Minecraft Review

[Slycne]

Minecraft Review

Simple freedom makes Minecraft stand out in today's market.

Read Full Article

I'm going to have to agree with the others here.

"If you're not the kind of person who can make their own fun, a lot of Minecraft's appeal is going to be lost on you" is a rather odd line; it can be used for anything.

Saying something is good if you can make it good isn't what I would call solid review writing.

Which is something I could generally agree with, but that isn't precisely the point I am making here. Rather than making the game good, I'm pointing out that you have to enter it with a proper mindset. It's fairly akin to how someone might approach a challenging game like Ninja Gaiden or Dark Souls. If you're unable to find the fun in the challenge then you are not likely to enjoy the game.

 

[Landis963]

"Justin Clouse wonders what that hissing noise is." Millions of annoyed readers at seeing yet another 4.5 score coupled with a review that doesn't list any obvious faults.

 

[Jimbo1212]

Minecraft Review

Simple freedom makes Minecraft stand out in today's market.

Read Full Article

I'm going to have to agree with the others here.

"If you're not the kind of person who can make their own fun, a lot of Minecraft's appeal is going to be lost on you" is a rather odd line; it can be used for anything.

Saying something is good if you can make it good isn't what I would call solid review writing.

Which is something I could generally agree with, but that isn't precisely the point I am making here. Rather than making the game good, I'm pointing out that you have to enter it with a proper mindset. It's fairly akin to how someone might approach a challenging game like Ninja Gaiden or Dark Souls. If you're unable to find the fun in the challenge then you are not likely to enjoy the game.

What challenge?
The AI does not exist and the food system is broken.
The only challenge would be taking the time off school or work to sink into this game to get anywhere.

 

[Slycne]

"Justin Clouse wonders what that hissing noise is." Millions of annoyed readers at seeing yet another 4.5 score coupled with a review that doesn't list any obvious faults.

Millions of annoyed readers should take a second look at the last two paragraphs.

 

[Slycne]

Which is something I could generally agree with, but that isn't precisely the point I am making here. Rather than making the game good, I'm pointing out that you have to enter it with a proper mindset. It's fairly akin to how someone might approach a challenging game like Ninja Gaiden or Dark Souls. If you're unable to find the fun in the challenge then you are not likely to enjoy the game.

What challenge?
The AI does not exist and the food system is broken.
The only challenge would be taking the time off school or work to sink into this game to get anywhere.

Alright? I wasn't talking about challenge directly though, I was making a comparison about how other games require you to approach them on specific levels for them to be truly fun or good.

 

[Jimbo1212]

Which is something I could generally agree with, but that isn't precisely the point I am making here. Rather than making the game good, I'm pointing out that you have to enter it with a proper mindset. It's fairly akin to how someone might approach a challenging game like Ninja Gaiden or Dark Souls. If you're unable to find the fun in the challenge then you are not likely to enjoy the game.

What challenge?
The AI does not exist and the food system is broken.
The only challenge would be taking the time off school or work to sink into this game to get anywhere.

Alright? I wasn't talking about challenge directly though, I was making a comparison about how other games require you to approach them on specific levels for them to be truly fun or good.

...what does that even mean?
Minecraft has no challenges besides alpha combat and brick stacking. It is not like GTA where you can attack a convoy in a hundred ways. The games you listed are directly challenging so I'm not sure why you brought them up.
The storyline in Mincraft(if you can call it that) is generic, linear, and a huge grind, and the rest of the game is brick stacking.
Where is the challenge or entertainment in this game?

 

[Slycne]

...what does that even mean?
Minecraft has no challenges besides alpha combat and brick stacking. It is not like GTA where you can attack a convoy in a hundred ways. The games you listed are directly challenging so I'm not sure why you brought them up.
The storyline in Mincraft(if you can call it that) is generic, linear, and a huge grind, and the rest of the game is brick stacking.
Where is the challenge or entertainment in this game?

Do I really need to explain what a comparison is? The original poster misinterpreted my intention with the specific line, so I was trying to provide an example of the concept in different situation. You keep getting hung up on challenge when I'm not talking about it. I wasn't saying Minecraft is only good if you make it good for yourself, I was saying that Minecraft is good in a similar way that games like Dark Souls require you to enjoy them in a specific fashion. Minecraft requires you to enter with a mindset of making your own fun where as games like Dark Souls requires a mindset of enjoying the challenge. The point was simply in them both needing a specific connection not about challenge. Make sense?

