Minecraft is a lousy game 7
Debate Rounds (5)
Wrong kind of music during the wrong time(minor)
Unfinshed product as there are TOO many bug fixes which seemed like they planned it from the start to keep it fresh.
Minecraft merchandise and handbooks are also expensive scams.
I will save my words and will debate more later.
Then you claim that Minecraft has bad graphics. I admit the graphics aren't the greatest, but how do graphics determine if a game is great or bad? Gameplay is the biggest factor when talking about how good or bad a game is in reality. Look at it like this, a game is like a "Bed". The mattress of this "Bed" is the story of the game, and the blankets are the Gameplay. The Gameplays job is to "cover" the story in a interactive experience for the player. The pillows are the support for the game (Graphics, Multiplayer, Etc.), and the pillows are one of the smallest factors when making the game. As long as the Gameplay is enjoyable, the game is fine. To support this fact, the biggest sellers in games are "Indie Titles". Examples being Meatboy and Shovel Knight, yet they don't have great graphics and still sell really well. So if your claiming the game has bad graphics, then why does it sell so well?
For your issue with the games combat, what do you expect for a game where the title is called "Minecraft"? The title says what you do in the game; you mine and craft stuff; simple as that. This is not a game where killing enemies is a major priority, more like a minor priority. You also state that the game has too many bugs and a consistency of updates, whats wrong with that? Its great that a game cares enough to update their game, to fix issues, and always having something new in stored. Also, you claim that is addictive; and I must ask what is wrong with that? If you claim that it is addictive, then it must be fun; counter arguing your statement of being Pro for the topic given. And finally, for the Minecraft merchandise portion of your opening argument, it is not necessary to buy to have fun with the game. Minecraft is not a game where you have to pay to win.
Now to my argument, I say that Minecraft is a great game because it does something that a lot of games lack nowadays; having the ability to be creative. When the player has control, it gives a fulfillment of owning your own world where you can create anything that you want. Because if the player has power, that gives a chance to spread your creativity, which can later support society in reality. Minecraft allows the individual to expand their creativity.
Laggy and glitchy-
Con says glitches and lag do not make a game bad. If it does not make a game bad, games would be more glitchy than ever!
Glitching often makes you cheat, get stuck and more, which is very unatural. Its the company"s fault because of the glitches.
Con also Shared about the $300 laptop story, nobody exactly know whats exactly going on there. Cons says the glitches arent noticable, but you should bascially enter a minecart and see your legs sticking out or blow up TNT to see an x ray of caves(or is it bug?)
Con say graphics also cannot determine a game good or bad. But just imagine a game like a virtual human in a realistic world with good graphics. The player will "wow" themselves. Con also says about the bed. The mattress in the bed would crumble because it has a very weak storyline. You kill the enderdragon with no purpose ,no quests to support the reason why you want to kill it and then get a egg?!?! The gameplay gives an interactive way to the story, but you just have to throw eyes and find the stronghold and then place eyes and then jump into the portal and kill. Its very possible to do a speedrun where skill is only key without a cheat glitch. The blanket will be torn. When i used to play minecraft i always played multiplayer since singleplayer could make you lonely. Once again con supports its arguements by using other bestselling indie games. Nowadays kids (not 15 ) do not know how to appreciate graphics, as by the opinion page in this website(do graphics make a good game?). Mainly a company will start abandoning their graphics if everyone agrees graphics does not make a good game. If graphics dont make a good game, minecraft wouldnt even be COLORED and why does other companies spend so much on its graphics?
Its a minor thing and thats why they should remove it, but the company had even made a handbook about combat!
Mojang was considered uncreative when the first update was realeased. And something tells me they had planned it from the start to keep the game "fresh".
Too many people misunderstood about minecraft being an addictive game. Its addictive not exactly because its fun, but there are so many things to download that the player cant stop. For me, i only like to play a fun game for a while instead of 4 years minecraft.
