Am I the only one here that owns and plays Rocksmith?

You're not the only one... i have that game too.

How on earth did you decompile the EXE?

EXEs have nothing to do with the program itself when it comes to Java. All it does is initiates the JVM runtime and puts the JAR code into memory. All you need to do is decompile the JAR code into readable Java code and then look through it.

This.

Hwd45 wrote:

I don't know how to reply with this... I still love minecraft on a sexual level.

Whoa ... what?

Ur, that came out wrong. Or did it?

I don't know how to reply with this... I still love minecraft on a sexual level.

Whoa ... what?

Hwd45 wrote:

I see what you mean now... But it is an indie game created by one person and coded by two people.

Decompiled it. Not impressed by the code they've done. It's gotten a lot cleaner, but it still pales in comparison to other indie developers. Half my intro to programming class could probably make a more cleaner version. Not to mention it's written with dozens of redundant calls in Java that aren't needed.

However, the terrain generation code is very interesting. I think all game developers should learn this kind of method (which I wish I knew the name to). Whatever it is, it's impressive.

Hwd45 wrote:

What version of the game did you buy the game in?

I bought it right when it got out of alpha. However, I've tried playing 1.8 too, and while many of the bugs have been squashed, I still don't have any fun playing it.

I don't know how to reply with this... I still love minecraft on a sexual level.

I see what you mean now... But it is an indie game created by one person and coded by two people.

Decompiled it. Not impressed by the code they've done. It's gotten a lot cleaner, but it still pales in comparison to other indie developers. Half my intro to programming class could probably make a more cleaner version. Not to mention it's written with dozens of redundant calls in Java that aren't needed.

However, the terrain generation code is very interesting. I think all game developers should learn this kind of method (which I wish I knew the name to). Whatever it is, it's impressive.

I bought it right when it got out of alpha. However, I've tried playing 1.8 too, and while many of the bugs have been squashed, I still don't have any fun playing it.

Hwd45 wrote:

I see what you mean now, but I totally disagree. If you didn't like the art, you could have used a texture pack .

In the cases of mods, then I couldn't say a single bad thing about ANY PC game. Even CoD would sound good to me if I could change anything I wanted by modifying it. My point being that, while it may not suppose to be graphically appealing (I can respect that decision), it's not aesthetically appealing either (something that I can't respect).

Hwd45 wrote:

Also, I'm not sure I understand what you mean about the creative parts of the game.

Creative parts as in the pure building, not any goal-oriented game mode.

Hwd45 wrote:

Are you saying that some of the best creations are worse than what people would call an average creation?

I meant that it's the type of game Minecraft is; a voxel editor. It's almost as good as it can get, but it still seems poorly made compared to the average of sandbox games. For example, GTA's sandbox aspect.

I see what you mean now... But it is an indie game created by one person and coded by two people. What version of the game did you buy the game in?

I see what you mean now, but I totally disagree. If you didn't like the art, you could have used a texture pack .

In the cases of mods, then I couldn't say a single bad thing about ANY PC game. Even CoD would sound good to me if I could change anything I wanted by modifying it. My point being that, while it may not suppose to be graphically appealing (I can respect that decision), it's not aesthetically appealing either (something that I can't respect).

Creative parts as in the pure building, not any goal-oriented game mode.

I meant that it's the type of game Minecraft is; a voxel editor. It's almost as good as it can get, but it still seems poorly made compared to the average of sandbox games. For example, GTA's sandbox aspect.

Best MMO: DC Universe Online (Especially now that it's free to play and download.  )

Best RPG: Skyrim.

Best Platformer: Sonic Generations/ Colors.

Best FPS: Battlefield 3

Now as far as what Icydragon said. I'm gonna voice my opinion. MW3 isn't TERRIBLE. Nor is it great. I will agree it feels like an overpriced DLC. To me it's an average FPS an honestly I only play it when I'm extremely bored. Just to kill time. And in that regard. I actually kinda enjoy it when it feels good to play.

Call of Duty: Modern warfare 3

Greatest game ever made. Period

I think I'm gonna throw up...

Call of Duty: Modern warfare 3

Greatest game ever made. Period

get Out.

________________________

It has a few perks, like survival mode and a crafting system, but it's extremely simplified and dumbed down where you end up doing the same repetitive thing despite it being sandboxed. The graphics are horribly implemented. I know that it's suppose to look blocky, but that doesn't excuse the horribly dull color pallete or the repetitive texture blocks. It's not the low resolution that bugs me, it's the lack of any effort at all. Then you have the more creative building parts of the game. Now I'm not saying this part is bad, it is as good as I could think someone like Notch could actually make it. However, Minecraft's 'best' seems to be a bit worse than everyone else's 'average'. If you take a look at a game like Gmod, or any of the other dozens of building games, Minecraft doesn't stand a chance. Unfair comparison? Maybe. However, the point still stands with defining Minecraft in a single sentence:

A dumbed-down voxel editor.

I see what you mean now, but I totally disagree. If you didn't like the art, you could have used a texture pack . Also, I'm not sure I understand what you mean about the creative parts of the game. Are you saying that some of the best creations are worse than what people would call an average creation? If so, then I agree that some people make amazing things but don't get much popularity for it, and some people who are already popular make something and everyone thinks 'oh, wow! That's so amazing!', when really it's not as great as anyone else could do.