Thank you, 7000series.
Framework:
PRO did not redefine the resolution in the description. He did not write "resolution", "interpreted resolution" or "full resolution" in the description, so the title is the resolution.
Resolution: Minecraft has only gotten worse since version 1.2.1.
The description attempts to assign BoP this way:
- PRO: Minecraft has continually gotten worse since version 1.2.1.
- CON: Minecraft has continually gotten better since version 1.2.1.
Voters will notice that this is a false dichotomy, and fails to accurately reflect the resolution. A mix of good and bad changes would disprove the statement that it has ONLY gotten worse.
Correct BoP assignment:
- PRO needs to prove that Minecraft has only gotten worse.
- CON needs to disprove this
The BoP leans heavily towards PRO to prove that everything that has changed about Minecraft can be accurately described as it getting worse. CON must merely refute this.
Definitions:
- Minecraft 1.2.1: a major update to the Java version of Minecraft released on March 1, 2012.
- Worse: of poorer quality or lower standard; less good or desirable.
- Only: and no one or nothing more besides; solely.
What it means to be only getting worse:
Here is what I think it means for something to have only gotten worse:
- The thing in question has been changed more than one time.
- Each individual change was a negative one:
- Meaning either that every single modification was negative on its own.
- Or more charitably for PRO's case, it means that every single completed package of changes, what we would call updates, were negative overall.
- If at any point an update made the game better than the previous version, the the game got better at least at one point, and was not exclusively getting worse all the time.
Something having only gotten worse requires at the very least that every single iteration was worse than the previous version. I will illustrate with an example:
- X = 10
- X = 7
- X = 6
- X = 8
- X = 5
If I say that X has only gotten lower since version 1, that would be false, since at one point it increased from 6 to 8. Similarly, even one good update after 1.2.1 would disprove the resolution.
Measuring game quality
Trust me this is the last bit of framework, but it is absolutely crucial. There are 3 main ways to measure the quality of a game.
Standard 1: The success of a game.
This is a broad concept that encompasses many others. But primarily commercial success and cultural relevancy. A good game is one that is popular, profitable and culturally relevant.
Standard 2: Artistic achievement.
Many game developers have a specific vison when creating their game. For example, maybe they want a beatiful game, or one that evokes certain emotions or allows engineers to run wild. There are many high-quality games which the majority of gamers find uninteresting, that are still undeniably some of the coolest, most clever and original titles out there.
Standard 3: Players enjoyment.
How much people playing a game enjoys the experience is important. But even the most popular and beloved games will receive scathing criticism, because not everyone enjoys the same.
PRO's case lack objective weight
Even if we are being charitable, PRO's case is very bad. Essentially, he is saying the game is too confusing. That sounds like a skill issue, not a problem with the game. Most of these things he has listed is not even something you are forced to interact with, but you certainly should. The trident is an amazingly fun and badass weapon that makes you feel like Thor. You can throw it and it will smite you enemy with lightning and return to you, and when it rains you can use it to literally fly. Pillagers are amazing for farms and single-player challenges. All the block he dislikes are just more usefull tools for builders, and enabling creativity was the original vision of the game. PRO's personal feelings towards these changes do not prove they are objectively bad, just that he as an individual doesn't like them.
Affirmative case
I have 5 excellent arguments for why Minecraft after 1.2.1 became better:
- It was made available on more consoles, making it more accessible
- It got greater modding support, more customization, multiplayer options and resource packs
- New mechanics and blocks where added, that greatly increase the variety of things you can do and build in Minecraft, and that fits its overall theme as a sandbox
- Minecraft is primarily great because of its community, and the community today is larger, more diverse and generates a lot more content content of higher quality and quantity
- The peak of Minecrafts popularity, profitability and cultural relevancy came in 2020 , long after 1.2.1, which intuitively suggests that it improved during that time.
Even if version 1.2.1 was actually overall better than the ones following, and the mods, youtube videoes and so forth from that era was better, all of that content is still available. Modern Minecraft allows you to play on 1.2.1 if you prefer that version, but the 1.2.1 edition of minecraft did not allow you to play on the versions that came after it. Think of it this way. On halloween, you go from door to door, asking for candy. After a while, you get the tastiest most perfect piece of candy possible. None of the houses you visit afterwards have anything that good. But so long as you do not loose the perfect piece of candy, the sum value of the candy in your bag always increases with every addition. Nobody is going to say the bag with less candy is better. The very same principle applies here. So long as version 1.2.1 is still available in the launcher, is it impossible for Minecraft to get worse.
Cherry trees are awesom
Why a whole month of voting?
Once something is perfect, making it shinier will only degrade the quality of the piece.
They added 3D environments.
They all have different styles and themes.
Majora's Mask added the whole mask shapeshifting thing.
Twilight Princess has a more fleshed out combat system than any of the games before it.
There's more, but I agree that Link to the Past is a very good game.
Plus, all of the other Zelda games after a Link to the Past added nothing new. They were just variations on the same thing.
The combat system was amazing.
No, Twilight Princess is technically a superior game and my personal favorite.
Why do you think Link to the Past is the goat?
I agree partially; the Adventure of Link was the (failed) prototype, but it was a necessary stepping stone. A link to the past was the absolute peak of the series.
Your statement about the draft, prototype, goat, and trash pattern is dumb and incorrect. Particularly when it comes to the Legend of Zelda.
The Adventures of Link was a rushed sequel that was just made to keep the franchise relevant and is structured more like a primitive yet cookie-cutter/generic RPG more so than a real Zelda game. Ocarina of Time, Majora's mask,, Wind Waker and especially Twilight Princess were all superior games to the older ones and only the nostalgia of a few old school game fans says otherwise.
I'll admit Skyward Sword was lacking and the most recent ones use too many generic-feeling RPG mechanics but they are far from "trash".
Time's almost up. . .
That was not intentional.
Good catch. I'm lucky Benjamin accepted this.
The resolution and BoP statements are slightly misaligned.
If nobody accepts this debate, then it means that nobody has a good enough argument to win this debate, meaning that I am correct in saying that Minecraft has only gotten worse since version 1.2.1.