So this are signs of addiction:
Throwing tantrums when stopped to play minecraft
Talking,doing and thinking minecraft( a very big distraction)
And the consequences:
Lack of sleep
Affect studies (lack of sleep and distraction)
Fall sick as you might play too much and you endurance system might fall
Worst is that you die of exhuastion
Well for merchandise its optional but those who bought is scammed because things are way too overpriced. A handbook with more pictures than words(30mins-1hr reading) is $20,slime plastic sword is $25 and a minifigure of sky and his butter is $34!
Creativity- minecraft is a popular game for its creativity, but actually because its mechanics are simple. Some games have a map editor whom you can publish.(i use farcry 4, which is more advanced). You can make a mountain of humans standing on top of each other, and they fall when you crash them with a tanker. Advanced builders should try out a more advanced editor.
For Minecraft, it does have its fair share of glitches but the given examples my opponent shared, "Legs sticking out of a mine cart or blowing up TNT to see an x-ray of caves", they a more minor, than major. The legs sticking out of a mine cart is minimally unnoticeable, unless you look for any possible minor error in the game like my opponent does, and blowing up TNT is not required in the game; unless used more for curiosity. Previously, I brought up the 300 dollar laptop story, which my younger brother owns, and I brought it up to show that Minecraft is a game that can be played without a "high powered computer". The glitches and lags do occur here and there, but are not very noticeable; because of the easy resolution of graphics in the game of Minecraft. Which brings up the next statement of bad graphics from my opponent.
Now we will both agree that Minecraft graphics are not the "greatest"; however, I do claim that graphics do not make a game the best, with a graphic description of, what I prefer to call, "The Bed". Previously, I mentioned the mattress of the bed being the Story, blanket as the Gameplay, and Pillows as the Support (Multiplayer, Graphics, etc.); my opponent counter argues these statements with his own graphic description of why Minecraft is a "lousy" game. Stating that there is really no story, and the Gameplay bringing no "interactive" experience to the player. The claims made by my opponent are easily said as false because my opponent forgets that Minecraft has a much deeper story, than is seen. The story in Minecraft is actually created by the player! To the voters, and my opponent, think of the fun times, if any, you had in Minecraft? Remember the time where you found diamond for the first time, or almost getting killed by a zombie but made it to day time? Many things happen in Minecraft, and the player develops their own story in their own way. A game that can support this concept is Pokemon, where the player is the "Silent Protagonist Trainer" who embarks on an adventure to capture Pokemon. Where each Pokemon captured has its own story; a similar situation as the story of Minecraft.
Earlier in my last argument, I stated that a type of game genre, called "Indie Games", do not have the greatest graphics, yet still sell tremendously. With titles being Shovel Knight and Super Meatboy, who are favored by many in the gaming community. My opponent counter argues that kids nowadays fail to look at the Gameplay element in games, but more towards the Graphics. However, based on a statistic from "Daily Dot", in the article: Adult Women are now the Largest Demographic in Gaming, it states that 71% of adults play games more than children. As well as an adult buys more games than children, where the games are typically "Indie Titles" because of its cheap enough price; where the sales are extraordinarily good. This is mainly because of the influence of Youtube, where popular Gamers play these games to "up" the creators sales, and also influences kids to buy the Indie Titles as well. In another statistic, from the article: 'Who's Watching What on Youtube", it states more kids watch Youtube, than adults. Where most of the viewers are towards gaming channels, than other types of videos. Funny enough, the most viewed type of gaming videos is Minecraft. So if my opponent claims that young kids don't care about Indie Games and more about graphics, why do kids watch the videos of Minecraft and other Indie Titles, and convince their parents to buy them the game?
Also my opponent makes a very irrational claim about the "isolation" of Gamers not focusing on graphics, but the main factor of a game; Gameplay. My opponent states that if a company gets a lot of notifications about Graphics not making a game, that they will stop producing graphics for a game. This claim is easily said as "Ridiculously false", and would never happen. A gaming companies job is to make money, and are not going to be that "gullible" to stop making graphics because it ain't the main core of a game.
