265: The Fallacy of the Fanboy
- Thread starter Matt Meyers
- Start date
A lot of the anti-gaming folk happen to be just that because of misinformation. As this article states, they don't "get" it because they haven't dealt with it. They're just going mostly based off of what they see and not what they've experienced. When we yell at them (because, yeah, in some cases they probably deserve it for their ignorant hate speech against gaming), it only gives them reason to wag their fingers back at us and say "look, see, you're like this because of gaming" or some other stupid conclusion drawn out of assumption.
While I agree that we should show them how it is good rather than striking them down all the time, I think to a certain degree, there's no changing people who are so set in their ways. It's sometimes like reasoning with someone who will always say you're wrong no matter how much proof you have that you're right. In that case, all you can do is push back, because no amount of game-playing will ever change their mind.
While I agree that we should show them how it is good rather than striking them down all the time, I think to a certain degree, there's no changing people who are so set in their ways. It's sometimes like reasoning with someone who will always say you're wrong no matter how much proof you have that you're right. In that case, all you can do is push back, because no amount of game-playing will ever change their mind.
While I agree fanboys are an issue, they're not worse in video games than they are about movies, sports or any other medium that generates a lot of favor or disfavor. There is no arguing with someone like Thompson or even Ebert. You have one that is a fanatic, and it's pointless to try and chaneg the mind of someone who admits they formed their opinion without actually experiencing the medium they are talking about but who still thinks they should have an opnion about a medium they no nothing about.
Interesting article.
What we really need to do is to make gaming "mainstream". Let's have gaming competitions run on major networks, like they do in Korea. Let's have news stations cover gaming events in a tone that isn't that "Hurr look at this cosplayer Back to you, Mike!" one. Let's show the world that there's a system other than the Wii, and they have games other than ones that involve cow tipping or exercise.
Personally, I'm proud to be a gamer. But the media at large still hates us. Let's take the games off of G4 and on to Fox, maybe? Then we can let everyone watch them.
Well, except for the dirty Alliance. (Kidding... kinda)
What we really need to do is to make gaming "mainstream". Let's have gaming competitions run on major networks, like they do in Korea. Let's have news stations cover gaming events in a tone that isn't that "Hurr look at this cosplayer Back to you, Mike!" one. Let's show the world that there's a system other than the Wii, and they have games other than ones that involve cow tipping or exercise.
Personally, I'm proud to be a gamer. But the media at large still hates us. Let's take the games off of G4 and on to Fox, maybe? Then we can let everyone watch them.
Well, except for the dirty Alliance. (Kidding... kinda)
Why does it matter so much if gaming is accepted to people? You like it, you enjoy it. Some people don't like it. Some people hate it. This is true of anything in life. I thing there's far more drama about this then is really warranted.
True, though there are many out there who believe that video games are ready to be (if not already) accepted as a valid artistic medium. It's not just about a "hobby", but about a future of expression and discourse through a new and engaging form. I for one think Interactive Media has a bright future, just as much as film has had.Caiti Voltaire said:
Video games are just as capable of telling stories and making us think as films, and even their creation is very similar. For example:
-Both Video games and films are (usually) a large collaborative process that start usually with a written and proposed idea, and produced by a team of craftsmen.
-Both Video games and films have both their large big-budget projects, and smaller independant works.
-Both mediums are open to anyone who is capable of the techniques involved in their production.
-Both mediums use classical storytelling techniques and can engage the player/audience on an intellectual level.
-Both mediums, most importantly, involve some kind of vision that is expressed in the final product.
I feel I've made my point clear, Mr. Ebert.
I think you mean effect change; to affect is to modify, and to effect is to bring into being. If you affect change, change is already going on and you're simply altering its direction - which is arguably correct but nonetheless "effect" is more apt.Matt Meyers said:
But I digress - good article, and the point is still important: one needs to be proactive in order to see positive change. Still, the problem remains that a vast many people are still incredibly stubborn on all fronts, as is pointed out by others. Some will simply not bend in any event, and in such a situation it is difficult to see the point of argument. I think what needs to be understood in this case is that it isn't the "other side" that will be affected most by an argument, but rather neutral onlookers, and in that sense being respectful and having properly conceived and supported arguments is quite important indeed.
Also, arguments do not change people. They may help to effect a change, but in the end a person will only change if they want to change.
