fan boys.

[Orchomene]

I don't really like generalisations and social classifications, but lets consider the "fanboyism".

The definition of fanboyism is a bit simplistic. What is important in fanatism is the mean of attraction to the object of the fanatism.

Consider a small example (which is a simplification of the situation but used as an illustration, like a picture) :

- Bioware games tend to attract people by emotions. Romances, "epic" feelings, companions that you love or hate

- Obsidian games are more cerebral. There are few romances,companions are more illustrations of concepts for which you don't feel emotive attraction, story that revolve less around the epic form.

Thus, the relationship between the fanboys and the object of the fanatism is in the first case more toward a love/hate relationship (thus highly irrational) and in the second case more a relationship in interest/deception (which generally is less seen as irrational, even if it's still subjective).

In the end, since every irrationial behavior is considered immature (because children/teenagers have difficulties to manage their emotions), the first fanboys will be more seen as immature.

 

After that, you can compare religious fanatism and scientific fanatism. Both are extrem, but the latter is less seen as emotive and irrational, for the reason I've advanced.

 

My point is : there may be the same ration of fanboyism in the Obsid boards as in the Bio boards but it may not be felt the same in the end.

[Humanoid]

"Hey guys, here is this thing which exists, and with which we are all familiar. Let me say some things on the subject that have already been said before." That's the vibe i'm getting here.

 

point out the genuine unique discussion on this board regarding a crpg feature or issue.

 

duh.

 

HA! Good Fun!

I was going to say something similar.

At any rate, any time you have huge influx of new users to a single place, it's likely there will be a period of a lot of duplication of topic themes/posts for a fair bit of time. Most people like to put their own two cents in, in their own words.

 

Given the influx, I'm shocked, shocked that there hasn't been a new "Your favourite games of ALL TIME!" thread.

 

 

(Though the usual soundtracks one has popped up, admittedly)

Edited October 21, 2012 by Humanoid

[Cantousent]

The problem with the 'favorite x of all time' threads is that I think that examples can only convey so much of what's great. I love PS:T. I love New Vegas and I loved M.U.L.E. and I loved ZORK and I loved Sundog. If we stuck them all in a blender, I'm not sure it would be palatable.

 

As to you, Claw, my comments were meant more generally. I can't imagine wanting to draw down on you, but I would be a lot more open about it if I did. :Cant's good natured guffawing icon: Seriously, though, I didn't realize you'd tried ToR and didn't like it. Probably my poor reading skills. Anyhow, I don't mind you complaining about a specific game or developer (or even publisher). This is a nice safe place to do it. I only think it's crazy when people make every thread in which they participate about a specific hatred of this or that company or game, which is most assuredly not a pointed comment aimed at anyone here.

[Hurlshort]

If we are speaking of rationality, it is pretty hard to call any game that makes it to release and then sells well a bad game. Rationally, Bioware is releasing high quality products that attract a lot of buyers and receive a good deal of critical praise.

 

That doesn't mean I like all their games, in fact I've come to terms with the fact I'm not their target audience anymore, but it seems like calling their games 'bad' without acknowledging their merit is the same as a fanboy calling them 'good' without acknowledging their flaws.

[Hassat Hunter]

If we are speaking of rationality, it is pretty hard to call any game that makes it to release and then sells well a bad game.

It's pretty easy... called "hype"

 

Dragon Age 2, Black & White, Spore, Duke Nukem Forever... list goes on and on.

[Hurlshort]

If we are speaking of rationality, it is pretty hard to call any game that makes it to release and then sells well a bad game.

It's pretty easy... called "hype"

 

Dragon Age 2, Black & White, Spore, Duke Nukem Forever... list goes on and on.

 

That's what I'm saying, from a completely rational perspective those were fully functional games. They went through a full development process, they were subject to extensive bug testing, they were greenlit by a publisher. They had all the components of a good game, and there are going to be people that enjoyed every one of them. They generated interest and sales. It is irrational to call them bad games, there is nothing to support that but opinions.

 

Also I'm pretty sure DNF didn't sell all that well, unlike the others on your list. And Spore is awesome, my entire family has enjoyed that thing.

