Minecraft Graphics.
- Thread starter Hummmy
- Start date
I think this video makes a good point for what you guys have been talking about on both sides http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKTAJBQSm10 there's not much i can add hope this doesn't get moded because of EC and EM's fallout I don't mean to pure salt into wound but it is a great exploration into this topic.
if they mod the link basically a Roboticist by the name of Masahiro Mori built robots that looked progressively more human at a certain point he found that people found them unsettling when all his previous affectations of human like robots had been likes he theorized and coined the term the Uncanny Valley shown on this graph
Here is an image of the unsettling affectations
So you could reasonably apply the same logic to computer graphics, and the same graph with varying flow would apply but the same principle would still apply, as i said i think we are running into this effect and we are coming onto the first bit of the dip of the uncanny valley, now the main point of this is that we have two options which should not be unilaterally applied.
Photo-realism or stylization which stylization has been shouted out as the way to go by some i'm looking up at you Aprilgold, but it could be out of place as in the battle field series how out of place would a cartoon or seemingly pained world seem, and who wouldnt love to see a ture photo realistic game that got it right but it would be a massive money sink.
but there are benefits to stylization it usually costs far less and for some things it is a far better way to go how would sonic be as a realistic hedgehog again it just wouldn't work.
but greater fidelity to a point would not be a bad thing even for stylization.
so it is not a one way battle, but I like daniel floyd do not think that striving for photo-realism is a bad thing, but yes we should put more time and money into post production and it is inexpensive but the problem is that means you have to leave your programmers doing nothing which is preicy you could say they could just higher more concept people but eh.
the point is though with the proper organization it would be relatively in-expensive to have more pre-production time.
if they mod the link basically a Roboticist by the name of Masahiro Mori built robots that looked progressively more human at a certain point he found that people found them unsettling when all his previous affectations of human like robots had been likes he theorized and coined the term the Uncanny Valley shown on this graph
Here is an image of the unsettling affectations
So you could reasonably apply the same logic to computer graphics, and the same graph with varying flow would apply but the same principle would still apply, as i said i think we are running into this effect and we are coming onto the first bit of the dip of the uncanny valley, now the main point of this is that we have two options which should not be unilaterally applied.
Photo-realism or stylization which stylization has been shouted out as the way to go by some i'm looking up at you Aprilgold, but it could be out of place as in the battle field series how out of place would a cartoon or seemingly pained world seem, and who wouldnt love to see a ture photo realistic game that got it right but it would be a massive money sink.
but there are benefits to stylization it usually costs far less and for some things it is a far better way to go how would sonic be as a realistic hedgehog again it just wouldn't work.
but greater fidelity to a point would not be a bad thing even for stylization.
so it is not a one way battle, but I like daniel floyd do not think that striving for photo-realism is a bad thing, but yes we should put more time and money into post production and it is inexpensive but the problem is that means you have to leave your programmers doing nothing which is preicy you could say they could just higher more concept people but eh.
the point is though with the proper organization it would be relatively in-expensive to have more pre-production time.
Yes, a minecraft with realistic graphics would be good, but so are the current minecraft graphics.
Ultimately, I sort of feel that a minecraft with realistic graphics would be... somewhat strange. Why would you push for realism in a game that revolves around blocks?
Ultimately, I sort of feel that a minecraft with realistic graphics would be... somewhat strange. Why would you push for realism in a game that revolves around blocks?
Well, my guess is that we'd probably not playing Minecraft at all. And that's a very poor analogy: there's plenty of more realistic looking type things right now, that's not what Minecraft is all about. The 16x16 is a conscious aesthetic choice on Mojang's part.Hummmy said:
Minecraft's whole gameplay is about the "blockyness". If you want a creative game with more "realistic" take on it, you should try out Gmod.
If you stick a picture of a ball on a cardboard box it will not look like a ball, it will just look weird. The same with minecraft, if you add realistic looking textures on the blocky animals and stuff it's only gonna look goofy. I say minecraft should have either 16x16 or 32x32, no more no less.
Good aesthetic design is not essentially equivalent to graphical horsepower, the latter can still be very important if used in a game that aims for a realistic kind of aesthetic and produce great results. In Minecraft however, this kind of aesthetic would be pretty out of place while current graphical style fits in nicely with the gameplay and creates an interesting atmosphere unique to Minecraft.
Of course Minecraft could probably still work if the 'boxes' the world consists of had more detailed textures, however that might actually end up looking pretty dull and also removes an aspect of Minecraft I personally find very important: the possibility to run the game on low-end hardware.
Of course Minecraft could probably still work if the 'boxes' the world consists of had more detailed textures, however that might actually end up looking pretty dull and also removes an aspect of Minecraft I personally find very important: the possibility to run the game on low-end hardware.
No not really.
Minecraft's gameplay is entirely based around blocks. To remove that essence would ruin the gameplay; its simple for the player to understand, and simple to make stuff, which is 90% of the fun in Minecraft. To have it with 'realistic' graphics and no blocks would meant that the 'craft'ing bit wouldn't be simple, which ruins the whole concept.
