BlueManedHawk

Why not?

Have such models been experimented with yet?

fuck

What?

It's inconvenient and inelegant to have to target implementations.

Why?

who is "we"? what do you mean by "target"?

Yes.

Why?

Particularly interesting considering that, at least according to Wikipedia, neither language was influenced by the other. Convergent evolution, i suppose.

I would be interested in such a thing.

BlueManedHawk

fuck

PITCH

Gotcha'all. It seems that having the project exist would make a lot of people more interested in this project. I will work on making it exist. Once it is what i deem sufficiently existent, i will come back to this thread to state its existence.

I've noticed that there haven't been any responses to the ticket i linked to in my initial message for this thread besides my own, and i'm thinking it might be because people don't want to bother getting invested in what might seem like just another Minecraft clone. Perhaps i need to do something to instill faith in people that this won't just be another dud. Perhaps i need to show that this time's gonna be different. After all, i want this to be for everyone, not just for me.

(I hope it's not that my own reply to the ticket has set an intimidating precdent or something—i want any problems people have with Minecraft, regardless of how long individual people's lists may be. On the other hand, maybe it was just that i started this thread at a time when not many people were online on Apionet to see it get bridged—hopefully i'm timing this message correctly so that this is counteracted. (If anyone happens to be reading this message because it was bridged to Apionet, please see the first message in this thread. (I really hope these sentences i've typed in this message aren't making me come off as pushy.)))

PATH

gollark: When has it been tried before? Those tries can be analyzed to see why they didn't work so that what they did wrong can be avoided in the future.

I don't really agree with you about what many of the problems with minecraft are[…]

I would like to know what problems you have with it anyways. I want to collect all the problems people have with it first and sort through them later.

[…]how software should even be structured in general[…]

I feel like you're referring back to a previous conversation, but i can't remember which; could you please remind me?

[…]or why people play video games at all.

Personally, i play video games for fun. Therefore, i think it would make the most sense for this project to prioritize fun above all else. This is what i intend to do. If the consensus of the populace is that doing something would be the most fun, that's what should be done; if everybody's saying that something isn't fun, it should be removed; if experiments reveal that people find something more fun than expected, that should influence the decisions.

I also aim to create a minecraftlike[…]. I haven't, however, made very much progress at all on my own project, so regardless of the direction of your project, I probably wouldn't be of much help anyway.

That's okay. I'm not going to force anybody to help me with this. I'll be happy with any help people are able to provide, and i'm saying that genuinely, not saying it out of cultural expectations of politeness. (I'm curious about what you specifically mean by the design goals you listed, though.)

my project doesn't aim to replace minecraft. I don't really think that goal makes sense, and I don't think such a goal would result in an actually good game. if you make a new game, it's a new game. a game which is different does not replace minecraft by definition.

Perhaps i stated my goal wrong. Maybe a better way to phrase it would be that i want to create a game that's better at being Minecraft than Minecraft is. Or perhaps i could say that there's a certain happy feeling i used to have when playing Minecraft when i was younger_{and less disillusioned with the world}, and i want to be able to recreate that feeling. Or perhaps i could say that i don't like the way that Microsoft is maintaining Minecraft, and i'm frustrated with it and think that it would be better if it was maintained by the community. Or perhaps i could say that i think that Minecraft always had the potential to be good, and that's why people played it, but it never reached that potential, and i want to create something that does.

Maybe one of these makes it more clear what i want to work towards. Maybe they don't, and i'm just waxing poetical in the blindness of nostalgia. Truthfully, i don't even really know what i was saying just then; sometimes i just don't understand myself. But i hope that i was in some way able to say something that made my thoughts more clear.

you don't seem to comprehend that people want to play different kinds of games at different times, as when I pointed this out to you before, you called it "addiction to novelty".

I don't remember if that's what i said or meant when i used the phrase "addiction to novelty", but i don't think that's how i'd use the term now. When i refer to an addiction to novelty, i refer to a specific practice in the development of video games where updates are made that only or mostly focus on adding in new things while not working on fixing up the old things, making sure the old things work with the new things, or even really caring about the new things at all. If one were to stick with one update of these games forever, they probably would get rather bored of it rather quickly, because there isn't an incentive to make deep, rich mechanics that you can always find new and interesting things in when there's going to be another batch of new crap thrown at you in a year or so to satiate any boredom that might crop up anyway.

In contrast, a well-designed game would, to me, not be like this. To me, a well-designed game would be one where a few simple, basic building blocks (metaphorical) synergize together in a multitude of ways so that even if the basics never change, there's always something new and interesting and exciting and fun to discover by combining the basics in new ways. And there are definitely examples of this being pulled off. Consider the board game Catan, for instance: it's pretty simple and easy to learn, yet masterfully designed in such a way that it's very difficult for it to get old. Or consider the board game Go, a game that's been entertaining people for millennia and still has new things to discover. Something like this is the type of video game i want to create.

it would be a different story if the goal was to attempt to reimplement minecraft as an open source piece of software, which would be venerable.

This is not a goal of this project i've created. I do not want to reimplement Minecraft; i want to make something better than it.

No matter what, you probably think that Minecraft has some problems. Whether you think it's a dozen or a zillion, whether you think they're big or small, and regardless of what exactly they are, i'm certain that you can think of some qualms you have with the game.

And i'm sure a lot of people have a sense of frustration when we see updates happening where so much changes, yet at the same time it feels like so little has changed when we keep coming across the same problems over and over again. Maybe you don't feel this way; if that's the case, well, you can probably ignore this thread.

But it's the case for me, and i'm certain it's the case for a lot of other people. And frankly, i feel like we can't just sit around waiting for Microsoft to fix these problems. They've had plenty of time to clean up their act, but year after year goes by with them doing, if you'll excuse my language, fuck all.

We've cut them enough slack. It's time to take matters into our own hands.

So that's why i've started a project on sourcehut to replace Minecraft with something better. Particularly, i've created this issue ticket for everybody to list the problems that they have with Minecraft that this project can hopefully fix. (You don't even need a source hut account to participate, as explained here​,so you have no excuse for not participating.)

Now, i'm not a superhuman, and i won't be able to do this by myself. I'm going to need your help if this project is to succeed in its goals, and i hope you'll be willing to lend that help.

We can do this. We can take Minecraft back.

MAT

Well, alright then. So what helps a wiki get done right?

It seems to me like wiki-based systems for collecting information on specific things are significantly more preponderant than proper official documentation on specific things, despite the fact that (based on my experience) such wiki-based information stores are often worse at being informative (most commonly due to a lack of comprehensivity and a disorganized unoptimized nature to the information). So why are they more common than proper official documentation on specific things?

󠆜

Please submit an action.

If you think it's dead, be the change you want to see in the world.

BLOG

LONG

It sure is long.

uh oh

Bmh is known for occasionally doing that (making up his own definition)

No i don't. Often it's just a misinterpretation of the real most common definition.