m. inecraft

>AI is a literal synonym for soullessness
So it just means "thing I don't like."

u 8 the b8

There is plenty of analysis, you just choose not to engage with it. Either because you agree with it or you disagree, but just want to shitpost, instead of having a conversation.
I gave you a short version, superficial analysis of the mechanical superiorty of Minecraft. The way the game is designed. And some of the Minecraft's gameplay, compared to other games in the same genre. If you want evidence of it being superior to other -like games, that are shit, then I can simply refer you to the popularity, copies sold, and usage of a videogame. Minecraft has an education edition, i.e. it's used to educate children. It is a super engaging videogame precisely because it is simply free to transform as you please building brick world.
Not limiting the player freedom at all, or at most by bedrock is some of the versions of the game, is precisely the reason Minecraft has sold over 300.000.000 copies and counting. This is not even debatable or comparable. Players have clearly shown what they want in their videogames. Industry not giving it to them or moronic devs thinking that they know better is completely fricking irrelevant, because they have Minecraft. Which is the closest to the best videogame that they have ever played. Of all time.
Given a small sample size there is no objectivity at all. Once you suprass 300.000.000 sales, it is pretty safe to claim, that a certain level of objectivity reveals itself.

TL;DR: I'm still waiting to hear your argument.

>Argumentum ad populum fallacy
isn't applicable, because people are free to explore and choose whatever the frick they want to play. They're also not limited to a single videogame. Neither at the same time, nor forever.
Please do not parrot Hitchen's arguments against religion in a videogame context, it makes you look moronic.
Even in the reality, I'd agrue, that
>Argumentum ad populum fallacy
isn't applicable to the full extent or at all, because of the things like freedom of speech, which by design are the tools, that let ideas compete and people choose from the common pool of them. some are accepted, some are rejected.
Ultimately, Minecraft and the videogames like have no direct negative influence on the lives of other human beings either. It is a pretty healthy competition in a healthy environment.

TL;DR: Can't be applied to people choosing a single videogame, out of many, for their past time. It doesn't work here, because there is not really a right or wrong choice between UT and Quake. Most play(ed) both.

>It applies to you using sales numbers as a proof of game's "objective" quality.
Obviously. Because objectivity exists. It emerges given a large enough sample size. You claim it's ad populum. False, because beauty standards are objective for the most part. Most people are not a 9 or 10. Why? Because other people don't see them as a 9 or a 10. Why? Because better looking people exist. Apprx the same logic is applied to the Minecraft being the best selling videogame of all time. It's clearly not best looking, right? It has something, if people consider it a 9. And at the same time consider something like Valheim a 4, for example.

My argument is that regardless of marketing in the videogame sphere, over time, people passively make the objectivity emerge, aka
>stood the test of time
people are still playing and loving Doom 2. 30 years later. They will continue for decades to come. Meanwhile, plenty of Doom clones/competitors exist(ed) and most of them are utterly forgotten today. Same can and will be said about Minecraft.

>people love superhero movies
do they?
>yet they are utter garbage
Nolan's The Dark Knight is utter garbage? Tread carefully. You can, and should have claimed
>most marvel movies are utter gargabe from the standpoint of a highbrow, pretentious, yet completely irrelevant snob wienersucker
this statement would have been 100% true.
>Your argument is void.
You don't have a counter agrument. So, it isn't. I can claim that the sky is purple right fricking nao, but this claim on a lebanese freefall knitting forums won't be true. Equivalent of you voiding my argument tho.

>over time, people passively make the objectivity emerge
No they don't. Zogslaves are dumb and have a bad taste

>COD doesn't even have the numbers
it has far larger numbers than Doom ever did
Your argument can be reduced to "popular things are good because they are popular" and writing more walls of text won't convince anyone to it because it's just dumb and demonstrably untrue.

>Nobody is playing
://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_of_Duty_(video_game)
I am 100% certain there is also a bunch of dedicated autists playing CoD 1 out there, easily.
Your argument has also shifted from "minecraft is the best game ever because millions of mexican children play it everyday" to "things having dedicated following after years means they are good"

>Both are a must.
no?

no. number of people liking something has nothing to do with it's innate quality

things that are good and worthy of appreciation.

