next »

[FatHat]

I think this may be one of my favorite things written... ever:

http://plover.net/~bonds/objects.html

Some choice quotes:

What makes something an object of fandom? There are some works that attract obsessive fannish behaviour and some that don't -- and this seems to be independent of popularity. To take an example from LucasProduct, both Raiders of the Lost Ark and Star Wars are hugely popular movies, but only the latter has developed a significant fan base. Why? My theory is that for something to attract fans, it must have an aspect of truly monumental badness about it.

...

Once a work passes a certain basic all-round level of competence, it doesn't need the defence of fandom. It's impossible to imagine a fan of Animal Farm, the Well-Tempered Clavier, or the theory of gravity. Such works can defend themselves. But badness, especially badness of an obvious, monumental variety, inspires devotion. The quality of the work, in the face of such glaring shortcomings, becomes a matter of faith -- and faith is a much stronger bond than mere appreciation. It drives fans together, gives them strength against those who sneer. The sneers make their faith even stronger; the awfulness of the work reassures them of their belief. And so the fan groups of Tolkien, Star Trek, Spider-man, Japanese kiddie-cartoons etc. develop an almost cult-like character.

I need to stress that I'm just talking about aspects of badness; the above works all have their many admirable qualities which attract people in the first place (though in the case of Anime I'd be hard-pressed to tell you what they were). And I shouldn't confine myself to 'geek' subcultures; fandom also afflicts the 'mainstream' and 'high art' worlds, and for the same reasons. Stanley Kubrick might well make anyone's pantheon of great directors, including mine, but unlike Welles, Huston and others, Kubrick has a definite fannish following. And this is because his post-2001 work openly flirts with quite spectacular direness. 2001 itself treads the finest of lines between the infinite and the infinitely bad. Wagner is perhaps the only 'classical' composer with a fan base, and this is because his operas, despite their many remarkable qualities, always teeter on the edge of being truly, staggeringly awful, especially in stage productions. Much the same goes for James Joyce, and Shakespeare.

It makes me wonder... are we such fans of indie games because, perhaps, just perhaps, there is under the surface a truly staggeringly bad aspect to them?

[Gold Cray]

It makes me wonder... are we such fans of indie games because, perhaps, just perhaps, there is under the surface a truly staggeringly bad aspect to them?

Yes. See also: La Mulana, Dwarf Fortress

That's not to say this is always true, but there are certainly games that acquire fandoms and have monumental badness in them.

[Seth]

interesting argument, though I think escapism certainly plays a role (but of course I consider escapism bad too!)

[Golds]

Raiders of the Lost Ark and Star Wars are hugely popular movies, but only the latter has developed a significant fan base. Why? My theory is that for something to attract fans, it must have an aspect of truly monumental badness about it.

Indiana Jones Fan Fiction Archive

[William Broom]

That's a really good little essay, and I think it is probably correct, at least to some degree.

On the other hand I think that a streak of 'badness' makes for some of the most interesting works of all. In the case of La-Mulana for example, I think that if they removed the cheap traps and incomprehensible puzzles, it would simultaneously make the game better and yet not so fun to play.

[Codemonkey]

Huh, I guess I do get a certain thrill from being able to ignore things that other people can't in indie games.

[Tycho Brahe]

Exibit A: the halo series, monumentally awful (compared to things like crysis and call of duty), yet with a massive fan following.

[Chris Z]

Meh, the article lacks substance IMO.  It's an interesting idea but not very well supported, probably because it falls apart due to "bad" being completely subjective.  This argument requires that some agreed upon definition of "bad" and "good" exists in some medium when that clearly isn't the case.  Furthermore, someone or a large group of people can think something is terrible or the best thing since sliced bread but don't become fanboys of that something.

I also have a hard time buying that Halo is "monumentally awful" THEREFORE it's the most(or at least was?) played game on Live.  Opinion is obviously subjective, but there are good and bad aspects of a game (or movie). For Halo, the linear nature of the single player or derivitive mechanics might be seen as bad, but the accessibility of the online matchmaking, game modes, maps, vehicles and flow of the multiplayer make it good.  Point is, just because you aren't fan of something doesnt mean its terrible and that it's fans or people that do enjoy it have terrible taste.

[pen]

Exibit A: the halo series, monumentally awful (compared to things like crysis and call of duty), yet with a massive fan following.

Wat? Now I'm no halo fan, but the first one was pretty good for it's time, and the third one seems pretty fun and shiny - though I've only played a bit of the campaign. Crysis was very silly at times, and call of duty? more like call of yet another ww2 shooter

The halo hate on here is hillarious.

[aeiowu]

Exibit A: the halo series, monumentally awful (compared to things like crysis and call of duty), yet with a massive fan following.

Wat? Now I'm no halo fan, but the first one was pretty good for it's time, and the third one seems pretty fun and shiny - though I've only played a bit of the campaign. Crysis was very silly at times, and call of duty? more like call of yet another ww2 shooter

The halo hate on here is hillarious.

Art is a matter of taste, that's why some people love Durian and others hate it. Is there something awful about Durian? No. It's a fruit. But your tongue might hate it.

[pen]

Exibit A: the halo series, monumentally awful (compared to things like crysis and call of duty), yet with a massive fan following.

Wat? Now I'm no halo fan, but the first one was pretty good for it's time, and the third one seems pretty fun and shiny - though I've only played a bit of the campaign. Crysis was very silly at times, and call of duty? more like call of yet another ww2 shooter

The halo hate on here is hillarious.

