A Fanboy's Guide to Fanboying
- Thread starter Shamus Young
- Start date
I understood that the original article was meant as a form of satirical humour, but that doesn't mean that we can't have discussons and express opinions and views (which is the main point behind a forum).tryx3 said:
Excuse me for having the audacity to try and express an opinion that is somewhat related to the subject matter.
Calm down, just the internet.Iron Mal said:
My issue was you replied to spider, who clearly didn't get it.
You're sort of loading the dice in this argument, when you say that bad narrative is not an excuse to play an excellent game. In my opinion, and many others, the story should be taken into account when judging a game. In other words, a game is not excellent unless it has a good story. This does not mean one of us is wrong, but it does mean that if a reviewer faults a game because of its story, you do not need to attack his opinion, or even acknowledge it.Iron Mal said:
As for your final analogy...yes. I would consider the medium obnoxious but that doesn't affect what's written. Are you saying you would let the poor stationery choice affect your opinion of the story?
Suspending judgment until you've played the game is fair enough, but there's usually times when you've seen enough of a series that it's probably a fair guess that you won't care for the new upcoming title. If you didn't enjoy Final Fantasy 7 through 12 you probably aren't going to be interested in number 13.Twilight_guy said:
But to the point, it seems that particular line was more aimed at fanboys that insist on telling people not to say anything bad about a game before it's released, while they go on saying how it will be the gaming equivalent of Jesus Christ. So they're still making they're own judgments on the game before they've played it.
While you make a good and valid point, I have always had a question that no-one has ever answered for me.reachforthesky said:
Why do we always assume that a narrative will automatically make a game better? (seeing as games are one of the only media types out there that can justify the absence of a narrative)
Surely we have all played games where the developers attempt at trying to cram a plot into the game just pushes it into the territory of being hammy and melodramatic (meaning you take it even less seriously).
My favourite game (Alien Trilogy) had only the vaguest outline of a plot (and was a movie tie-in game) and yet it still managed to be an excellent game in it's own right (and one of the 'scariest' games I can recall just based on the music and atmosphere), if they had attempted to push narrative and dialogue in the middle of this then it likely would have killed the atmosphere and sense of despair that is present throughout (and thus would have effectively removed one of the best things about the game).
I love narrative in games and love reading the back story of various items (I'm one of those people who reads every entry in the Mass Effect codex) but for once I would like to be able to enjoy a new game that just throws us a setting and says 'have at it' rather than needing an awkwardly fitting story guiding me along.
And to answer your last statement (appologies for the rant above, I'm still half asleep), I would forgive a lack of polish and delivery to a certain extent (namely, until it actually starts affecting my ability to actually enjoy the thing). It doesn't matter if it's the most enlightening, thought provoking and wise text/film/game out there, there comes a time where you have to question just how much the creator cares about their work (and in turn, why I should also care).
Although I figured it was satire, a lot of it does make sense. I mean you shouldn't judge a game before you play it right? I mean, I like Infinity Ward's CoD but Treyarch's not so much. That doesn't mean that I won't at least try Black Ops.
Also you shouldn't fault a game for having too good graphics unless the frame-rate is terrible on console or it doesn't scale well on pc
Also you shouldn't fault a game for having too good graphics unless the frame-rate is terrible on console or it doesn't scale well on pc
has anyone read the comments on IGNs Youtube Channel (the reviews in particular). The ammount of hatred,scorn and bile the reviewer gets is astonishing, even if he's grading a game really high. Sometimes I want to step in to defend the guy's point of view, even if I don't agree with it
Okay Look. I think this articles fails as a satire mostly because it exagerates valid points into absurd strawman argumaents.
I think I'll go out on limb and say that a fanboy's opinion on a game series they love is much more valuable than any random non-fan or hater. Fanboys know the complexities of their franchises can give you the best information. They are experts.
For example, who is a bigger fanboy of Starcraft than say BoXeR who plays over ten hours a day. He also wins thousands of dollars at tournaments and could probably tell you about any of the cutting edge strategies that can be used to win. Some random person's critique of the would be completely shallow by comparison.
Fanboys ARE critical. They are the first to tell you the KOF 98 is better than KOF 12 or whatever. People who understand the genre and enjoy the mechanics enough to delve deep into them are the most qualified people for a review.
On a side note: I wish story snobs would shut up. They've done more bad to video game dissertation than good.
I think I'll go out on limb and say that a fanboy's opinion on a game series they love is much more valuable than any random non-fan or hater. Fanboys know the complexities of their franchises can give you the best information. They are experts.
For example, who is a bigger fanboy of Starcraft than say BoXeR who plays over ten hours a day. He also wins thousands of dollars at tournaments and could probably tell you about any of the cutting edge strategies that can be used to win. Some random person's critique of the would be completely shallow by comparison.
Fanboys ARE critical. They are the first to tell you the KOF 98 is better than KOF 12 or whatever. People who understand the genre and enjoy the mechanics enough to delve deep into them are the most qualified people for a review.
On a side note: I wish story snobs would shut up. They've done more bad to video game dissertation than good.
I think he began with more reasonable rules first, to sort of ease you into how a hypothetical critic might be examining the range of possibilities left for what they can do to not make fanboys angry. Eventually, they see that directly contradictory arguments can be leveled at them from the same people, so they give up on pleasing the fanboys.
