site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2d ago (text post)   1608 thread views

Friday Fun Thread for May 1, 2026

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.

1
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Oh, are we ranting about Starcraft? Let me pour out a drink and ante up.

I don't remember StarCraft 1 being remotely that obnoxious and one note. Oh well.

Starcraft 1 had it in a much older style, that hews closer to "White guy gets accepted into alien culture" tropes. Think The Last Samurai, or every rip-off of The Last of the Mohicans. Once you get past the first Terran campaign, Raynor is estranged from Mengsk, so the story keeps him around by just letting him tag along with the Protoss.

"Greetings. We are the Firstborn, the sons of Aiur, the Protoss. Our people are advanced far beyond your ken, both technically and psychically. We have come to do battle with the greatest forces of darkness, wielding our eldritch might in the most ancient of our sacred warrior traditions.

Also, we brought our friend Jim. He is a kind of monkey-thing, militia, motorcycle-cop. We gave him a battlecruiser; it's hilarious."

SC1 is a lot funnier if you interpret Jim as the Protoss' version of Boblin the Goblin.

But yes, the plot for SC2 is fucking stupid all around. They can't alienate any players, so all three factions have to have Good Guys, though they all splinter so much that there's someone for everyone.

I forget which mission it was that finally broke me and caused me to switch to normal, but it was some defense mission where your allies start off covering your east, west and south entrances, and you get repeatedly hammered from all three directions.

My general love for Starcraft is matched and mirrored by my burning hatred for the damned defense missions. Why the actual fuck did that team think static defense missions were the best way to cap almost every campaign? And the LotV one was just actually offensive. You spend the whole campaign building up and unlocking Solarite powers, and then they take them all away for the final mission?! One of my angriest video game experiences.

Difficulty-wise, "hard" feels like the correct choice for all of them. Normal for the horrendous defense ones that feel terrible to try at.

Why the actual fuck did that team think static defense missions were the best way to cap almost every campaign?

As a turtler who's terrible at RTS games because I'm horribly sloe to expand, I love me a good defense mission. But I'm hardly the modal player, and SC sure as hell shouldn't be catering to me.

I would say that every strategy game should certainly have defense missions (though not necessarily as the climax), so you should get catered to in that sense. Both defense and attack are part of the strategy game experience.

Fire Emblem players know that a good enemy phase team is a thing of beauty. Just sit back and watch as the enemy breaks itself upon your swole waifus and husbandos.

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


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats