3

WHY ARE THE GRAPHICS SO BAD?!?!?!

  • 6,451
    Views, 18 today
  • 5 Comments
  • 0 Favorites
  • Flag / Report

Get Embed Code

Forum:
HTML:
Link:
avatar
KirbyMaster555
Level 35 : Artisan Toast
Hello, and welcome to my rant! Recently, I've heard a lot of people whining that MineCraft has "terrible graphics, everything's so blocky and stupid!". Well, personally, I'm not a graphics freak, so yeah. To those that are, it still works. Why? Well, let's look at Call of Duty, for example. It has MUCH better graphics than Minecraft, but they work for the game. I don't think I'd want an FPS game with blocks! Personally, I WOULDN'T want an FPS game, but that's just me. However, those kinds of graphics just wouldn't work in MC. Why? Well, for starters, stop looking at the graphics as "limiting". You can't make real circles, triangles, etc., but the blocks have their advantage. Cut down a tree, and make planks with it. First of all, if you could do that with your fist, plus three bonus points! In real life, two trees about the same size may yield one or two logs difference than the other. In MC, they don't: every tree of the same size makes the same amount of planks. Also, would you really want to put up 3000 realistic planks for a nice sized house?

Now on to convenience. When you've realized that the blocks don't limit you, read on! They really help you! Let's go back to Call of Duty. Picture your favorite Multiplayer map, from any of the games. Now imagine a small area with dirt or the stone or brick wall of a building. Put a pickaxe or shovel in your hand, and get a-minin' in your little imaginary world. When you're done, how much does it drop? Exactly! Blocks are the perfect measurement of space--how big is the hole you just made in COD? Also, they let you measure it easily--you have two blocks in MC, and a big pile of dirt in COD.
Tags:Article

More Blogs by KirbyMaster555View All

Posted 2011-12-11 14:36:50
by KirbyMaster555
Posted 2011-11-24 11:08:05
by KirbyMaster555

Comments :

Join us to post comments.

1 - 5 of 5

pi314
Level 29
Expert Architect
July 25, 2012, 9:35 am

I just did the math. To make Minecraft's graphics look realistic, the blocks would have to be the width of human hair, so the average survival world(20-30 MB now) would take up 20-30 million terabytes!

KirbyMaster555
Level 35
Artisan Toast
July 25, 2012, 10:57 am

WHOA! That's 19531.2-29296.875 petabytes! It might sound rude that I only converted your numbers, but get this--the entirety of all the hard drive space manufactured in 1995 is 20 petabytes, the lower end of the scale of data one world would take, and 50 petabytes contains ALL the books EVER written, ever. Still not convincing? IN ALL LANGUAGES!

Telladestia
Level 1
New Miner
December 29, 2013, 10:10 am

-_-'...lame...I do not believe at all any of what is stated here. Supporting math, formulas, redundancy checks...mitigating routes...the unfortunates of the world...look at FFXIII...much better graphics and the ENTIRE game...i repeat...ENTIRE game is 14 gigabytes...or how about the starcraft 2 map editor...maps are 5 mbs! and MUCH more detailed...

AND...seriously...as of 2006... there are [size=10pt]160 [/size]exabytes...or [size=xx-large][color=rgb(33,33,33)]157286400 terabytes.....in disk space...or how about the bluray movie AVATAR...less than hair width object for ONLY 20 gigabytes...[/color][/size]

The Micro Freak
Level 31
Artisan Wolf Whisperer
October 5, 2012, 6:52 pm

Mind=Blown

johny9898
Level 8
Apprentice Narwhal
May 22, 2012, 12:54 pm

so freaking true. it makes me want to slap people who say that

1 - 5 of 5