Minecraft is better than any game/series ever?

[Stammer]

I'm still surprised that some random indie developer that created one low-budget, successful title is superior in comparison to the company that brought us Half-Life, Team Fortress 2, Portal, and Steam.

 

[maddawg IAJI]

My Minecraft is the best game in the world ever, but that's because I'm creative. If yours sucks then you only have yourself to blame.

Then it has failed as a game. A game is meant to be enjoyed to all audiences and is able to be picked up and played by everyone. If the game requires creativity above all else to enjoy, then not all audiences are capable of enjoying it.

Nonsense. No where must everyone be able to enjoy everything. Thats the exact sort of thinking that has brought us World of Warcraft and Farmville.

Interactive entertainment is not "Everyone gets a trophy" day.

I dislike checkers but love chess. Checkers has not failed as a game.
I dislike poker but enjoy rummy. Poker has not failed as a game.
I don't see the point in Railway or flight sims. Some people absolutely love them!
I love space sims, some people can't see the point in them.
I know people who don't like platform games because they lack the co-ordination but love RTS games where they can pause. That does not mean Platform games have to be dumbed down so that the bar of entry is available to everyone, nor does that mean every RTS must have the ability to give orders while paused.

Despite what your mother tells you, you are not actually special and the world does not revolve around you. Everyone is allowed to enjoy (or not) whatever pleases them and no one has to do anything specifically for you and you alone.

Liking something to enjoy it and needing something to enjoy it are two separate things. I'm talking about the latter.I don't need to have an IQ above 160 to enjoy a game of Chess. I don't need skill to enjoy an RPG. I don't need to be creative to enjoy doodling. According to the user I quoted, you need creativity to enjoy Minecraft and if that is the case, then it fails as a game. I can't suddenly implant creativity into my personality and if that is the case, I can never truly enjoy Minecraft. Of course, this would require that the statement that I quoted is true. Which it isn't. Minecraft can be enjoyed by everyone equally, regardless of creativity, the above quoted statement was just a poor excuse to make Minecraft sound smarter or more innovative then it actually is.

 

[BanthaFodder]

fanboys will be fanboys.
from what I've seen, half of the Mojang voters voted for Mojang because:
A. they've never played a Valve game
or
B. they want the underdog to win
bull. shit.

learn from this independent devs of the world, you can release a half finished beta and STILL be praised by an army of fanboys who hold you in higher reguard than the people who made fucking PORTAL. bravo Escapist, for imparting this wonderful lesson on the games industry. if your company is small, quality does not matter, you are better than EVERYTHING.

 

[Hiphophippo]

Well, it certainly seems to be more popular, currently, on this forum than the other games. That's all this voting ascertains. Nothing else.

 

[Gralian]

I'm still surprised that some random indie developer that created one low-budget, successful title is superior in comparison to the company that brought us Half-Life, Team Fortress 2, Portal, and Steam.

For the last time.

Game distribution =/= game development.

Just because Valve brought us Steam does not make them a good video game developer. It is a distribution service, not a product, not a video game. This is a competition for developers, not distributors.

The last Half-Life game to be released was Episode 2 in 2007. It's three and a half years old, left abandoned by a company that clearly didn't listen to the fans frothing at the mouth for the next step in Freeman's saga. Does that make them a good developer? Not in my eyes; it makes them terrible developers for not listening to their fans.

 

[Troublesome Lagomorph]

No, but it is very, VERY popular now. When people vote in MM, they're likely thinking about the developer's most recent titles and the like.

 

[Prof. Monkeypox]

Nope. And I honestly don't know why you'd think that. Mojang is winning/won this year's MM because at this moment, a number of people decided that, this year, they decided that Mojang was the most important/interesting developer this year. This is due to a combination of factors: Minecraft is popular on the escapist, not that many games from hard-hitting developers (Valve, Blizzard, Bioware) either came out or were considered the powerhouses needed to beat Minecraft, and it's a good underdog story that let's people feel good about rooting for an indie dev.

Minecraft is fun, you may not like it (I don't know if you do) but a lot of people do. Ergo, it is very popular and will receive a lot of votes. It is also enjoyed by a wide variety of people, who are more divided when it comes to other groups (for example, people who like Blizzard and people who like Valve might have very different tastes, but there's enough of a mutual enjoyment of Minecraft between those two fan bases that it gets the vote when Minecraft comes up to bat). It's just a perfect storm at this moment that made Minecraft the winner.