[Cantousent]

I don't think good sales inoculate a game from criticism. I also know that some games succeed quite well either critically or comercially (and sometimes both) that I don't enjoy personally. Saying that you didn't like this or that aspect of a commercially successful game is perfectly legit. Complain about Bethsoft or Bioware. Bitch about Obsidian or Blizzard. Who cares wether the game sold well or not? You have a right to express your views and advocate for your position. Nothing has been made clearer over the years than the force of internet complaining in regards to game development.

 

Where I agree whole heartedly with Hurlie is in saying that there is no hard fast provable way to claim a game is good or bad objectively. I don't think good sales and high critical praise is any more objective than anything else, but I don't know what would be better. The narrow viewpoints of people with such rarified tastes that virtually any deviation from their rigid judgment automatically puts a game out of contention? If my choice is between sales and the gaming Gestapo, I'll choose the former every time.

 

The reason we come here is because we share a certain outlook on video games and the opinions of the folks here can be helpful in deciding which game to try or not. For that reason, Hunter, when I see an argument that relies on 'it's nothing but hype! The game actually sucked!" I tend to tune out. Statements regarding qualities found within the game are better than general statements about the game.

[Volourn]

"It seems like people replying to my post are getting the wrong impression of what I was trying to say. Having differing opinions/likes/dislikes does not bother me in the slightest. It is a certain mentality which willfully rejects rational thinking that I find irritating. Obviously crude insults like "grow up" and such are only going to contribute to the general air of irrationality that surrounds any given discussion. All I'm trying to say that I don't think it is a good idea to find opinions that dismiss fact as valid as those which do not. If an assertion is unfounded, then it's inconsistencies should be addressed and dismissed; having an opinion doesn't make you unconditionally right-- all claims should be equally open to criticism and valued based upon their level of factual relativity."

 

These forums were set up to discuss games not posters. It's ok to state x game sucks but to say x games' or y comapnby's fans suck or to say z game or r company's haters suck should not be disucssed. It's a waste of effort and nothing but flaming comes out of it.

 

Let's discuss GAMES not GAMERS.

 

Too many people are worried about other people and not worried about games. GAMES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Hassat Hunter]

Well, if it has bad scores *everywhere*, it's sales drop dramatically in a matter of weeks, if not less, and it becomes the standard of internet thrash talk, It's pretty safe to say it only sold due to hype.

Case in points; DNF and Dragon Age II. And that's only from 2011.

 

Also, critical acclaim and good sales can clash pretty often. Bloodlines. Planescape: Torment.

Also sales can be pretty easily manipulated by just having, say, Steam or GOG sales. Instant extra sales. Or pay what you want events.

 

Conclusion; It's really hard to say... so better just keep to opinions, and let facts be.

[Volourn]

Your logic doesn't make sense. DA2 had pretty solid review scores. BL wasn't exactly getting A+++++ reviews either. People were also buytthurt over AP's review scores as well (only Obsidian 'fanboys' though).

 

I don't need loudmouths on the net or silly 'professional' reviewers to inform if a game is good or bad. The only opinion that matters is mine since it's going to be upt ot me only on what games I buy or which games I don't buy..

 

P.S. If DA2 was such a bomg, horrible, and 'universally hated' as the few suggest they wouldn't bother with a DA3 at all. They'd focus on something else.

Edited October 22, 2012 by Volourn

[TrashMan]

Internet breeds fanboys.

 

But it also breed professional haters. People who are the other extreeme. They hate because they can.

As blidned as fanboys - often even moreso - their tastes and egos are the only things that matters.

Incapable of objectively rating a product, they will insist it's garbage if they don't like it.

 

This is the reason why DNF and DA2 got so many 0's and 1's.

Let's face it - they didn't live up to the expectations but they weren't THAT bad. Even with all the flaws they are rather average (as the vast majority of things really are).

Do these haters care? Nope.

 

In their eyes is someone, something angers or dissapoints it deserves only the worst.

They will eagerly call for the deaths of developers/writers, the ruination of companies (and by extent the people who work there and their families), all because of their fragile egos couldn't bear dissapoinment.

