Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.
- 129
- 3
What is this place?
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
If in doubt, please post it!
Rules
- Courtesy
- Content
- Engagement
- When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
- Proactively provide evidence in proportion to how partisan and inflammatory your claim might be.
- Accept temporary bans as a time-out, and don't attempt to rejoin the conversation until it's lifted.
- Don't attempt to build consensus or enforce ideological conformity.
- Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
- The Wildcard Rule
- The Metarule
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I have a weird love/apathy relationship with open world games. I generally analogize them to a Golden Corral Buffet vs. a six course gourmet meal that is most AAA scripted games.
The buffet just has cheap, rapidly prepared food available in quantity, you pick and choose what you want, and gorge yourself on desserts if you so desire. Just don't expect high quality, and don't complain if you don't like what you eat, you picked it from the available options! That's open world games. A gourmet meal prepared by a chef will strictly control the presentation and actual preparation of the food you eat, and forces you to consume it in a particular order, but is generally crafted specifically to create the most delicious experience such that the meal itself is memorable to you.
I love a well-crafted story in a single-player game even if it is just a railroad that takes me from set-piece to set-piece (in the Uncharted series, sometimes the railroad IS the set piece) but sometimes I'd rather just watch a movie.
Open world games at least allow me to try things out that the game designer didn't knowingly program in so I feel less like I'm a slave to someone else's whims (shoutout to Bioshock 1). But the game worlds inevitably feel like they're miles and miles wide but barely ankle deep. Oh sure its cool that I CAN climb/fly/grapple hook my way up that mountain in the distance, but there's no compelling reason to GO up there. No, finding some random collectible isn't a strong impetus. "Because its there" really only works for real life summits. I can cheat-code my way to the top of an in-game mountain which takes most meaning from the 'achievement' of climbing it.
Batman: Arkham City was probably my favorite Hybrid of the two. Plenty to do in the 'overworld,' no 'hard' railroading but the story progresses in a direct linear fashion by imposing subtle restraints on your ability to explore. Ample surprises to find if you explore, and seriously well-crafted set-pieces at deliberate intervals. You WANT to explore, and exploring gives you useful rewards, and most of the 'random' encounters were actually fun and challenging, and the story wasn't an afterthought.
I realized the one experience I crave from open-world games is the feeling of being stalked implacably across the landscape by an enemy that is more dangerous than I am but also slightly slower so that if I concentrate on covering distance I can outpace them but every time I rest or get delayed I risk them catching and killing me.
As in, being the 'prey' in The Most Dangerous Game, and genuinely having to survive on wits and scavenged weapons as I try to find a way to bring the pursuer down.
Not many single-player open-world games provide this experience, especially in a mostly dynamic/unscripted way where I can keep on running for hours on end and have close encounters with the pursuer that don't have a predetermined outcome.
Getting in a running gun battle with a squad of trained killers who I have to slowly whittle down with traps, extremely limited ammunition, and improvised weapons in a geographically interesting locale would be an enjoyable challenge to me. Lol, I just realized that a game where you play as a random thug or henchman being hunted through the streets of Gotham by Batman and Co. would be AMAZING.
Far Cry 2 was able to do a pretty good job on this front, since enemies had impressive AI and the game mechanics constantly put you at a disadvantage, so it was possible to be caught off guard by an enemy squad and have to flee into the jungle and have them continue stalking you persistently while you maneuver around trying to score a kill and then run for cover as they return fire. The newer games in that series made the enemies too impotent to inspire the same fear, and also they're generally too dumb to actually chase you far.
It sounds like Breath of the Wild is the equivalent of a child's playground with lots of points of interests to play on and various toys which you can implement interesting strategies with, but no real risk inherent to the game and a very static, unresponsive world that doesn't necessarily invite different approaches. Can't speak to the story, which has historically ALSO been a strength of the series (don't care what anybody says, I enjoyed Twilight princess).
I guess I remain very hopeful that generative AI will allow open worlds to get a lot more dynamic and gain some depth that makes them more fun to play around in for longer, and can create a more complete illusion of a lived-in world where you are a smaller part of the whole.
In my opinion, Far Cry 2 is the best Far Cry game by a long shot. It’s the only one that actually delivered on the premise of being stranded in a hostile remote land and having to fight tooth and nail to survive. You have to be careful and think strategically. Especially when you’re playing on console and don’t have the ability to save anywhere. It also did the morally ambiguous premise a lot better than any of the others.
Strong agree.
"You're stranded, you're sick, almost everyone will try to kill you on sight, except a handful of companions who are reliable but have dubious loyalties. Oh and your weapons will break without warning. Try not to die."
I won't say I hated the following entries' gimmick of "Young American guy visits foreign country and becomes skilled badass" but it didn't have the same feel.
Playing as a morally ambiguous mercenary in a story with no obvious heroes and accepting missions from BOTH sides of a civil war and killing people who aren't framed as soulless henchmen to an evil regime is much better at conveying a sense of isolation and detachment from civilized society. You're not fighting to save your friends or, even, to get back home.
Hell, even the ambient audio from enemies made it feel like they ALSO got trapped in this shithole country because they wanted to earn a quick buck and had to fall in with one side or the other of the war. They have no allegiance to the nation and they're trying to kill the protagonist solely so he doesn't kill them first.
I keep praying for a remaster/remake that changes up the wonky weapon inventory system, fixes the respawning checkpoints, adds in predatory wildlife, and leaves EVERYTHING ELSE the same.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think there’s a “hunted” type start in CDDA, if you’re willing to go through that learning curve.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link