When I open a new document, I make sure I have one thing in mind: to have a purpose, a goal, an end to the project. However, there might come a time where I would get through the project, but then I find that I cannot proceed. Was it because I didn't have an idea? Was I not satisfied with the pose? Was I just not ready for the project and I needed some more time to think about what it was I wanted to do. When this does happen, normally I want this to happen during a phase where discarding the project would not be a huge loss, such as creating the skeleton pose for the character. That said, there are times a project may be scrapped when it has progressed far along in development or even completed and shown to the world. Sometimes, it was just an afterthought, a realisation after completing up to a certain stage but ultimately back down because it wasn't something you wanted to do, or perhaps the point or purpose of the project has been twisted, tainted, or too far gone that it is no longer worth chasing the end goal or continuing with the victory of completion. It bites, but at the end of the day, it was for the greater good. There are, however, times where a project is pulled for reasons that may seem, well, unreasonable. A reason that seems inane, or barely a problem. It makes one question why this would have to be the way, and in instances where it has been shown to the world already, it is not just you who asks the question.
Segway into Minecraft. How is a single feature removed in development versions so divisive to talk about?
What even is the big deal? What even is the deal at all?
The deal is rather simple. When version 1.19 was announced and the first versions were released, there was an entity added to the game known as a Firefly. Entities are fairly basic in concept: they are interactive creatures in a world of blocks. Fireflies were also fairly basic in concept: an entity that exists in a single biome for ambience reasons, but another entity known as the Frog could catch and eat them, easy enough. Of course, one reason some consider this topic divisive is the aesthetic of the Firefly, or lack thereof, seemingly consisting of only two pixels. Such divisiveness made people thankful for their removal as their jarring and lacking effort into modelling and texturing. That being said, one must wonder why they were not changed. The answer: that was not why they were removed, at least as far as the public is aware; some draw this conclusion, but there is no evidence to substantiate this.
The deal is rather simple. When version 1.19 was announced and the first versions were released, there was an entity added to the game known as a Firefly. Entities are fairly basic in concept: they are interactive creatures in a world of blocks. Fireflies were also fairly basic in concept: an entity that exists in a single biome for ambience reasons, but another entity known as the Frog could catch and eat them, easy enough. Of course, one reason some consider this topic divisive is the aesthetic of the Firefly, or lack thereof, seemingly consisting of only two pixels. Such divisiveness made people thankful for their removal as their jarring and lacking effort into modelling and texturing. That being said, one must wonder why they were not changed. The answer: that was not why they were removed, at least as far as the public is aware; some draw this conclusion, but there is no evidence to substantiate this.
The reason for their removal was stated in a video detailing that Fireflies are toxic to Frogs. While this does seem like yet another Parrots and Cookies situation and as divisive as that topic is on its own, one has to beg the question for the purpose of this change. Frogs are not common pets, at least not as common as parrots, parakeets, and any other assortment of bird that is kept in captivity. Many environments that frogs may be native to do not overlap much with a firefly, and if so, the toxicity is a natural defence mechanism for the bug, and it is worth noting that not all species may be susceptible to the toxins, nor would fireflies be toxic for frogs. Whatever the case, the general idea that a firefly is toxic to a frog seemed to be enough that one of these two entities could not co-exist in the game, leading to the removal of the Firefly.
One must ask: why is this the case at all? Others might also ask: why do we need to debate whether they should be added or removed? Simply put, it's all in the motivation.
As I stated earlier, should the Firefly have been a mere concept and not something that has been proven functional, the removal - or in this case the scrapping - of the idea may have less effect. A simple footnote in a list of proposed changes left ignored, perhaps it was just that: a footnote. In an artistic perspective, it would be like having an idea to draw a character and creating a skeleton or rough sketch, but ultimately deciding to not proceed. While you could keep going, perhaps it just wasn't meant to be.
However, the feature was instead implemented, approved by a board of development and perhaps marketing team members, and then all of a sudden during one of the meetings, someone brings up the fact that a firefly is toxic to frogs, and in this response, all efforts are now to erase it from implementation. Back in artistic perspective, it would be like creating a final sketch before the line art is drawn or colours are blocked out for shading, but at the last second the whole document is deleted because the character was too "edgy" or there was just not enough political correctness and too much skin was revealed. In both instances, the reasonable action would be to just go back and sketch or block out the problematic issues, and people are rightfully allowed to believe this should have been the case.
As I stated earlier, should the Firefly have been a mere concept and not something that has been proven functional, the removal - or in this case the scrapping - of the idea may have less effect. A simple footnote in a list of proposed changes left ignored, perhaps it was just that: a footnote. In an artistic perspective, it would be like having an idea to draw a character and creating a skeleton or rough sketch, but ultimately deciding to not proceed. While you could keep going, perhaps it just wasn't meant to be.