Then my opponent makes the argument of removing combat from Minecraft. In my previous argument, I stated that the game is called "Minecraft", not "Combat Craft" or "Mine Combat", so there will be a lack of combat. My opponent says that it should be removed, and it shouldn't because of the premise of Minecraft being "Survival". Survival is to hunt or be hunted, and the combat gives this feeling in the game. It is not advanced combat compared to other games, but like I stated earlier the game is called "Minecraft". And also, my opponent brings up the combat book, which I have, where it does not talk about how to fight, but strategies to use against the enemies. That is a whole different statement, than what my opponent intended on a combat book from Minecraft.
Minecraft is known for updating a lot, and my opponent claims that is a bad thing, why? Why is it bad to update your game and keeping it new? It adds a new experience as time goes on, instead of having a game that when completed; you're done. Nothing else except being required to buy the DLC; where Minecraft does not with, free updates to the game. My opponent then brings up an issue in gaming being: "Video Game Addiction". Video Game Addiction is defined as: "Video game overuse, pathological or compulsive/excessive use of computer games and/or video games". Definition stated from "Unity Point Health". It is something that can happen to anyone, but has a very low chance of occuring. In the website, "Video Game Addiction", it states that only 8% of young children (Between the ages of 8-12) get the addiction, and only 5% of adults get it. A small number in the United States, and is typically received through "Having fun" with the game. If my opponent claims that an addiction occurs from "Not having fun", then why is there such thing as "Video Game Addiction" if people are having fun in the game?
My opponent also constantly brings up the merchandise from Minecraft, claiming that it is "unfair" for the purchase. To counter argue, the merchandise is not necessary to own to have fun in Minecraft; its just for show. And my opponent even admits that it is optional, so why bring it up? In fact, most video game merchandise are more expensive, than average merchandise, so its not only Minecraft merchandise, but other video games too.
In my previous argument, I said that one thing Minecraft has is "creativity". My opponent counter argues with the creativity being "to simple", when in reality simple is good. Minecraft gives a building element that is easy enough to play, where no frustrations ensue from other games that has a creative mode. On example is Halo Reach, where in the mode "Forge", you can build maps but is slightly harder to set up the map; while in Minecraft, the game allows the player to create anything they want from scratch, with no limitation. Even hardcore builders favor Minecrafts simple mechanics because it gives them a "challenge" to build something from the games mechanics.
Now to my new argument of why Minecraft is not a "lousy" game. Minecraft can appeal to a variety of audiences for its simple Gameplay mechanics, and fun looking environment. Interesting enough, Miecraft is actually getting more popular currently, than before, because of a sudden high female demographic in gaming. Stated in the article, "Adult Women are now the Largest Demographic in Gaming", it states that more women are playing video games because of the "cute" environment in games. The main market being Indie Games, where earlier I stated are actually the highest selling style of games, and Minecraft; for its block structured environment. As well as Minecraft appeals to many kids with autism for its simple gameplay, and allowing the spread a huge amount of creativity.
Minecraft is not a "lousy" game because of the following arguments!
Con realied to much on the sales and people, thats why im here also to prove minecraft is overrated and biased. For halo and fallout 3, they have a normal share of glitches. You should prove a bestselling badly glitchy game except minecraft. Con claims the legs sticking out of a minecart is minimally unoticable, the legs sticking out only can be seen from third person or from another player"s perspective. Same for badly designed boats. Con then claims the TNT part is minor. But it is very noticable for microsoft to fix that glitch from the time TNT was realeased. The TNT part is major as it can affect unatural mining, now you can estimate where to mine, where is the lava, where are the ores. This is a cheat. TNT is not only for curiousity, in survival the use TNT to create mines or set up traps which is necessary. Bad graphics are maybe ment to cope lag, but minecraft is literally laggy, which con did not debate on round 3(con just repeated the earlier arguement.
I know that you "make" the story but this is no new concept that you make the story, even games whom has already have a storyline. Microsoft cannot rely on the making storyline method as this no new concept. Rather its the experience.
