I've heard a lot of people call them bad, sucky, horrible, ect. Are they really bad? Just because they resemble old graphics? I actually think they are gorgeous, and the art style is great. PS, they aren't simple blocks either. If you examined them close then you would know. In other words:
Not this:
But this:
You could recreate the mario sprite in like 10-30 mins, but just the top part of minecraft's grass texture would take hours. A very intricate design. Oh yeah btw, that's only 16x16 pixels. I personally love the style and it also shows pixelated graphics can fit side by side with today's graphics hungry crowd. When I hear of people who hate minecraft because of it's graphics it makes me shiver. Anyways I want to hear the community's input on minecrafts graphics.
Not this:
But this:
You could recreate the mario sprite in like 10-30 mins, but just the top part of minecraft's grass texture would take hours. A very intricate design. Oh yeah btw, that's only 16x16 pixels. I personally love the style and it also shows pixelated graphics can fit side by side with today's graphics hungry crowd. When I hear of people who hate minecraft because of it's graphics it makes me shiver. Anyways I want to hear the community's input on minecrafts graphics.
15
brandman
You could recreate the mario sprite in like 10-30 mins, but just the top part of minecraft's grass texture would take hours. A very intricate design.
Sorry Brandman, but I have to disagree. Recreating the Mario sprite depends on your skill level, for sure, (and simplifying a character like that and still have it recognisable as a person is impressive) but in Notch's case that grass design of his was made using a filter in photoshop - creeper skins are the same texture with the filter cranked up, sand a recolour of the grass texture, etc.
I do like the pixellated look, and I can appreciate it, I just don't find the original graphics aesthetically pleasing. There are texture packs using 16x16 that look absolutely fantastic (Jolicraft and Painterly being my favourites), but I do find the default... kind of ugly.
I suppose there is one point where I have to disagree with you, though, Brandman; that is using the Mario sprite as an example of bad graphics. I understand that he's rather pixelated- smaller, in fact, than a Minecraft cube- but he's insanely well-designed, and I'm sure it took more than just one sitting to get him right. I mean, in 16x12 pixels, they managed to suggest a passably realistic face, a plumber's getup, and a clearly Italian nose. As if that wasn't enough, they then managed to animate his walking and jumping movements. Have you ever heard the story of how Mario got his mustache? They actually used it because without it, you couldn't tell where his nose ended and where his chin began. And look at his hands, they even gave the guy thumbs. Without the surrounding blocks, the strange ||- shape would look nothing like hands, but the whole thing taken in context is brilliant.
If someone asked me to create a human shape within the confines of a Minecraft block I'd flip out.
If someone asked me to create a human shape within the confines of a Minecraft block I'd flip out.
I meant about how much more simpler the 8-bit design is when compared to minecraft's grass texture.
Oh and I know all about mario, major mario fan, also fair to bring up that this sprite isn't the one that had all of his design choices made up, it was Donkey Kong and Mario Bros., and for color scheme bout Super Mario 3.
I guess you would have had to have done pixel work in the past to quite understand the full scope.
And to all saying gamplay over graphics, most definitely, but what I don't get is why people who think otherwise would even say minecraft's graphics are bad (rhetorical question; they resemble 16 bit graphics). I mean they just complement the game so well in my opinion.
Spyro 2. Playstation. Epic.
Oh and I know all about mario, major mario fan, also fair to bring up that this sprite isn't the one that had all of his design choices made up, it was Donkey Kong and Mario Bros., and for color scheme bout Super Mario 3.
I guess you would have had to have done pixel work in the past to quite understand the full scope.
And to all saying gamplay over graphics, most definitely, but what I don't get is why people who think otherwise would even say minecraft's graphics are bad (rhetorical question; they resemble 16 bit graphics). I mean they just complement the game so well in my opinion.
lynchyincremember playing gran turismo on the ps1 for the first time...
Spyro 2. Playstation. Epic.
minecraft is a perfect example of gameplay over graphics, graphics will always end up being outdated, remember playing gran turismo on the ps1 for the first time thinking the graphics were amazing? try playing it now
minecraft is timeless, its gameplay is completely unique and fun, it's the reason we still play games like super mario, sonic, super metroid etc almost 20 years since they were released, hopefully minecraft will be one of those games.
minecraft is timeless, its gameplay is completely unique and fun, it's the reason we still play games like super mario, sonic, super metroid etc almost 20 years since they were released, hopefully minecraft will be one of those games.
I know some people who say the graphics are crap but in a sense notch has made a point that games don't need amazing graphics to be good, I frankly dont even notice them when im playing XD
Is there anyone out there who thinks the graphics are bad? I'd like to hear the other side of this debate, honestly, I'm curious.
Why does everyone say that the graphics are bad, i say this again and again... The game is so damn beautiful.
Ignore SafetyTroll, he just likes making himself sound smrt. What's that? Yup, you're right. *nods and smiles until he leaves*
Anyways. I agree with you, this is why I don't like making or using texture packs larger than 64x64, and even then I usually stick to 16. It just doesn't look right to me, having a photorealistic dirt image stretched across a perfect cube. A lot of folks who make texture packs think, "Oh, geez, that's just a bunch of pixels, I could do that in an evening!" You're right in thinking it's more complicated, though. Yes, a bunch of pixels can be made in an evening, and thus we have most of the texture packs on this site. But a bunch of pixels that can successfully represent the look of dirt, the intricacies of grass? That's a different story. And don't get me started on the leaves, the leaves are incredible, and it usually takes me the longest to get a good looking leaf texture.
As for the folks who don't like Minecraft because of its graphics, I suppose that it's their choice. I mean, I don't like games with photorealistic graphics, even though I understand how much work went into them, I just think they look too busy. I play video games to escape the real world, some folks play them to relive it. I suppose it's all just in your personal take on things. Meanwhile, it just means there's more Minecraft for us!
Anyways. I agree with you, this is why I don't like making or using texture packs larger than 64x64, and even then I usually stick to 16. It just doesn't look right to me, having a photorealistic dirt image stretched across a perfect cube. A lot of folks who make texture packs think, "Oh, geez, that's just a bunch of pixels, I could do that in an evening!" You're right in thinking it's more complicated, though. Yes, a bunch of pixels can be made in an evening, and thus we have most of the texture packs on this site. But a bunch of pixels that can successfully represent the look of dirt, the intricacies of grass? That's a different story. And don't get me started on the leaves, the leaves are incredible, and it usually takes me the longest to get a good looking leaf texture.
As for the folks who don't like Minecraft because of its graphics, I suppose that it's their choice. I mean, I don't like games with photorealistic graphics, even though I understand how much work went into them, I just think they look too busy. I play video games to escape the real world, some folks play them to relive it. I suppose it's all just in your personal take on things. Meanwhile, it just means there's more Minecraft for us!
Why do people care about graphics....you should care if its fun or not
Age of empires was released in 1997 and its still fun.
Age of empires was released in 1997 and its still fun.
Dr KalashnikovI dont care about the graphics,its... fun.
It is that too.
I dont care about the graphics,its god damn fun.
Anyone wanna post on topic here???
years later, still making topics like this... what am i reading....
First of all, this site was made in 2010, so it's only been about a year or so. Second, I have never seen a thread like this on here before. Third, opinions change, and I'm positive there's been a major member boost on here. If you have a problem with this thread then kindly leave it alone and let others post their thoughts. Lets be mature, can we?