Now, in a more petty sense. I am so tired of hearing this topic. No, this doesn't mean that Minecraft beats all games past and present forever, it means a lot of people decided that this year the company that created Minecraft was pretty cool. That's all it means. I wish everyone would stop reading so deeply into it. Not the end of the world.

 

[PrototypeC]

Just look at the torrent of hate that Dragon Age 2 has received. Not to mention shady behaviour. That debacle involving an employer posting a user review on his work without being entirely honest about it, and the harsh matter-of-fact way the moderator spoke to the guy who couldn't play his game because he was banned. I know that was EA's cock-up, but that doesn't give moderators the right to talk to members of the community like shit.

Bioware isn't sneaking around, trying to squash gamer rights or anything, but a lot of people are taking that information and are villainizing Bioware with it. It's no reason to vote against them here. If we were only doing it that way, Bioware should still be winning based on the fact that Minecraft is still full of problems... it's a beta, after all. There's more to it than that and I don't know what it is.

The problem here is that you seem to think all those mascots and games mesh into one 'being' that is up against minecraft. The fans of those titles generally don't and are communities entirely independent of each other. Minecraft, as a whole, is one entity unto itself and the community is large indeed. It;s not a competition of whether you like Link more than Nathan Drake; it's about the singular being that is Minecraft. It's a giant taking on many smaller giants, and as such, it's coming out on top. Yes, those are high profile franchises and mascots, but they're not beloved by everybody, only by very select groups of fans who often clash with each other.

I guess you've got a point. Still, I feel like choosing Mojang in this last round is sticking a big middle finger up to the whole AAA industry (not that the AAA industry doesn't deserve it for other reasons, but that's a discussion for another time). Bioware is a company not totally unlike the many who have already fallen, while Mojang and their single game in the last round winning against Bioware is like a joke that has gone on too long. It's a sandbox, with only empty space and some tools to make your own game out of it.

The best reason people can come up with for why they choose Minecraft is because "it's fun". Sure it is! It's a blast to play. I'm just saying that it's a set of tools that you create your own game with, and I prefer to hear and interact with a story that is someone else's, because they had an idea that I didn't. I never would have thought up the great stories that the video game industry is based on. I'd rather one of the classical game companies with whole back-catalogs worth of story-driven games win over an indie company with one little toybox.

 

[maddawg IAJI]

I'm still surprised that some random indie developer that created one low-budget, successful title is superior in comparison to the company that brought us Half-Life, Team Fortress 2, Portal, and Steam.

For the last time.

Game distribution =/= game development.

Just because Valve brought us Steam does not make them a good video game developer. It is a distribution service, not a product, not a video game. This is a competition for developers, not distributors.

The last Half-Life game to be released was Episode 2 in 2007. It's three and a half years old, left abandoned by a company that clearly didn't listen to the fans frothing at the mouth for the next step in Freeman's saga. Does that make them a good developer? Not in my eyes; it makes them terrible developers for not listening to their fans.

Left 4 Dead, Portal 2, Alien Swarm, Left 4 Dead 2, numerous TF2 updates and several DLC releases for the L4D series as well as DOTA 2 coming soon.

I'd hardly count that as abandoned. In fact, for 3-4 years and running on Valve time, that's pretty damn good. Don't ignore all of the evidence just to prove your arguments.

 

[Saviordd1]

Apparently that's what most people here seem to think if the voting is any indication.

Minecraft is better than Mario, Pokemon, Mass Effect, Dragon Age, Half Life, Portal, Left 4 Dead, Fallout 3/NV, Resident Evil, Team Fortress, Elder Scrolls, Borderlands, The witcher, and oh god I could just go on and on.

Sure you could almost apply this to any dev that's winning or won March Mayhem, but the point here is that they had games. Not some game that is in beta and not even officially released. At least in the end Zynga didn't win last time, here though, it looks like Mojang going to. Can anyone really sit here and tell me it deserves to win more than ANY other developer?

Ill admit i love minecraft but i honestly dont think it deserved to win

 

[Gralian]

Bioware isn't sneaking around, trying to squash gamer rights or anything, but a lot of people are taking that information and are villainizing Bioware with it. It's no reason to vote against them here. If we were only doing it that way, Bioware should still be winning based on the fact that Minecraft is still full of problems... it's a beta, after all. There's more to it than that and I don't know what it is.

