I want to begin by thanking everyone here for making my research possible. Without you, I would be an unemployed academic. Forums such as these have provided me with a veritable treasure trove of linguistic data for my research, and I don't even have to go looking for obscure information in a lab or library. Don't worry, however. If any posts are published in my results, you won't be mentioned by name... because you're all anonymous to begin with. Also, since this is "academic" research, no one will be demeaned with a "HUR HUR! Ignorance!" label, just a "self-identified gamer A" or "self-identified gamer B" label. And even then, I have to decide on whether or not I will actually write up a paper on all this...
Now, if I may, I have a few questions about all this controversy. Honesty in answering would be appreciated. And pay no attention to me with my tiny spectacles and notepad, and my sudden lapse into using an Austrian accent... Und tell me about your muzzer...
(1). For those of you who "did not like the review", do you believe, at some level, that you felt it was a personal attack?
Often the motivations for "aggressive speech responses" is the feeling of personal invalidation. One of the first steps in critical reading/listening analysis after isolating the thesis is to determine the intended audience of an article. So, who is the intended audience? Then, after determining that, one should find out the writer's intent. Was Y truly trying to insult "fanboys", or is he more "preaching to the choir", and thus merely entertaining his intended audience?
I would argue the latter. Many an editorial writer is simply entertaining the intended audience rather than proving some argument or another. It's easy to notice such things when there's an "us-against-them" style used. So, that brings me to the next question:
(2). If Y is simply preaching to the choir, and you were one of the ones who responded negatively to this piece, why did you feel the need to respond?
No, this isn't a "if you knew this was crap, why did you waste your time in typing up hate mail?" question. I truly want to know why you were compelled to type up a response. Most of the responses here often employ logical fallacies and poor arguments that do not make any point whatsoever if you take a minute and look at them. Many are emotional appeals, such as ad hominem attacks ("You don't know what you're talking about, you've obviously not played the game!"), ad populanum attacks ("Y fanboys outnumber us Nintendo fanboys 4:1!"), followed up by some poor establishment of ethos ("My 1000+ posts make me more valid than you!"). Are people really arguing here, or are they simply trying to shore up emotional support for their feelings one way or another? I think we know the answer to that.
With those questions aside, I know want to get at the heart of this whole "controversy", so I have a few more questions:
1. How does one's admittedly-biased opinion really affect the opinion of a game? If entertainment is truly subjective, how can we fault someone for coming up with a negative review?
2. Why is cherry-picking e-mail responses for the purpose of entertainment "wrong"? He's entertaining his intended audience. That's his job. Nintendo's job is to profit from entertainment, and thus will do what they can to appeal to their intended audience, so would they not be guilty of the same practice? Is Nintendo going to intentionally put in bad things in their game that would alienate their audience?
Again, thank you all for the data, and thank you in advance to those who answer my questions. I have many more, but I figure I'll see what kind of responses happen from here on out before posting the next ones.