A Fanboy's Guide to Fanboying
- Thread starter Shamus Young
- Start date
Recommended Videos
"You're not allowed to have an opinion on a game until you've played it.
It's unfair to judge a game before it comes out, or to decide you don't want to get a game when you haven't tried it. For a reviewer, this is incredibly unprofessional. Reviewers that do this are just attention-starved hacks.
Nobody should say anything negative about a game until they've played it themselves and have formed an opinion. Until then, they should only be allowed to say nice things."
I know you're being very sarcastic in tone, but honestly this rule has a fair bit of truth to it. It's not about 'only saying nice things' though, it's more about the fact that gamers on the internet get a little tidbit about an upcoming game and FREAK OUT about it. Most of the logic behind this causes them to draw unnecessary conclusions without even playing the game. I have no issue with someone saying "Yeah, I saw the beta of Final Fantasy XIV at an EB Games, honestly I watched it for a bit and wasn't really into the combat." It's when people say stuff like "OMG I JUST WATCHED A TWO-MINUTE TRAILER OF DRAGON AGE 2 AND READ THREE LINES OF INFORMATION ON IT, THIS GAME IS GOING TO TOTALLY SUCK WHEN IT COMES OUT BECAUSE OF *insert silly reasoning here*". There's a difference, one is a fair assessment of what you've seen, and the other is completely unfounded, fanboy claims.
Other then that, hilarious list.
It's unfair to judge a game before it comes out, or to decide you don't want to get a game when you haven't tried it. For a reviewer, this is incredibly unprofessional. Reviewers that do this are just attention-starved hacks.
Nobody should say anything negative about a game until they've played it themselves and have formed an opinion. Until then, they should only be allowed to say nice things."
I know you're being very sarcastic in tone, but honestly this rule has a fair bit of truth to it. It's not about 'only saying nice things' though, it's more about the fact that gamers on the internet get a little tidbit about an upcoming game and FREAK OUT about it. Most of the logic behind this causes them to draw unnecessary conclusions without even playing the game. I have no issue with someone saying "Yeah, I saw the beta of Final Fantasy XIV at an EB Games, honestly I watched it for a bit and wasn't really into the combat." It's when people say stuff like "OMG I JUST WATCHED A TWO-MINUTE TRAILER OF DRAGON AGE 2 AND READ THREE LINES OF INFORMATION ON IT, THIS GAME IS GOING TO TOTALLY SUCK WHEN IT COMES OUT BECAUSE OF *insert silly reasoning here*". There's a difference, one is a fair assessment of what you've seen, and the other is completely unfounded, fanboy claims.
Other then that, hilarious list.
Anyone else noticed that he basically spells out what Yahtzee does in his reviews and says its wrong? Contraversial 
I agree. I hated on Demon's Souls before playing it.strum4h said:
Its my second favorite game of all time.
I do understand the satire.
However I think that at the same time it's unfair to bust on fanboys exclusively because I think a lot of their reactions have become justified by the way game reviews are done nowadays, especially on the professional end of the spectrum.
Plenty of people have talked about how game reviews are broken. We have the whole issue of sites and publications that are dependant on money from advertisers becoming subservient to those advertisers if they want them to keep buying ad space. With the industry becoming less concerned with simply making a profit and more concerned with the relative degree of profits made by specific products and game styles, it has also been using game reviews as a form of sociological control to try and create demand for the types of games it wants to produce because it can make the most profit from those games.
Fanboy criticism is not consistant, and it can be funny when viewed objectively, but at the same time as ridiculous as some of those "types" of complaints are on the surface, they can also be quite valid. For example someone claiming that a reviewer has no right to negatively criticize a game without having played an entire game series is not nessicarly wrong. If you have an ongoing franchise that has lasted for a decade or more with tons of spin offs, with an established fan base that justifies the continuation of that series and the way it plays, obviously there is something there. Coming out as a reviewer and knocking a game because it say uses turn based combat, grinding, top down button mashing, or whatever else is ridiculous and unprofessional. Not to mention the fact that some reviewers seem to be critical of certain generes of games because they are hard to produce and see less overall profit on success than other generes. It's cheaper and easier to produce an "interactive movie" or very linear game than one that has a high level of quality and a lot of freedom to actually play the game. What's more in some things like RPGs people complain about palette swap monsters but 9 out of 10 times the people making those complaints forget to mention that the game is largely about stats, number crunching, etc... and the icon representing something is secondary to it's values which still might be very distinct from something that looks very similar. A fan of that type of game is going to pick up on that, and is going to prefer having say 2000 monsters even if some are palette swaps, compared to say only 500 each with unique graphical representation.
