Common fallacies amongst fans you find annoying.

[Austin Howe]

snip

So this is not really OT but on point number 4, I feel I need a reason to care because they are not real. They are imaginary characters with imaginary problems. They don't hold the same weight as a person in real life. If the story does not make them and there problems interesting to me then I don't care. I am not saying that I have not cared about a character in a story, but it was not just because in they story they are a human, It is because the story made me care. as far as in relation to FF games i have never played them so I have nothing to say about the other points, but I felt like this was worth saying. also I am using story here to mean any fictional work be it a game, book, movie, ect.

Ok, now that's a valid point. It draws a dichotomy between two equally valid types of people: those who are at least interested by suffering on it's own merits (ie, people like me), and those who are not. (ie, people like you.)

But of course, I think this presents a logical problem. If you don't already care about the character(s) coming in, regardless of what happens in the story, do you ever really have a reason to? Basically, doesn't this boil down to a bias?

My ultimate point anyway was supposed to be that people try and use this as an argument against game quality. Most people don't make the distinction between "Games I like" and "Games I think are good", and that's a real tragedy. I happen to think Resident Evil 4 is a load of fun, however it's also racist, misogynistic if not sexist, simplistic, and compeltely empty. I also happen to think that the battle music in Chrono Trigger is alright, but I can't stand listening to it to the point that it makes me not want to play the game (along with many other things I don't want to discuss right now.) So you've got people who are basically all over the internet saying "I don't like angst, so this must be a terrible game." Well, good for you, go lead your wonderful happy life and let the rest of us not have to defend our right to fuckin' brood a little bit, alright? (I'll take this opportunity to note that the people most critical of angst are among the most bitter kinds of people themselves, and they probably have more in common with, say, Squall Leonhart than they might think.)

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

People who think Lara Croft is evil and shoots innocent people and animals when not once does she kill anyone who hasn't attacked her first.

What is she supposed to do stand there and get shot or eaten?

 

[DeadYorick]

I happen to think Resident Evil 4 is a load of fun, however it's also racist, misogynistic if not sexist, simplistic, and compeltely empty.

Resident Evil 4 is racist, misogynistic, simplistic and empty?

Not really contradicting you or anything I just dont really think "racist" when I think of Resi 4

I usually think of this.

People who think Lara Croft is evil and shoots innocent people and animals when not once does she kill anyone who hasn't attacked her first.

What is she supposed to do stand there and get shot or eaten?

Oh the infamous scene from Tomb Raider 3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsLDAmrZl3s

And this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-ZG24svFXk

Not to disregard your point, but Lara Croft was never a saintly character. In fact one of the criticisms a lot of players had with Tomb Raider Anniversary was that she had the whole emotional fit after killing him

I remember when Toby Gard once said that the reason the majority of enemies in the original Tomb Raider were animals was because of games like Doom popularizing mass murdering enemies.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Easter Eggs = everything that even most remotely shares any coincidental resemblance to anything else.

Or how about this one: Anything that even remotely shares any coincidental resemblance to anything else = rip off. Grrrr.. "rip off" is one of that many things I'm so sick of hearing/reading that I could quite literally KILL someone.

 

[Austin Howe]

I happen to think Resident Evil 4 is a load of fun, however it's also racist, misogynistic if not sexist, simplistic, and compeltely empty.

Resident Evil 4 is racist, misogynistic, simplistic and empty?

Not really contradicting you or anything I just dont really think "racist" when I think of Resi 4

I'm really happy and also laughing my ass off that you didn't contradict misogynistic, simplistic or empty. Lol.

Anyways, for one there's always the subtextual racism of the "stranger in a hostile land" story, but Resi4 goes a little more egregious than that.

Keep in mind, all of these things are said about Spanish people who are very plainly dirty but certainly don't look like zombies. (I could talk up a storm about "dirty", but let's not.)

"They're planning." That's a direct quote. So what, plainly human Spaniards can't plan shit? Come on Leon.

There's a part where he sees plates on a table and says "They eat just like regular people." I think that kind of speaks for itself, but then there's Ada's chapter where she observed that the tables are covered in bodily fluids and haven't been washed in however long. That's not really so bad, but in the context of the racism of the entire main game, it's pretty bad.

But I think the real winner is when Capcom decided that the thing that should get zombified Spaniards to return to base is the ringing of a (very obviously) Catholic church bell. Really Capcom? You're gonna allow yourself to create the image of a mass of Spaniards walking in a mindless horde towards a catholic church? You couldn't have used anything else?

