Jeb is the new boss of Minecraft - Games

It doesn't have much to do with Mojang other than Jeb being involved and they are publishing it.

[QUOTE=Good Burger;33725262]The rest of Mojangs games will probably suck.[/QUOTE] While they don't necessarily have to suck, it's unlikely they will rival the success of Minecraft.

I don't understand how you can know what a game's going to be like, well before anything is released. For example I'm still not sure how everybody knows the scrolls is going to be shit, even though Mojang haven't released any real information about it. I think the turn-based strategy aspect sounds quite interesting. And the fact the guy working on it is keeping it under wraps longer into the development cycle makes me think that he's trying to get it right before unleashing it on the public.

Check out this server 67.183.243.22:25565

[QUOTE=st0rmforce;33730707]I'm still not sure how everybody knows the scrolls is going to be shit, even though Mojang haven't released any real information about it.[/QUOTE] It's a card game.. Probably written in Java again.

[QUOTE=NINTENDUDECT;33719839]I don't know what the music is from, but I think it fits Minecraft better than it's current music. Something about it sounds more like retro RPGs. That's how the music should be, in my opinion. Fits the visuals.[/QUOTE] Although I do think Minecraft could do with some more cheerful music, I still find this music too annoying and far too different from the one in current Minecraft.

[QUOTE=@iRzilla;33731041]It's a card game.. Probably written in Java again.[/QUOTE] I just think that the idea of placing units on the board, protecting them with walls, using siege engines to fire over walls, AOE buffs/attacks, etc. sound like pretty good concepts. From what the guy said it sounds more like a TBS, but with cards collected in single-player and micro-transactions defining which units and affects you can use against your opponent. I'm just saying that it just sounds a bit different from the usual and I don't think it's fair to dismiss a game completely before hearing anything about it.

[QUOTE=LandOfWar;33731004]Check out this server 67.183.243.22:25565[/QUOTE] who do you think you are posting ips without any infos at all

[QUOTE=Spectre1406;33731982]who do you think you are posting ips without any infos at all[/QUOTE] I think pressing show events under his name would give you a pretty good insight of who he thinks he is.

[QUOTE=st0rmforce;33731572]I just think that the idea of placing units on the board, protecting them with walls, using siege engines to fire over walls, AOE buffs/attacks, etc. sound like pretty good concepts. From what the guy said it sounds more like a TBS, but with cards collected in single-player and micro-transactions defining which units and affects you can use against your opponent. I'm just saying that it just sounds a bit different from the usual and I don't think it's fair to dismiss a game completely before hearing anything about it.[/QUOTE] Ah, but surely you are mistaken. This is Facepunch, and the number-one rule here is to dismiss everything that will be released as crap before release with no real information as to what it will actually be. I, for one, like card games. I play Catanion all the time. If this is even remotely like that, it's a success in my book.

[QUOTE=woolio1;33732462]Ah, but surely you are mistaken. This is Facepunch, and the number-one rule here is to dismiss everything that will be released as crap before release with no real information as to what it will actually be. I, for one, like card games. I play Catanion all the time. If this is even remotely like that, it's a success in my book.[/QUOTE] I think the world would be a better place if people were more aware of their own ignorance.

[QUOTE=st0rmforce;33732497]I think the world would be a better place if people were more aware of their own ignorance.[/QUOTE] I tend to find bliss in ignorance.

[QUOTE=st0rmforce;33731572]I just think that the idea of placing units on the board, protecting them with walls, using siege engines to fire over walls, AOE buffs/attacks, etc. sound like pretty good concepts. From what the guy said it sounds more like a TBS, but with cards collected in single-player and micro-transactions defining which units and affects you can use against your opponent. I'm just saying that it just sounds a bit different from the usual and I don't think it's fair to dismiss a game completely before hearing anything about it.[/QUOTE] I just rarely like virtual table-top games. I also especially do not like card collecting games. I LOATHE micro-transactions. If it would have just been a virtual table-top-ish game, I might have had more hopes for it. However right now it sounds like it will be too many things I really don't like put into one game. [editline]15th December 2011[/editline] Right now it sounds a bit too much like Risk, another tabletop game I could never really get into.

I just think it's silly for people to make their minds up about a game before it's released, let alone before screenshots or any details of gameplay are released.

Well I'm not saying the game will be shit. I'm just saying that from everything I've heard about the game, it seems likely that it will be shit. [editline]15th December 2011[/editline] You don't have to eat shit to say that it probably tastes like shit.

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UfsPdhekTVA[/media] This really needs to be implemented into Minecraft, just the Redstone. It would make every simple circuit take up a much smaller space, and if someone also made a mod to get even smaller blocks, we could make advanced circuits.

[QUOTE=Simski;33734028]Well I'm not saying the game will be shit. I'm just saying that from everything I've heard about the game, it seems likely that it will be shit. [editline]15th December 2011[/editline] You don't have to eat shit to say that it probably tastes like shit.[/QUOTE] I'm going to wait until it comes out before I decide whether I hate it or not. My guess is that I'll like it, because I tend to like interesting turn-based tactical games. I expect I won't be allowed to have this opinion, as it will probably be another of those games which have only 2 valid stances according to the internet: hate it, or fanboy-love it AND NO OTHER OPINION IS VALID. It happens a lot and some people have already decided that this is the case with scrolls.

[QUOTE=st0rmforce;33733951]I just think it's silly for people to make their minds up about a game before it's released, let alone before screenshots or any details of gameplay are released.[/QUOTE] I am actually kind of looking forward to Scrolls. I think most people heard it's a card game and gave up on it without actually looking into it some more. Although admittedly there isn't much to look into at the moment.

