Minecraft Graphics.
- Thread starter Hummmy
- Start date
Can you imagine how things would look it they WEREN'T' all blocks? NOTHING would be uniform!
If you're complaining about texture packs and lighting?
They're improving lighting as they go and you've never seem to have heard of Texture packs.
If you're complaining about texture packs and lighting?
They're improving lighting as they go and you've never seem to have heard of Texture packs.
How would you measure things? How would you get a standardized measurement? How would crafting work?How would lighting work?
The list goes on and on.
The list goes on and on.
high-res graphics would look absolutely ridiculous in a world made entirely of voxel-boxes,
don't think so? check out fortresscraft and see how right i am
don't think so? check out fortresscraft and see how right i am
Even since before Minecraft came around I've been looking forward to the day when we get a procedurally generated open world Elder Scrolls like game. So bringing Minecraft into the equation then for the 'Adventure!' mode I can see it happening, but for the endless destructible world with a focus on building things then not a chance. You just have no idea the complexity involved in Minecraft. Iif for a game like Oblivion the CPU had to also generate the ground below you for a few hundred meters with all sorts of complex caves and monsters wondering about... well your computer would probably blow up under the strain!Hummmy said:
You first used Deer Hunter as an example, I game which I do like, but you do know they can build a low budget game like that because it's easy to just acquire a 3d engine and have all the hard work done for you right?
The reason Minecraft is demanding isn't that it's inherently complex - it's that it's written in Java and runs on the JVM. Phones have enough processing power to run something of Minecraft's complexity, and if it was re-written in a more efficient manner, those concept renders would be at most moderately demanding for today's machines. You'd have to rewrite the engine anyway to get that level of detail, so I don't see that being an issue. If they wanted to do it, they could. (okay, maybe not Notch, but he's hired some much better programmers than he is)Pseudoboss said:
I just got my friend into it. He just got his 3 closest friends into it.
The only reason they didnt get it back when it first hit beta, was because "OMG TEH GRAPHICS IZ SUCKZORZ!"
Now that they get past it, all 4 of them play on my private server daily. Minecraft wouldnt be Any better with "better graphics". Because its not about the graphics. Its about the Aesthetics of the game.
Its like crysis 2. Sure, its the highest graphical fidelity game on the market. But that doesnt make it any better then most of the other shooters out. In fact, i HATE Crysis 2. It felt overly sluggish, there were many poor design choices, and the ability to cloak, and become nearly bullet proof at a whim threw balance out the window and beat it with a nailed 2x4.
Minecraft is minecraft. Changing the graphics doesnt make it any better of a game, because its all Aesthetic choices. Preference.
Besides..... Reality BLOWS! Why would i want my game to be realistic? Isnt the reason i play video games to escape realism?
The only reason they didnt get it back when it first hit beta, was because "OMG TEH GRAPHICS IZ SUCKZORZ!"
Now that they get past it, all 4 of them play on my private server daily. Minecraft wouldnt be Any better with "better graphics". Because its not about the graphics. Its about the Aesthetics of the game.
Its like crysis 2. Sure, its the highest graphical fidelity game on the market. But that doesnt make it any better then most of the other shooters out. In fact, i HATE Crysis 2. It felt overly sluggish, there were many poor design choices, and the ability to cloak, and become nearly bullet proof at a whim threw balance out the window and beat it with a nailed 2x4.
Minecraft is minecraft. Changing the graphics doesnt make it any better of a game, because its all Aesthetic choices. Preference.
Besides..... Reality BLOWS! Why would i want my game to be realistic? Isnt the reason i play video games to escape realism?
Minecraft wouldn't work with realistic graphics because it's main charm is the lego block effect, take that out and all you got left is a random open world exploration game with nothing to do.
But if someone did manage to make a game with realistic graphics and the same ease of world manipulation it would be mind blowing.
But if someone did manage to make a game with realistic graphics and the same ease of world manipulation it would be mind blowing.
Not better graphics but more photo-realistic graphics, which I am not sure are appropriate for a game where rocks can defy gravity and a singled bucket of water can cover a mountainside.Squidden said:
Frankly, the video for that hunter game he posted looked more like those terrible FMV games from the early 90's. Crap for the Sega CD. I thought it looked terrible. It's probably the uncanny valley thing going on there. I see no reason for that to improve Minecraft in the slightest.
Let me just ask one thing. Considering that Minecraft is built from blocks because they are easy to build with, how would you manage to build the kind of thing that Minecraft allows using realistic shapes?
