Talk:Gameplay/Archive 1

The table about the current game modes is strange. Why are singleplayer and multiplayer be considered different game modes? They are both the same (except of course, singleplayer is singleplayer and multiplayer is multiplayer). That is only confusing.--Ten Tacles 17:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It is a strange table. It only regurgitates the features already outlined in the respective articles for Survival, Indev, et cetera. And not very well so, at that. Multiplayer in Creative MP? Seriously? It should be removed. SteveZombie 17:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Why is capture the flag a feature? What does that have to do with anything? 96.245.80.116 20:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Why are multiplayer and single player in the top row with the mode names, when there is a "multiplayer" check box in the vertical row with the properties? Toadbert

Infdev doesn't REALLY have enviroments yet, you know. It should have ? instead of Yes.

Somebody needs to redo this whole page...The only real game modes that should be on there now are Alpha and Classic. (As of 7/2/10)
 * I have fixed some things but Survival and InDev are still available at /survivaltest and /indev (195.128.30.34 is my ip) --EpaGamer 17:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Saving by player mean that the player can force a save? --Zaneo 17:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep

on the thing for alpha limted map size should be planned because notch is planing to add modes where the map size is limted

Indev and Infdev still relevant?
I can't find any links to these versions on the Minecraft site, so are they still relevant? Should we be removing all (well, most) references to them on the wiki? - DannyF1966 7 Oct 2010
 * Not at all, they were a part of Minecraft and they are still a part of Minecraft even if they're gone. ConMan8 14:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * How can it be a part of Minecraft if it's gone? I agree there should still be some information on the wiki about previous versions and the evolution of Minecraft, but mentioning Indev and Infdev on (for example) pages describing mobs, will be confusing for new readers. And with the explosion in popularity of minecraft, this wiki will be getting a lot of new readers. DannyF1966 7 Oct 2010


 * They're a part of minecraft's history, but information on them should be limited to history on pages, IMHO. It's relevant to say something worked like X during infdev but that best belongs in a history section. The main sections should be left to how something currently works, as that's what is most important in general. At least that's my 2c. --Lordebon 17:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I, too, think a History section is the best way to preserve the information. It could contain information like when the item or whatever was first implemented (which dev project or build version) and a changelog of sorts of how the item behaved in previous iterations. In fact, I think most pages on this wiki could benefit from a section like this. MrMist 20:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)