While your opinions are your own right I think the only one sounding like an "elitist douchebag" is yourself.
First, Kodaichi purposely places malicious code in his mods so that specific people can't play them. That's being a douchebag.
Second, I've seen their code. Their is a good reason they are modding a pre-existing game and not writing one of their own.
Third, I never claimed I wasn't an elitist douchebag. It takes one to know one, I suppose.
Minecraft by itself BLOWS
Maybe if you have the creativity of a grapefruit.
if it's so easy to make good mods then why are you not blowing the other modders out of the water?
False dichotomy.
Like Vintron said in the chat room the other day "java has it's place but NOT in gaming".
Then he's a dumbass. The programming language has nothing to do with the result. Arguing about what programming language is better than another is like arguing over the colour of blueprint paper that should be used for a house. It won't make a difference when it comes to the end result.
The point of bringing up the minecraft forums is that Notch refuses to tell you system requirements because far less people would buy the game.
First, you are clearly one of those people who seem to think there is only "Notch" working on it (this is common, for some reason). For one thing, he isn't even working on minecraft at the moment, only Jeb_ is, and second, the reason he's never given a system requirement is because he has no idea what would be required. Additionally, the differences between different versions make it a ballpark guess at best. And it's just silly to assume that no value is given for marketing reasons. In fact that's downright absurd.
It runs fine on my 3 year old laptop, anybody who thinks it's "simpler" than your average game on the basis that somehow the construction of cubes is easier than anything else is wrong, because it's not. a rolling hill in a game could easily consist of far fewer polygons, vertex, and normal surface data (if not texture-mapping data) than a minecraft landscape of similar proportions.
Either way, the wiki has taken upon the task of trying to assemble some comparisons of performance with different systems. Nearly all the listed systems using a integrated card fare badly, probably because if Intel's more or less Software implementation of OpenGL.
http://www.minecraftwiki.net/wiki/Hardware_performanceThe people on the forums were the ones who told me it needs at least 1Gb of ram to run smoothly and some of them have 4Gbs and are still having fps issues.
a lot of the people on the forums are 14-year old technological dilettantes. But they are right, it likely would require more than 1GB of RAM. I only have two systems available to test with (a 3 year old laptop with 4GB and a newer desktop with 8GB) and they seem to run it fine. Then again, neither of them is 10 years old, either.
Sure there is alot of rendering going on but when Game Informer said you enter the game with hilariously low res textures and no idea what to do I figured my old computer should be able to play said textures without so many problems.
Ahh, so this is the course of events:
-Gaming magazine with the summary technical knowledge of a bowl of walnuts says game uses "hilarious low res textures"
-you assume that game runs fine on your ~10-year old system, which was a value-oriented system even at the time of it's introduction, despite them not saying anything about the other million factors of a game that contribute to what is processed. a "hilariously low res texture" (16x16 pixels) on 1679616 blocks (that would be the number of block surfaces required to render when all 81 chunks are visible on far distance, on a perfectly flat surface no less) would still mean pushing 768 bytes (assuming 16x16 at true color for the textures, which the textures.png backs up) 1679616 times, meaning that the GPU has to churn out about 128959488 bytes per frame. Warranted, optimizations in the rendering of MC would reduce that to a single tiled texture rather then setting the material for every single block (rather, groups of colinear faces with the same texture will be made into a single face with that texture tiled across it's surface the appropriate number of times). But the minecraft landscape is hardly flat; even the savannah biome doesn't usually have flat areas bigger then a chunk or two. And in your case, the Graphics card is your CPU, and with a single core that CPU is also dealing with everything in the background as well, so you end up with far more context switches and kernel-mode/user mode switches that it's no wonder it doesn't run that well. No modern game, regardless of language, would run very well on such a system, unless it used a 10 year old game engine.
If I had known java script was such a kunt I wouldn't have wasted my time
What does javascript have to do with it? Is that your credibility on the matter falling through a sieve? I think so.
and have you seen the 1.8 leak
Yes. I did. In fact I have it running right now.
The features hes added are lame and don't even work yet.
I rather like hunger, strongholds, and abandoned mineshafts, and critical hits, and the new bow mechanic (I know actually use a bow, for one thing) and how the arrows stick in mobs. Something satisfying about impaling a creeper's face with an arrow. the mineshaft spawn rate is way above what it will be when actually finished, too, likely for testing. Ravines look bloody awesome. Only issue I have with it is those bloody blue spiders, which have at least in part made me more careful when navigating said abandoned mines. And the furnace bug that crashes the game, but that only happens after you exploit the dupe bug. (and both of these have been fixed in the version that will be released, as well as most of the other bugged issues (like waaaay too many mineshafts). It is, however, a pre-release.
It's bleak to know that when he does get all the bugs ironed out the game will still suck.
Mojang. Not Notch. Jeb_/Jens is the one preparing 1.8 for release, not Notch. Notch is working on something that was probably a contractual obligation. And whether the game sucks is purely subjective. Obviously you are allowed to think it does, just as I am allowed to dismiss your arguments as wrong and invalid based on their lack of anything but emotional creedence. I think the creative/classic mode "sucks" too, but certainly not technologically (moreso in that it lacks both mining and crafting, which is a bit weird)
If I need a new gaming rig just to play minecraft with more than 15 fps I would just play a better game.
And yet, here you are, talking about building a new computer for minecraft. I'd like to say I build this machine for minecraft, but I actually built it for VS 2008, which I ironically said the exact same things you are saying about minecraft for until I was able to run it. It's software envy, I guess.
Another thing to try, might be to dual boot a Linux distro. some people report minecraft running a bit better there, which I suspect is because their linux install is a lot newer than their windows one, but it get's the job done and is far less invasive than reinstalling windows itself from scratch. (I've personally noticed no real difference between Win7 and Mint 10 as far as Minecraft's speed is concerned, though, but YMMV.)
As for framerate, *queue old man voice* back in the day I used to play quake on a Pentium 133, which was well past the recommended requirements for the game. Average FPS was 12, iirc. I can't be bothered to check again. the passive matrix screen is almost painful. I guess since something better was at the time unattainable I just dealt with what I had. I didn't rant about id Software though, that I recall... despite their system requirements being laughably wrong in my case...