I mean, it's not as bad as RE5, and some of it is more "They didn't think that out" than "Holy shit how did they not see how incredibly racist that is?" but frankly, considering the entirety of the Street Fighter series, I'm not really willing to cut Capcom any slack on this.

 

[Zelcor]

The idea that if someone likes something you don't there's a community expectation to think of them on the same level as those with severe mental retardation.

i.e..CoD-tards, or biodrones. Taste is subjective matter no matter how crappy their tastes may be

 

[AntiChri5]

People who think interstellar travel is impossible in Mass Effect without the Relays.

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

People who think Lara Croft is evil and shoots innocent people and animals when not once does she kill anyone who hasn't attacked her first.

What is she supposed to do stand there and get shot or eaten?

Yeah, that Kraken in TR: Underworld was seriously menacing, the way it was just sitting there, not attacking or anything.

It tries to attack you multiple times as you swim through the tunnels.

I think when you fight it is bad game design rather than any evil on the part of the character.

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

snip

I'm not saying she's a saint it just seems ridiculous to me to expect her to just stand there while bad guys shoot her.

She kills Larson to save the world. It's not like she just wants the artifact.

 

[Archraven]

snip

So this is not really OT but on point number 4, I feel I need a reason to care because they are not real. They are imaginary characters with imaginary problems. They don't hold the same weight as a person in real life. If the story does not make them and there problems interesting to me then I don't care. I am not saying that I have not cared about a character in a story, but it was not just because in they story they are a human, It is because the story made me care. as far as in relation to FF games i have never played them so I have nothing to say about the other points, but I felt like this was worth saying. also I am using story here to mean any fictional work be it a game, book, movie, ect.

Ok, now that's a valid point. It draws a dichotomy between two equally valid types of people: those who are at least interested by suffering on it's own merits (ie, people like me), and those who are not. (ie, people like you.)

But of course, I think this presents a logical problem. If you don't already care about the character(s) coming in, regardless of what happens in the story, do you ever really have a reason to? Basically, doesn't this boil down to a bias?

My ultimate point anyway was supposed to be that people try and use this as an argument against game quality. Most people don't make the distinction between "Games I like" and "Games I think are good", and that's a real tragedy. I happen to think Resident Evil 4 is a load of fun, however it's also racist, misogynistic if not sexist, simplistic, and compeltely empty. I also happen to think that the battle music in Chrono Trigger is alright, but I can't stand listening to it to the point that it makes me not want to play the game (along with many other things I don't want to discuss right now.) So you've got people who are basically all over the internet saying "I don't like angst, so this must be a terrible game." Well, good for you, go lead your wonderful happy life and let the rest of us not have to defend our right to fuckin' brood a little bit, alright? (I'll take this opportunity to note that the people most critical of angst are among the most bitter kinds of people themselves, and they probably have more in common with, say, Squall Leonhart than they might think.)

Well I think it is possible to start a story without caring about the characters within or even thinking you will hate them and then have the story make you care about them, but I do agree that it comes down to bias, in the sense that how you feel about a story and its characters are up to you as a person. So I do agree with your main point that I don't think it is a fair way to measure a games quality because it is a subjective viewpoint. No one really can say you are wrong to care, but as far as from a standpoint of fictional characters I don't believe its wrong to not care as well if you don't. Although, I tend to believe that most elements of story that evolve things like character traits (such as brooding) come down to personal preference. Some people like certain character traits and some just don't.

OT to the Thread: people who think Emma Stone is playing MJ in the new spider-man movie because they have only seen the movies and so don't know who Gwen is and then say "why is she blonde".

 

[Archraven]

People who think interstellar travel is impossible in Mass Effect without the Relays.

DUDE I so agree with this. one thing about the way people complain about the ending that I don't agree with lol

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

snip

I'm not saying she's a saint it just seems ridiculous to me to expect her to just stand there while bad guys shoot her.

She kills Larson to save the world. It's not like she just wants the artifact.

Is she under some sort of strict NDA that says she's not allowed to tell anyone that she's not just being greedy? Or is it just easier to kill him and be done with it?

Larson knows what Natla is and what she's doing, if anyone is greedy it's him.

