However, the aspect of the graphics that influences the Aestetic, the level of detail, is what we are discussing. Graphics alone are not bad, they are simply tools, so calling the graphics bad just doesn't make sense. If we are talking about quality, the only thing we can reasonably discuss is the Aestetic they produce. The graphics are primitive, and they cut off certain options , but they are not bad in and of themselves. We have to talk about the aesthetic those graphical limitations produce, because the Aestetic is what ends up being good or bad. And in Minecrafts case, the Graphics influence the Aestetic in exactly the way they should: To influence gameplay in a way most find enjoyable.Ordinaryundone said:First of all, we aren't talking about Aesthetics. We are talking about graphics. They are two different things, and as far as I'm concerned Minecraft looks like something you should have to open with a DOS prompt. Aesthetic design decisions do not factor into my opinion in this regard. Second of all, we aren't talking about texture packs. We are talking about the game. If anything, that argument is tantamount to saying Notch is lazy, and his fans are doing better work than he is on his game. Also, where the heck do you get the idea that a "minority" dislike it? Have you polled every person who didn't buy Minecraft? Because I'm sure its a much larger number than those who did.Xanadu84 said:So your saying that it is subjective, and by extension, arguing that it is a bad Aestetic doesn't make any sense.Ordinaryundone said:It does count, because by the same logic I could round up a whole host of people like the TC's friend who do not like Minecraft's graphics. What makes their opinion not count?Xanadu84 said:Appeal to popularity does not count when "Is enjoyed by a lot of people" is an excellent, complete goal in and of itself. In much the same way that you can't cry foul of Godwins Law when your talking about Germany in the early 40's. Games can do a lot of things, and one of those things, and a perfectly reasonable goal for a game, is that it is enjoyed. If a lot of people enjoy the aesthetic of Minecraft, and their play experience is significantly better because of that aesthetic, then the only argument you could possibly be making is that games should NOT be enjoyed. Should games abandon the goal of being enjoyed in favor of matching your personal tastes? If you're not arguing that, then you really don't have an argument to make. There Aestetic choices have been a resounding success, and one naysayer on the internet can go and find a texture pack.
A game does not need to please everyone. It just has to please a bunch. What game ever has appealed every last gamer in the world? The game was made with it's Aesthetic in mind as a conscious decision, and that decision was a resounding success with most of the people who play it. That is a success, a purposeful one, and the enjoyment of those people who like the aesthetic makes it a good aesthetic. For the minority who dislike it, there's texture packs to render dislike of the aesthetic irrelevant. And from the most objective standpoint you can take on something as subjective as game design, the Aestetic re-enforces the mechanics and dynamics of the game itself.
Second, once again, saying a lot of people like something doesn't make it good. Call of Duty is currently the highest grossing and highest played game in existence, possibly behind WoW. Does that mean they are the two best games ever made?
Texture packs need to be brought up, because within Minecraft, there are accommodations for even those who dislike the Aestetic. It provides an optional choice to improve play. That is a good thing no matter how you slice it, and complaining about an Aestetic when you could play the game with a different one is just silly.
I have talked with a lot of people who enjoy the Aestetic. Most people here like the aestetic. The game has sold over 3 million copies, and the Aestetic did not stop them from buying it. Saying that the majority of people like the Aestetic is looking to be the much safer assumption then that people are buying and playing a game they can't stand to look at.
And no, being the most bought, highest played game ever doesn't make it the best game ever. But It does make it a damn good game, and it doesn't matter how cool someone is when they say that they are too cultured to play a game for the lowly proletariat. People aren't playing CoD because there being held at gunpoint, they are playing it because they choose to. They like it. And that is a noble goal for any game, it was the intent of the developers, and they succeeded. What metric of measurement that isn't insufferably pretentious could discredit that?