Do I think that? Not sure about that, I never bothered with ranking video games I played and enjoyed. I am just pushing against you calling minecraft the being the best game evaaaar and better than some [vastly different games] because a lot of people have bought it

A game as a whole either makes an impression on me or it doesn't. I don't like dissecting them into parts. Game's influence on other games has also nothing to do with whether I like it or not. I don't give a frick that Halo birthed health regen in FPS or w/e, why would I? It has nothing to do with my enjoyment of the game.
>obviously. those games, for the large part, are a useless form of momentarily entertainment, that will be mostly forgotten in 5 years time. They have 0 innovation. Fricking nil value is added to the world, whenever a new trendly slop entry is created.
I enjoyed sailing and it's acompanying music in Valheim so it's more valuable than 99.9% games that ever existed.
>Indirectly. Those people might not even realize why. I see the greatness of Minecraft and the influence on the future gaming it has.
Then why did you initially bring it up as a proof of some objective value? Indonesian children play minecraft because they saw The Minions mod on youtube and because their friends also did

>Once you suprass 300.000.000 sales
nice magic number

popularity does not determine quality, only popularity.
Are u saying mcdonalds is the best food or the best burger in the world just because of its popularity?

>No they don't. Zogslaves are dumb and have a bad taste
tap into the worldwide public domain, you uncultured ignorant swine.
[...]
>So would you then agree thaf COD is objectivly superior to most other action games on the market
Not quite. COD doesn't even have the numbers. Also, what else is there? Tens of thousands of videogames exist. The direct, quality competition of COD from older times, like Medal of Honor, Soldiers of Fortune, Quake, Unreal, Half-Life have all but faded on the modern market. Yeah, duh, normies will play whatever they think is popular, and while a sizeable crowd, they're no indicative of the entire gamer population. COD used to be an ok videogame back in like 2002, hard to believe, I know, but it wasn't the current day make a quick buck off paypigs slop.
>clash of clans
I tired. It was ok and fun, but it crashed and burned.
>candy crush
not interested in the genre.
And yet again they don't have the numbers. Not even close. I'm not talking about the money being made, I'm talking about the copies being sold. How many copies does a modern day yearly cod slop sell? 5-6 million? That's nothing. Even Palword sold more.

>people love superhero movies
do they?
>yet they are utter garbage
Nolan's The Dark Knight is utter garbage? Tread carefully. You can, and should have claimed
>most marvel movies are utter gargabe from the standpoint of a highbrow, pretentious, yet completely irrelevant snob wienersucker
this statement would have been 100% true.
>Your argument is void.
You don't have a counter agrument. So, it isn't. I can claim that the sky is purple right fricking nao, but this claim on a lebanese freefall knitting forums won't be true. Equivalent of you voiding my argument tho.

this guy loves typing
look at him go

>you are saying its popular therefore people pick it therefore its good
Never did. Should we just leave it at that? Here is the proof of my initial words:

[...]
[...]
[...]
Valheim sucks too. So does the Empyrion, and so on. Even the tale of homosexualry of whatever it's called sucks. Minecraft was, is, and it looks like will remain the superior game for a very long time. Sadly, because Minecraft ain't perfect. Still, it isn't about the graphics at all. It's the underlying basis/gameplay, that people seem to always get wrong. A basic geometrial figure is an underlying basis of everything. Like a cube. The world must be damn near unlimited (old minecraft), have different biomes, and yes, later introduce other geometrical shapes and forms to add gameplay variety. The basis however is the ability of a player to completely deconstruct, reconstruct, or build an entire world out of a couple of basic geometrical shapes. Whenever a videogame lacks those, it is by default an inferior (to Minecraft) videogame. Doesn't matter how many pixels fit onto a cube or what moronic "gaaaaymeplay" systems some imbecile decided to introduce into his videogame world.

>somehow doesn't apply to mcdonalds?
ofc not. because the quality somewhat differs worldwide. And yet, it is still of a better quality than most other choices in the 3rd world. Do you want a licensed U.S. trademark with a minimal standard of
>our burger won't kill you
or do you want to choose some mystery food from some suspicious individual in a dirty tent. Your health, your choice.
>maybe people only pick minecraft because of it being available on every platform? that its on PC and mobile? that it can run on a toaster, that its a simple game so it can attract people easily and its not indicative of its quality.
true. But, over the last years the performance tanked.
>for the same reason that mcdonalds is popular but not necessarily quality is the same reasons minecraft is popular but not necessarily quality
maybe because your subjective of quality is not even to being an objectively quality product on a GLOBAL scale, even in 2024? Have you ever considered that possibility? That you're a 1% elitist in your opinions?
>the best musicans are not necessarily the most popular
over time they are recognized
>the best movies, books, games, whatever are not necessarily the most popular
over time they are recognized
>quality/popularity rant
yes. But, not over time. You're not even aware of the most popular pop shit of 1840, but you know who Chopin is.
>how can popularity be used to determine quality?
It isn't used. You think, that i'm saying popular = good. Wrong. I'm saying quality = recognized and popular over time and judgement of a sizeable crowd (humanity). It also doesn't mean perfect, not even close. Just one of the best we've got.
TL;DR: there never were multi-billion dollar ad campaigns for Minecraft back in the Notch days. Got popular anyway.

agreed completely