I wish there were some kind of semi-agree react because this doesn't make any sense to me (the whole point of an RPG is to play through a story as one of the characters), but I more or less agree with the other responses you made below. Doom 3 was really a completely different genre of game.
I play RPGs for what I mentioned earlier, the god complex thing, the apotheosis process. I just want to pump numbers, fuck around with numbers, create builds and just obliterate gameworld stuff from enemies to towns to npcs. RPGs to me are a power fantasy basically. Which is why I think the Souls Trilogy is the best batch of RPGs ever personally. If Dungeon Crawlers count I would say Torchlight II and Diablo II.
I loved Levine's reaction on Elizabeth SFMs
Bioshock 2 really is the only title in the series that's remotely worth to play. The first gameplay trailer for Infinite still remains as the worst bait&switch in video game history.
That's spot on. Prime example is Chris Avellone, i dislike this dude's prose as much as Gaiman's.
>Comparing shit to filth
Do you know what it is though, its a very sensible concept lmao. It just refers to enemies which have big variations in visual design, attack patterns, movement and method of tackling, making every combat scenario an entity identification and problem solving situation. Doom was the thing which popularized the concept cause each monster in Doom look/behave different, require a different strat to tackle and require prioritization when put in one situation. All good SP shooters require such design to make the combat situations fun to do. Its not like cod or Far Cry when you shoot virtually indistinguishable cannon fodder enemies with no proper strat.
Their point was that only a raging faggot uses a term like "orthogonal enemy design" instead of something easily understandable such as "visually and mechanically distinct enemies" or, perhaps just "varying enemies."
Fair, that is true, most of my game design knowledge comes from shitty YouTube videos and gaming Bibles/design docs. Orthogonal design is something I first heard in GMTKs doom video.
Didn't Super Mario Bros. do that well before Doom? And probably plenty of earlier games, but SMB comes to mind.
I remember enjoying my first run through Bioshock 1 but have never ever been able to make it past the first area since. The gunplay is ass and the environment is all the game really has going for it.
Probably, but it's a bit more complicated in doom than in mario ig which is why doom got the label first. Cause in doom there's the basic hitscanners, the basic projectile enemies, the tank projectiles, the tank melee and the archvile. The tank enemies have a higher pain chance (chance of not shooting after being shot) than the normal enemies and require a chaingun/plasma cannon for easy dispatch cause of high fire rate. Hitscanners require prioritisation cause hitscan. There's the blowback and splash damage of some projectiles, things like that. I'm sure there's a ton more nuances in strat, movement and damage output. Mario generally has one solution for most enemies, just jump on them independant of enemy type, if not fireballs. But from an enemy design standpoint yeah it probably fits the bill. It's probably an fps design tenet which is why I've seen it being used for stuff like Halo combat evolved where the grunts are different from the jackals, the elites are different from the hunters, grunts always run away behind bigger enemies, hunters always travel in pairs, elites have different classes, flood always travels in a horde etc etc etc.
I don't consider playing Skyrim to be legit gaming
This is not an unpopular opinion.
I'm too tired to photoshop it so you'll have to do it in your head but this is basically new PC gamers vs old PC gamers:
![LinkinParkxNaruto[AMV]](http://uploads.kiwifarms.pa/data/avatars/l/61/61177.jpg?1699571951){kind=avatar}