 

[Jimbo1212]

...what does that even mean?
Minecraft has no challenges besides alpha combat and brick stacking. It is not like GTA where you can attack a convoy in a hundred ways. The games you listed are directly challenging so I'm not sure why you brought them up.
The storyline in Mincraft(if you can call it that) is generic, linear, and a huge grind, and the rest of the game is brick stacking.
Where is the challenge or entertainment in this game?

Do I really need to explain what a comparison is? The original poster misinterpreted my intention with the specific line, so I was trying to provide an example of the concept in different situation. You keep getting hung up on challenge when I'm not talking about it. I wasn't saying Minecraft is only good if you make it good for yourself, I was saying that Minecraft is good in a similar way that games like Dark Souls require you to enjoy them in a specific fashion. Minecraft requires you to enter with a mindset of making your own fun where as games like Dark Souls requires a mindset of enjoying the challenge. The point was simply in them both needing a specific connection not about challenge. Make sense?

"Making your own fun" is applicable to every game, from tetris, CoD, and dribbling on paper. It is what mothers tell bored children when they run out of toys.
No game should ever been based solely on "making it up as you go", because that is absurd and shows the game to be vacuous and utterly lacking content. There is no challenge and no storyline, thus there is nothing to do besides stacking blocks.
Every game is a carefully designed experience, from characters to the gameplay, yet Mincecraft gives up on the title screen and tells the user to "make the fun themselves". What is the difference between that and a blank piece of paper with crayons? Now who ever referred to crayons and paper as a game?

 

[Shjade]

Exaggeration is fun!

Yes, Minecraft, a game in which you can explore a constantly generating randomized world - within the limits of what it has available to generate, of course - is identical to a sheet of blank paper and a box of crayons. Everyone has the talent to make enormous three-dimensional recreations of their favorite architecture using only crayons and this simple wood product! Moreover, crayons will occasionally rebel to challenge you while you're drawing by hopping around the paper and butting into things! In fact, I'd call crayon AI even more challenging than-wait what?

No. No, that isn't right at all.

Minecraft is really more comparable to a game like Saints Row or Grand Theft Auto than a box of crayons in terms of "finding your own fun." Bear with me - I realize your first instinct is going to be to say "no it isn't you can't even build in those games and you have missions and guns and interactive NPCs and blahblahblah" yeah, I know, they're very different games; I'm not trying to say they're the same. I'm just comparing this one quality they have in common. See, when you've finished the "story" of, say, Saints Row 3 (which isn't really all that long), you're left with a reasonably big city and a bunch of tools you can use to navigate said city and blow its inhabitants to bits. There aren't really any goals at that point, though. It's just a playset for you to mess around with however you like. Some folks will, at this point in the game, become bored with it and stop playing - they've beaten the game and don't see any reason to keep messing around. Others will use the options available to enjoy driving around the city, crashing into things, flashing people, swinging jets through narrows spaces between buildings for bonus points, fighting cops to see how long they can survive a full-on tank-and-helicopter onslaught before ending up at the hospital, and so on. Does this accomplish anything? No, not really; they're just having fun with the options the game gives them.

Likewise, Minecraft is a huge open world with a set of tools you can use to do what you want to do with it. What it lacks is the focus of a story or quests or similar objective-based gameplay (aside from the achievements, some of which are reasonably challenging to achieve, though a few are basically just luck-based missions). As in the above example, for some people this is a turn-off and they won't be interested in the unfocused gameplay available, while others will see this as an opportunity to have fun in their own way with the tools available. Could they do this with Legos or crayons or clay? Sure, some of them could. Not everyone has the means or talent to create what they'd want to make in the real world, though. Minecraft is a much easier creative outlet for a lot of folks, and it certainly allows you to build on an incredible large scale compared to what is possible in reality (the Lord of the Rings recreation guys come to mind - seriously, I'd love you to show me how to recreate the entire Lord of the Rings world set anywhere near to-scale with crayons and sheets of paper; it's impractical even to imagine).

I'd really call it more "setting your own goals" than "making your own fun," though ultimately amounts to much the same thing. You aren't intended to "make your own fun" or "set your own goals" in Tetris, Call of Duty, or that other game you mentioned with the dribbling and paper (I'm afraid I've never heard of that one - is it by EA?), you're intended to go for a high score or get to the next level or follow the mission on your HUD or whatever the next pre-set goal dictates. Sometimes all you need is to have an open space to follow your own interests and see where they lead you. For a lot of people, Minecraft is a good outlet for that.

