Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Shadowlord]

Have you never done something like building an entire road out of yellow (or gold!) bricks, or lining your yellow brick road with statues for the heck of it, or building a giant statue block by block just because you can? None of these have gameplay effects.

Neo literally said "I hate games where you can build things but that are ENTIRELY pointless"

[Neonivek]

Have you never done something like building an entire road out of yellow (or gold!) bricks, or lining your yellow brick road with statues for the heck of it, or building a giant statue block by block just because you can? None of these have gameplay effects.

Neo literally said "I hate games where you can build things but that are ENTIRELY pointless"

I am not against building pointless things, megaprojects, or anything of the sort. Not everything can have a use and cosmetics still look nice.

The difference is that Dwarf Fortress gives you the ability to do something of value... and you can do something entirely pointless too. In many ways it kind of gives it more value, there is a reason why I keep improving rooms long after they hit the Grand point (Too bad making bedrooms too nice pisses people off)

This is ignoring that making a road out of gold bricks actually does have a use in Dwarf Fortress (or even a stone statue). Yes they do have gameplay effects! In fact dramatic ones!

[Krevsin]

I agree that just giving the player a big empty sandbox to play around in is bad game design, because the actual "game" element of Minecraft and its ilk is barebones at best. I tend to value those games more as creative sandboxes where it's not about whether or not it's a good game but more about how much freedom of expression it allows to the player. It's a sandbox. A sandbox is not a game unto itself but rather a place for the player to mess around in. Throw in some toys and structure it a bit or even just throw multiplayer in there and you've got a game, but a pure sandbox just isn't a very good game.

It's telling that the most popular mods for Minecraft turn it into a more factorio-like experience where the game suddenly becomes all about setting up and managing production systems.

Or how in Fallout 4 with survival mode turned on the settlements become crucial as they allow you a moment of respite, a place to save your progress and stock up for the journey ahead instead of just a random toy you can maybe possibly mess around with if you want to (and if the game forces you into it).

What also annoys me about some minecraft ripoffs is that when for some reason they go for a realistic art-style, seemingly entirely unaware that it most often just looks ugly as sin.

[Iceblaster]

Soooo

You don't like Minecraft because you aren't creative enough to spend time on something you enjoy. Because that's what I'm getting. The entire appeal of Minecraft is that it's basically Lego. You build things without any real end goal in mind. You can make a house! Or a car! Or anything! But nope! Because you don't have a purpose to any of that, minecraft is shit and it's worthless as a game. Tbh, I really don't understand your hatred for many modern games and how they work. Not every game needs to have a set of things you can do and if one of them isn't up to par, they must all go out for a better system to come in.

This is coming from someone who hasn't really played Minecraft in about a year. So don't tell me I'm a fanboy or I'm policing critique. I'm just someone who thinks you're being a bit too angry about Minecraft.

[AzyWng]

I think they're taking issue to the fact that you can't drive the car. Or use any of the "furniture" in the house.

[Nighthawk]

You have to see the other side of the argument to properly understand. I play Minecraft a good bit with friends of mine, so I don't hate it by any means, but I can't help feeling bored with it for similar reasons - the goal of building a thing is a self-motivated goal that does not reward you with anything but the end product. For a lot of people, that's plenty reward, and that's great. More power to them for the ability to find the motivation to make cool things. But for some people (i.e. myself and some others) it's not so easy to self-motivate yourself to create something that ultimately just looks pretty. A number of us look to games to give us goals, and to reward us for working hard to reach them. It gives us an emotional through line and a sense of satisfaction we can't get from just... building something.

The kind of game a non-self-motivating type like me looks for is a game that, say... shows me a massive dragon. So I try to fight it, and it whoops my butt, making me feel compelled to get stronger so I can come back and win. So I go out, and I work hard, and I fight stuff, increase my stats, get better at the game, and finally go slay the dragon, which (hopefully) drops some kind of awesome item as a reward for all my efforts.

Compared to that, in the eyes of someone who doesn't self-motivate, Minecraft is (for the most part, yes I know there's a dragon but the game isn't about that) a game that doesn't show you anything. It doesn't compel you to grow stronger, or journey further. It just hands you a bunch of stuff (whatever you can find in the game) and says, "Do whatever." For some people, that's enough. For others, it's not a compelling enough reason to keep playing. And when there are other games with more structured approaches that actually provide goals to the player getting less attention while Minecraft enjoys massive popularity with a minimal amount of structure (if any, really), it's kind of hard not to be a little bitter.

tl;dr - I understand the dislike for Minecraft. It's not a perfect game by any means (is anything, really?). But different people are drawn to different stuff. So it has always been, and so it will remain.

[Iceblaster]

Yeah, I mean. I understand not liking. Just the utter dismissal of a game simply because it's a big sandbox is a bit shit.

[Neonivek]

Yeah, I mean. I understand not liking. Just the utter dismissal of a game simply because it's a big sandbox is a bit shit.

I don't understand this all or nothing attitude (not from you specifically but in general). No one is dismissing the game. Minecraft was a pioneer.

It has a flaw, that is it.

You know what also has flaws? Diamonds.

Also no one is saying being a big sandbox itself is a flaw.

[Krevsin]

Soooo

You don't like Minecraft because you aren't creative enough to spend time on something you enjoy. Because that's what I'm getting. The entire appeal of Minecraft is that it's basically Lego. You build things without any real end goal in mind. You can make a house! Or a car! Or anything! But nope! Because you don't have a purpose to any of that, minecraft is shit and it's worthless as a game. Tbh, I really don't understand your hatred for many modern games and how they work. Not every game needs to have a set of things you can do and if one of them isn't up to par, they must all go out for a better system to come in.