 

[Austin Howe]

snip

snip

Well I think it is possible to start a story without caring about the characters within or even thinking you will hate them and then have the story make you care about them, but I do agree that it comes down to bias, in the sense that how you feel about a story and its characters are up to you as a person. So I do agree with your main point that I don't think it is a fair way to measure a games quality because it is a subjective viewpoint. No one really can say you are wrong to care, but as far as from a standpoint of fictional characters I don't believe its wrong to not care as well if you don't. Although, I tend to believe that most elements of story that evolve things like character traits (such as brooding) come down to personal preference. Some people like certain character traits and some just don't.

OT to the Thread: people who think Emma Stone is playing MJ in the new spider-man movie because they have only seen the movies and so don't know who Gwen is and then say "why is she blonde".

True. I will say from my bias I think you're automatically going to like something at least a little bit less if you don't go in to the work caring about what happens to the characters at least a little bit.

I've also always been really disturbed by the subtext of the statement "I don't care what happens to these characters." So . . . death? We're good? Torture? I mean, fuck, I can't stand Tidus in FFX at all, but there are things that I do not want happening to him, even if he is fake and he's in a fictional story.

Anyways, I'n actually way more interested to see how Emma Stone does the role of Gwen Stacy than any other particular aspect of the new Spider-Man, although I generally think it's going to be pretty decent.

 

[Pegghead]

Big game company = bad game company.

Raging against the machine doesn't really mean much when the machine is simply offering an optional form of entertainment.

This, so much.

As for me, generally I'm not a big fan of people who think they can judge the character of others based solely on what fanbases someone is a part of (i.e all fans of Call of Duty or Halo are stupid, all fans of My Little Pony are girly etc). Even worse is when a person tries to boast about themselves based on what fanbases they belong to (i.e enjoying pc gaming makes you a superior gamer).

As for specifics, in the realms of TF2 fandom I don't think anything has stirred up as much argument as the Pyro's gender. Setting aside the fact that it adds nothing to gameplay and it's pretty obvious that they were just going along with it being a male character from the start, most of the "evidence" from either side (generally the most persistent being the female side) comes from Valve constantly toying with it, releasing a fine bonnet here and a blog post saying "he" there because of just how silly the debate gets. Besides, everyone knows that the Pyro's secretly a jukebox.

 

[WolfLord]

People who think interstellar travel is impossible in Mass Effect without the Relays.

Yeah they have faster than light travel, but with the limitations of fuel and having to discharge their engines in a gas giant (given the distance and rarity of planets) would make things a lot dicier.

 

[Archraven]

snip

snip

snip

True. I will say from my bias I think you're automatically going to like something at least a little bit less if you don't go in to the work caring about what happens to the characters at least a little bit.

I've also always been really disturbed by the subtext of the statement "I don't care what happens to these characters." So . . . death? We're good? Torture? I mean, fuck, I can't stand Tidus in FFX at all, but there are things that I do not want happening to him, even if he is fake and he's in a fictional story.

Anyways, I'n actually way more interested to see how Emma Stone does the role of Gwen Stacy than any other particular aspect of the new Spider-Man, although I generally think it's going to be pretty decent.

I do think that you are mostly correct in that belief sense most of the time if you don't care or dislike the story it has to win you over before you really enjoy it. For me at least when I say I don't care about a character of group of characters it just means I either want the story to focus on characters I do care about instead of them or that the story just is not engaging me so I am going to stop investing time in it, not that I hope they die or are tortured. Of course, for me a lot of the time I find myself to finally start to care about a character when they die, either from feeling that the story has made me care, or at least feeling sad for the way it made the character I did care about feel.

Also I agree that Emma as Gwen is the most exciting thing about the movie. I really hope the movie is good.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

4) And without question the most infuriating: people who say they don't care about the character's problems because they haven't been given a reason to. They're human fucking beings, that's why you should care god damnit.

Did your parents raise you at all? I mean christ, how do these kind of people react to people who have these kinds of problems in real life? Are they the kinds of people who think that every person struggling with a mental disorder like bipolar or clinical depression is faking it or just "whining"? Because that's the logical conclusion of those kinds of statements.

So you won't care about people unless you're given a reason which you have to decide meets your standards: Would you ignore someone crying in the middle of the street? A homeless man? Do you hear domestic abuse a few apartments over and just shrug your shoulders?

Someone please clarify this for me, because objectivism is just not that fucking popular!

Not caring about someone else's problems =/= thinking that people who have problems are just "whining". Getting the audience to care about the characters is something that must be strived for, it doesn't just happen.

I don't give a shit about some random person with clinical depression, but I still recognise that they have that problem. Getting me to care about them requires fleshing out that character, seeing their relationships unfold, and hearing their deepest thoughts.