[dropcap]S[/dropcap]ome people requesting the elimination of split-screen multiplayer and 60fps because these will hurt the chance for bigger worlds in Minecraft: Xbox 360 Edition.
Minecraft Xbox 360 Update TU12 Split-Screen Removal?
We disagreed. Requesting the elimination of split-screen, is really selfish on the part of people who are merely used to having infinite PC worlds.
They are essentially saying to families that play together on the Xbox 360 “Eff you, I want my infinite resources and the ability to just walk to a new portion of the map to start a new project. You can go out and buy 4 computers and 4 copies of the game instead.”
We would be really disappointed if 4J Studios agreed to kill split-screen just to cater to those demands.
Then there’s the issue of how much larger people actually want the world to be.
Let’s face it, we’re not talking about adding 64 chunks (16 blocks) onto one edge of the map.
Adding a little bit of size to the world isn’t going to stop the griping over this.
The people who want larger worlds are demanding that a lot of RAM be free up for that feature.
What 4J have said, whether you believe them or not, is that even eliminating split-screen would make “little or no difference.”
If you read between those lines, they aren’t saying it wouldn’t free up some RAM, they are saying it wouldn’t free up enough RAM to enlarge the world enough to pacify anyone.
As for 60fps, It’s true, many games run at 30 or 40.
Whether or not this is adequate depends a lot on the genre of the game and the perception of what is adequate has been constantly changing.
People expect games to run at higher framerates than they did back in the days of Pacman. Minecraft is also a little unique in that it isn’t a sandbox with some PVP elements.
It doesn’t fit neatly into one genre.
So, deciding what would be the minimum acceptable frames per second is a much more difficult judgment to make.
Games sacrifice top end fps in order to make the game appear to run without lag spikes.
Those games run slower overall, but most people just don’t notice that.
What they notice are the moments there are high demands on the processor when the graphics lag.
Whether or not lowering the base max fps to, say, 40 would stop the overloads on the processor (due to rain, lightning, mobs, lava, water, etc. kicking in), we don’t know.
4J, though, should know and probably do.
What we see are an awful lot of lag complaints in the Minecraft Xbox 360 community already and wonder how much worse that would be if they began to forfeit fps just to enlarge the worlds.
Really, is being able to cart an inventory around of a maximum of 32 different items from world to world vs. just collecting those items again or having the privilege of walking for eons to explore “new” terrain that you could explore by just starting a new map worth forfeiting a great money-saving feature like splitscreen or lagging the entire game into oblivion?
We personally don’t think it is and we think the people who just won’t give a little to stop demanding an “infinite” world are, quite frankly, being very unreasonable and completely self-centered.
Sure, you don’t have infinite resources on one world and you can’t explore one world until [4J Studios developer] Steve’s feet fall off… but you can create as many new maps as your hard drive will hold and more on the cloud, on an expansion HDD, and on USB.
There are also some advantages to not having an extremely large world (eg. you don’t have to wall people in to play Hunger Games).