Con claims shovel knight and super meatboy are favored many in the gaming community, however they are not one of the bestselling games on the planet. I did not say kids fail to look at gameplay but more on graphics. Its actually the opposite. Now con claims 71% adults play games more than kids. While that may be true and my dad plays (good) games too. Adults have the upped hand to play games more than kids because they arent controlled as kids. Adults usually play games to kill time. The games are not really good games. Candy crush is a lousy but good time killer game, but i got bored too fast. Plenty of my relatives play candy crush and when they ran out of "health" they just switch to another candy crush rip off. Woman plays more of this lame games then man. Now youtube... Now this support doesnt really help as for the youtubers who has more than 15 000 subscribers, get paid. Me also normally watch gaming channels. Youtubers like the diamond minecart exaggerate minecraft. He says that the water is cold (you cannot feel anything in minecraft) and he never seen a REAL t rex in his life( its not real ,silly). I learnt a lesson that watching minecraft is better than playing it as the youtubers do the things quite smoothly. Playing minecraft made me bored. Fact: i convinced my father to download minecraft even though he doesnt want as he said it sucks, soon after i fell into the youtube trap and quited my 3 years of being a fanboy.
Con says they will stop providing graphics for a game, but that means you cannot play the game! Instead the company will make the graphics bad as possible. In this way the company saves money and can spend the money on other parts of a game.
Survival mode also SHOULD be removed because eventually it becomes creative-survival, stampylonghead is mainly doing creation videos in survival. Even hardcore mode is not big deal as minecraft is relatively easy. Then the combat book, which i had finished reading in the bookshop. They use strategies, but you actually can just go to the internet for free. This book is targeted to kids, who just want to be happy because they have something that is part of their favourite game.
Then the updates are incredibly inconsistent, the wait between 12.5 to 13.5 was ONE YEAR! Now i would prefer playing a good game for 6 months rather than minecraft for 3 years. Playing minecraft like an hour a week but for 5 years is addiction. Like they dont really have variety in gaming. Con claims that addiction has an low chance of occuring, it actually depends on the game. Minecraft has so many things to download that the player cannot stop.
Then con says simple is good, but do they pay off? An advanced map editor can mean a better map. Then con says the hardcore builders favor minecraft as they give them a "challenge" , its actually will make it easier. And also remember hardcore builders also do it for the money.
Now minecraft is targeted to 2-15 years old, Mostly minecraft is inhabited with inmature 9 year olds who spam, and swear as minecraft do not have chat control. Once again the main market is NOT indie games as by the source that shows the bestselling games. Minecraft purposely being blocky is making it boring in its graphics.
Now to my new 3 arguments-
Animation- swimming without moving anything, bashing your sword only one way, there are no expressions in the game (/troll) including the alien villagers. The player is considerably inflexible. Getting into a boat or minecart is more of teleporting to it. Ladder climbing is more of sliding up etc
Its only fun because you make it fun-
Games are supposed to be fun right? Well minecraft has little fun, because YOU make it fun, and that can be tedious like building a building and spilling lava. If you are the impatient sort, you just got scammed by your friends.
Its user unfriendly(lack of tutorial).
Extra video that shows lag and the x ray glitch compared to farcry 4.
My opponent than brings up the "TNT Glitch" in Minecraft. The "TNT Glitch", stated in my previous argument as TNT not being used a ton, is an occurrence when the player used TNT to blow up a landscape. My opponent claims that this is a "cheat" by many players, and is actually not a cheat. The "TNT Glitch" occurs by player choice, not by the designers fault. In Survival, the necessary materials for TNT are more rarer to obtain than other materials inside the game; and the materials obtained to make it are typically used for other things within the game. Its not a "cheat", but more of a strategic element used inside the game. The player was smart enough to use TNT as an advantage, than just a fun explosion; and my opponent is declaring to take that away, or classifying as a "cheat". Its like saying that its a "cheat" to use any sort of weapons in Far Cry 4, even though the purpose of that game is to survive.