Minecraft's gameplay is entirely based around blocks. To remove that essence would ruin the gameplay; its simple for the player to understand, and simple to make stuff, which is 90% of the fun in Minecraft. To have it with 'realistic' graphics and no blocks would meant that the 'craft'ing bit wouldn't be simple, which ruins the whole concept.
A game about exploration in a beautiful landscape would be haven for me.
But that's not Minecraft.
Once you remove the blocks it wouldn't be the same game.
But that's not Minecraft.
Once you remove the blocks it wouldn't be the same game.
Game Artist Perspective: Minecraft suffers from pattern repetition. The larger more complicated the image for the texture, the more gaudy the repetition is going to look. 32x32px barely work for the game without it looking so terrible, still to much for me. I prefer the simpler 16x16 patterns. My favorite being the OCD texture pattern by Disco. It is a simplified grid looking textures works great for Minecraft.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZ9lNZrNhwQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZ9lNZrNhwQ
For the record, your strawman argument is really not appreciated. That said, the idea of playing a game like this is starting to intrigue me, so lets see...No_Remainders said:
Dirt...measured pounds. If you want to build a castle of dirt, then you'll need to pack it well, you'll probably have to measure in tons, not in pounds. Will dirt stack in your inventory? Depends on the system. In my opinion, no. I'd say that you should probably have a size limit on your backpack. Want to build a castle of dirt? Build that sucker into a hill side. Will using different implements create a different gap? Most certainly. That IS how it would work, realistically.
Assuming that we keep in line with the same as above, I'd say that you would probably have to use different tools. Something to skin the bark, something to cut down the tree, something to cut the tree into pieces. Depending on the size of the pieces, you'd have different types of wood. 10 branches can't magically turn into a plank. That's silly. Your argument is silly. This post is silly...moving on.
Depends, since I've jokingly modeled this game off of real life, and in real life if you break a stone, all of it is usable, I would assume that you would be able to pick all of it up. Assuming, of course, that you have room in your backpack and the strength to carry it.
For ease of coding, lets say that the original stones in the game sheer when broken, rather than coming off in chips. We can tackle smaller chips with an update.
You hurt yourself a lot, don't you?
Well, presumably you could strip the bark and break branches.
Normally we start by finding a stone that is small enough to fit in our hands, then we use that stone to create more intricate stone and wooden tools. This is how the neolithics did it, therefore it is how we shall do it too.
As games get more and more realistic, I'll be honest and say that in the future with virtual reality and the processors available years from now, yes I think this will be plausible (if not unavoidable). Most of my ideas here were very tongue and cheek, but the basic concept is to build a system governed by the exact same laws of physics that our own universe is governed by. At some point in the near future we may well know the full extent of those laws, at which point it would be far easier to model such a creation. Once we know those rules, the only limitation would be our ability to process such models. In the beginning we would be able to simulate an atom with all of the laws (actually we can do something similar to that already). In the near future, perhaps many molecules interacting (a fully simulated glass of water would be interesting to study). In 50 years? Perhaps we'll be able to fully simulate an acre of land. Maybe more. Maybe less.
The point I was originally trying to make is that blocks aren't necessary. The game could use any sorts of materials that we want. If you want to get into the nitty gritty of game mechanics, then there will obviously be some compromises made, but it's just a matter of changing shapes and dimensions. Rather than a wooden block, we make the tree trunk into a bunch of two by fours by clicking and dragging, then we stack those two by fours. It's not like the concept of the game changes much. Rather than laying a brick block, you lay a brick. Rather than glass blocks, you put in windows. The blocks aren't required, they just simplify things on the building end, and add to the game's aesthetics. It's still quite possible to use the exact same game mechanics and substitute building materials for the blocks.
I dont think anyone is saying they want a truly realistic game where where you have to wait 6 months before getting planing permission blah blah blah people keep saying that mine craft is perfect as it is well that's just BS you really saying you would rather play with blocks than be able to build things that look a million time better than you can build today when people say they want it to look more realiztic it doesnt mean they want the game play to be more realistic just the final look to be something that resembles something that looks like it could be real if say you could build a building out of glass with no supports etc most people here are not saying that we want a realistic game-play just that the graphics could be better as the last guy said it you wouldn't have to change the game-play that much if it was designed well and anyone whos says they wouldn't want to see a game NOT MINECRAFT but another game with photo realistic graphics and out of this world gameplay is a liar no shhh liar but no your liar, NO YOU ARE A LIAR.
they used blocks because it would be easy; not because it would be the prefect game.zehydra said:
minecraft is a building game, wouldn't it be great to have a building game were you could make realistic things just as easily as putting down blocks?
Minecraft works because of the blocks. The sole 'game' I can think of that offers the same limitless possibilities is Second Life. I've seen user created environments in SL that look as good as anything in a professionally produced current gen title. Problem is that's usually because the creator is a professional 3d graphics designer. The bar is simply set too high for the casual player.
In Minecraft, unless you're using third party editing tools to generate vast structures, we're all using the same tools and you don't need advanced skill sets or professional level design software to build your world. That level of accessibility is one very important reason why Minecraft is such a success.
In Minecraft, unless you're using third party editing tools to generate vast structures, we're all using the same tools and you don't need advanced skill sets or professional level design software to build your world. That level of accessibility is one very important reason why Minecraft is such a success.