OSNews

Play it. It'll dawn on you.

You will not find more bang for your buck.

I’ve played for several hundreds of hours, and it cost €15. No other game has ever come close to that much value for money. Pokémon and Zelda games take up 50-100 hours and I think that’s great value, but Minecraft just blows it out of the water.

The graphics really are part of what makes the game what it is. You have to play it to really see that.

I agree as to the bang/buck thing.

This game is just too addictive, I'd keep digging, exploring and building for hours on end if I didn't have children to pay attention to once in a while

I did, however, install a slightly more hi-res mod (Dokucraft Light). Why? Just because

It's intentional - once you understand that the entire game is based on modular blocks you realize why.

FWIW, this game chews CPU harder than you would think - it struggles on machines that are only a few years old.

I've played it (OK, only for a few hours), but just could not get used to the "low-rezness" of it. I like the blocks idea, just wish they could come up with some higher rez textures. No, I'm not wanting something like Crysis, just some higher rez textures would be nice.

You can always just get a higher resolution texture pack. Default minecraft is either 16x16 or 32x32 (I can't remember), but I'm pretty sure I've seen some going up to something like 512x512, maybe higher.

Yeah, there are some awesome graphics packs out there. My favorite is "Gamedoku"

http://www.minecraftwiki.net/wiki/Texture_Pack

http://www.minecraftforum.net/viewtopic.php?f=1021&t=205465

I use Painterly myself. It's beautiful.

http://painterlypack.net/

Yes, there is an HD texture pack that looks quite stunning. I mostly just use the default though, as sometimes the alternate textures break when a large update comes out.

It's not a limitation of Java. I think it's more of an issue that Minecraft started out as a one man show. I don't know about you, but even though I'm a pretty talented programmer, I'm not exactly that great at creating realistic 3D models. So any 3D game I created by myself, with no budget to hire 3D artists, would have pretty primitive graphics too. Of course, people liked the game the way it was, and the graphics became part of its identity.

But just to prove it's not a limitation of Java 3D, check out these screenshots, from Wurm Online, which is a Java 3D based MMORPG.

http://tinyurl.com/3aoryoy

Focus on graphics is probably what is slowly killing the video game industry, I'm not against nice graphics but HD graphics made video games costs millions of dollars.
That is why the mobile game are gaining a lot of traction (beside the lower entry barrier to get an SDK), because expectation are lower in terms of graphics and cost are way lower, which allow dev to take risks and innovate (unfortunately this statement become invalid as they are beginning to rip off each other and copying flash games).

Same here, and it would have been a good title in that case.

This article is pointless.

To you it might be pointless, but to a whole lot of us Minecraft and Portal fans out there its brilliant. To the same token there are some of us who would consider window mangers such as Awesome a completely useless topic to create an article on.

Almost the same expectation here, except for a 'better' fork of Awesome.

It would be great to see the topics icon in the RSS feed.

Edited 2011-05-07 16:03 UTC