There's something important to keep in mind here: the fact that you (global "you" here, not an individual poster) dislike or do not understand the appeal of a given thing does not necessarily mean it is bad. It is completely okay to have your own opinion in opposition to others. It's okay to not like things! Even if other people like those things that you don't like! There's no need to wear yourself out trying to tear it down just because you don't like it; the people who do like it are unlikely to change their minds because of a rant of dissatisfaction with X graphics or Y gameplay. Chances are they already know about these issues; they might even agree with you. They disagree, however, on the result of those flaws.

And that's okay. So relax!

 

[Shjade]

I'm going to have to burst your bubble here:

1)Minecraft isn't actually 3D. It's pseudo-3D, just like how drawing a cube on paper is. You aren't actually making a 3D structure in the same manner as an architect.

Exaggeration is fun!

Reading is awesome.

As for #2, "decent" is in the eye of the beholder. I've seen some Minecraft "recreations" that looked like a mess of blocks to me. When I watched the walkthrough of what was supposed to be the Minecraft version of the Shire, it was just blobs of green. The people providing the tour were certainly excited about what they were showing off, but it didn't look like much to me. On the other hand, when they got to Moria and the vast caverns and halls and pathways they'd constructed for it? That was pretty damn impressive. I could actually recognize locations and had a fairly good idea where some of those offshoot tunnels led within the foundation of the world they were emulating. That strikes me as qualifying for "decent." Likewise a world in which various set pieces from Studio Ghibli were built up in voxel form: I recognized about 90% of the locations in that map, some after just a glimpse of the design.

There are some pretty decent recreations in Minecraft. That doesn't mean they're pretty (though some manage it, somehow) or that everyone's going to agree on their success, but it's certainly possible and has been done.

 

[Jimbo1212]

*wall of text snip*

Sorry, that is just flat out wrong.
GTA and all open world sand box games like it have clear objectives and challenges, they merely offer a large, but limited number of approaches. If there is a mission to kill some guy, you could use different weapons, come in at different angles etc. Even when the main story is finished, you still have challenges such as packages, rampages, taxi missions etc. But what is clear are 2 things; the objective and that there is a challenge. However every now and then you might spend a few minutes just mucking about

Minecraft has no objectives, no challenge, and is 100% dicking around....but with no cars, guns, planes, people to kill......just dirt.
And don't give me the "Minecraft is creative" spiel. If you want to be creative, go on Garry's Mod, get some 3D render programs or the dozens of free Dev Kits. Making a poor blocky recreation of a house is the same as saying that a 3 yr olds scribble of a house is art and creative.

Skyrim is about wondering around. You see a great big mountain and set off and see what treasures ans stories you come across. In Minecraft......you just wonder about like a headless chicken.

In short, every element of Minecraft has been done so incredibly better by many other games, thus to give it 4.5/5 is a joke.....and this is not even mentioning the clearly incomplete parts, dire bugs and AI, the hideous graphics, and zero optimisation, all of which you would find in an alpha release of a game.

 

[Shjade]

I'm telling you the facts, not giving you hyperboles so I've no idea how you think I'm exaggerating anything.

I don't. I was exaggerating and you've completely missed it, despite my starting that post by pointing out I was about to have fun with exaggeration, too. Reading.

GTA and all open world sand box games like it have clear objectives and challenges, they merely offer a large, but limited number of approaches. If there is a mission to kill some guy, you could use different weapons, come in at different angles etc. Even when the main story is finished, you still have challenges such as packages, rampages, taxi missions etc. But what is clear are 2 things; the objective and that there is a challenge. However every now and then you might spend a few minutes just mucking about

Thank you for reinforcing my point. Yes, some players might spend a few minutes just mucking about. Other players might spend far more time mucking about than they ever do dealing with the game's objectives and main story. It's a question of individual interest in what the game allows.

I'm not a builder in Minecraft, myself. I make a small house or an outpost or something to that effect, just something simple and secure for a base of operations, then spend about 90% of my time in any given map/server mapping out caves and landmarks and so on. I like exploring; it's what I do. There aren't many games that allow for that interest to the extent that Minecraft does. Terraria's map is limited by comparison. Skyrim's content is static; I did enjoy exploring it for a large chunk of time, but it has little value for me after I've seen all there is to see. MMORPGs have the same issue: lots to explore, but limited interest after I've seen it all - the raiding and so forth is a grind, not entertainment. Differences in player interest.