If underhanded tactics (employee voting without stating as such) and creating an arguably rushed title that was met with scorn by the fanbase aren't reasons for voting against a developer, i don't know what is. It may be full of problems and in beta, but it's fixing those problems, slowly but surely. Bioware released DA2 as a complete product, and as such is subject to far more scrutiny. Things like copypasted level design stand out much more as a slap in the face, particularly when coming from a company that's known for creating lavish role-playing games with high quality.

Bioware is a company not totally unlike the many who have already fallen

You're right.

So, how do you discern a winner if every AAA developer are so alike? None of them particularly stand out. It's like someone showing up to a fancy dress competition; all the entries turned up in fancy clothes that make them all similar, but then the scruffy kid turns up wearing nothing but a potato sack. Everybody has a laugh, but he still walks away with the prize for his originality. The others may be dressed to impress, but they're so alike each other that there's no real way to pick a winner apart from the crowd. Sure EA, Bioware, Rockstar and many others have produced excellent or even simply 'great' titles, they're still ultimately forgettable once the month is up. Nothing is exceptional about any of them, that "x-factor" you look for when you're trying to make a new pop-star or celebrity icon.

I'd rather one of the classical game companies with whole back-catalogs worth of story-driven games win over an indie company with one little toybox.

That's a very cynical way of looking at it. One little toybox? People have done great things with that toybox. Full recreations of planet earth and the starship enterprise to name two of them. Minecraft might be standing on the shoulders of giants, but it gave those giants the tools to create such works of majesty and let it rise to prominence. "From small things come greatness", or something to that degree.

In honesty though, i too would like to see a classical developer take the gold, as i generally don't much care for indie titles and have a love of high profile releases. I'm a through-and-through Mass Effect fanboy, after all. But there are some things that should be looked at with a little bit more objectivity.

 

[silver wolf009]

This is not a place of sense, horse creature.

How dare you adress Fluttershy that way you maggot!

OT: Yes. And its only a BETA. When it is complete hell itself will spill the land, killing all opposing the might of the CREEPERS!!

 

[Vivace-Vivian]

I voted Bioware. Mojang doesn't deserve this in my opinion but it's just an online award.

 

[pwnzerstick]

Its because its based off of what the dev has done this year, although, I don't entirley agree with that because a lot of the studios have done great games before march mayhem was going on.

 

[Dr. Whiggs]

This is not a place of sense, horse creature.

How dare you adress Fluttershy that way you maggot!

Sorry, I'll call her "Senorita Glue and Dog Food."

 

[jboking]

No, it's people's favourite game this year.

Honestly, if game companies could produce one year of best games ever and then stop working, content to always win because they did something great once it'd be like we'd all bought a Wii.

That's fine. Then this year Mojang didn't release jack shit. All they've done is given people a paid beta. Not to mention, it's a beta that came out in 2009.

It's not about the best developer this year. It's about who has the biggest following this year.

 

[Gralian]

The last Half-Life game to be released was Episode 2 in 2007. It's three and a half years old, left abandoned by a company that clearly didn't listen to the fans frothing at the mouth for the next step in Freeman's saga. Does that make them a good developer? Not in my eyes; it makes them terrible developers for not listening to their fans.

Left 4 Dead, Portal 2, Alien Swarm, Left 4 Dead 2, numerous TF2 updates and several DLC releases for the L4D series as well as DOTA 2 coming soon.

I'd hardly count that as abandoned. In fact, for 3-4 years and running on Valve time, that's pretty damn good. Don't ignore all of the evidence just to prove your arguments.

My comment was about Half-Life being abandoned, not Valve's entire catalogue of game development, and nothing in your response mentions about Half-Life.

If you take a look at that list, not much really stands out, for a company that's had 3-4 years to work on something. Portal 2 and DOTA 2 may be coming soon, but they're not out yet. Minecraft isn't either, but it's in beta and playable to the public. The same can't be said for either of those two, so we'll ignore them for the purposes of the competition. It's March Mayhem, after all. What's coming out in April and beyond is irrelevant.

Updates? That's not something that should take a lot of development time, or even vast amounts of effort, to publish. Even if they are fairly frequent. It can't be like creating a new title. Likewise, adding one or two maps isn't something that impressive. I appreciate they kept Left 4 Dead fresh, but i really don't think that's something that can make up for a lack of release of any new major titles.