My opponent also claims that in my last argument, that I did not address about lag. In fact, I did and here is what I said during the time I was telling about the "300 Lap Top Story": "The glitches and lags do occur here and there, but are not very noticeable; because of the easy resolution of graphics in the game of Minecraft". I will admit I "briefly" mentioned it, but to clarify: "Lag is something we cope with". It typically occurs with internet connection, or an over production in "effects" happening inside the game. Most of the time, lag happens because of these reasons, and its because of "Players Choice". Its the players choice to set up loads of TNT to make the game lag; its not the designers fault for the player making the decision to lag the game, it is the players. Lag, most of the time, does not occur because of game design, but because of "overwhelming" the game. Voters, as you can see the aspects of "glitches" or "lags" my opponent brings up are very minimal, unless enforced. A game, like I stated numerous times in my previous arguments, will haves its lags and glitches, but that does not make the game "lousy".
Then we discuss the story of Minecraft, where there is really no story but survival. I brought up a model in my previous argument called "The Bed", in which addressed the idea of a Story, Gameplay, and Graphics. The story that I stated previously was a story where the player creates. My opponent agrees that the player makes the story, and claims that this is no new concept. To counter argue my opponents statement, I will use the source of a Youtube video called "Game Theory". Where it is one of the more educational shows that discusses about ideas on games. The episode that I am adressing is titled: "Are Gamer's Killing Games"? I will leave the link in the sources below, and to discuss what it basically was; it stated: "Gamers do not want innovation in games". My opponent claims that the idea for Minecraft's Story should be changed, instead of letting the idea of allowing the Gamer to create his or her own story. Why? Why would they change something that actually works out? Games that are original typically fail in the market because of being "original". Call of Duty still sell very well because of its lack of change in a game, so why should Minecraft change when the idea works well enough already?
In the next "counter argument" by my opponent, he claims that Indie Games do not sell as well as other games. To say that is completely false, because Indie Games sell more than other games. Mainly because of its cheap price, or colorful idea of graphics. My opponent also claims that that kids do not appreciate Graphics, as much as to Gameplay in a game; leading towards my side of this debate. I say this because previously, I mentioned that Gameplay is the core mechanic of a game, not Graphics. So if my opponent agrees on that statement with his argument; then I won this portion of the argument!
My opponent even agrees with me that more adults play games, than children. Adults play games to kill time, which we will both agree upon, and my opponent even admits that they buy Indie Games; the example, provided by my opponent, was Candy Crush which is a high marketed Indie Game. Adding more support for my argument that Indie Games sell better because of fun Gameplay, and not graphics. Which, in my opponents first argument, stated: "Bad graphics", of why Minecraft is a "lousy" game. Then, my opponent goes even further my giving more opinionated responses than actual arguments supported by facts. By stating: "Candy crush is a lousy but good time killer game, but i got bored too fast." and "Women play more of these lame games, than men". Even admitting, in my previous argument, that women play Indie Games because of the colorful graphics and unique environment; even Minecraft. Previously, my opponent stated that in an article, he has read, that companies will not focus on Graphics because people state that Gameplay is more of the core mechanic in a game. I don't know why my opponent keeps pushing this argument, but this idea is "ludicrous" because of the simple fact that companies will not do this. They will not risk this "silly" idea because they have a higher percentage of a chance to lose money, than gain money. In the market, and everything, money is to most important aspect in that argument, which I have disproved.
For my previous argument, I mentioned Minecraft is a very popular video trend on Youtube. With influencing many purchases and still being favored, despite "Bad Graphics". My opponent even agrees that watching Minecraft videos on Youtube are fun, compared to actually playing the game. Contradicting my opponents argument of the topic of proving how Minecraft is a "lousy" game. With this quoted statement by my opponent: "I learnt a lesson that watching Minecraft is better than playing it as the Youtubers do the things quite smoothly". So if Minecraft is such a "lousy" game, why are you saying you like to watch it on Youtube?