The point being that whether it's a decades long RPG series, or something like the "Musou" action games (various Dynasty Warriors type stuff), there are some things that need to be addressed on their own merits. Right now for example it seems that every "Dynasty Warriors" type game that is released is panned by game reviewers, yet they keep selling tons of them and making more of them. Your typical review telling me how much a reviwer thinks the latest button masher blows chips, doesn't tell me whether it's a good game of the type/installment of the series or not.... I'm not a big fan of those kinds of games, but then again I don't review them, and very specifically don't get the exposure of a professional critic to begin with. I do tend to rant against the panning of various RPG titles from time to time however, and am simply using a genere that receives similar treatment to reinforce the point (where there are a lot of things like this it seems).
By the same token, even with TV shows and movies and such you have big arguements about "stand alone" episodes, vs. overarching serialzed plot lines that are built on episode to episode which simply tell a new chapter of an ongoing tale. Someone who jumps into a show like say "Lost" five years in and has no clue what is going on or even what the INTENDED mysteries are supposed to be, has no right to sit there and pan it given the nature of the production. On the other hand an episode of something like "The Twilight Zone" where each is supposed to stand on it's own merits would be another cup of tea (criticism wise) entirely.
Thus if say a game series has been going on for decades, and someone walks in and says that the game blows chips because they can't figure out the plotline of the latest installment, they are being an idiot. If things are serialized that way, your not supposed to be able to just "pick it up" like that story wise. If there are enough fans to have kept it going that long and see new chapters produced, this also incidently means it's the reviewer being inappropriate to that specific product, rather than a bad product.
At any rate, I'm rambling and somewhat repeting myself. These are my thoughts on the subject.
In short, while it's easy to make fun of fanboys, I actually think fanboy nerd-rage is a lesser evil than the current "gaming establishment" which brings it out. Even outside of professional reviwers, there are people who should not be reviewing certain things. For example a blind man reviewing fireworks displays is probably a bad idea.
I'll also be frank in saying that on a professional level I think that not only do we need to find some way for reviews which are meant to criticize the gaming industry to break away from it so they can be impartial, but we also need higher standards for reviewers.
Let's be honest, gaming has gotten big enough where to do real reviews you need the guy doing them to be someone who lives games nowadays. You need to get game nerds who can be edited into coherancy or taught how to write, not writers who play games (or who can be taught to). Honestly, I find it kind of odd that some reviewers seem to try and make a point out of not being "that guy" when reviewing games. Maybe because of an attempt by the guys doing the hiring to try and cater to the mainstream. The truth be told though, the guy who should be doing game reviews *IS* "that guy". You know, the greasy 50 year old Neckbeard who really does know everything about video games and spends half his time that he's not gaming, eating, or sleeping, ranting about the industry in some form. Some might say "But Theru, that is the image the gaming industry is trying to get away from", in this context however this is the guy you need. Sort of like how for a long time we had the computer industry trying to sell computers and "the internet" as something not just for nerds. In the end we wound up with companies like "Best Buy" marketing their experts as giant, stereo-typical nerds because those are the guys who are supposed to know this stuff and be experts. The greasy neckbeard is "The Geek Squad" for video games.
However I think that at the same time it's unfair to bust on fanboys exclusively because I think a lot of their reactions have become justified by the way game reviews are done nowadays, especially on the professional end of the spectrum.
