next »

[Squiggly_P]

The problem with subscribing to a theory like this is the fact that any sort of defence can then be interpreted as 'fanboyism'.  I take offence at anyone using blanket statements like "Anime is bad", which is what this guy does.  You could say that "Indie games are bad", and while you'd be correct, you'd also be incorrect.  There are both good and bad indie games, good and bad anime, good and bad books, etc.  In fact, the terms "good" or "bad" are being used in an objective way when they are - in fact - describing a subjective reaction to something.  He doesn't like something, therefore it must be 'bad', and this causes him to look down on those who enjoy those things he dislikes.

A lot of people do this, and I have to admit that I can be a pretentious jerk when it comes to film in general or 3D game art.  It's a good idea to separate the subjectivity of artistic work from the craft when people talk about movies, games, music, etc.

I enjoy both Star Wars or Raiders.  Sure, there wasn't a hell of a lot to them as far as plot or complexity, but they are entertaining and are definitely not poorly made.  I'd put them well into the 'good' side as far as craft goes, but then one of my hobbies is watching and reviewing modern Straight-To-DVD and B-Movies.  My perception of 'bad' has been significantly altered by this.  Transformers 2 almost looks well-made when compared to something like "Magma: Volcanic Disaster" or "Driven To Kill".

Almost.

So yeah, I think this is just a case of someone trying to justify their dislike of things that a lot of people like by imagining a theory that places him in what he perceives as a higher social status than those people he considers 'fanboys', tho the fanboys themselves would probably think the exact opposite and both opinions are equally illogical.  You take some films like "Citizen Kane" or "Seven Samurai" and play them to a modern, young audience and the reactions of the vast majority of people would probably be "That was boring", and most people would dislike them.  This obviously doesn't make them 'bad' movies, and those few who actually defended the films would be subject to the same 'fanboy' label that is described here, just through being in a minority about something.

Actually, his closing argument kills that as well...  I fail to see how religion is 'fanboy' behavior.  The vast majority of people on this planet hold some sort of religion.  Perhaps he just means individual religions.  I'd think that atheists are the real 'fanboys' of religion, and I don't think he'd like being labeled as such given the tone of the rest of the article.

[FatHat]

  I'd think that atheists are the real 'fanboys' of religion, and I don't think he'd like being labeled as such given the tone of the rest of the article.

I.. uh.. what? Not believing in religion makes you a fan of religion?

I don't believe in leprechauns either. Does that make me a leprechaun fanboy?

[FatHat]

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

Being the best console shooter of all time is kind of like winning first place in the special Olympics.

[Jolli]

yo mom is a special olympic

[falsion]

Goldeneye and Perfect Dark 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

fixed.

[Simon Andersson]

Haven't read the article, because I'm lazy that way. But I think being bad in some areas certainly helps gathering a fanbase. If something's bad, people will start attacking it. If people starts attacking something, other people will start defending it.
Fandom is born.

The real reason however, is that some people care too much and gets laid to little. Thus finds it wothwhile trying to defend what kind of entertainment they like on the internet.

[Captain_404]

An article such as this one just goes to show how flawed American democracy truly is! By electing the person with the larger fanbase, we are actually electing the worse candidate! Silly founding fathers!

</sarcasm>

I do think this idea has some merit though. Albeit, something doesn't have to be necessarily bad to garner a fanbbase, it only has to have a significant portion of people who criticize it for one reason or another, which causes a portion of those who like it enough to defend it. Criticism itself does not make a thing inherently bad. Heck, a thing could be perfect and still have a fanbase.

[BlueSweatshirt]

I think a good substitute for 'bad' in this case is 'subject to (at least moderately) heavy criticism'.

[Mitchard]

Ha! Suck on it Beatles!

Also, I would usually dismiss this outright, but all of my favourite Films/Bands/Games are pretty flawed. It's interesting.

[Don Andy]

He doesn't like something, therefore it must be 'bad', and this causes him to look down on those who enjoy those things he dislikes.

Yah, I think that's a pretty big problem. People often end up saying (myself included) "This is bad" when it really just means "I don't like this".

