[...]
Is AI the new buzzword for when you can't think of actual things to hate about a game
[...]
enshrouded is the spiritual sequel to Minecraft
>what if we made Valheim....... but SOULLESS??
bravo
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.
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.
4 months ago
Anonymous
Argumentum ad populum fallacy
also minecraft is neat I am shitting on Ensoulless
4 months ago
Anonymous
>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.
4 months ago
Anonymous
It applies to you using sales numbers as a proof of game's "objective" quality.
You also write too many words for no reason
4 months ago
Anonymous
>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.
4 months ago
Anonymous
No, zogslaves liking something a lot doesn't have anything to do with it's objective quality. They believe Zendaya is a 10
4 months ago
Anonymous
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.
4 months ago
Anonymous
people love superhero movies, yet they are utter garbage.
Your argument is void.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>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.
4 months ago
Anonymous
I'm amazed at how far up your ass your head is. Absolutely fascinating. But go on.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>over time, people passively make the objectivity emerge
No they don't. Zogslaves are dumb and have a bad taste
4 months ago
Anonymous
>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 because of it's sales numbers? Or that F2P grindfests and gachas on mobile are superior to most PC games purely because of how many people chose to play them? Why aren't you playing such objectively great games as clash of clans and candy crush right now?
>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.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>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.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>it has far larger numbers than Doom ever did
modern Doom sucks a dick. Doom II is still played by dedicated enjoyers. Nobody is playing >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_of_Duty_(video_game)
today. Yet Doom II is even older than that. This is what I'm talking about, but you're not arguing in good faith. >it's just dumb and demonstrably untrue.
No shit, Sherlock. You're arguing with your own strawmen. >Your argument can be reduced to "popular things are good because they are popular"
No, it can't. Because this is wrong and you're putting words in my mouth. I have never said that. I said:
Given a sizeable crowd with a free choice, a pattern of objectivity will emerge over time. Classic anything (music, literature) has proven it over centuries. So do and will videogames. Cheers.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>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"
4 months ago
Anonymous
>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"
Same thing, idiot. Both are the innate qualities of a >best ever thing.
Both are a must.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>Both are a must.
no?
4 months ago
Anonymous
>no?
yes. otherwise it's not >ever.
it's just for a short period of time then. like a pop song, popular among deaf gays, that will be forgotten 2 years from now.
4 months ago
Anonymous
no. number of people liking something has nothing to do with it's innate quality
4 months ago
Anonymous
should we get much more technical or abstract of both? I dare you to fricking define >quality
right fricking nao.
4 months ago
Anonymous
things that are good and worthy of appreciation.
4 months ago
Anonymous
do you agree that Minecraft is a piece of software, that serves the entertainment purpose? If so, why do you think, that other games (software) are more >good
and more >worthy of appreciation
than the particular piece of software called Minecraft?
4 months ago
Anonymous
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
4 months ago
Anonymous
>I never bothered with ranking video games I played and enjoyed.
Not direct ranking. Just deconstruction of products to precisely determine what (elements) constitutes quality in a videogame. >I am just pushing against you calling minecraft the being the best game evaaaar
It is my personal opinion. I believe, that Minecraft is one of the most important videogames ever created and that it has laid the fundamentals for the best games ever, that are to come. We are, however, limited by hardware, among other things, so it won't come tomorrow. >and better than some [vastly different games]
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. >because a lot of people have bought it
Indirectly. Those people might not even realize why. I see the greatness of Minecraft and the influence on the future gaming it has.
4 months ago
Anonymous
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
4 months ago
Anonymous
So would you then agree thaf COD is objectivly superior to most other action games on the market because of it's sales numbers? Or that F2P grindfests and gachas on mobile are superior to most PC games purely because of how many people chose to play them? Why aren't you playing such objectively great games as clash of clans and candy crush right now?
4 months ago
Anonymous
>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?
4 months ago
Anonymous
>Are u saying mcdonalds is the best food
it was in the 70's and 80's. Circumstancial now. The benefit of McDonalds is that you can find yourself in the utmost European shithole, hungry, but you see at McD and you know that it will be SAFE for you to eat there. That you won't get a deadly food poisoning.
So, while it might be shat on relentlessly in the U.S. with over9000 other fast food chains, in lots of places on earth, believe it or not, it is a sign of a certain standard of quality. You're talking about worldwide things, at the same time, you don't take the entire world in the account...
I'm amazed at how far up your ass your head is. Absolutely fascinating. But go on.
cool ad hominem. anything that makes Minecraft inferior to its worthless clones and ripoffs tho? Gimme facts, anon.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>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
4 months ago
Anonymous
thats not what im arguing, you are saying its popular therefore people pick it therefore its good and that somehow doesn't apply to mcdonalds because people only pick it for a minimum standard?