My opponent then makes a claim that Survival Mode, in Minecraft, should be removed because of being "to easy", or being "to creative". The reasoning's why my opponent brought up are more opinionated judgement, than actual facts using for support. Why remove an aspect in a game because of being "to easy", and not allowing players to have fun when surviving? To support this, lets take a scenario where there was a game "created" where it gives the most realistic survival idea as possible. The game would be boring, with no creative elements to it; and would decline, heavily, on sales. Is this the game my opponent wants, instead of surviving with the creative idea of stacking bricks for protection at night from Zombies, Spiders, and Skeletons? As well as a game for being "to easy" is a good thing because of lowering stress among individuals. Instead of raging at the game for being to hard, why not put it on an "easy mode" where you can enjoy the experience, with less stress. A game that does this relevantly well is "Animal Crossing" because of its relaxing and fun environment. Game is easily fun, and easy in Gameplay where stress is at a low, instead of a high.
For the marketing of toys from Minecraft, my opponent really did not discuss much about it. I ask the question to you Voters, why do we buy merchandise? My opponent answers it, making me win this portion of the debate, with: "This book is targeted to kids, who just want to be happy because they have something that is part of their favorite game". Not much else, except that we like merchandise for our favorite game; even if it is a little overpriced, but its an option.
The updates, stated by my opponent, are "inconsistent" because of being longer, than needed. To this, I respond with the fact that you, as the player, get to experience the previous update more than a quick new one. It allows the player to "embrace" the game more, than only having one day to play the "Original Update". And my opponent neglects the fact I have brought upon him in my last argument that addiction occurs because of the player having fun in the game he or she is playing. My opponent fails to address this portion of the argument, meaning a possible win for me in this portion. Also previously I mentioned that simple is a good thing, and my opponent claims that most hardcore players do it for the money. If they are doing it for the money, then Minecraft actually supports people with money.
I did not ask you to name a more glitchy game than minecraft. I asked you to name a game as glitchy as minecraft. Con claims the glitches are lesser than other games with no evidence. First con claimed that the percentage of the minecart situation. I admit that it is forced by a player by moving around the minecart, but that would be normal to look around.
Lets look at this lame parody and you should notice the glitch.
Also a part of a minecart or boat can pass through blocks due to not having a good collision dectector. It is possible for microsoft to fix it even when forced as this shows that that the player is too big and not keeping his legs to himself, this is also something to do with collision dectecting. By the look of plenty of youtubers playing with their friends, there should be some stampylonghead or popularmmos video that shows the glitch as they ignore it. Multiplayer is where you should see this glitch in any minecart involved situation. Plus, there is also another glitch where players sit ON the minecart not IN, they are floating in the air! But mobs are more common by the way.
Con claims TNT is by the player's choice, but the limited amount of TNT in order to make that glitch is unacceptable. Even one TNT can show the glitch in a split second. Please note i tested this is the PE version( i also saw a glitching magma cube whom had shown it was attacked(extra redness). And vibrating very fast while moving) but is still unacceptable.
In survival, the player dont't actually have to save their TNT as the game is easy, normally they blow up for fun, but the player was smart enough to make advantage of the unatural cheat to decide whether he should mine there ir not. I did not say about TNT being a cheat but the glitches in it. And farcry 4 main purpose is NOT to survive, its a rpg.
Im saying that you did not adress about lag in the previous round. The laptop story was already used up and con recycled it into a rebuttal again? Now internet connection is also a server's fault as they did not build enough servers to let the person connect to, more servers, less lag. BUT- multiplayer lag is a different story.
Con, i did not say the story of should be changed. I said microsoft cannot rely on the fact to make your story since this is no new concept, but improve the main storyline of killing the enderdragon. No offence to you but it seems that there is a problem of understand of your english. Also there is a confusion on games that are original typically fall in the market if being original. Call of duty still sell very well because of its lack of change in game. Lets simplify this a little... Con claims having a lack of change in game (being original) fails in the market. But then con says COD still sells very well thanks to being original.
Con did not adress my wikipedia list on the best selling games and the list doesn't include shovel knight or super meat boy(but minecraft if course). Now lets show why minecaft graphics are bad by the way.