Plenty of people have talked about how game reviews are broken. We have the whole issue of sites and publications that are dependant on money from advertisers becoming subservient to those advertisers if they want them to keep buying ad space. With the industry becoming less concerned with simply making a profit and more concerned with the relative degree of profits made by specific products and game styles, it has also been using game reviews as a form of sociological control to try and create demand for the types of games it wants to produce because it can make the most profit from those games.
Fanboy criticism is not consistant, and it can be funny when viewed objectively, but at the same time as ridiculous as some of those "types" of complaints are on the surface, they can also be quite valid. For example someone claiming that a reviewer has no right to negatively criticize a game without having played an entire game series is not nessicarly wrong. If you have an ongoing franchise that has lasted for a decade or more with tons of spin offs, with an established fan base that justifies the continuation of that series and the way it plays, obviously there is something there. Coming out as a reviewer and knocking a game because it say uses turn based combat, grinding, top down button mashing, or whatever else is ridiculous and unprofessional. Not to mention the fact that some reviewers seem to be critical of certain generes of games because they are hard to produce and see less overall profit on success than other generes. It's cheaper and easier to produce an "interactive movie" or very linear game than one that has a high level of quality and a lot of freedom to actually play the game. What's more in some things like RPGs people complain about palette swap monsters but 9 out of 10 times the people making those complaints forget to mention that the game is largely about stats, number crunching, etc... and the icon representing something is secondary to it's values which still might be very distinct from something that looks very similar. A fan of that type of game is going to pick up on that, and is going to prefer having say 2000 monsters even if some are palette swaps, compared to say only 500 each with unique graphical representation.
The point being that whether it's a decades long RPG series, or something like the "Musou" action games (various Dynasty Warriors type stuff), there are some things that need to be addressed on their own merits. Right now for example it seems that every "Dynasty Warriors" type game that is released is panned by game reviewers, yet they keep selling tons of them and making more of them. Your typical review telling me how much a reviwer thinks the latest button masher blows chips, doesn't tell me whether it's a good game of the type/installment of the series or not.... I'm not a big fan of those kinds of games, but then again I don't review them, and very specifically don't get the exposure of a professional critic to begin with. I do tend to rant against the panning of various RPG titles from time to time however, and am simply using a genere that receives similar treatment to reinforce the point (where there are a lot of things like this it seems).
By the same token, even with TV shows and movies and such you have big arguements about "stand alone" episodes, vs. overarching serialzed plot lines that are built on episode to episode which simply tell a new chapter of an ongoing tale. Someone who jumps into a show like say "Lost" five years in and has no clue what is going on or even what the INTENDED mysteries are supposed to be, has no right to sit there and pan it given the nature of the production. On the other hand an episode of something like "The Twilight Zone" where each is supposed to stand on it's own merits would be another cup of tea (criticism wise) entirely.
Thus if say a game series has been going on for decades, and someone walks in and says that the game blows chips because they can't figure out the plotline of the latest installment, they are being an idiot. If things are serialized that way, your not supposed to be able to just "pick it up" like that story wise. If there are enough fans to have kept it going that long and see new chapters produced, this also incidently means it's the reviewer being inappropriate to that specific product, rather than a bad product.
At any rate, I'm rambling and somewhat repeting myself. These are my thoughts on the subject.
In short, while it's easy to make fun of fanboys, I actually think fanboy nerd-rage is a lesser evil than the current "gaming establishment" which brings it out. Even outside of professional reviwers, there are people who should not be reviewing certain things. For example a blind man reviewing fireworks displays is probably a bad idea.
I'll also be frank in saying that on a professional level I think that not only do we need to find some way for reviews which are meant to criticize the gaming industry to break away from it so they can be impartial, but we also need higher standards for reviewers.