Edited October 22, 2012 by TrashMan

[Janmanden]

Internet breeds a lot of things. I don't think I would post anything without it. Imagine sending letters to forums.. Buying stamps, making hand written letters, fixing mistakes, more mistakes, rewriting the whole thing.. Okay, erm, on to something else.

 

I find that review scores, expressed by numbers alone are really bad icons to represent quality. Sometimes good games get lower scores, because they got bugs or minor flaws, while average games get the same score just by being stable. It also seems to me that some reviewers tend to grade higher for great graphics and music scores rather than for great content, which seems to be quite superficial and useless to me unless that is the selling point. Some review sites have user scores along side editor scores, which is despite the nonsensical number system something that I value higher. I don't think great sales for a product that was introduced by massive publicity can always be all good, because there are bound to be a number of people who got sucked in, that would have ignored it otherwise and in that case it's really only a tribute to the marketing service.

 

Hmmm.. Btw, I am not sure why it's such an issue to you to have rational discussions always, because quite often you can have both, maybe not in the same place, and the ones where you can't (have rational discussions) can actually be pretty funny and entertaining to read too.. Besides I think that first impressions are usually quite tempi.. tempo.. GRRR.. hehe, temperamental - and not wrong to be so, but it can be a bit confusing sometimes, especially if you expect to find someone of a more repressed nature. I used to bitch and whine about a game for hours until I started to like it and were able to be rational about it, but I am trying not to, because some people just don't get the flow. This repression thing is kind of new to me, still, but I think I handle it pretty well. Of course it's easier to appear sane and rational if you don't post your frustration all the time, hey, maybe that's the solution to fanboyism.. Some little time consuming and tranquilizing riddle that you have to complete before you can post.. Maybe about rules and conduct, hmmm, nah too boring.

[Nightshape]

Ahhh... The reaction to Yellow not being an art direction on AP is flooding back.

 

AP, terrible artwork, terrible spangled texture, looked awful. Didn't get many happy fanboi responses.

[melkathi]

I was reading an article on massively. Then I looked at the comments.

The article was bad enough, blaming once more "fans' expectations" for the failure of SWTOR (in a way the article is right when it comes to me personally: I had no expectations whatsoever of the game and the game lived up to them )

But the comment section. That is tin-foil-comedy gold! It's like a train wreck you can read. One person lashing out at every other commentor and making up the majority of comments.

Very fitting for this thread and worth a look if you are bored and in dire need of a face palm:

http://massively.joystiq.com/2012/10/23/hyperspace-beacon-will-free-to-play-save-swtor/#continued

[Grimlorn]

Internet breeds fanboys.

 

But it also breed professional haters. People who are the other extreeme. They hate because they can.

As blidned as fanboys - often even moreso - their tastes and egos are the only things that matters.

Incapable of objectively rating a product, they will insist it's garbage if they don't like it.

 

This is the reason why DNF and DA2 got so many 0's and 1's.

Let's face it - they didn't live up to the expectations but they weren't THAT bad. Even with all the flaws they are rather average (as the vast majority of things really are).

Do these haters care? Nope.

 

In their eyes is someone, something angers or dissapoints it deserves only the worst.

They will eagerly call for the deaths of developers/writers, the ruination of companies (and by extent the people who work there and their families), all because of their fragile egos couldn't bear dissapoinment.

Almost everyone in that community votes 0-1 or 9-10. You can't just single out the people who vote 0 or 1. It's basically just a thumbs up, thumbs down system. And lets not forget the scoring system is screwed up anyways. A 5 should be average or mediocre. Instead 8 is, because people equate a 75-80% with average from school grades. If 5 were average DA2 was easily about a 3 well below average for numerous reasons. I didn't play DNF but heard people were disappointed by that.

 

And you can't trust game review sites/magazines because their revenue comes from ads from those publishers and they risk losing early copies of all the publisher's games if they don't give favorable reviews. They depend on each other in ways, so game review sites/magazines are just a part of publisher's PR machine. Does anyone really believe DA2 deserved perfect scores or close to it? And these were game review sites. "Journalists" paid to review games objectively.