Damn, first time I've seen a typo in an article, and the above post also notes one.
OT: It is very difficult to change what people believe, if they have spent enough time and effort into that belief, on the other hand, it's also difficult to get people to care, if they haven't spent any time or effort into it. You also assume that gamers want to be accepted, which I wouldn't say is true at all, I couldn't care less what the outside worlds thinks of me playing video games. I do believe a lot of people like the apparent "fringe" status of gaming, as people like not as accepted or well known bands.
Perhaps I'm wrong, but it matters not, gaming will be, is being accepted, and isn't going to go away.
Everything you said is right. But even so, I have a bit of a bone to pick with you.Matt Meyers said:
And it is this: why the hell do I have to defend my hobby to obnoxious busy-bodies who have nothing better to do than declare it evil? Sure, that's the reality we live in, and sure, we have to do something to keep state governments from ordering all copies of GTA burned. But intellectually speaking, I do not feel like it is suddenly my responsibility to become a well-spoken pro-gaming crusader who has to fly around the Internet proving how adorable and snuggly I really am.
We have a long-standing social problem here, which is that people in a free society should not be flying off the handle and trying to ban everything they don't appreciate because it offends their God or personal sense of moral or social righteousness. America has been a country with (more or less) unlimited free speech for 250 years now, and yet for some reason we still have great gobs of people who think their mission is to force us all to conform to their privately held vision of utopia.
THEY ARE THE ONES WITH THE PROBLEM, AND THE LAW HAS REPEATEDLY UPHELD THIS. The only way gamers can adequately defend themselves from anti-game laws is with pro-gamer and simply anti-anti-media lawyers who are trained to do so. The idea that gamers being less fanboyish will somehow stop the anti-game crusaders is probably true over a very long span of time, but here and now, being nicer isn't going to fix anything. That's because people who hate games don't hate the games because of the gamers or even the games themselves - they hate EVERYTHING that detracts from what they've decided people or society "must needs" be doing.
Now of course, everyone being nicer to and more understanding of everyone can only make social interactions a bit nicer. And it's not like you were suggesting we go out of our way to be extra-super-nice or something. But I still feel like you're obligating us to go on an offensive we should not have to go on.
Like you say in the article, gamers are everywhere, yet we're still being thought of by some people as a lunatic minority. Like you also say, the people who think this are on the wrong side of history. I say, let's defend ourselves legally as long as we have to until the Anti-stuff people move on, and otherwise, go about our daily business.
Fanboys will never go away, and the people with an anti-game axe to grind will never stop citing fanboy behavior as the reason games are evil. I'm not going to make an extra effort to be nice to people who despise me for doing something that jerks they've heard of also happen to do. Nobody owes anybody that.
Of course, I'm more or less a nice guy anyway, so...
Great stuff man! Truly well thought out and well presented. I've had these discussions with some buddies over many various issues where one side, or both simply reacts rather than acts. Thinking is the thing that separates us from beasts, let's do more of that shall we?
I think you took Jerry Holkins in the wrong vein. I don't believe he was just dismissing him just the idea of what was going on. He painted him as the "Hey kids, get off my lawn!" old man that those kids say they'll never be. There was a time that Ebert undoubtedly heard the exact same things about movies and scoffed at the old man and his ignorance of the how things really are.
Careful with this kind of statement. This is the same kind of thinking that leads to fascism, tyranny, and religious fanaticism. Once you have a singular group that thinks it's particular view is the "right" way for things to be, it is only a small step before that group seeks to dictate to the entirety of humanity this same "right" way of things. It is this same thinking that also lies at the heart of fanboism.
The article, in my opinion, basically summarizes gamers, taken as a whole, to be an insular, self-centered, self-righteous lot with the mentality of a 5-year old. They want everything to be their way and are not willing to give any validity or respect to the opinions and views of others. Yet, gamers constantly demand that their views and opinions be respected and validated by others. Because of mass insecurity that comes from attaching too much of one's identity into the hobby, any insinuation that the games they love may be less than perfect will cause gamers to react with rabid defensive rage. Rather than react in a manner that is productive, proactive, or provides positive reinforcement, they resort to childish insults, taunts, and mocking of the object of their indignation. Rather than consider the possibility that other may have a valid point, they simply dismiss any viewpoint that does not mirror their own as idiotic and just wrong.
