Posted it before, but found this hilarious.

Yeah, they talk about it toward the end of the interview. I’m paraphrasing, but Mills basically says there were aspects of the world and the experience of being in it that they thought were best conveyed in first-person, specifically the feeling of looking up and seeing huge skyscrapers towering above you.

I see what you did there...

Valve came close with HL1...but then again that was using id-derived code anyay. :p

...and a phenomenal UI for interacting with the world in ways other than shooting stuff...by co-opting the exact mechanic you use to shoot stuff. It was brilliant.

From this article’s name, to everything that’s written in it, I couldn’t have finished reading this anymore happy than I am now. My fucking god, I can’t wait to get my hands in this.

You know that every single person pissing and moaning that they won`t buy it because of the first person perspective will be in line with their hard earned cash the moment a few positive reviews come out.

I agree. For the most part I didn’t hate the monster closets like most people. To me they made sense in context, as the demons were essentially setting traps to lure out anyone hiding. As for the darkness, my only complaint was probably the most common one: why am I unable to have a gun out when I have the flashlight…

So many cry-hards... Weeh, the game doesn’t cater to all my wishes, now i’m not going to buy it. Booh! Baah! Mommy! *cries and runs away*

Doubt it. First person seems like a practical design decision for a game that a) prioritizes gunplay in its game mechanics, and b) is set in a more claustrophobic environment where a third-person camera would be unwieldy.

As with many things in the gaming sphere, Doom 3 was punished for not being the imaginary game that only existed in peoples’ minds.

Yeah I about to say that this article sure is trying to get me to remember something their way. I was never lukewarm on Doom and Doom 3 was great.

The original Rage was a hidden gem for me and my buddies back in college. I’ve been looking forward to a sequel for a long time and if they make it feel like DOOM + cars I’m all for it.

So, the article quotes the lunar samples allocation guide which kind of reads like it’s referring specifically to the lunar samples given out to labs for study. It isn’t made entirely clear that the astronauts weren’t allowed any as keepsakes. A quick google shows that there were some incidents where they were and if…

A mid-1970s Neil Armstrong spots a hot young thing in a tiki-themed singles bar. He saunters over, his gold “Moon Man” medallion resplendent against his muscled pecs. Leaning in against the bar, he turns to engage her. Their eyes lock.

To be fair, the guidebook cited comes from 1984, fifteen years after the Apollo 1 landing, and therefore one could argue that the policy did not apply. Not saying it should or shouldn’t, just that the guidebook does not specify a federal law or enforceable manner for materials like these.

You’re not wrong, but how does it hurt NASA that someone else has some moon dust? I mean, I’m not questioning that it’s the law, just if it should be.