This is coming from someone who hasn't really played Minecraft in about a year. So don't tell me I'm a fanboy or I'm policing critique. I'm just someone who thinks you're being a bit too angry about Minecraft.

I like Minecraft, I just don't think it's a particularly well designed game. The "gamey" systems in place are lean to say the least and there's no real incentive or hook provided to you to engage with it apart from your own creativity. To quote Yahtzee's review, it's the type of game where you really do need to set yourself a project.

Even though it's lacking in the game department it's still a great creative sandbox and I've spent many a pleasant hour playing it with friends on servers.

[overseer05-15]

Yeah, I mean. I understand not liking. Just the utter dismissal of a game simply because it's a big sandbox is a bit shit.

I don't understand this all or nothing attitude (not from you specifically but in general). No one is dismissing the game. Minecraft was a pioneer.

It has a flaw, that is it.

You know what also has flaws? Diamonds.

Also no one is saying being a big sandbox itself is a flaw.

Well...

I agree that just giving the player a big empty sandbox to play around in is bad game design,

[itisnotlogical]

I like Minecraft, I just don't think it's a particularly well designed game. The "gamey" systems in place are lean to say the least and there's no real incentive or hook provided to you to engage with it apart from your own creativity. To quote Yahtzee's review, it's the type of game where you really do need to set yourself a project.

I don't get it. There's no incentive or hook to engage with Minecraft besides the entire point of Minecraft?

For my part, I already think enough tedious "gamey" shit has been added to the game. I hate grinding for experience levels and sitting at an enchantment table for ages because some of the newer cosmetic blocks (especially in the End) are stupidly hard to get. I hate having to track down monsters and use valuable crafting materials on potions. I hate maintenance work like fixing tools and wasting rare materials on shit that I need to survive the clunky, tedious combat that fans kept demanding be the focus of the game.

The game that I bought was a building sandbox with a handful of obstacles to shake things up once in a while. I didn't want Minecraft with a mediocre RPG mod, but that's what the official version of Minecraft is now. I play vanilla because all the major mods keep adding shit from other genres that I do not want to play. If I wanted to play those then I would have bought those games. I don't, I want more cosmetic blocks and decorations and doodads for my castles and houses and farms.

[Neonivek]

Yeah, I mean. I understand not liking. Just the utter dismissal of a game simply because it's a big sandbox is a bit shit.

I don't understand this all or nothing attitude (not from you specifically but in general). No one is dismissing the game. Minecraft was a pioneer.

It has a flaw, that is it.

You know what also has flaws? Diamonds.

Also no one is saying being a big sandbox itself is a flaw.

Well...

I agree that just giving the player a big empty sandbox to play around in is bad game design,

Big Sandbox =/= Big Empty Sandbox

I don't get it. There's no incentive or hook to engage with Minecraft besides the entire point of Minecraft?

Not really, that part was in its early development.

I already think enough tedious "gamey" shit has been added to the game.

To admit I am not a huge fan of some of those aspects either... The game really didn't need an RPG system and it felt rather tacked on.

Though some things you are added like "Fixing tools" is funny because didn't tools used to break and there was nothing you could do?

[itisnotlogical]

I....... don't remember. I thought tools used to be invincible forever and the only difference was mining time, but now I'm not sure. You're probably right.

[Neonivek]

Ok here are two types of negative reviews I dislike

They made one change! BOMB IT WITH NEGATIVE REVIEWS!

Alright... To clarify sometimes this is justified if this change is actually so shockingly bad that it really does make the game terrible. Yet sometimes the change is so moderate or minor that it shouldn't really be enough to flip the switch to negative.

I ALWAYS check negative reviews before I get a game it is the only way to get a honest review a lot of the time (positive reviews... typically aren't trying to have a well rounded view of the game in question... A lot of them are just people trying to sell you the game) so needing to wade through pointless negativity is a waste of time.

This other game is popular... BOMB THIS ONE WITH NEGATIVE REVIEWS!

Ok recently this happened with Zelda: Breath of the Wild where the fans basically bombed "competing" games with negative reviews, attacked reviewers who didn't give glowing praise, and basically made an ass of themselves. Yet this isn't new... in fact this happens quite often.

In fact this seems to happen ANYTIME similar games are released next to each other. Seriously people stop it! You don't make your game more special by putting everyone else's down.

On that subject

This review doesn't match my opinions (or isn't glowing enough)... IT MUST SUCK!

Dear goodness people... Ok one reason why I never leaped onto the "IGN sucks!" bandwagon is because I strongly hesitate to even validate people's assertion that a review must somehow be this transcendental piece that somehow represents the most amount of people possible. So I always worried that if I actually checked IGN out I'd just find out that their great sin is they didn't coddle people's feelings enough and gave GTA 4 a 8 instead of a 10.

A review is ultimately going to be subjective not because there is no objectivity in a review but because it is up to each person to determine what value something has towards them. It is up to the review to make their position plain to see.

The worst time I ever had was reading Gamespot's fairly good review of LittleBigPlanet and then going to talk about it on the forums only to see people attack it... because they didn't find the internet that great (which is wasn't at the time) but also because they gave it a 8 instead of a 8.5... They were literally fighting over this because of .5 of a point.

[Chiefwaffles]

(positive reviews... typically aren't trying to have a well rounded view of the game in question... A lot of them are just people trying to sell you the game)

That's usually because positive reviews are listing the pros.
Probably because they're positive reviews. Y'know, because the authors like what they're reviewing.