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.
for the same reason that mcdonalds is popular but not necessarily quality is the same reasons minecraft is popular but not necessarily quality
the best musicans are not necessarily the most popular, the best movies are not necessarily the most popular, the best books are not necessarily the most popular, the best games are not necessarily the most popular, there is more to popularity than just quality, something can be very good, even the best, AND be popular, but popularity is not solely determined by quality and conflating the two is completely wrong, it can be popular and low quality, popular and high quality, unpopular and high quality, and unpopular and low quality.
Otherwise a single example of something being popular but not in the upper echelons of quality disqualifies it, there are plenty of examples of things that are popular SPECIFICALLY because they are bad, if thats the case, how can popularity be used to determine quality?
4 months ago
Anonymous
>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.
4 months ago
Anonymous
quality does not guarantee popularity.
In fact, many high quality products are extremely unpopular due to being expensive.
Releasing less than a week after Palworld was a mistake no one could have predicted lol, they lost at least 1m sales because of it, I would have bought it seeing it now but no way could it compete in the headlines against POKEMON WITH GUNS IS ACTUALLY GOOD???
>also play 2b2t
Nah man, chaotic/wild pvp servers are too much for me.
I played those as a kid and they only brought me seething and tears.
I still remember that one guy I invited into my base like a clueless dumbass and he just started destroying everything and pouring lava everywhere, then he spawnkilled me and burned my shit. Man I felt terrible after that one.
There were fun times when raiding other people with my clans and looting obsidian bases, but it's not worth the downsides.
I only really build anything on creative.
Honestly whenever I play survival, I don't even build a basic house, I just make a dozen pickaxes and go look for a cave and mine for 6 hours.
I just saw a gameplay review of that Enshrouded game and holy shit, I am so glad Mojang doesn't listen to all the homosexuals who beg for more RPG elements in Minecraft. Enchanting with EXP is already enough, levels should not be tied to any skill trees or any bullshit. Imagine if they gave enemy mobs levels, Jesus.
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.
me playing minecraft
play a better open world survivalcraft please
why are you shilling this game so hard?
Enshrouded.
>Enshrouded
shit looks so soulless it might just be completely done in AI
Is AI the new buzzword for when you can't think of actual things to hate about a game
Hm, the salary must be good.
AI is a literal synonym for soullessness.
No it's not
>AI is a literal synonym for soullessness
So it just means "thing I don't like."
Black folk here think minecraft itself is soulless.
u 8 the b8
Thank you anon, will look into it after I'm done with Palworld.
thanks. I'll avoid it.
Is it made by AI?
>what if we made Valheim....... but SOULLESS??
bravo
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.
mental illness
correct. It's called being intelligent.
fatty should dismiss that extra chin
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
also minecraft is neat I am shitting on Ensoulless
>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.
You also write too many words for no reason
>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.
No, zogslaves liking something a lot doesn't have anything to do with it's objective quality. They believe Zendaya is a 10
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, yet they are utter garbage.
Your argument is void.
>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.
I'm amazed at how far up your ass your head is. Absolutely fascinating. But go on.
>over time, people passively make the objectivity emerge
No they don't. Zogslaves are dumb and have a bad taste
>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.
>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.
>it has far larger numbers than Doom ever did
modern Doom sucks a dick. Doom II is still played by dedicated enjoyers. Nobody is playing
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_of_Duty_(video_game)
today. Yet Doom II is even older than that. This is what I'm talking about, but you're not arguing in good faith.
>it's just dumb and demonstrably untrue.
No shit, Sherlock. You're arguing with your own strawmen.
>Your argument can be reduced to "popular things are good because they are popular"
No, it can't. Because this is wrong and you're putting words in my mouth. I have never said that. I said:
Given a sizeable crowd with a free choice, a pattern of objectivity will emerge over time. Classic anything (music, literature) has proven it over centuries. So do and will videogames. Cheers.
>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"
>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"
Same thing, idiot. Both are the innate qualities of a
>best ever thing.
Both are a must.
>Both are a must.
no?
>no?
yes. otherwise it's not
>ever.
it's just for a short period of time then. like a pop song, popular among deaf gays, that will be forgotten 2 years from now.
no. number of people liking something has nothing to do with it's innate quality
should we get much more technical or abstract of both? I dare you to fricking define
>quality
right fricking nao.
things that are good and worthy of appreciation.
do you agree that Minecraft is a piece of software, that serves the entertainment purpose? If so, why do you think, that other games (software) are more
>good
and more
>worthy of appreciation
than the particular piece of software called Minecraft?
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
>I never bothered with ranking video games I played and enjoyed.
Not direct ranking. Just deconstruction of products to precisely determine what (elements) constitutes quality in a videogame.
>I am just pushing against you calling minecraft the being the best game evaaaar
It is my personal opinion. I believe, that Minecraft is one of the most important videogames ever created and that it has laid the fundamentals for the best games ever, that are to come. We are, however, limited by hardware, among other things, so it won't come tomorrow.
