This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
First I'm gonna go ahead and nitpick your summary of the Far Cry series.
I really don't agree that Far Cry 2 codified anything genre-wise. It was a really interesting game, to be sure, but ultimately an interesting failure, and it was 3 that defined all of those successors you name. The original Far Cry isn't worth mentioning here; its sequel was Crysis, and the only reason Far Cry 2 shares a name is because it was easier for Ubisoft to slap a recognized IP on an entirely new FPS (worth mentioning as well that Ubi made like 4 FarCry:Spinoff titles in between Far Cry and Far Cry 2. I really liked Far Cry:Instincts)
It's been a long time since I played Far Cry 2, but I don't think anyone would recognize it as being a game of "crafting and collectables". It was a really ambitious game, and I was super hyped leading up to the release. I think the closest parallel was probably GTA4. Both made big promises of being much more realistic, grounded games, with a strong emphasis on story and loads of interesting interactivity and AI. Both failed to deliver, with mediocre stories and gameplay that got so bogged down in realism it made them bad to actually play.
Second, I don't really agree that Far Cry 3 is particularly essential. There's a lot to recognize of 2 in Far Cry 3, but they are still quite different games. 3 used 2 as a base, but cut out a lot of fat, and a lot of good stuff, for something much more streamlined and 'gamified'. I remember an anecdote on a podcast once where someone was getting involved in this important, sombre cutscene. They get control back, and immediately the first thing they see is this big, jarring "Gun Vending machine" and it immediately throws them out. Far Cry 2 was at pains to craft a fully believable world for the player and would never have placed something like that. Which did mean a lot of irritation, but the storytelling was stronger for it.
My abiding memory of Far Cry 3 is rescuing Jason's girlfriend. You end up in this cave, and I can't remember why but the girlfriend ends up bursting into tears. You regain control with her quietly sobbing, and all you can do is leave to go back to killing. Except, except, there are also these optional flashbacks in the cave, which you can access by finding pills and going on a 'trip'. And it just so happened I found one, went on a drug-fuelled trip, and obviously passed out in the cave. But when my character came to, there was still the girlfriend, still sobbing away. And all I could think about was the hilarious juxtaposition of this traumatised girl crying her eyes out while her boyfriend is just trippin' balls 20 feet away, before he finally comes down and goes out to buy more guns from the gun vending machine.
Anyway, I do think it is a much better game than 2, but I don't think it's really interesting beyond the fact that it influenced so many other titles with the approach to open world crafting and collectables. Like other responses have mentioned, there are other titles like Spec Ops which did the whole player agency story a lot better.
Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed Spec Ops: The Line but I also agree with much of @RobertLiguori's critique of it and that is why i would argue that Far Cry 3 is the superior execution.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link