Alien Swarm i believe was a freeware title, and while it was nice of them to make for us, it's still a fairly simplistic top-down shooter with co-operative mechanics, something an indie developer could probably have pumped out in a reasonable amount of time without too much hassle.

As for Left 4 Dead 2 itself, it was met with a fair amount of criticism for coming out so soon after the first game, which would say something about the quality of the product. Especially as it's Valve. You'd expect them to spend longer on something they really care about. Obviously we know the game is good, but it still felt a bit slap-dash.

Please don't get me wrong. I don't hate Valve by any stretch of the imagination. They've brought some terrific things to the industry. I just think as as a developer they're not all there, contrary to popular belief.

 

[Grey_Focks]

I've always thought of this site (or more accurately the people on the forums) as the hipsters of the gaming community, and minecraft is a hipster game if I've ever seen one. Retro graphics, no real goal or objective, just a giant sandbox, made by an indie dev comprised of 5 or so people, it's very popular right now, but it's still far from mainstream, and, possibly the most important part, it's PC exclusive.

Am I surprised it's winning? I was at first (my poor bracket...) but after they beat Nintendo I knew they were going to win. I got over it. BioWare is still #1 in my book...and I liked Dragon Age 2, dammit!

And, really captcha, you want to type the "pi" sign? That's just rude.

 

[Ajna]

TBH, I can't really call MC much of a game. Pretty much all "goals" are in your mind. It's a giant sandbox. Like GMod. You could treat it as a survival game, I suppose.

I don't think that goals are what define a game. In fact, I would argue that the most fun moments of games are the ones where the only goal is one set by you.

Any person that played Saint's Row 1/2 as a third person shooter, going through each story mission for each gang in order, driving straight from place to place, would deem the games relatively boring (I'll get over my disdain for the GTA series long enough to say that this holds true for it as well). Sure, the story missions are fun, and the characters are a bit entertaining, but it's short, the missions aren't very original, and the story feels tacked on.

Which is pretty much true. I assure you, my nearly 200 hours of gameplay in SR2 did not come from the story. It comes from when you smash into the back of a car and decide to find out how high you can pile vehicles. It comes from when you first find out there's a WWII replica fighter in the game, with a functioning minigun, so you go online with your buddy to have a dogfight. It comes from when you decide to play the most lethal game of hide and seek in history, and once someone is found, it turns into a chase that can only resolve with one player's murder.

There's a story, but that isn't where the fun is found.

The same could be said of many games. Another example will be Call of Duty: The campaign is normally pretty boring in a COD game (BOCTAOE). Not that bad, IMO, but you get the sense that they toned down what could have been, in order to improve sales (not that there's anything wrong with that, I wholly endorse companies that try to make money. It's why they exist). So when you play through the game, especially on easy, one of the best ways to have fun is to try to beat the campaign under ridiculous rules. Only explosives are allowed, or maybe just use the pistol. Try to beat the level as fast as possible without dying, etc. The extra challenge is what makes it fun, but that "goal" of performing a speedrun isn't provided by the game.

Hell, let's go to a straight example of multiplayer only. Multiplayer seems like the ultimate in goal-oriented play. Kill the other team a lot, sit on a flag for 15 seconds before defending it from another guy who wants to sit on it. Move from point A to Point B without dying and you get a point. Pretty simple. But tell me, which win feels better to you: The win you get in a Battlefield game when you join halfway through with a team that you haven't been talking to? Or the win where you go in with a squad of your buddies, and you each change your play to accommodate both each other and the match? If you haven't played a Battlefield game, feel free to substitute in Monday Night Combat or Team Fortress 2. The feeling is the same, and the reason you're having fun is because you're winning tactically. The game doesn't reward you differently for a different type of win, that's your own goal.

There are likely thousand's of other examples I could give of "goals not equaling fun", but I wanted to give a few of the ones that are more personal to me, and the ones I thought were the most relatable.

(Funny note: Initially this post only said something along the lines of "Legos are goalless too". Then I decided to give an example that related to video games, and it snowballed.)

 

[Karlaxx]

I've been told that this is actually supposed to be based on what each dev has made in the last year, which would turn "WTF MINECRAFT IS NOT BETTER THAN EVERYTHING EVER" into "meh, all right, you win this one". For me, anyway; I got bored with Minecraft very early on.