No_Remainders said:
Hummmy said:
No_Remainders said:
So, essentially, what you seem to be implying is having a fully realistic version of Minecraft, without the blocks?
That idea is just pure silly.
This is one reason I hate asking questions which require some thinking to a large audience;
Cause I get people like you.
Your question essentially boiled down to "would minecraft work without blocks?"
Or else, you actually think that you could have realistic graphics with blocks, which wouldn't really make sense, because it'd still be blocks, and would therefore be ridiculous.
It has to look like blocks, otherwise you won't really know where one ends and the next begins. I suppose you could just have a nice fun game of "guess where the next part goes"?
Minecraft without blocks? It'd be like...real life or something.
No, but seriously, if we can do it in the real world, I'm positive that it wouldn't be a game of "guess where the next part goes." Most people in MineCraft tend to do one of two things, they either go in with a distinct plan and make something fabulously intricate, or they wing it and end up with something equally intricate but less structured. If we took away the blocks we'd still have to be able to create things, so we'd have to substitute in building materials of some sort, bricks, wooden planks, ect. Unfortunately I think those winging it would have far less ability to create than those who go in with a plan.
MineCraft without blocks is doable, I just think it would be less fun. A majority of the charm of that game is from being able to, as many people have said, play a modern version of legos. While building a house from scratch using bricks and wood planks would be rewarding, I have to feel like it'd be tedious too.
So...in summary. MineCraft without blocks is probably doable, but not as fun.