At the end of the day, gamers just to grow-up and get over themselves. Of course, not all gamers are this way, but there is too largely a significant number that are.
Great article, but
The kneejerk nature of gaming has already been the subject of more than one article, but it's a subculture composed mostly of young men. Of course they are going to act like complete idiots who shout at anyone slightly different. This is also the segment of the population I believe uses the most the word 'gay' as an insult. No number of nicely written articles is going to change their mind. Rather, those of us who are level-headed and diplomatic need to take up the slack and make up for the loud masses of jerks.
The problem is that not only are gamers loud about it, they love being loud about it. Ebert's case is a clear one. Why should we care that some guy doesn't think games are art? I'm not saying he's an old curmudgeon or whatever - he could be the President of Western Awesome, but if he admits he doesn't play games we shouldn't pay any attention to him. And yet, articles refuting his view poured out of every pore of the internet. Why do this? Are games so insecure about their hobby of choice that they feel the need to assure themselves games are okay? I don't see thousands of heavy metal fans writing passionate essays every time some nobody says heavy metal isn't real music. Why do we do it?
Just the other day a friend IM'd me saying how ridiculous it was that some rapper had said something about the beta of some shooting game (Medal of Honor? Can't remember) and it made Gamespy front page news. I realized that for all this talk of gamings becoming mainstream gamers are still under this weird illusion that they aren't, and that the fact that a rapper plays games is not just some random useless fact but is a fact of major importance to our entire subculture. It's a pretty pitiful worldview.
Yeah, and to end all wars world leaders just need to stop opposing other governments and starting supporting them. And to end hunger we just need to stop selling food for money and start giving it up for free. And to end crime we just need to stop being violent with each other. Wow, it's simple!
The kneejerk nature of gaming has already been the subject of more than one article, but it's a subculture composed mostly of young men. Of course they are going to act like complete idiots who shout at anyone slightly different. This is also the segment of the population I believe uses the most the word 'gay' as an insult. No number of nicely written articles is going to change their mind. Rather, those of us who are level-headed and diplomatic need to take up the slack and make up for the loud masses of jerks.
The problem is that not only are gamers loud about it, they love being loud about it. Ebert's case is a clear one. Why should we care that some guy doesn't think games are art? I'm not saying he's an old curmudgeon or whatever - he could be the President of Western Awesome, but if he admits he doesn't play games we shouldn't pay any attention to him. And yet, articles refuting his view poured out of every pore of the internet. Why do this? Are games so insecure about their hobby of choice that they feel the need to assure themselves games are okay? I don't see thousands of heavy metal fans writing passionate essays every time some nobody says heavy metal isn't real music. Why do we do it?
Just the other day a friend IM'd me saying how ridiculous it was that some rapper had said something about the beta of some shooting game (Medal of Honor? Can't remember) and it made Gamespy front page news. I realized that for all this talk of gamings becoming mainstream gamers are still under this weird illusion that they aren't, and that the fact that a rapper plays games is not just some random useless fact but is a fact of major importance to our entire subculture. It's a pretty pitiful worldview.
Well said. The old turn about "pearls before swine" comes to mind. I have a certain respect for Ebert (as an example) and his many years of intelligent commentary on his chosen field, but as far as electronic games go, he didn't get put into a box and have all the light shut out; he chose to go in there. There may be a point to offering up the discussion to those who genuinely remain on the fence on the relevance of the medium, but it doesn't seem reasonable to allow the discussion to be framed by the people whose unfounded position demands that the other side not only carry themselves up the mountain, but the opposition as well.LadyRhian said:
There's a lot about that article that I'd agree with. Having said that though, I wouldn't rope Thompson in with Ebert. Even if I don't agree with Ebert on the videogame issue, I don't doubt his sincerity or integrity. Not two words I would ever associate with a disbarred lawyer who made his living trashing legitimate members of the gaming industry and curtailing people's freedoms to advance his own moral agenda, no matter what morals he himself had to stomp on in order to do it.
I just want to play my games without anyone telling me what I can or can't play. You will always have Fanboys, Fanatics, whatever you want to call them. And even the most thought out, most reasonable argument will not change their minds, 9 out of 10 times. Yeah I'm a gamer and I'm proud of it. Sure some people consider it a waste of time, and childs play. But i'd rather have a little bit of a child in me. Than be completely grown up and dull. If you can't have any fun whats the point? It also helps me relieve a little stress.