Edited October 25, 2012 by Grimlorn

[Grimlorn]

True that the remarks against Bioware were out of hand after the initial release, but after much the people who felt let down moved on, what's left nowadays consists about 80% of two groups:

1. The devotees. 'Biowares ending had no plot holes. It made sense. Shut up or you'll offend me!'

2. Conspiracy (Indoctination) Theorists. 'There's no way Bioware's writing could ever be bad like what we say in the ending. It MUST be an intentional ploy that I've heard about that picks and chooses evidence.'

 

I feel like I'm in agreement with what the rest of y'all have said. I don't think that kind of thinking will plague the Obsidian community, as there is a strong sense of support between ourselves and the company.

You're right about this especially the conspiracy theorists. I saw people link to those hour and a half videos on youtube explaining why they thought there was an indoctrination theory. 5 seconds of rational, critical thinking would have debunked this theory, but these people were such big fans of Bioware they couldn't be rational and objective, so they had to create a more plausible explanation (at least in their minds) as to how the game could have ended with their belief in Bioware's greatness intact. This went on for months too. It runs pretty close to religious zealotry and is pretty scary that you see people going to such depths to protect labels/corporations. This doesn't bode well for the future. Edited October 25, 2012 by Grimlorn

[alanschu]

Almost everyone in that community votes 0-1 or 9-10.

 

I have literally seen people post reviews in metacritic that are "I really think this is an excellent game but it totally falls apart at the end. 0/10"

[Grimlorn]

Almost everyone in that community votes 0-1 or 9-10.

 

I have literally seen people post reviews in metacritic that are "I really think this is an excellent game but it totally falls apart at the end. 0/10"

So what? No excuse for the 10/10 scores either. Like I said ti comes out to basically a thumbs up thumbs down system in that community. Everyone either votes 0-1 or 9-10. If someone dislikes or hates a game they will vote a 0 or 1. If someone likes or loves a game they'll give it a 9 or 10 usually a 10 though.

 

If you want to avoid a bunch of people giving games 0s and 1s then make good games instead of bad games.

Edited October 25, 2012 by Grimlorn

[alanschu]

So what? No excuse for the 10/10 scores either.

 

ERrr, I think you're reading something into my post that's not there.

 

"So what?" People are disingenuous when using such a system when their statements don't reflect the vote given.

 

If you look closely, you'll realize we're arguing the same thing yet you decide to get defensive about it. I gave an example that SUPPORTS your statement. Sorry I guess?

 

 

 

EDIT: Actually I disagree with one thing. If I want to avoid a bunch of people giving games 0s and 1s, I should just not make games.

Edited October 25, 2012 by alanschu

[Orchomene]

That's why a system of notes with the average value computation giving the final result is absurd.

The idea is that 0 and 10 have more effects on the final result that a middle note.

Other systems are better (e.g. like/dislike and give the number of each).

About magazine reviews, I have no idea. Even if I read some reviews, it just gives an idea of the critical reception of the game, not if I will appreciate or not.

[Hassat Hunter]

Well, I don't trust online game reviewers, only my favorite mag. Which does like some games way more than me, but that's just a matter of taste.

 

Yeah, Metacritic is horribly broken. Youtube did the thumbs up/down since no one voted 2,3,4 anyway, just 1 and 5. While there was a lot of complaining, it works far better than to hold on to the system currently in place.

 

Metacritic is horribly broken anyway, with so many developers and publishers regarding it with too much interest.

[Nepenthe]

I was going to say something similar.

At any rate, any time you have huge influx of new users to a single place, it's likely there will be a period of a lot of duplication of topic themes/posts for a fair bit of time. Most people like to put their own two cents in, in their own words.

Of course, when there are no new users, we're still retreading the old ground.

[Volourn]

DA2 is not a below average game. Below average compared to what? Majority of games are way worse.

[Malcador]

They're fun to laugh at and provoke - buttons for them are pretty easy to read, after all - and tend to have pretty thin skins as well so it's not as if fanboys have no benefit.

[LadyCrimson]

I was going to say something similar.

At any rate, any time you have huge influx of new users to a single place, it's likely there will be a period of a lot of duplication of topic themes/posts for a fair bit of time. Most people like to put their own two cents in, in their own words.

Of course, when there are no new users, we're still retreading the old ground.

Of course.