It just wouldn't be as effective or user friendly. I'm also sure that the only game close to what your thinking of is Little Big Planet.
I think the whole block style of Minecraft is also part of it's charm. It's friendly and easy to build in so I think better graphics with more polygons would ruin it a bit.
It just wouldn't be as effective or user friendly. I'm also sure that the only game close to what your thinking of is Little Big Planet.
I think the whole block style of Minecraft is also part of it's charm. It's friendly and easy to build in so I think better graphics with more polygons would ruin it a bit.
Neither can I.Pat8u said:
[sub] Damn you hard to spell words.[/sub]
No, Minecraft would not improve if it had the highest fidelity and top of the line requirement.
Look, simple way to tell if you know anything about the looks of games.
Does your art style serve the gameplay.
Do your graphics support the art style.
If ONE of these is "No" then you officially put your game into a trap. You must live on the planet Mercury if you think Realism AUTOMATICALLY makes things better.
I've stated it before, I'll do it again, Realism is BBBOOORRRIINNNGG!! We intoxicate our minds, play games, watch movies and TV and read books to ESCAPE from the real world, WE DO NOT USE THESE TO GO INTO THE REAL WORLD FOR 60$ A POP!
I'll stop you there, would Okami benefit from replacing its Japanese painting style for a realistic look of Japan, NO IT WOULD NOT BENEFIT! Would TF2 benefit from not having a 50s art style, NO, IT WOULD NOT BENEFIT!Hummmy said:
1st thing is first, Notch could not POSSIBLY make the game look better BECAUSE hes a god damn indie developer, I don't have to read much more then your title because I've been around gaming discussions for quite some time, to know how it will go.
I'd be god damn playing Minecraft in 10 bloody years if it keeps getting updates, I won't be playing a simulator of real life that looks LIKE real life, why? BECAUSE I CAN DO ALL THAT FOR FREE IN MY LIFE!
Your logic is flawed on the premise that what makes games, GAMES is its GAMEPLAY, and graphics are used to benefit gameplay, why does Minecraft have a block style? Because the game is about building using blocks. Thats why each block in Minecraft looks like it does, so at a glance I can tell what block I want to get, OH THATS SAND, LETS GRAB THAT, BUT LETS NOT GRAB THAT DIRT BECAUSE I DON'T NEED IT! Its times like this I KNOW I'm repeating myself, because I have said this 100 times over.
I know, FOR A FACT, people still play the original Super Mario Brothers that was release back in 1985, lets do math, its the year 2011, and you see ads about being able to play Super Mario Brothers online, you see people adding things to the original game, you see people doing crossovers with the original game. I SURE AS HELL KNOW PEOPLE STILL PLAY OLD ATARI 2600 GAMES, FOR CHRISTS SAKE! Those games are old as hell, and we both know people are STILL playing them to this day, your logic is ultimately flawed on the simple basis that people are still playing games from 1985 BACK, we have EMULATORS for gods sake so we can play this game on our Computers.
Saying "OH WELL THIS INDIE TITLE, WITH NOT A LARGE AMOUNT OF FUNDING, WOULD WORK 100% FINE OR BETTER WITH HIGH FIDELITY AND REALIST GRAPHICS!" JUST FUCK NO! Thats the problem with gaming right bloody there, people are going on about "OH WELL, GRAPHICS NEED TO BE REALISTIC ALL THE TIME, IT IMPROVES GAMES" When its far as hell from my chair to Satan's wine cellar underneath his home. Do games need to have High Fidelity and Realistic Graphics to be good? No, do games need to look like Pong, well if they WANT to look like pong, but money should be spent on gameplay, which it isn't, a large amount of Triple A games goes to the art department, and it DOESN'T NEED TOO, it should be going, largely to the Dev team and then a small chunk to the Art and Sound department.
Would Saints Row benefit from Realistic Graphics? No, because their gameplay is silly, over the top and thus they should have a Art style that compliments that, and they do.
Would Rock of Ages benefit from Realistic Graphics? No, because its a fantasy world with a great sense of humor, so its graphics should compliment that.
Saying, at any time, anywhere, that High Fidelity Graphics and Realistic Graphics make games better is so bloody STUPID that I almost blow my lid if I hear it and go into rage mode, because it doesn't, and Developers and Publishers shouldn't be told that all people want from a game is pretty pictures, they should be told is that, we, gamers want a game that is fun to play, and any graphics it has to benefit the player and the game, not just pretty pictures to look at.