Art is a matter of taste, that's why some people love Durian and others hate it. Is there something awful about Durian? No. It's a fruit. But your tongue might hate it.

yes, it all boils down to 'lol opinions', but you really haven't noticed the unwarranted hate of the game because of it's following?

[pen]

Well, it's kinda hard NOT to hate Halo for its following considering you're constantly confronted with them when playing online, which is the main point of the game.

As an aside, I've got a pretty bitchin' alliteration goin' on there, if I do say so myself.

What if the fanbase is the aspect of Halo which is truly monumentally bad - which is why it's got such a fanbase!

[aeiowu]

@Pen RE: Halo
Yea I think that's fair.

PS. I love Halo.

[William Broom]

Exibit A: the halo series, monumentally awful (compared to things like crysis and call of duty), yet with a massive fan following.

The key point in the article is not that the item is completely bad, rather it has a mix of good and bad aspects. The good aspects attract people to it, but the bad aspects force them to adopt a faith mentality in order to appreciate the game. I'm guessing that the attractive elements of Halo are the smooth controls, level design and multiplayer options; while the aspects they are more likely to defend on faith are the story, the atmosphere and the online community.

[FatHat]

Meh, the article lacks substance IMO.  It's an interesting idea but not very well supported, probably because it falls apart due to "bad" being completely subjective.  This argument requires that some agreed upon definition of "bad" and "good" exists in some medium when that clearly isn't the case.  Furthermore, someone or a large group of people can think something is terrible or the best thing since sliced bread but don't become fanboys of that something.

Well, yeah, but in the authors defense I think it was presented as a "here's an idea to think about" sort of essay and not a "here is a comprehensive and definitive proof" sort of deal. For what it's worth I think the phenomenon he's describing is real, but I think there's other factors in play that are also equally important.

[Tycho Brahe]

Sorry, yes, I was trying to provide a good example of what the article is talking about. I have played the first two halo games, and yes, I enjoyed them. But I can quite easily see the flaws as well, as I can with star wars.

I think one of the main points that the article failed to pick up on is the way most of the examples seem very generic AND comical. For example, halo at a first glance seems very much like any other space fps. You have your power suited protagonist, your screaming aliens, plasma weapons and anti-grav vehicles. What halo does differently is take things to the next level, with the aliens being so evil, or cowardly as to be comical (Eg the grunts running away screaming or the elites/brutes constantly churning out phrases on the tune of "Crush him"). Overall, I would argue that if halo was presented as a single player only game it would not have garnered as much of a following as it has. I think that it would have been received as a caricature of the space/fps genre, and would not have gained such a following.

Now I'm not saying that halo is crap, or rubbish, although I know some people will take it this way, but I am saying that halo is overly comical to be taken very seriously by me.

Anyway, its just a point of view. I think the multiplayer made halo, and I would agree it is fun (apart from its fanboys (the hoards of pre-pubescent idiots yelling NOOB at you every time you die, and HAXXOR every time you kill them (No offense to anyone who playes it without being a dick))

[godsavant]

Being that I've been researching the traits of objects massive fandom in hopes of using them in game design, this excerpt quite intrigues me; however, what I find confusing is the concept of 'bad'. From the responses posted so far, I'm going to assume that a "great product with obvious flaws" is what causes people to gravitate towards it, and what keeps it in permanent memory; thus, when these flaws are criticized by other people, it triggers a knee-jerk response of "yes, but look at all the things it did right...", the presence of criticism only strengthening their allegiance with the franchise in question - i.e. fandom.

[FatHat]

Being that I've been researching the traits of objects massive fandom in hopes of using them in game design, this excerpt quite intrigues me; however, what I find confusing is the concept of 'bad'. From the responses posted so far, I'm going to assume that a "great product with obvious flaws" is what causes people to gravitate towards it, and what keeps it in permanent memory; thus, when these flaws are criticized by other people, it triggers a knee-jerk response of "yes, but look at all the things it did right...", the presence of criticism only strengthening their allegiance with the franchise in question - i.e. fandom.

Yeah, I think that's basically it. In a sense its success despite its obvious glaring flaws make it remarkable, and so it becomes interesting enough to become a polarizing topic of discussion. And once you start polarizing people, it just entrenches their faith/fandom (or revulsion) even further because nobody likes to be wrong.

So in my opinion, its more the mix of remarkable + polarizing that's important, not the having flaws. But having big glaring flaws seems like an easy path to being remarkable and polarazing.

[Tycho Brahe]

Being that I've been researching the traits of objects massive fandom in hopes of using them in game design, this excerpt quite intrigues me; however, what I find confusing is the concept of 'bad'. From the responses posted so far, I'm going to assume that a "great product with obvious flaws" is what causes people to gravitate towards it, and what keeps it in permanent memory; thus, when these flaws are criticized by other people, it triggers a knee-jerk response of "yes, but look at all the things it did right...", the presence of criticism only strengthening their allegiance with the franchise in question - i.e. fandom.

I think that thats a perfect explanation/way of summing up the arguments. Ignore my arguments previously.

[davidp]

Halo 1 and 2 were the best console shooters of all times, especially multiplayer which is still... top of the pops, ESPECIALLY compared to other mediocre mp shooters (like cod for instance).


/no sarcarsm off

ALSO, playing EVERY online PUB GAME = fail.

did you ever played Dota publics, COD or Quake for that matter?
Playing with retarded strangers over the net has never been good, don't know why Halo players are always the problem.