Minecraft is a lousy game 7

I will start this debate with my rebuttals against my opponents "counter arguments" to my own. To begin, my opponent tried "attacking" the statistics I proposed for other video games with some glitches, similar to the number of glitches to Minecraft, but still sold well. The games I brought forth to the argument was Halo and Fallout 3, who had its fair share of glitches, but sold well. My opponent negates this fact, and actually asked me to name a game that has even more glitches, than Minecraft. This contradicts my opponents statement because if we were naming a game with tons more glitches, we would refer to the games in the past, than the present. The glitches my opponent has brought up from Minecraft are very small, compared to other games that are even worse. The first is the whole mine cart with the legs sticking out. First off, after numerous research of images and percentage of the glitch actually occurring, the mine cart glitch does not happen as much as my opponent perceives. In fact, it actually has a very low chance of occurring, in a coding standard as "7%"; unless being "forced" by the actual player. Even in third person, it does not happen as much as my opponent perceives; as well as the fact that 87% of players in Minecraft play first person more than third person. Third person is only really used once in a while, and only in certain game modes created by the player. The similar occurrence of this glitch is also very low when in a boat. My opponent than brings up the "TNT Glitch" in Minecraft. The "TNT Glitch", stated in my previous argument as TNT not being used a ton, is an occurrence when the player used TNT to blow up a landscape. My opponent claims that this is a "cheat" by many players, and is actually not a cheat. The "TNT Glitch" occurs by player choice, not by the designers fault. In Survival, the necessary materials for TNT are more rarer to obtain than other materials inside the game; and the materials obtained to make it are typically used for other things within the game. Its not a "cheat", but more of a strategic element used inside the game. The player was smart enough to use TNT as an advantage, than just a fun explosion; and my opponent is declaring to take that away, or classifying as a "cheat". Its like saying that its a "cheat" to use any sort of weapons in Far Cry 4, even though the purpose of that game is to survive. My opponent also claims that in my last argument, that I did not address about lag. In fact, I did and here is what I said during the time I was telling about the "300 Lap Top Story": "The glitches and lags do occur here and there, but are not very noticeable; because of the easy resolution of graphics in the game of Minecraft". I will admit I "briefly" mentioned it, but to clarify: "Lag is something we cope with". It typically occurs with internet connection, or an over production in "effects" happening inside the game. Most of the time, lag happens because of these reasons, and its because of "Players Choice". Its the players choice to set up loads of TNT to make the game lag; its not the designers fault for the player making the decision to lag the game, it is the players. Lag, most of the time, does not occur because of game design, but because of "overwhelming" the game. Voters, as you can see the aspects of "glitches" or "lags" my opponent brings up are very minimal, unless enforced. A game, like I stated numerous times in my previous arguments, will haves its lags and glitches, but that does not make the game "lousy". Then we discuss the story of Minecraft, where there is really no story but survival. I brought up a model in my previous argument called "The Bed", in which addressed the idea of a Story, Gameplay, and Graphics. The story that I stated previously was a story where the player creates. My opponent agrees that the player makes the story, and claims that this is no new concept. To counter argue my opponents statement, I will use the source of a Youtube video called "Game Theory". Where it is one of the more educational shows that discusses about ideas on games. The episode that I am adressing is titled: "Are Gamer's Killing Games"? I will leave the link in the sources below, and to discuss what it basically was; it stated: "Gamers do not want innovation in games". My opponent claims that the idea for Minecraft's Story should be changed, instead of letting the idea of allowing the Gamer to create his or her own story. Why? Why would they change something that actually works out? Games that are original typically fail in the market because of being "original". Call of Duty still sell very well because of its lack of change in a game, so why should Minecraft change when the idea works well enough already? In the next "counter argument" by my opponent, he claims that Indie Games do not sell as well as other games. To say that is completely false, because Indie Games sell more than other games. Mainly because of its cheap price, or colorful idea of graphics. My opponent also claims that that kids do not appreciate Graphics, as much as to Gameplay in a game; leading towards my side of this debate. I say this because previously, I mentioned that Gameplay is the core mechanic of a game, not Graphics. So if my opponent agrees on that statement with his argument; then I won this portion of the argument! My opponent even agrees with me that more adults play games, than children. Adults play games to kill time, which we will both agree upon, and my opponent even admits that they buy Indie Games; the example, provided by my opponent, was Candy Crush which is a high marketed Indie Game. Adding more support for my argument that Indie Games sell better because of fun Gameplay, and not graphics. Which, in my opponents first argument, stated: "Bad graphics", of why Minecraft is a "lousy" game. Then, my opponent goes even further my giving more opinionated responses than actual arguments supported by facts. By stating: "Candy crush is a lousy but good time killer game, but i got bored too fast." and "Women play more of these lame games, than men". Even admitting, in my previous argument, that women play Indie Games because of the colorful graphics and unique environment; even Minecraft. Previously, my opponent stated that in an article, he has read, that companies will not focus on Graphics because people state that Gameplay is more of the core mechanic in a game. I don't know why my opponent keeps pushing this argument, but this idea is "ludicrous" because of the simple fact that companies will not do this. They will not risk this "silly" idea because they have a higher percentage of a chance to lose money, than gain money. In the market, and everything, money is to most important aspect in that argument, which I have disproved. For my previous argument, I mentioned Minecraft is a very popular video trend on Youtube. With influencing many purchases and still being favored, despite "Bad Graphics". My opponent even agrees that watching Minecraft videos on Youtube are fun, compared to actually playing the game. Contradicting my opponents argument of the topic of proving how Minecraft is a "lousy" game. With this quoted statement by my opponent: "I learnt a lesson that watching Minecraft is better than playing it as the Youtubers do the things quite smoothly". So if Minecraft is such a "lousy" game, why are you saying you like to watch it on Youtube? My opponent then makes a claim that Survival Mode, in Minecraft, should be removed because of being "to easy", or being "to creative". The reasoning's why my opponent brought up are more opinionated judgement, than actual facts using for support. Why remove an aspect in a game because of being "to easy", and not allowing players to have fun when surviving? To support this, lets take a scenario where there was a game "created" where it gives the most realistic survival idea as possible. The game would be boring, with no creative elements to it; and would decline, heavily, on sales. Is this the game my opponent wants, instead of surviving with the creative idea of stacking bricks for protection at night from Zombies, Spiders, and Skeletons? As well as a game for being "to easy" is a good thing because of lowering stress among individuals. Instead of raging at the game for being to hard, why not put it on an "easy mode" where you can enjoy the experience, with less stress. A game that does this relevantly well is "Animal Crossing" because of its relaxing and fun environment. Game is easily fun, and easy in Gameplay where stress is at a low, instead of a high. For the marketing of toys from Minecraft, my opponent really did not discuss much about it. I ask the question to you Voters, why do we buy merchandise? My opponent answers it, making me win this portion of the debate, with: "This book is targeted to kids, who just want to be happy because they have something that is part of their favorite game". Not much else, except that we like merchandise for our favorite game; even if it is a little overpriced, but its an option. The updates, stated by my opponent, are "inconsistent" because of being longer, than needed. To this, I respond with the fact that you, as the player, get to experience the previous update more than a quick new one. It allows the player to "embrace" the game more, than only having one day to play the "Original Update". And my opponent neglects the fact I have brought upon him in my last argument that addiction occurs because of the player having fun in the game he or she is playing. My opponent fails to address this portion of the argument, meaning a possible win for me in this portion. Also previously I mentioned that simple is a good thing, and my opponent claims that most hardcore players do it for the money. If they are doing it for the money, then Minecraft actually supports people with money.