The Big Picture: Fair Game

[Tohru_Readman]

Part Quote from militaryspartan:

Does anyone else find this a little hypocritical? I mean literally his first episode was to troll/show his hate for the Halo franchise and laugh at the legion of "Fanboys". We understand Bob, you do not like Halo, but do we think you hate the Xbox and FPS in general?

I completely agree on that point, I only tend to refer to someone as I fanboy if they bash a game, game series or genre without playing it, for no reason.

 

[robinkom]

Opinions are like assholes, everybody has one... even fanboys, as uninformed as they might be.

I'm a biased gamer. I'm biased for the facts. My favorite games/genres/systems don't even enter into it because it's a moot argument. I only reinforce facts in sales figures, game/console design, company philosophies, etc.

Everyone can see the Sega logo in my Avatar and, yes, I am a Sega fan but I am NOT a fanboy. Fanboys are a detriment to a company's fanbase because they'll never accept reality.

The Sega fanboys will never accept facts like the poor sales figures of the 32X and Saturn were chiefly the result of corporate in-fighting between the Japanese and American offices (among other things). They'll never accept the fact that Sega is NOT going to make a new home console anytime soon. The capital necessary for that is tremendous at this point in the industry and they simply DON'T have the money for it to be a feasible business venture.

The best way you can support a company as a fan is to buy the software that you want, not to settle for what they think you want. Give them more than just sales numbers to look at. Send them constructive feedback in large volumes for the kind of games you'd want to buy from them. If it makes enough noise, it'll be sent upstairs to corporate and they may adjust their business road map accordingly. As it is, we leave a lot of publishers guessing what we want and it's usually hit or miss. They try to make "me too" titles that copy the formula of something that did well by another publisher but the majority of us always crave something new and different.

That got a little off-topic but I'm demonstrating my original point. If you're a self-respecting fan of a certain developer's franchise, let them know what is and isn't good about it, HONESTLY. Don't fan-tard rage at them. Grow up.

 

[rembrandtqeinstein]

I don't think people who say good things about stuff are fanbois, I do think a large percentage of people who hate on things without qualification are fanbois.

 

[Grabbin Keelz]

I'd like to thank Movie Bob for pointing this out. At first I didn't know where he was going with this topic, but when I did something struck me. I agree with it, but I also realized that I'm like that. Whenever someone claims they love something, I instinctively think that they hate the opposite. I never actually called anyone out on it, but I would always think it. Usually, this is because most people who like one thing usually DO hate the other, but I didn't factor that there are people who prefer chocolate, but still enjoy vanilla. From now on, if someone says they like something, I will banish any assumption that they hate the other.

Thank you for teaching me this Bob.

 

[K_Dub]

Definitely a subject that I think deserves more than a five minute discussion time.

 

[Spoon E11]

so true. SO god damn true.

 

[Dastardly]

Fair Game

This week, Bob weighs the pros and cons of playing fair.

Watch Video

We're in the age of the disclaimer. Everything you say has to be littered with disclaimers of all shapes and sizes so that you don't accidentally offend anyone. It's like the little brother Randy from A Christmas Story--our opinions are so bundled up with padding they're left feebly shouting, "I can't put my arms down!"

In an odd juxtaposition to this, while we insist that everyone adhere to strict moderation and mediation, we are in a culture that has not properly learned to allow mediation. Here's what I mean:

Person A and Person B disagree. Strongly. Person C is approached to weigh in on the topic, ostensibly to act as mediator. Person C, recognizing the need for mediation, expresses an interest in understanding both sides so that both sides can come to understand each other in a civil manner.

Problem: Person A and Person B are really just looking for a third person to give each of them the "two out of three" they need to be right. This means that everything Person C says in Person A's favor will simply cause Person A to say, "SEE?! I'm so right!"... while Person B will do the same when the opposite happens. Conversely (and this is the worst facet of this whole thing), when Person C tries to explain to Person A the potential merits of Person B's position, Person A will feel and behave as though horribly betrayed by Person C.

That's right. If you don't play both sides, you're a fanboi. And if you do play both sides? Well, each side will view you as a traitor for failing to wholly condemn the other side. The "middle ground" ends up being only a crossfire, like some kind of twisted, reverse-Venn-diagram setting.

The root of the problem? Our opinions are based more on feelings than on reason. It's simply truth--when people engage in discussions about politics or religion or personal passions, they are using a part of their brain that is mostly tied to emotion. The rational, reasonable part of the brain is overridden, unable to make itself heard over the emotional ruckus.

That's the job of mediators--to be dispassionate, so that reason can prevail. There's not always a compromise to be reached, but you can at least ensure that both sides have heard and legitimately understood each other, so that we can all move forward peacefully. But passion only understands passion, and if your passion doesn't match mine, Newton's twisted third law of passion states that you must, therefore, harbor an equal but opposite passion.

So, indecision is the new compromise. Best of luck.