I feel that this argument misses the point that Holkins is trying to make, or the stance that he has held as an author and appreciator of the subject matter. Holkins is reflective of the history of the relationship between the definition of art and the role of critics as a whole since the inception of the concept of needing to define art so that it is inclusive of things that you feel are art and exclusive of things that threaten your view of art. It is an important question... is there really value to be gained in assaulting a subjective point of view?
While the author advocates debate, Holkins questions the nature of the debate, which has always been the same. If movements as brilliant and beautiful as moving as impressionism, or as reflective and complex as cubism have been subject to these very same assaults, by critics who never changed their perspective, then why is there any responsibility for the gamer to challenge the voice of the non-gamer?
I feel that Holkins view is that games are art, and being art will eventually be recognized as art regardless of the debate, that the debate itself will neither enable, accelerate, nor validate this eventual and unavoidable future. While the author advocates debate on principle, shouldn't the author be asking the validity and purpose of the debate? The debate itself doesn't make games better, the vision and ingenuity of the artists will make it better, the artist who will remain unconvinced by arguments that their work is invalid.
This is... ironic. I'm an ex-nun. For real!Kevlar Eater said:
And if I can sample both atheism and religion, (which I have), then Jack Thompson can play a videogame. But he won't want to unless you (the gaming community at large) decide to drop the aggression againt him and other non-gamers, and educate instead of flame.
My theory is that gamers are conditioned to fight. They play fighting games. It's a learned behaviour - most games' conflicts are resolved through violence of some sort. And if you learn a behaviour, you will often translate it to other situations. Now that's not a bad thing. But sometimes its not helpful. Like, say, when someone like Jack Thompson is brought to gamers' attention.
Then gamers do what they do best - fight back. It's a misguided show of bravery and learned responses. But Jack doesn't know about gamers' backgrounds; all he sees is a bunch of aggressive people, essentially proving to him that his fears were real - video games DO make people aggressive and antisocial!
So the misunderstanding goes on. And it will always go on, until one side or another decides to break away from their entrenched position to understand each other. And since it's a waste of time waiting for the rest of the world to do this, why shouldn't we? I know I try to.
Because understanding and acceptance can happen. And it may as well start with me.
Taking a dismissive attitude certianly is not an effective way to shed light upon the notions of the ignorant, but spending time trying to "show the truth" to somone who has dismissed your argument in advance is silly. Ebert was a great example of this. He layed down, that in principle, If it can be called a game, it cannot be called art. In a second insult, thinly vieled as an appology, he said that he was wrong, not for having the opinion in ignorance, but for telling others about it, and then asserted that he had no interest in playing a game. He has taken his opinion in ignorance and stated point blank he is not interested in viewing any further information about it. He maintains that games are not art, and fiercely protects his ignorance.Matt Meyers said:
This man's opinion is not really damaging, nor does his assertion insult me personally. However it is a non-argument. Just as faith in God is. We cannot debate it, as faith implies belief without need for any proof at all, and arguments are built on proving a set of points. Are you an elitest when you don't feed a troll on a forum? I find no obligation, nor merit, in trying to convince somone like this to change thier mind. I don't need this person to play games.
On the other extreme, consider the damage Ebert could do were he to takup the controller. There are people, you know who you are, who will, sight unseen, take Yahztee's opinion for law, when it comes to purchasing a new game. People do the same with movies and movie critics. Imagine if you will, a significant portion of the gaming industry hinging its efforts on the approval of a man who previously, absorbed great effort simply to convince him to play a game. Now he's gone from insignificant naysayer, who is easily dismissed, to market influencing cynic, who might be comfortable giving a review score to a game he never played.
I'll agree with others on what i feal is the most important thing to remember here. Is this really that important? Games appeals have grown on thier own merrits. Artistic presentation, immersive gameplay, social connection. We as gamers could do our part to make the social connection bit of it more appealing, making an effort to stamp out the racism and gaybashing on our mics, harboring new players instead of ridiculing them for thier inexperience, and even putting the word out on a title that might have flown under the radar that we think deserves a look. However, I see no need to get everyong on board. It's ok to not care about gaming. It's ok to not like playing games. I see no obligation or cause, in converting the world, especially not those that are already sitting on the fanboy approach in thier own discounting of gaming.