@wewantsthering said:
@Phished0ne said:
@wewantsthering said:
@Phished0ne said:
@wewantsthering said:
@JustinAquarius said:
Too bad Trials is the better game.
Different game, not better or worse.
wrong, Trials is the game period, minecraft is a digital lego set.
That's an interesting opinion. It sounds like people are just butt hurt because the game they prefer was outsold by a game they don't like or understand. :-)
Edit: Also what would be wrong with digital legos? That sounds awesome! :-D
Nope, i've had this discussion numerous times with numerous different people on these forums. Minecraft as it stands on the xbox, and how it originally was on the PC is not a game. Because a game has to have goals. now its you who assumed i thought it was a bad thing. A game cannot exist without some sort of point, otherwise you are running around the world making up the games in your head(ex. 'im gonna only mine during the day time, and only do construction work during the night time).
It's fine if you feel that way, but video games are not so narrowly defined. You sound like Roger Ebert explaining why video games are not art. A game does not need a point, story, etc to be a game. Minecraft does, however have a point. It's point is to create a platform in a video game format through which people can collaboratively express themselves without the parameters the game creator has set. The stories I could tell from experiences I've had in Minecraft working/fighting with people on Minecraft greatly outweigh any experiences I've had playing the Call of Duty single player campaigns that have a "purpose."
Sure, you can categorize it as a 'game', i think if you get down to splitting hairs though, it really isnt. As i said in my main post, any game you come up with inside the construct of minecraft is a game of your mind, and the minds of whoever you are playing it with. The 'game' never tells you "go build a house", it never gave you anything to do as a game until the adventure pack. I dont mean to sound like i am starting shit or anything, because its just a pet peeve of mine. It really is just a question of semantics.
Call it an experience, call it a digital lego set(and i dont mean those terms derisively at all), but a game must have a point. Keep in mind, i played a lot of minecraft and had a great time with it on the PC. But i call it a game the same way i call Flower, Linger in shadows, and Datura games, and that is because calling them "digital interactive experiences" sounds hoity-toity. Sure it is more of a game than those now because of the addition of the adventure pack, but vanilla MC was no game. Minecraft has a good bit in common with them though, when you 'play' them it isnt about the 'game'play, or the graphics, or anything like that, its about what you feel when you 'play' them. Its about discovering the world, just because you dont even know what the hell you are doing. Being thrown into a room full of mechanics, having none of them explained to you, and being told "have at it" isnt a game. A game requires more.
I never once said there was no place for these games, or that they arent doing the gaming community a great service, because they are. I think they are helping people to realize that 'games' dont have to be GAMES. Understand?