 

[enclsam]

Well that what will hapen if u gave advanced comunication technology to evryone (DAMN U AL GORE)

Another great opinion

 

[RJ Dalton]

I agree with Bob on this subject, but I think it applies to more than just the gaming/nerd culture. I think pretty much everything has become this way, only on the bigger issues like politics, your either a fascist or a communist instead of a fanboy.
Ultimately, what I think it's come down to is that the PC bullshit has gotten way out of hand. It's reaching the point where people seem to believe that the worst possible thing that could happen is that someone disagrees with them, so people are trying to create a general situation where nobody could say anything that might offend anyone anywhere. If we're going to get beyond this, the world needs more people who are willing to be offend others.
On that note, Hitler had the right idea.

 

[Arcane Azmadi]

Great video, Bob. But what I'd really like to see you do is a take on the OPPOSITE of this issue- the modern belief that ANY opinion is valid, no matter how stupid, because "I'm entitled to my opinion". One of the things that really annoys me (and that I repeatedly come up against on this very forum no less) is twits who take totally nonsensical, unreasonable, even offensive stances on issues and justify them with no defence better than "I'm entitled to my own opinion". Sure you are, but your opinion is WRONG. People have this idea that something being "a matter of opinion" automatically makes it immune to criticism, but that's stupid nonsense and I'm not having it.

Discuss.

 

[mythgraven]

Well, actually... I agree with a great sopping load of what Bob says. His opinions oddly line up with my opinions.


So am I MovieBob's fanboy?
Or is MovieBob unknowingly mine?

Whiskey Echo!!
Mythgraven

 

[Frankfurter4444]

I guess I never really thought it had a name. I own an Xbox 360 and like the Xbox 360 I own. I also don't own a PlayStation 3 because when I played with other people's PlayStation 3s, I didn't like it enough to justify buying one for myself. I could even go so far as to say the PlayStation 3's interface was one I did not personally like and could criticize what about it I didn't like if I believed my criticism would actually cause it to change. I'm guessing that makes me an Xbox FanBoy. Funny, because I thought it made me a consumer.

I always thought a FanBoy's opinion was to be disregarded because he was so biased in a certain direction that his opinion could not be taken as objective. I'm guessing that's what the troll hopes to accomplish when he calls someone else "A FanBoy." True FanBoy's opinions probably should be ignored because of their inability to be fair, but I guess people who call FanBoys out should probably be met with more skepticism (since I think it is entirely possible I might have something nice to say about the Xbox while still being able to see it for its flaws. Or I might have something nice to say about the PlayStation 3 or Wii even though I have no desire to buy one)

Maybe Ronald Reagan needs to come back to life and govern the internet?

 

[RTR]

5:10
I wish I could frame that.

I think we've all been victim of forum-troll bashing. It sucks.

 

[maninahat]

Any debate in which someone criticises Israeli foreign politics leads to a kneejerk response about how the Palestinians are worse. Any criticism of Palestinians inevitably triggesr someone's condemnation of Israel. You can't ever discuss the problems of one without someone trying to, as Bob says, "add qualifiers" and start harping on about the other.

 

[Lillowh]

Umm, no you're a fanboy if you bash something thats exclusive on another console without ever playing, not bashing the people who have played it. IF you say that they're a fanboy just because they've played it, you obviously have no idea what the meaning of the two words in "fanboy" mean

 

[Rad Party God]

Yay for biased MovieBob fanboyism

I think I'll stay a bit far away when a discussion of PC gaming arises, for every single topic about PC gaming, there always, ALWAYS has to be "that's why pc gaming sucks and I lovez mah Xbox" or "that's why I nevah buy from Steam"... *sigh*

 

[ProzacMan]

I think you got this backwards Bob. Fairness doctrine didn't invade geek culture, political debate tactics invaded geek culture when the Fairness doctrine ended. The "If you like this then by default you hate that" argument is an old tactic used to nudge people on board one party or another. Since you got them liking one of your policies, now you can try and use that to get them to dislike your opponents policies. Though the spillover in to geek culture is more because what use to be intentionally manipulative debate tactics have now been absorbed into the way we Americans naturally communicate with each other. We've been Pavloved into acting this way with Politics, Beer, Cola, and Fast Food for so long that it's only natural that we would automatically start doing it in other areas of our lives.

 

[ReiverCorrupter]

Erm... and opinion is subjective. By definition. If it was objective, it would be a fact. However, opinions can be supported by facts. Saying you like chocolate ice cream is an opinion, and cannot be argued with. Saying chocolate ice cream is THE BEST form of ice cream is a factual claim. I haven't seen the problem Bob is talking about because I think he's confusing peoples factual claims with opinions. If someone says they like Killzone and someone trolls them for liking killzone, then the person need only tell the troll that they are a moron and that person can like or dislike whatever they want.

However, if someone claims that Killzone is BETTER than Halo, for instance, they have just made a factual claim, and must be prepared to defend their positions.