Let's be honest, gaming has gotten big enough where to do real reviews you need the guy doing them to be someone who lives games nowadays. You need to get game nerds who can be edited into coherancy or taught how to write, not writers who play games (or who can be taught to). Honestly, I find it kind of odd that some reviewers seem to try and make a point out of not being "that guy" when reviewing games. Maybe because of an attempt by the guys doing the hiring to try and cater to the mainstream. The truth be told though, the guy who should be doing game reviews *IS* "that guy". You know, the greasy 50 year old Neckbeard who really does know everything about video games and spends half his time that he's not gaming, eating, or sleeping, ranting about the industry in some form. Some might say "But Theru, that is the image the gaming industry is trying to get away from", in this context however this is the guy you need. Sort of like how for a long time we had the computer industry trying to sell computers and "the internet" as something not just for nerds. In the end we wound up with companies like "Best Buy" marketing their experts as giant, stereo-typical nerds because those are the guys who are supposed to know this stuff and be experts. The greasy neckbeard is "The Geek Squad" for video games.
"http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v474/EvilJesus420/Your_winner_edited.jpg"my_ledge_ends said:
OT: I love some good satire. Especially when it's used to make a legitimate statement. So good job Shamus.
Ah, good old fanboy rage/debates.Onyx Oblivion said:
The only winning move is to not play.
Or, as my friend has said, "Arguing on the internet is like competing in the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded".
A) Silent Hill 2 had almost no difficulty whatsoever. It is the easiest in the series. Shamus himself explicitly stated horror games should come as close to killing the player as they can without killing him. While I suppose the difficulty did actually increase as time went by, it was never high enough to matter.Hubilub said:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/experienced-points/6715-You-Dont-Scare-Me
By different people, but still interesting:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/game-people-calling/7642-Game-People-Calling-Now-You-re-Just-Being-Difficult
B) Yathzee didn't *judge* Starcraft 2. He said he didn't want to play it because he didn't have the experience in RTS or the desire to play RTS necessary to judge/play it. He refused to Judge it. I don't recall him saying that he wouldn't play Starcraft 2 because he psychically knew it would be bad.
Would you like a Jury to find you guilty without bothering to look at any evidence you have in your defense?
Hilarious article
BTW, for the record, it's not sexist to say "fanboy" because there are no fangirls anywhere ever.
BTW, for the record, it's not sexist to say "fanboy" because there are no fangirls anywhere ever.
I don't know how to read this article, most of it is obvious opposing axioms "satire" but the first couple of points where ok by me.
And then you come to the comments and look down on peolpe that didn't understood you, did it occur to you maybe you are not perfect at making "satire"?
And then you come to the comments and look down on peolpe that didn't understood you, did it occur to you maybe you are not perfect at making "satire"?
You forgot the anime/manga tie-in, the soundtracks, the artbooks and character files, and the hentai doujin (read: sexually explicit fan-comics). Then and only then will your opinion will be given a damn.
The article is oddly true. However, now someone must create the "A Haters Guide to Hating." After all, everyone knows that if you say anything opinion based on the internet someone will disagree and another will agree. Thus, balance is preserved.
Ha! Hilarious, though I actually do agree that you cannot make a review on a game/form a real opinion on it until you've played it.
Playing through the entire series would be excessive.
Playing through the entire series would be excessive.
No, you're not allowed to have an opinion on a game until you've played it. Publicly. That's what separates someone who has the stones/gall to call themselves a journalist from a gossip. Report the facts on something you haven't played, not conjecture. If you haven't played it at least be sure to mention you haven't. Bare minimum. Unless you don't have a problem with the fact that what you think might be wrong. As somebody who has in the past, admittedly found himself to be totally wrong after becoming informed about something I know first hand it would behoove me not to stick my foot in my mouth where people's jobs and reputation are at stake. To say nothing of the fact that we've all done it and it's embarrassing.Shamus Young said:
You don't know how many times I've hated on something when I knew little about it. Found out it was great and I'd been a fool. Or found out I hated something I thought I would hate for reasons totally different than I thought I would hate it for and felt like a fool. Because ultimately that's what some one who speaks without knowing what they're talking about is really. That said, writing anything on the internet is a pain in the ass. Ten people will jump on you for making a simple joke. Not to make your job any tougher with that in mind but the fact you think it's okay ruffles my feathers. Is it avoidable not to make conjectures as a professional writer? I'd like to think I'd avoid it but ironically I've never been one.