Oddly enough for g*mer wisdom, this one is not even wrong:
I hold that it is bad as far as we are concerned if a person, a political party, an army or a school is not attacked by the enemy, for in that case it would definitely mean that we have sunk to the level of the enemy. It is good if we are attacked by the enemy, since it proves that we have drawn a clear line of demarcation between the enemy and ourselves. It is still better if the enemy attacks us wildly and paints us as utterly black and without a single virtue; it demonstrates that we have not only drawn a clear line of demarcation between the enemy and ourselves but achieved a great deal in our work.
Mao Zedong, 1939
The problem is g*mers usually mean this in contexts like when their peers hate them because they are assholes.
Yes, but it also have absolutely literal sense in which it is again correct for most shooter, slasher and rpg games, if there are enemies you weren't there yet, which is important because the lack of assets usually means everywhere in game looks the same.
One of my favourite Maos. It gives you that a good thermometer for how effective an anti-capitalist movement is. Just check how much capitalist feathers are being ruffled.
I mostly played JRPGs, so is running around in a circle the "right way" for me? That explains a lot really.
I feel like these kinds of posts have just as much impact without needing to include somebody going "holy fucking shit" or "holy shit". It's kind of like "this". I don't know. It feels like a laugh track telling me when and how I'm supposed to react to something like I wouldn't already do that.
Their approach to game design is as simplistic as their approach to politics or ehatever this moron was thinking. The top 4 best selling video games are as follows:
Minecraft: Enemies don't direct you towards shit, they spawn in every direction.
GTA5: In level design the claim sort of holds up but normally the enemies are pigs and again, they come from every which way.
Tetris: No ”enemies” to fight.
Wii sports: You don't move around so moot point.
#6 is Mario and that feels like it might be true but then again, the game forces you to go in that direction and shortcuts aren't advertised by enemies.
This isn't my list of best games or anything, but to take a small level/dungeon design concept and to generalise it first to all games and then to life, vaguely, isn't clever. This isn't theology dear fellow, your starting position with a western education, some games and 0 books doesn't grant authority for shit. I know this is just the musings of some kid, but most westerners are uneducated idealists who approach the world this way, and I've lost patience for it years ago.