Creative mode in Minecraft is akin to Garry's Mod (from what I've seen of it, at least - I've never used Garry's Mod, or played Creative mode for that matter), but Survival mode is not so much. The objectives you more or less make for yourself, yes. The challenge is then in completing those objectives: finding and collecting the materials you need without dying too much in the process to finish the project you want to do. I don't recall going on a "Minecraft is creative" tangent, nor was it my plan to do so; people are creative. Minecraft is a game that has space for creativity in it. An incomplete game, I'd say, but a successful one. I don't mean that in financial terms (though it obviously is that, too). I mean it's successful in that people enjoy playing it. That seems like the core goal of a game to me.

Again, could it be better? Yes, of course. Does it need to be better to be good? Apparently not. I'm not saying I'd give it a 4.5/5 myself, but then, I'm not really the type who thinks scoring games makes any sense (see wall of text for details). I am capable of recognizing entertainment value, however, even if I don't always agree with it myself.

 

[Jimbo1212]

GTA and all open world sand box games like it have clear objectives and challenges, they merely offer a large, but limited number of approaches. If there is a mission to kill some guy, you could use different weapons, come in at different angles etc. Even when the main story is finished, you still have challenges such as packages, rampages, taxi missions etc. But what is clear are 2 things; the objective and that there is a challenge. However every now and then you might spend a few minutes just mucking about

Thank you for reinforcing my point. Yes, some players might spend a few minutes just mucking about. Other players might spend far more time mucking about than they ever do dealing with the game's objectives and main story. It's a question of individual interest in what the game allows.

I'm not a builder in Minecraft, myself. I make a small house or an outpost or something to that effect, just something simple and secure for a base of operations, then spend about 90% of my time in any given map/server mapping out caves and landmarks and so on. I like exploring; it's what I do. There aren't many games that allow for that interest to the extent that Minecraft does. Terraria's map is limited by comparison. Skyrim's content is static; I did enjoy exploring it for a large chunk of time, but it has little value for me after I've seen all there is to see. MMORPGs have the same issue: lots to explore, but limited interest after I've seen it all - the raiding and so forth is a grind, not entertainment. Differences in player interest.

Creative mode in Minecraft is akin to Garry's Mod (from what I've seen of it, at least - I've never used Garry's Mod, or played Creative mode for that matter), but Survival mode is not so much. The objectives you more or less make for yourself, yes. The challenge is then in completing those objectives: finding and collecting the materials you need without dying too much in the process to finish the project you want to do. I don't recall going on a "Minecraft is creative" tangent, nor was it my plan to do so; people are creative. Minecraft is a game that has space for creativity in it. An incomplete game, I'd say, but a successful one. I don't mean that in financial terms (though it obviously is that, too). I mean it's successful in that people enjoy playing it. That seems like the core goal of a game to me.

Again, could it be better? Yes, of course. Does it need to be better to be good? Apparently not. I'm not saying I'd give it a 4.5/5 myself, but then, I'm not really the type who thinks scoring games makes any sense (see wall of text for details). I am capable of recognizing entertainment value, however, even if I don't always agree with it myself.

But the vast majority of gamers want structure and 99% of people would find what you do to be boring. On those grounds alone, the game should have not received 4.5/5.
It also speaks volumes that you just wonder about on a crap looking map ignoring 95% of MC's content and do not want to get involved in it.

No - Garrys mod is nothing like Minecraft. It is far more complex and allows for anything. MC allows for logic and brick stacking. Comparing the two is insulting to Garrys mod and the Source Engine.

Rubbish, you know it could be far better - the game is still alpha. Does it need to be better? Well it needs to be a finished product before being reviewed.

 

[Grey Day for Elcia]

Minecraft Review

Simple freedom makes Minecraft stand out in today's market.

Read Full Article

I'm going to have to agree with the others here.

"If you're not the kind of person who can make their own fun, a lot of Minecraft's appeal is going to be lost on you" is a rather odd line; it can be used for anything.

Saying something is good if you can make it good isn't what I would call solid review writing.

Which is something I could generally agree with, but that isn't precisely the point I am making here. Rather than making the game good, I'm pointing out that you have to enter it with a proper mindset. It's fairly akin to how someone might approach a challenging game like Ninja Gaiden or Dark Souls. If you're unable to find the fun in the challenge then you are not likely to enjoy the game.

