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 -
I am really lucky that I picked a Bleak Walker Paladin for my first and only Pillars playthrough. Too many games let you do the "let me talk to the other side first" back-and-forth dance that results in the best possible solution to the quest. Then at the end you refuse the money and are rewarded with a much more valuable unique item.
Doing either of these things as a Bleak Walker literally makes you weaker. Having to avoid benevolent or diplomatic choices was at the same time limiting and immensely liberating. You no longer feel obligated to explore the whole solution space because you'd be cheating yourself out of content otherwise, no, you are now engaging with it the way your character should.
Maybe in a different game, when trying to defuse a hostage situation, you would learn that the hostage-taker has been unfairly persecuted by the corrupt captain of the guard, would break into his mansion to search for evidence and would ultimately expose the real criminal, earning the praise of everyone. But now you are free to answer "(Unsheathe your weapon)" when the hostage-taker tells you not to approach him and then convince the grieving parents of the dead hostage that they still owe you the reward.
I think more games should push you to roleplay a character mechanically.
It’s too easy to fall into the trap of wanting to see “all the content” and get the “best possible ending”. But it’s also because of a cycle in which most players will look up guides, pick the best choices, and then developers cater to that.
You can play Mass Effect in a kind of freewheeling way, and it’s a lot of fun because the renegade choices are (unlike the ‘pure evil’ in a lot of RPGs) actually often efficient and believable, moreso than the good ones. But in the end it also means (especially if you mix paragon and renegade in ME2 and therefore fail a bunch of mandatory checks) that half the main characters die and get replaced with no-name nobodies in the third game, which robs the narrative of much of its flavor.
A good RPG has a good creative writing prompt, and something like Skyrim or Avowed or Outer Worlds or Pillars is just very broad. There are always going to be those people who find themselves playing Geralt, monster slayer, and who still make every choice as if he were them, woken up in the body of this man one morning. And there are always going to be people who can take a (near) fully blank slate, like a classic MMO or an Elder Scrolls game and invent an elaborate 300 page backstory and moral code and adhere to it flawlessly. But I think there’s a big middle ground that is served by a protagonist whose already-existing story you take over for a time, and the voice helps with that, helps tell you “this isn’t you”.
The mechanics help with that, but players hate it. If you give a better outcome for playing stealthily for example, like Dishonored, most players will be mad and play through it anyway even if they have less fun, because they want the good ending, it’s a ‘win condition’. I would prefer a game where being awful helped you win in the end. Fable 3 came close but the property system was too easily manipulated.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link