Every game is made of pixels, even realistic game although they cannot be seen by the naked eye. Same for tv(even reality shows), your computer or phone. So for those games that has pixels seen by the naked eye, means the graphics are low paid. Its ok for obvious pixel games for being unique in the game. But minecraft is BADLY pixelated, the bigger the pixels(squares), the worst it is. Smaller pixels is for better graphics.
Candy crush is lame in the way that you are swiping a puzzle. Candy crush is technically a girl's game as by the pinky graphics. Men actually play more games than woman, woman like to chit chat, most games are targetted at men. You are also leading me into the reason that woman likes indie games becuase of its colorful graphics and unique envoirment. Minecraft is unique in a BAD way- low paid graphics. Borderlands has unique graphics in a GOOD way. Most indie games are more colorful than minecraft, swimming deep or venturing into caves or walking in the night- that could hurt your eyes too, the darkness spoils this support.Then con says companies will not risk this silly idea as to give them a chance to lose money without proof. Imagine everybody doesn't care about graphics.
Now you should also know youtubing is outside minecraft too.
Now diffultculty is an issue, i realized one thing you learn in gaming- it gives you a challenge. More harder games can help you deal with stress real life. For game that is too easy, things will be done easily and fast that it gets boring quickly. The most realistic survival game will be loved by schools. Con claims that there will be "no creative elements" however you are supposed to be creative in survival. Traps,shelters, "cooking places", tools, weapons, clothing(all different types)should be included into that game, the player would have to be creative to make them. Fact: animal crossing has a creepy easter egg.
Nowadays, the updates are mainly bug fixes. You should look at this madman video(REASONS MINECRAFT SUCKS)(mostly a joke, but the number one part is true). Now minecraft is also addictive as if the way it is easy( which i have rebutted). The people in charge of minecraft would not definetly pay people money. It can be other people paying map makers to promote their company like a mcdonald restaurant or a replica of freddy fazbears pizzeria(the real one in utah). Microsoft didnt even care to put a game tester(minecrft only)(a person who gets paid to play games, rather goofy but its in order to find out bugs and glitches) however plenty of other companies are open to it as by this source:
This shows that the other companies care for their games too. They support mapmakers with money (there is a map created by ubisoft in farcry 4).
Con has been recycling his arguements to make it "longer".
For the glitches in the game, my opponent admits that the mine cart glitch is forced by the player. Here is the evidence to support this statement: "I admit that it is forced by a player by moving around the mine cart". So if the glitch is player enforced, is it truly a glitch? Where I defined a glitch or lag, in my first argument, as: "A sudden, usually temporary, malfunction in the programming in the game". If its forced, this does not make it a glitch or lag! Then my opponent brings up his evidence of Youtube videos about certain glitches. In my first argument, I stated that glitches happen; but most people ignore it and move on. My opponent admits this with his quote of: "By the look of plenty of Youtubers playing with their friends, there should be some stampylonghead or popularmmos video that shows the glitch as they ignore it". As it is seen, my opponent admitted that they ignore it; so is it really an issue if people ignore it; even those who play Minecraft, and has a dedicated Youtube channel for it.
For the TNT incident, I stated that it is self choice made to use it or not. My opponent agreed that it is a self choice made, and says that it is a "cheat". It is not because of the player being smart enough to use his or her own resources to mine. My opponent even agrees to this statement, with the following statement: "But the player was smart enough to make advantage of the unnatural cheat to decide whether he should mine there or not". The word "cheat" is defined as: "A person who behaves dishonestly in order to gain an advantage". So we can assume that the "dishonest action" is hacking the game. So is it truly a cheat if the game designers gave you TNT to be used? My opponent also tries to back out on saying that TNT is not a cheat, when he stated in his fourth argument as: "The TNT part is major as it can affect unnatural mining, now you can estimate where to mine, where is the lava, where are the ores. This is a cheat". So my opponent has no valid argument if he agrees with me that the idea on TNT is not a cheat, in this round of the debate.