It's also why I think stuff like ratings in reviews are somewhat meaningless. It reflects the personal opinion of the author, nothing more, yet people get colossal boners when IGN gives some game an exceptionally bad or good mark. Metacritics has at least a bit of credibility by factoring in various rating, both the good and bad ones, and getting somewhat of a middle point, but in the end stuff like that is entirely subjective. One's 1/5 is another's 5/5.

Distinction between "good" or "bad" only really works for technical aspects, like say programming of a game (a game riddled with bugs that make the game hardly playable for anyone can indeed be called bad) or anything hardware (a controller so brittle it literally dissolves in your hands can also safely be called bad).

[Inanimate]

It's why, whenever critiquing something, I always make sure to say "It is objectively [good/okay/bad], but in my personal opinion I [like/care not for/dislike] it.", or something along those lines.

[William Broom]

The guy who wrote the article is a bit of a twerp (you will see what I mean if you read some of his other stuff). I can certainly see how he equates his own tastes with objective quality. However, that doesn't mean his argument is completely incorrect. If you look at the argument with Jakman's substitution in mind, it seems quite plausible.

However, I don't think that simply 'subject to criticism' is quite enough to replace 'bad'. Becoming a fanboy is not just about responding to other peoples' criticism of the game, it's also about responding to your own doubts. i.e. Xbox fanboys are born from people who are afraid they will get the red ring of death; anime fans are people who know quite well what the faults of anime are but aren't willing to accept them.

[Don Andy]

I'd like to mention that "fanboys" =/= "fans" so be careful with the placement of words here, it might rub some people the wrong way. Fanboys are usually the people who react to any sort of criticisms with very harsh retaliations (often calling in question their opposite's sexuality) while fans tend to be the people who just like something and are generally aware of the bad sides.

Although I admit that the line between a fan and a fanboy can be a very blurry one.

[William Broom]

I guess so, but the type of person that the article was written about seems to be closer to 'fanboy' than 'fan'.

[davidp]

Yah, I think that's a pretty big problem. People often end up saying (myself included) "This is bad" when it really just means "I don't like this".

this is true.

It's also why I think stuff like ratings in reviews are somewhat meaningless. It reflects the personal opinion of the author, nothing more, yet people get colossal boners when IGN gives some game an exceptionally bad or good mark. Metacritics has at least a bit of credibility by factoring in various rating, both the good and bad ones, and getting somewhat of a middle point, but in the end stuff like that is entirely subjective. One's 1/5 is another's 5/5.

yea, that's why i prefer reviews without any numerically valued conclusions (1/10, 31%, etc), only listed pros and cons. well, even these are a matter of taste, but give far more of a reviewer credibility (or not) and overall informational value.

[moi]

Why, HALO is TEH BEST GAMEZ EVERRRRR
Lol

I'm 16

[Brother Android]

This writer is sort of an idiot.

Also, I'm through denying it. Halo is fun. It might not be original game design or anything, but it's well-balanced, has pretty deep gameplay and is, yeah, fun. People in the indie community give it a bad rap as sort of a knee-jerk reaction to its popularity, seems to me.

[Tycho Brahe]

I wasn't trying to knock halo (even though it seemed that way) I was simply trying to find a good example. I enjoy halo as much as the next man, but I was really put off by all the publicity about it, compared to my enjoyment of the game. I found that after playing it, sure it was good and sure, it helped redefine a genre, but I found my experience didn't live up to what I'd been told about it. When I put this to people they all instantly defended halo and ignored/decryed any bad words said againt it. That's the only reasoning picked it as my example, I don't have a vendetta or anything.

[PsySal]

I like the original article, but I think that "badness" isn't quite right. Monumental badness does attract fandom but it's of a different variety than Star Wars does.

But I don't know what inspires that fandom anyhow!

[Seth]

I'm going to go back to what I was saying earlier about escapism being more important than badness--LOTR, Star Wars, Harry Potter, WoW, The Da Vinci Code may be bad but they are all effective at creating a world that is (arguably) more exciting than ours with fantastic elements, histories and secrets.  I can't, off the top of my head, think of any non-escapist book or whatever, bad or not, that has a large fandom.