[jszymborski]

I think this is unfair.

Sure, the writing style is a bit over-stated, but ultimately it demonstrates that the author asked "why should I build this? does it contribute to society?" which are questions that I think aren't always at the fore front of software devs' minds.

You don't have to agree with their conclusions, but I appreciate that this person is thinking about social impact when they write code, and that it appears to be a major motivation.

There are sections which sound like self-aggrandizing promotion, but honestly we tolerate that stuff (esp. on start-up focused sites like ProductHunt and HN) from commercial products all the time that promise to "change the world" if only you give them a small monthly fee or stare at their ads. At least this person is talking about free and public cultural works.

Finally, a bit of a nitpick, but there was a time when "Doom-clone" was the word people used to describe FPSs. If this person is truly trying to create a 90s game, that's actually the better terminology. Granted, it's likely not the most common interpretation of the word these days.

[CJefferson]

This person claims to be the only person making fully open non-trivial open source games.

They talk about how other open source games have a variety of insulting problems, while complaining they are going to get lots of insults. They claim, unlike other authors of open source games "they are offer the truth". I tend to get irritated when anyone claims to be the source of truth.