I do see what you're saying, that Minecraft offers a lot (in your eyes) if you are the kind of person it clicks with. It just seems odd that a games biggest praise is "you'll like it if you make it good".

Maybe that's one of the better arguments against MC being a game at all. I dunno.

 

[Shjade]

But the vast majority of gamers want structure and 99% of people would find what you do to be boring. On those grounds alone, the game should have not received 4.5/5.
It also speaks volumes that you just wonder about on a crap looking map ignoring 95% of MC's content and do not want to get involved in it.

1) The "vast majority of gamers" can't agree on whether Farmville is the next big thing in gaming or the first horseman of the apocalypse. I think you're pretty deluded if you believe you can make any claims on behalf of most gamers in any decisive way. I agree that the vast majority of gamers who think like you want structure, but who knows how many people that actually counts?

2) I agree, it speaks volumes that enjoy wandering around collecting, killing and exploring and find it fun while someone else can purely build and find that enjoyable and both can take place within the same game. Positive volumes, that is. I don't know where you came up with a figure like 95% of MC's content, though. The only part of Minecraft I'd say I "ignore" is the Nether, because that place is a pain to get around and it's boring to look at so I just use it for quick long-distance transportation and glowstone collection and otherwise stay the hell out. Not building big projects isn't ignoring the content; I use it in other ways.

You appear to be restricting your thoughts to a fairly narrow scope. Try getting outside of it. Some things are more complex than black/white, good/bad; this is almost always true when discussing a matter of opinion (as in this case).

Your exaggeration though was utter drivel and so far off the mark, it wasn't an exaggeration, it was:

I will give the assessment of someone who misread a fairly plain post to interpret it as being directed toward himself when it clearly did not apply to his post the credible consideration it deserves.

That is to say, none.

 

[Jimbo1212]

But the vast majority of gamers want structure and 99% of people would find what you do to be boring. On those grounds alone, the game should have not received 4.5/5.
It also speaks volumes that you just wonder about on a crap looking map ignoring 95% of MC's content and do not want to get involved in it.

1) The "vast majority of gamers" can't agree on whether Farmville is the next big thing in gaming or the first horseman of the apocalypse. I think you're pretty deluded if you believe you can make any claims on behalf of most gamers in any decisive way. I agree that the vast majority of gamers who think like you want structure, but who knows how many people that actually counts?

2) I agree, it speaks volumes that enjoy wandering around collecting, killing and exploring and find it fun while someone else can purely build and find that enjoyable and both can take place within the same game. Positive volumes, that is. I don't know where you came up with a figure like 95% of MC's content, though. The only part of Minecraft I'd say I "ignore" is the Nether, because that place is a pain to get around and it's boring to look at so I just use it for quick long-distance transportation and glowstone collection and otherwise stay the hell out. Not building big projects isn't ignoring the content; I use it in other ways.

You appear to be restricting your thoughts to a fairly narrow scope. Try getting outside of it. Some things are more complex than black/white, good/bad; this is almost always true when discussing a matter of opinion (as in this case).

- Actually all decent gamers know FarmVille is a joke and can't last. This is proven by Zynga about to go bust. I can make claims for most games based solely on sales and common sense. Lets look at the biggest selling games. They are all fast paced, have a storyline, characters, ok to good graphics, and a good multiplayer. MC has none of that.

- You enjoy killing in MC even though it is the most basic type of combat going? You enjoy exploring in a game that has some of the worst graphics to date?
Why?

My view is not restricted in anyway, I am simply aware of what is in the gaming market thus I know of the vast number of games and tools that are better than MC. As I have said many times in MC threads, I believe people do not play MC as a game, but as an unhealthy tool for escapism from reality.

 

[draythefingerless]

"if you're able to lose yourself in finding your own fun, there isn't a better game than Minecraft." except Terraria.

um no. terraria has loot. and bosses and areas. there is no making your own fun. there is no creativity in terraria except in building stuff, but if you honestly think that the building houses n furnishing is the best part of terraria, you are the very small minority. i LOVE terraria, but i wouldnt say it makes me lose myself in my OWN fun. it makes me lose myself in the game the devs made. they made the biomes, they made the items, they make how you basically have to build to be a house, an they make the bosses. terraria has better action, minecraft has more ME in it. there is very little self-fun in terraria. but it is still a hell of good time to play.