However, the feature was instead implemented, approved by a board of development and perhaps marketing team members, and then all of a sudden during one of the meetings, someone brings up the fact that a firefly is toxic to frogs, and in this response, all efforts are now to erase it from implementation. Back in artistic perspective, it would be like creating a final sketch before the line art is drawn or colours are blocked out for shading, but at the last second the whole document is deleted because the character was too "edgy" or there was just not enough political correctness and too much skin was revealed. In both instances, the reasonable action would be to just go back and sketch or block out the problematic issues, and people are rightfully allowed to believe this should have been the case.
Question is why not?
This is where the divisiveness partially comes into play. Some say that it's best to accept and move on. Others, however, have considered ulterior motives. One idea is that it was all a publicity stunt; the more they talk about the update for an extended period of time, the more popular it will be. Another idea is that it's a dumb jump to conclusion, an idea that the feature can never be improved nor changed to accommodate for the concern.
Whatever the case may be, it has lead people to come to one conclusion: the team is lazy.
Now, while I would be agreeing with this sentiment - I have many grievances with the company as a whole - there are people who disagree to an extreme extent, defending not just the decision, but the company as a whole, seemingly making a point that the company cannot be criticised for any reason because they "work hard" and have "strict guidelines" for what they can or can't do. To these I say this:
I disagree with both sides.
For one, I don't fully side with the skeptics because it is a little bit too much. Laziness is when nothing is being done, and as someone who has seen the various reworks to codebases, I can firmly conclude that laziness is not the cause for reworks and therefore is not a cause for the removal of the feature and thus a potential degrade in quality of updates. There is truth in what they have to say, but what they have to say isn't entirely accurate.
On another note, I cannot agree with the defenders. One reason alone is that the kinds of people who defend the company barely criticise the company as is for any reason despite the glaring problems. For another and more grounded reason, many say we should not be using words such as "multi-million dollar company" to scrutinise because money is not a factor of quality. Partially true, but it begs the question of where the money is going if they have garnered so much garnish for salary salads (I'm sorry for this sentence). Companies that earn millions but cannot seem to keep up with quality are three things: Charities, Greedy, or Junior. Mojang is not a charity, it is a game development studio. They are also not just an indie company anymore; everyone has grass roots but they all eventually grew into something bigger, just look at Epic Games and how they started. This leaves Greedy, and while this might not be true, the parent company may say otherwise.
With this long list of debunked opinions, one would have to ask, what do I think? If there's anything this extensive essay on a tiny feature is to indicate, it's one word:
On another note, I cannot agree with the defenders. One reason alone is that the kinds of people who defend the company barely criticise the company as is for any reason despite the glaring problems. For another and more grounded reason, many say we should not be using words such as "multi-million dollar company" to scrutinise because money is not a factor of quality. Partially true, but it begs the question of where the money is going if they have garnered so much garnish for salary salads (I'm sorry for this sentence). Companies that earn millions but cannot seem to keep up with quality are three things: Charities, Greedy, or Junior. Mojang is not a charity, it is a game development studio. They are also not just an indie company anymore; everyone has grass roots but they all eventually grew into something bigger, just look at Epic Games and how they started. This leaves Greedy, and while this might not be true, the parent company may say otherwise.
With this long list of debunked opinions, one would have to ask, what do I think? If there's anything this extensive essay on a tiny feature is to indicate, it's one word:
Waste.
It was a waste of time to develop and market because it was for nought. It was a waste of effort because people did code this and create marketing material featuring it. It is now a waste of potential because what it could have been is now nothing.
I think it's worse to say it's wasteful because calling someone would imply they did nothing but the removal was because of it. Calling it a waste means that something was done, but the done thing is but garbage, calling everything before that also a waste. It's better to call it this with hindsight and retrospect because we saw it happen from start to finish. You can't call something a waste of time in the moment because you can't see the end goal being a trash can. Nobody should be setting out to erase a project, something had to be a cause and the causation was so irreversible that the only effect is to get rid of it. You can't predict a document going corrupt and the only solution is to restart, and it can be a waste if no backups were ever made, especially if the amount of time and effort was so great that it'd be impossible to restart without a degrade in quality.
This still begs the question why no change was offered for Firefly. It was mutable, it wasn't a massive addition, but the end result was a trash can. The anecdote now is a file that had an edgy word in the document, and the best solution was to delete it, not reword it, not add an author's note if it's important, just get rid of it.
This still begs the question why no change was offered for Firefly. It was mutable, it wasn't a massive addition, but the end result was a trash can. The anecdote now is a file that had an edgy word in the document, and the best solution was to delete it, not reword it, not add an author's note if it's important, just get rid of it.