Then my opponent states that I keep reusing the laptop story is my previous argument. I do, admittedly, but my opponent has not placed any further arguments about the lag in Minecraft. To further extend the laptop story argument, my little brother does indeed play online with others; and has no issue with lag. Once is a while it does occur, but nothing can be done because of an overwhelming amount of "stuff" happening all at once. To support this claim with evidence, I will use a quote mentioned in the "Game Engine Architecture Second Edition", where is states: "Perhaps we can tolerate a one-frame lag". Meaning that lag happens, and most Gamers move on, like stated by my own opponent previously.
Later, my opponent addresses that Minecraft should get a more in depth story, than allowing the player to create their own story. I still will stand upon the position that allowing players to create ones own story is far greater than changing it up. In my previous argument, I brought up a source about how innovation in games fail; yet reused concepts still sell very well. I stated one game, for an example, being Call of Duty; where they still sell very well, even though nothing has changed. My opponent claims that I stated that Call of Duty is an original concept, where I truly stated: "Call of Duty still sell very well because of its lack of change in a game". Not, on what my opponent perceives, as me saying that Call of Duty is an original game. Proving that my opponent produced false evidence in his argument.
Then my opponent claims that I did not address his Wikipedia list on the best selling games. To address on why I denied this evidence, is because of using Wikipedia as a source; when Wikipedia is not reliable. The reasoning why, stated in the Modern Education Department, is because of the possibility of changing information on Wikipedia; making it not truly reliable. Speaking of sources, in the previous argument my opponent used four sources that were mainly Wikipedia sites and forums. These sources do not count because of having no factual evidence, compared to my sources that do have factual evidence. My opponent further argues that the graphics in Minecraft are "intolerable". My opponent claims this as more of his own opinion, without evidence to support his argument. While I use evidence that Graphics do not determine if a game is good or bad; with the examples of Indie Games. Where, previously, I provided evidence that Indie Games are one of the highest selling points in the gaming market. Because of its fun Gameplay, and not based on Graphics. Minecraft delievers this experience with its own unique touch, which my opponent agrees with his statement of: "Minecraft is unique". He later does say say that its bad, but with no evidence to prove this claim!
My opponent then discusses about the difficulty of Minecraft. Previously, I mentioned that being simple is good because of allowing a low key stress experience. My opponent claims that people will not be stressed, and will like the idea of a realistic survival game. To support my previous claim, I will used the article titled: "Are Modern Games Easier or Simply Designed Better, where it states that many claim that having an easy game is bad, but in reality; its good. Its good because it allows more production for the company, to immerse the gamer in a higher experience, and give more versatility in the game. Minecraft does this with its unique Gameplay, that my opponent agreed was unique, and gives an easy experience to the player. Limiting the stress levels of a player, who could have already had a stressful day at work.
Now to my conclusion, as you can see in these arguments, and previous arguments, that I state that Minecraft is not a "lousy" game. My opponent makes an argument, but does not follow through with his argument. He more often "nitpicks" anything possible within Minecraft, with an opinion not supported by facts. He even took the time to use Wikipedia as a source, even though it is the least reliable source on the internet. While I use sources that he may or may not agree upon. My opponent also "gives up" on previous arguments within the debate. Examples being the merchandise in Minecraft, and gaming addiction towards Minecraft; meaning that he "dropped" those arguments. While I continued with my first arguments, and did not contradict myself throughout the debate. And my opponent states that I have been "recycling" my arguments to make my argument longer; that is false because I am adding more factual evidence on my beginning arguments, compared to my opponent who failed to do so. There is nothing wrong on making your argument long!
So voters, who will you vote for? My opponent who gives opinions not supported by facts, or myself where I make stronger arguments and expanded them throughout the debate? Thank you for this debate my opponent!
Game Engine Architecture, Second Edition by: Jason Gregory
Game Theory: Are Gamers Killing Video Games? By: MatPat; on Youtube Channel: The Game Theorists
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.