Minecraft has it's charm in the way of how easy it is to build, it's basically like snapping together LEGO blocks. Would you rather sculpt a 3d model of your house, or put it together using blocks?
Also, using simple block mechanics allow you to generate huge worlds in realtime, I just can't imagine how you would've generated a realistic world - if you could, games would be produced twice as fast (Oh, I need a world... *click* done).
Besides having everything blocky makes it a lot easier for people to make stuff. It's much easier to put textures and animate cubes.
Also, using simple block mechanics allow you to generate huge worlds in realtime, I just can't imagine how you would've generated a realistic world - if you could, games would be produced twice as fast (Oh, I need a world... *click* done).
Besides having everything blocky makes it a lot easier for people to make stuff. It's much easier to put textures and animate cubes.
I do think he asked if there could ever be a game that could have realistic graphic and be like mine craft and the possibility is definitively there, but then all components would have to interact independently and also with every other object in every combination atm i cant see that happening but physx engines are getting more complex and may be able to reduce the amount of coding it would take to achieve that kind of thing. but again i cant see it happening withing the next 10 - 15 years without a massive investment in programmers graphics designers mainly programmers and a super computer a massive super computer at that.
but moores law states that The number of transistors that can be placed inexpensively on an integrated circuit doubles approximately every two years.
this has been followed somewhat but optimizing the performance of those transistors and how they work has also enabled processor manufacturers to have the same end result double the number of processes per second every 2 years roughly.
this expinatual growth im sure you all know enables us to imagine that in 15 years processors would have doubled in power 7.5 times so say we are at 3.3Ghz per core with 4 cores atm Ghz is not the only messure of how much a processor can process but we will take it as the equivalent so thats 3.3Ghz x 4 which is 13.2 we could reasonably expect that to double every 2 years
so that's
year 2: 26.4Ghz
Year 4: 52.8Ghz
Year 6: 105.6Ghz
Year 8: 211.2Ghz
Year 10: 422.4Ghz
Year 12: 844.8Ghz
Year 14: 1689.6Ghz
or 1.6876Thz
or 1.6876 Terra hertz
which could easily run a program of such complexity because it would be 128 times more powerful than todays computers if you add onto that General-Purpose computation on Graphics Processing Unit which GPU's are acceleration faster than processors you could have the effective computation of around 2 - 3Thz so yeah possible in the future but not right now.
but moores law states that The number of transistors that can be placed inexpensively on an integrated circuit doubles approximately every two years.
this has been followed somewhat but optimizing the performance of those transistors and how they work has also enabled processor manufacturers to have the same end result double the number of processes per second every 2 years roughly.
this expinatual growth im sure you all know enables us to imagine that in 15 years processors would have doubled in power 7.5 times so say we are at 3.3Ghz per core with 4 cores atm Ghz is not the only messure of how much a processor can process but we will take it as the equivalent so thats 3.3Ghz x 4 which is 13.2 we could reasonably expect that to double every 2 years
so that's
year 2: 26.4Ghz
Year 4: 52.8Ghz
Year 6: 105.6Ghz
Year 8: 211.2Ghz
Year 10: 422.4Ghz
Year 12: 844.8Ghz
Year 14: 1689.6Ghz
or 1.6876Thz
or 1.6876 Terra hertz
which could easily run a program of such complexity because it would be 128 times more powerful than todays computers if you add onto that General-Purpose computation on Graphics Processing Unit which GPU's are acceleration faster than processors you could have the effective computation of around 2 - 3Thz so yeah possible in the future but not right now.
I easily immerse myself with Minecraft. Doesn't matter if the graphics aren't "detailed", the aesthetics work perfectly for it.
In fact, I don't think I could actually immerse myself in Minecraft at all if it had realistic graphics.
In fact, I don't think I could actually immerse myself in Minecraft at all if it had realistic graphics.
Do you mean round trees and rolling hills? Because it's hard enough as it is making land flat, without fucking CURVES to deal with. Other than that, the aesthetic is very mutable. Like you said, texture packs and whatnot. Have you tried the texture packs that actually add texture? Like cobblestone with raised cobbles? I've seen a really well executed one, maybe you'd like it.
http://www.minecraftforum.net/topic/127377-16x-32x-64x-128x-256x18-lb-photo-realism-18-compatible-9132011/
http://www.minecraftforum.net/topic/127377-16x-32x-64x-128x-256x18-lb-photo-realism-18-compatible-9132011/