3 ms·

I hope the graphics don't suck, like they do in Minecraft. I know it sound superficial, but graphics do matter. Minecraft succeeded despite its graphics, not be

I hope the graphics don't suck, like they do in Minecraft. I know it sound superficial, but graphics do matter. Minecraft succeeded despite its graphics, not because of them.

emeltzer 15y ago
Strongly disagree with this. Minecraft's graphics are a direct consequence of what the game IS (i.e. a world made out of large-ish blocks). More realistic (that is, less stylized) textures look strange on top of huge blocks, and anything that obscured the block structure of the world would have made Minecraft a worse game.
- v21 15y ago
  Minecraft needed to be made of blocks, it's true. But Minecraft could be more beautiful than it is. Which isn't to diss it - what it does well, it does really well. And it can often be beautiful -- the terrain generator can produce some wonderful things. While it isn't aiming for all the same points, and is obviously inspired in some parts by Minecraft, I think for example Cube World is a much better looking game. http://wollay.blogspot.co.uk/ http://wollay.blogspot.co.uk/
ghayes 15y ago
This is a refreshing comment. We can say the same about a lot of websites. I should note, however, this runs abut to the concept of UI versus UX.
Osmose 15y ago
I disagree. The graphics in Minecraft match very well with the gameplay mechanic of working with a small, simple set of building blocks. It's a not-so-subtle signal to the player that the entire world is constructed with these blocks, and invites the player to see how they can be creative when given a limited, low-res set of building blocks. Consider the common complaint about current-day Lego blocks: "Legos used to be simple." You can say that it applies only to the functional aspect, shape, but I think it also applies to their visual aspect. I mean, how many special blocks does Hogwarts or Prince of Persia really need? And, disregarding all of that, there's a significant portion of gamers out there who will pay in both money and loyalty when you evoke nostalgia, which Minecraft does via pixellated graphics.
jiggy2011 15y ago
I think it's good that they kept the graphics basic for a few reasons. Firstly the game is written in Java and hogs enough CPU/RAM as it is. If they had started making high quality assets they would have had to maintain that standard throughout which would have made it much more difficult to iterate quickly which is something that minecraft is all about. I think of it like Lego , Lego kits are nowhere near as pretty or detailed as other proper model kits but they allow many different possibilities.
klbarry 15y ago
You should try Dwarf Fortress. Its graphics are really a world apart from Minecraft's.
kanchax 15y ago
There is beauty in the simplicity of the graphics.

I hope the graphics don't suck, like they do in Minecraft. I know it sound superficial, but graphics do matter. Minecraft succeeded despite its graphics, not because of them.

emeltzer 15y ago

Strongly disagree with this. Minecraft's graphics are a direct consequence of what the game IS (i.e. a world made out of large-ish blocks). More realistic (that is, less stylized) textures look strange on top of huge blocks, and anything that obscured the block structure of the world would have made Minecraft a worse game.

v21 15y ago
Minecraft needed to be made of blocks, it's true. But Minecraft could be more beautiful than it is. Which isn't to diss it - what it does well, it does really well. And it can often be beautiful -- the terrain generator can produce some wonderful things. While it isn't aiming for all the same points, and is obviously inspired in some parts by Minecraft, I think for example Cube World is a much better looking game. http://wollay.blogspot.co.uk/ http://wollay.blogspot.co.uk/

ghayes 15y ago

This is a refreshing comment. We can say the same about a lot of websites. I should note, however, this runs abut to the concept of UI versus UX.

Osmose 15y ago

I disagree. The graphics in Minecraft match very well with the gameplay mechanic of working with a small, simple set of building blocks. It's a not-so-subtle signal to the player that the entire world is constructed with these blocks, and invites the player to see how they can be creative when given a limited, low-res set of building blocks. Consider the common complaint about current-day Lego blocks: "Legos used to be simple." You can say that it applies only to the functional aspect, shape, but I think it also applies to their visual aspect. I mean, how many special blocks does Hogwarts or Prince of Persia really need? And, disregarding all of that, there's a significant portion of gamers out there who will pay in both money and loyalty when you evoke nostalgia, which Minecraft does via pixellated graphics.

jiggy2011 15y ago

I think it's good that they kept the graphics basic for a few reasons. Firstly the game is written in Java and hogs enough CPU/RAM as it is. If they had started making high quality assets they would have had to maintain that standard throughout which would have made it much more difficult to iterate quickly which is something that minecraft is all about. I think of it like Lego , Lego kits are nowhere near as pretty or detailed as other proper model kits but they allow many different possibilities.

klbarry 15y ago

You should try Dwarf Fortress. Its graphics are really a world apart from Minecraft's.

kanchax 15y ago

There is beauty in the simplicity of the graphics.