Phml
Forum Staple
Posts: 2543
Registered: 06-09 |
It's possible for a "gameplay-oriented" wad to have a proper sense of aesthetics, as well.
Well, obviously - and so the other way around is just as true. Yet, at least from my perspective, there are many more wads with decent looks and no gameplay to speak of than wads with great gameplay and nothing worth looking at.
Perhaps due to that one could make the point for most people aesthetics are more important in Doom wads than gameplay, because the baseline Doom gameplay is good enough you can throw monsters haphazardly, or because some people don't even care about gameplay and just want to press fire and see stuff blow up*, but there's nothing wrong with different things every once in a while.
To review a fork as garbage because you can't eat soup with it is missing the point, it wasn't supposed to be a spoon. It's not too hard for any doomer who's been playing enough PWADs to estimate within minutes what's the genre of a particular map or what specific goals the mapper was going for. Honestly, I feel I can tell that stuff by the name and textfile often enough and find myself right most of the time, and I'd wager I'm not alone in that. So, when someone who's been around here for a long time and has done this for a while manages to apparently misread everything about a wad? I'm not seeing a baby trying to put a triangle in the square box, I'm seeing a teen being a prick.
Kind of tangential, but ideally, aesthetics should serve gameplay. Unfortunately, many mappers, regardless of where they sit, don't seem to care for that. If we're talking about hypothetical perfect wads, I can agree single-texture maps are just as disappointing as layouts built entirely before adding any monsters.
*just because there's bound to be someone who reads this as me badmouthing such attitudes: I play Torchlight 2 on Casual. I play Saints Row 3 on Casual. I play MMOs.
|