>and better than some [vastly different games]
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.
>because a lot of people have bought it
Indirectly. Those people might not even realize why. I see the greatness of Minecraft and the influence on the future gaming it has.
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
So would you then agree thaf COD is objectivly superior to most other action games on the market because of it's sales numbers? Or that F2P grindfests and gachas on mobile are superior to most PC games purely because of how many people chose to play them? Why aren't you playing such objectively great games as clash of clans and candy crush right now?
>Once you suprass 300.000.000 sales
nice magic number
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_video_games
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?
>Are u saying mcdonalds is the best food
it was in the 70's and 80's. Circumstancial now. The benefit of McDonalds is that you can find yourself in the utmost European shithole, hungry, but you see at McD and you know that it will be SAFE for you to eat there. That you won't get a deadly food poisoning.
So, while it might be shat on relentlessly in the U.S. with over9000 other fast food chains, in lots of places on earth, believe it or not, it is a sign of a certain standard of quality. You're talking about worldwide things, at the same time, you don't take the entire world in the account...
cool ad hominem. anything that makes Minecraft inferior to its worthless clones and ripoffs tho? Gimme facts, anon.
this guy loves typing
look at him go
thats not what im arguing, you are saying its popular therefore people pick it therefore its good and that somehow doesn't apply to mcdonalds because people only pick it for a minimum standard?
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.
for the same reason that mcdonalds is popular but not necessarily quality is the same reasons minecraft is popular but not necessarily quality
the best musicans are not necessarily the most popular, the best movies are not necessarily the most popular, the best books are not necessarily the most popular, the best games are not necessarily the most popular, there is more to popularity than just quality, something can be very good, even the best, AND be popular, but popularity is not solely determined by quality and conflating the two is completely wrong, it can be popular and low quality, popular and high quality, unpopular and high quality, and unpopular and low quality.
Otherwise a single example of something being popular but not in the upper echelons of quality disqualifies it, there are plenty of examples of things that are popular SPECIFICALLY because they are bad, if thats the case, how can popularity be used to determine quality?
>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:
>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.
quality does not guarantee popularity.
In fact, many high quality products are extremely unpopular due to being expensive.
agreed completely
>a pal-like without any pals
hard pass.
Releasing less than a week after Palworld was a mistake no one could have predicted lol, they lost at least 1m sales because of it, I would have bought it seeing it now but no way could it compete in the headlines against POKEMON WITH GUNS IS ACTUALLY GOOD???
what is this vomit graphics online always slop for assraped mutts? tell me the name, please, so that I will be able to add a filter.
trying a little too hard bud
What's this?
>Boasting muh voxel system
>World is handmade
Hard pass
Looks like some souvless homosexual jap game
pass
>also play 2b2t
Nah man, chaotic/wild pvp servers are too much for me.
I played those as a kid and they only brought me seething and tears.
I still remember that one guy I invited into my base like a clueless dumbass and he just started destroying everything and pouring lava everywhere, then he spawnkilled me and burned my shit. Man I felt terrible after that one.
There were fun times when raiding other people with my clans and looting obsidian bases, but it's not worth the downsides.
All because of HIM. Truly an icon.
That moron doesn't even know how much dedotated wam it takes to run a server.
Huh, you know and you don't have 2 billion in your account thanks to the best-selling game in history.
uhhh dedotated wam to a server.
enshrouded is the spiritual sequel to Minecraft
>promising
Name one "promising" game that ever became a good game. Minecraft was fun even at the indev stage
I thought notch quit all social media
>intentionally evading spam or post filters
good, filters are gay
>play 2b2t, good server
nah way too much autism
I only really build anything on creative.
Honestly whenever I play survival, I don't even build a basic house, I just make a dozen pickaxes and go look for a cave and mine for 6 hours.
I just saw a gameplay review of that Enshrouded game and holy shit, I am so glad Mojang doesn't listen to all the homosexuals who beg for more RPG elements in Minecraft. Enchanting with EXP is already enough, levels should not be tied to any skill trees or any bullshit. Imagine if they gave enemy mobs levels, Jesus.
Holy frick, so much this. Based anons.
>playing anything but modded 1.12 MC
frick off normalgays
?si=aGHgpTslP9-sVjXI
THE OLDEST ANARCHY SERVER IN MINECRAFT
How To Lose A Million Braincells Instantly: The Thread
>beta 1.7.3 installed
check
>mo' creatures installed
check
>millenaire installed
check
>aether installed
check
>nethercraft installed
check
>battle towers installed
check
It's gaming time.
>Battle Towers
That brings me back, probably the first MC mod I ever installed
was 1.7.3 really that good? I can only remember playing on 1.7.10 and it had the most mods to my knowledge