[QUOTE=st0rmforce;33734551]I'm going to wait until it comes out before I decide whether I hate it or not. My guess is that I'll like it, because I tend to like interesting turn-based tactical games. I expect I won't be allowed to have this opinion, as it will probably be another of those games which have only 2 valid stances according to the internet: hate it, or fanboy-love it AND NO OTHER OPINION IS VALID. It happens a lot and some people have already decided that this is the case with scrolls.[/QUOTE] You are allowed to have your opinion that this game will probably not be shit, if I'm allowed to have the opinion that this game will very likely be shit. If you oppose my opinion, I have the right to oppose yours.

[QUOTE=Simski;33734645]You are allowed to have your opinion that this game will probably not be shit, if I'm allowed to have the opinion that this game will very likely be shit. If you oppose my opinion, I have the right to oppose yours.[/QUOTE] How about instead of saying "the game will be shit" you say "I don't think I will enjoy this game". It's less of a comment about what the actual quality of the game which can't really be judged right now and more about your own preference. [editline]15th December 2011[/editline] The same applies to people who do think it sounds good aswell.

[QUOTE=squids_eye;33734718]How about instead of saying "the game will be shit" you say "I don't think I will enjoy this game". It's less of a comment about what the actual quality of the game which can't really be judged right now and more about your own preference. [editline]15th December 2011[/editline] The same applies to people who do think it sounds good aswell.[/QUOTE] Well either way it's just a subjective opinion until the game is released. Either we don't talk about our equally uneducated opinions of this unreleased game what so ever, or we express our opinions to the general public where it will inevitably be debated. Because this is the Internet, and the only opinion nobody will disagree with is the one left untold.

Why don't we all agree that the game is a card game of some sort? Not good or bad, just cards.

[QUOTE=Meatpuppet;33734265][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UfsPdhekTVA[/media] This really needs to be implemented into Minecraft, just the Redstone. It would make every simple circuit take up a much smaller space, and if someone also made a mod to get even smaller blocks, we could make advanced circuits.[/QUOTE] It just seems really unlikely for three reasons. 1. Because it doesn't make a lot of sense at all 2. Because it seems very likely to cause a lot of bugs/issues trying to render all the blocks, imagine if you made A LOT of those things 3. It makes a lot of other objects pointless and would feel a bit like cheating if used for anything but redstone circuits.

[QUOTE=woolio1;33735854]Why don't we all agree that the game is a card game of some sort? Not good or bad, just cards.[/QUOTE] I think cards are a major part of the game, but the way Jakub described it, sounded like there's more to it than the card games I know. I got the impression that it's not a case of just playing your cards against your opponent and the strongest wins. There was talk of laying out your units on the board strategically, protecting the weaker ranged-attacking classes with walls, etc. Basically, hearing him describe it really made me want to see it finished. I do agree with some people who think it may turn out a huge mess, with too much stuff going on for you to take it in. But that makes me want to see if they can pull it off. It might turn out that it's a huge pile of steaming shit, but if it doesn't and they manage to pull it off, I think it will be a pretty good game. It may turn out that I misunderstood him and it's just another crappy card game.

[QUOTE=Simski;33736143]It just seems really unlikely for three reasons. 1. Because it doesn't make a lot of sense at all 2. Because it seems very likely to cause a lot of bugs/issues trying to render all the blocks, imagine if you made A LOT of those things 3. It makes a lot of other objects pointless and would feel a bit like cheating if used for anything but redstone circuits.[/QUOTE] 1. How? When you see people complain about one lock taking up 30 blocks with redstone, can't you see that this fixes it? 2. Extremely likely, but there could be a different mode for this where it doesn't render anything except this. 3. I said 'Just the redstone'.

[QUOTE=Meatpuppet;33736403]1. How? When you see people complain about one lock taking up 30 blocks with redstone, can't you see that this fixes it? 2. Extremely likely, but there could be a different mode for this where it doesn't render anything except this. 3. I said 'Just the redstone'.[/QUOTE] 1. Just because it's useful doesn't mean it makes sense. It would not make any sense in the game, in the same way evil bananas riding purple spaceships attacking you with fish does not make sense even though it would be awesome. 2. If it's in a different mode then it doesn't solve anything in creative and multiplayer where most people will want to use it. 3. Perhaps not entirely unlikely, however only if the player could not enter the square to become small (seems likely to cause issues with other players and it could still be exploited for secret hiding places/tunnels/entrances).

[QUOTE=Simski;33736676]1. Just because it's useful doesn't mean it makes sense. It would not make any sense in the game, in the same way evil bananas riding purple spaceships attacking you with fish does not make sense even though it would be awesome. 2. If it's in a different mode then it doesn't solve anything in creative and multiplayer where most people will want to use it. 3. Perhaps not entirely unlikely, however only if the player could not enter the square to become small (seems likely to cause issues with other players and it could still be exploited for secret hiding places/tunnels/entrances).[/QUOTE] 1. It's a game 2. I thought you meant for extremely complex systems 3. yes

[QUOTE=st0rmforce;33730707]I don't understand how you can know what a game's going to be like, well before anything is released.[/QUOTE] I know, it's getting irritating and it's only based on anti-notch sentiment and entitlement complexes.

[QUOTE=Meatpuppet;33738226]1. It's a game[/QUOTE] The is one of the worst arguments to ever use besides the "But can YOU make a better one?" comeback.

I still think the best solution is that redstone wire connect automatically to things it is next to, and that you can change the redstone block state to change directions (I think I saw a video of this somewhere). This, as well as being able to place redstone on walls, would solve A LOT of restone issues. [editline]16th December 2011[/editline] These changes would only make it easier and less spacious to wire redstone, they don't include any radical new makeovers and they don't simplify/restrict any of the redstone functions.