away (maybe even representing distant terrain as a simple heightmap).

It's a very interesting thing to think about. But sometimes hard to conceptualize because, you see, the whole thing is based on a 3d matrix, and no one can be told what the matrix is...

(Darn, that joke is so dated...)

[Impmaster]

That's probably cause parents are hearing all these things about "Oh, it keeps them entranced without blood and gore!" so they buy their kids this instead of Call of shooting men. Quite good in my opinion. 

[eyeliner]

I don't like it, but have respect for the thing. If it has been able to gather that amount of fans, it must be good.

I tried it, and got the great surprise of not having a damn thing to guide me through. It made me remember the early days, when I traded games with friends without manuals and had to discover stuff by doing instead of reading.

[forwardresent]

Because they haven't played Terraria.

I would still be playing Terraria if there was anything left to do in the game. The mods are all pretty buggy, the fun from Terraria was pretty much entirely combat focused, once you've killed all the bosses there's no real reason to play any more.

I think it's because Minecraft's endgame isn't really the focus, but in Terraria pretty much everything led up to the bosses.

[Graham-]

@ Paul

Nice desk. That's cool, the naming.

I should probably give Minecraft some credit though. For a game with no story or "actual" gameplay, it sure is successful. I'm just having a hard time figuring out the source of its appeal.

Minecraft has gameplay. Think about how carefully the mining animation, sound effect, dropping resource block, collection sound were thought out. Players set their own goals but that means nothing. We create our own adventures.

Zelda says kill boss X. Minecraft says nothing, we say build house X, then do it. The choices we make in Minecraft are just as guided as they are in other games. In Zelda you can choose where to explore. In Minecraft you choose where and what for. There is a "Minecraft experience," that players share, that is guided by well designed mechanics. Tell me how that is not gameplay.

Minecraft feels like a toy when you don't get it. Then as you engage it becomes a game. You buy into the rules and goals. You have to buy into the need to kill a boss in Mario. You have to buy in to Minecraft. The difference is semantic.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

yeah i'm always surprised what games are accused of having "no gameplay" -- to some people, sim city has no gameplay, minecraft has no gameplay, aquaria has no gameplay, eufloria has no gameplay, etc. etc.

the only thing that seems to make sense to me is that "gameplay" means "is a game in a traditional genre, like fps or platformer"

but really, the only game that has no gameplay is a game without any interaction at all, such as a visual novel with no story branches. the moment you add choice, you add gameplay; even a choose your own adventure book has gameplay

[Graham-]

I think the issue comes from unstructured play. If someone says walking across the street isn't a game I'll say okay because there aren't any choices. Walking across the street in a way that attracts romantic attention. That is a game. You can choose.

If your choice has no consequence, like when choosing to paint your wall a little more red or a little less, then there's no game because there are no results. If you care about every result equally then.... I think there needs to be some unknown factor. If you can't make a choice and have the results be at least remotely surprising, you aren't gaming. If there is no goal then there are no results, so that is not gaming.

Minecraft doesn't give goals explicitly. So people play, feel like they are expressing themselves, but there are no results or progress, because they haven't invested enough to see them. So they say "Minecraft is without gameplay," as if there is a clear line between games the give goals to its players and games that do not.

But the reality is that no game gives a goal. An alien may play the best game and see no goal because it doesn't understand. All games require some degree of investment by the player in order to provide a goal. The process that Minecraft uses to give you a goal is new, and can take more time to kick in, sometimes a long time, and - here's the key - may not be obvious until it has already affected you.

But it is still designed to give you one. It still communicates with you so that you come up with one. Just because you don't find the game doesn't mean that Minecraft "isn't a game." I don't see Barbie Adventures as a game because I don't play it. Doesn't make it not a game. Most people who do play it play it as one. That's what makes a game a game. You have to think about the interaction, not just the product.

[ThemsAllTook]

If my experience with playing Minecraft online is any indication, the game is rather popular with 12-year olds... Whether that's physical 12-year olds or mental 12-year olds I can't tell.  

Minecraft is indeed quite popular with kids. As with any other game though, playing with random strangers online is going to be a terrible experience no matter what. Play with friends you know and trust, and it'll be much more enjoyable.

[crowe]

Minecraft is like Legos that you only have to buy once. Sure, they're not as good as real ones, but it's the same sort of appeal and accessible without buying expensive boxes of physical building stuffs

[Graham-]

@ Took

I know a little about playing online, but I've watched my step brother play with strangers a lot. Many times I've sat there with him for 10 minutes while I'm waiting for something, and talked with him about the game. I am always so easily amazed by how organized they seem. He is always doing something different, in some new location, with unique buildings, and everyone else is kind of participating too.

The experience of watching is like going to a social event that you are totally unfamiliar with, culturally, or because of age gaps or whatever, and everyone there speaks their own language, with rules and structures, and communicate beneath the surface in a way that you can't quite understand. You think, "this is beyond me, but something is happening here."

Just take a look at the wiki. Spontaneously collaborative. One of the best introductory wikis there are. ... Maybe we are too old for Minecraft.

[Oskuro]

You're only "too old" when you start believing you are. 

My online experience with Minecraft isn't negative, quite the contrary, the server I play in is pretty well organized and functional, despite the average age of players.

To me it is surprising to see the other players' real age show when I pay attention to their conversations on the chat channel. Suddenly learning that one of the more active mods is a girl whose age I almost triplicate can be quite a shock. 

Maybe a case could be made that the open ended nature of the game results in more player implication, as it is players who design the rules of their interactions with one another, rather than have it defined by a scoreboard or a strict set of goals.

[Graham-]

Hah. I didn't say I didn't enjoy it. But it doesn't open this creative valve for me. There are guys making computers and stuff inside Minecraft. Awesome. But like, we push the system to its limits. I learned more about game design than creativity playing it.

I guess you are right. ... I feel far more creative coming up with builds in an RPG. That's creativity for me. Minecraft is like game design but with all these barriers. Just let me design a game. I already have my medium of choice. Kids, they don't. That's what makes 'em kids.

Think about a 2 year-old in a sandbox. That thing can be his whole world for an hour. Adults have to make these monstrosities with special sand and tools, that look like artwork. Kids just play with the sand, because the properties of the sand are enough to not limit their imagination. Minecraft is a sandbox. I don't know what its ideal market is. I've seen a lot of adults on youtube take it just as seriously as anyone else.