But if you read a little further, I think he points out that this applies to the pre-release cycle. Fanboys have no problem with everyone mindlessly repeating the hype of what will clearly be the best game of all time lol, but then tell other people who see something to be worried about with the design philosophy, graphics shots, corporate press releases, etc. to wait until the game is out and they've played it, moron.
There's nothing wrong with tentatively expressing concern (or admiration) for a game coming out, especially if the hype cycle is in overdrive...
SOME fanboys are critical. Others mindlessly accept everything in the game and like every game in the series. Not every fanboy is BoXeR or Daigo Umehara: A lot just enjoy it but are far from tournament level players.
But even those players are NOT necessarily better reviewers. Why? Because not everyone is a fighting game snob, or a RTS genius, or a connoisseur. Daigo might notice flawed, simplistic mechanics and a broken tier system in a mascot tournament game. But a lot of people buying games like that are there for the characters, or like some crazy, unpredictable fun. Not everyone always likes to play two player Smash Bros with items turned off on Final Destination. Sometimes it's fun to throw a damn Pokeball.
A reviewer with little experience in the field will struggle to understand the experience of a minority of his audience, the hardcore players, but will be able to express how a new player might feel. Similarly, a reviewer with a lot of experience will struggle to understand the experience of the majority of his potential audience, new players. Why is the latter better than the former? Both will focus on things they can perceive, but the former will provide a better review for the majority of the audience.
Now, I think the best solution is experienced (if not necessarily tournament champion-level) players who are good enough writers and sensitive enough to understand what a newcomer might think, or reviewing teams of varying skill levels, but it's absurd to say that only connoisseurs can issue good reviews. The local food snob who likes his food covered in truffles and foie gras may not be the best guy to review the new BBQ stand or burger place.
As for story snobs: I wonder how you could even possibly begin to support that argument. Not because story snobs are by definition right, but because you'd have to define "harm" and "good" (and do so in a way that is more than just your opinion or your particular value set) and then take a sufficiently large and representative sample to demonstrate your point. It's just a standard, unsupportable Internet argument.
As Shamus has pointed out repeatedly: If you don't think story is important, then ask for them to GET RID OF IT. Bad Dudes was a fun (if not particularly good) game with an awesome intro to get people psyched. Mario didn't need more than "save Princess, beat turtle", and still doesn't do much more than that. Games don't NEED to have stories.
But if you're going to put them in, and have them be massive and convoluted, and force us to sit through cutscenes expositing them while you make the avatars we're enjoying playing do stupid things to preserve your story railroad...
Then at least have the courtesy to make the damn thing GOOD.
I find it funny that some people don't realize that this is a joke. He's saying we should pretty much say every game is perfect while reviewing it, otherwise someone is going to be unhappy. Of course, you should also say games are complete shit, or else all the people who hated the game will get angry.
This is my review of every game ever: This game was shit, but it was really good.
This is my review of every game ever: This game was shit, but it was really good.
I almost missed the joke. After I got to the story doesn't matter, I was like "well somethings up".
Although it's hard to have an opinion about a game without playing it. Sure you can see the graphics and read the whole plot, but you might just not get it until you play. But that's just imo.
Although it's hard to have an opinion about a game without playing it. Sure you can see the graphics and read the whole plot, but you might just not get it until you play. But that's just imo.
Also, you're not even allowed to criticize a game's STORY if you haven't played the game, either. Not even if you watched a Lets Play of a completely linear game and read a ridiculously detailed synopsis on Wikipedia or somewhere.
To be fair, I would agree with this in the case of massive non-linear games, but the last fanboy who tried to force-feed me this argument was using it to defend a completely linear game with no branching pathways, no side missions, or anything of the sort. You could get just as much detail watching a Let's Play and reading a synopsis as you would actually playing it. And when I finally did play the game? My opinion of the story (And the rest of the game) only worsened.
And believe me, you don't need to play through this shit [http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b307/cz-sonikku/Sonic_2006_box_art1.png?t=1171899080] to see how god awful the story is.
To be fair, I would agree with this in the case of massive non-linear games, but the last fanboy who tried to force-feed me this argument was using it to defend a completely linear game with no branching pathways, no side missions, or anything of the sort. You could get just as much detail watching a Let's Play and reading a synopsis as you would actually playing it. And when I finally did play the game? My opinion of the story (And the rest of the game) only worsened.
And believe me, you don't need to play through this shit [http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b307/cz-sonikku/Sonic_2006_box_art1.png?t=1171899080] to see how god awful the story is.
Uh, you do know that games are entirely based upon gameplay to further EVERYTHING about it? The story could be an epiphany causing diamond that could turn Hitler into Mother Teresa, but if the gameplay is so broken that it's rendered unplayable, then that story might as well be nonexistant. On the other hand, a game with great gameplay but an atrocious story will still be fun to play, because the part that includes the player is at the core of the player's experience. Remember, you can usually skip the cinematics, but you can't skip the gameplay.SpiderJerusalem said:
OT: You lost me at gameplay. It doesn't matter if it's part of a series, the gameplay of a game is always independent of the other installments.