This reads like NDF to me. Minecraft was not engineered to be all of these things; it just happened. Notch had a vision of what he wanted to do, tempered by time and skill constraints, and the resulting game is an accidental success, not a carefully constructed pillar of solid game design.
Indeed. Indie devs have been making really amazing games just because they want to for decades. It was just a matter of time before one of those became wildly successful.
It's also worth noting that Minecraft didn't spring fully-formed from the mind of anyone— the alpha version was out and in development for a year and a half before you heard of it. It's a beautiful demonstration of the power of an early MVP.
At the same time, it wasn't just a fluke; Notch was already an award-winning indie dev.
I should note that I knew about MC during the Classic days. My roommate was one of the original /v/ people who popularized it. I also wrote Bravo, so I'm well-acquainted with the community and code.
Citation needed on awards and indie work prior to MC; Notch was a developer for King.com, a large Flash game producer and publisher, prior to founding Mojang.
I of course meant "most people", but thanks for calling me out. Shouldn't assume!
If you check out http://www.mojang.com/notch/ , he's made a few (dozen) little Java games, and he's been doing it for many years. The only awards mentioned on that page are a win at Java4k in 2006 and a third-place at Ludlum Dare in 2008. I could have sworn there were one or two more, but since GDC 2011 it's become pretty impossible to research :P
Incidentally, that win in 2006? That was for a Java Lemmings clone called... Miners4k. I'm sticking with "not a fluke."
The article never - never – claims that Minecaft was engineered that way. Whether or not some features of Minecraft that make it work were intentionally designed a certain way is something this article doesn’t even attempt to discuss.
The rationale for the article is that Minecraft works (9,000+ copies per day sold) and that it is consequently very worthwhile to explore why it works.
Your prejudices (NDF and all) seemingly colored your interpretation of this article and you consequently completely misunderstood it.
That really baffles me. The article is completely consistent with your interpretation. (The author may not agree with your interpretation but he doesn’t tell and we just don’t know. Maybe he would agree with you, maybe not, there is no way to tell.)
I guess your comment shows the evils of confirmation bias.
Actually, the article does praise "design choices."
The article has a long, subdivided section with the heading "What Works" and no corresponding analysis of any flaws or problems with the game's design. It is full of only praise and not criticism.
Whether or not something works is orthogonal to whether or not it sells.
Did you read the article? It’s not a review. Let me quote the first two sentences verbatim since you seem to have completely skipped them: “I don’t review games. But I do study games, and to that end, I have an interest in dissecting them to figure out what makes their designs work.”
This article sets out to explore factors in Minecraft’s design that make it successful, that make it work. The author uses those two terms synonymously (as you can see in the very last sentence of the article). You might have a different definition of “works” – and that’s alright – but the author clearly doesn’t share it.
Please don’t argue about definitions, it’s pointless. The author of the article simply thinks that games that work are games that are successful, i.e. that can attract a lot of players. That makes sense, considering the context. (The article is published on a website targeted at hobby game developers, not art critics.) Again, there is nothing wrong if you have a different definition of “works”, you just will have to accept the author’s for the duration of the article.
To repeat: The whole premise of the article is to list factors in Minecraft’s design that make it successful. It doesn’t set out to also list flaws, it never claims that the game has no flaws and, considering the premise (which is clearly and transparently laid out in the very first two sentences), it doesn’t need to waste one word on Minecraft’s flaws. Criticism is not the article’s purpose.
Where did you get the crazy idea that an article with the title “Why Minecraft Works” that mentions in the first sentence that it’s not a review and that is targeted at hobby game developers must also contain criticisms of the game?
I also want to note that the article doesn’t use very flowery language and mostly just describes features. I don’t really see any praise in that article. If you do please quote (correctly, please), I’m lost otherwise.
Oh, and regarding your funny “design choices” misquote, that phrase is actually only used once in the whole damn article, as “design choice” (singular) in reference to water and lava sources. I just want to note that “design choice” is not at odds with your interpretation. Making water and lava sources behave a certain way is objectively a design choice. (Except if you think that Notch codes by randomly smashing keys.) That language doesn’t tell you anything about intent. If the author had written “and Notch in his infinite wisdom had great foresight in designing water sources a certain way” you would have a point, as it stands you certainly don’t.
Confirmation bias indeed. A nasty one that blinds completely. I really am baffled this time.
Possibly "Notch Defense Force", based on a Google search.
My favorite go-to for this kind of question, http://www.acronymfinder.com/ , was sadly unhelpful.
Yeah, "Notch Defense Force." It's a meme born of the obsequious fans of MC who refuse to acknowledge any problems with the game or anything MC-related.
