I started this as a comment in
Ryu's blog, but it was getting too long, so I made a separate blog out of it all.
To quote Burch and DAvis- "Deal with it."
First (and off-topic), I want to say something about the word "fanboy" itself.
It sort of pisses me off.
I mean, what's wrong with being a "fan"? What's wrong with being a "boy"? I mean, that's most of us, right? The truth is, most of the people we call "fanboys" (or who call others fanboys) aren't really videogame fans at all. Sure, videogame fan can have their preferences and favorites, but any true fan of the medium would never "swear allegiance" to just one videogame console. If they did, they'd miss out on too many great games.
I think we should think of something else to call "fanboys", like "haters" or "shit-breathing fucking haters". It's the
dislike of videogames (usually the ones they don't have) that make "fanboys" so irrritating, not the fact that they are fans or boys. To use the term "fanboy" in a negative way just feels a little like self hatred to me. Like I said we're all fans here, and most of us are boys, so why would we want to turn "fanboy" into a dirty word?
Take the movie Fanboys (seen above) for instance. It's about Star Wars fans, and it makes them look like sweet, dedicated, lovable dudes, devoid of hate or malice. There is nothing in there about being biased against Star Trek fans or bashing The Matrix for not being "hardcore" enough. The term "fanboy" in other areas of geekdom, doesn't mean "mean spirited, biased dickhead" like it does among videogame fans. I think that may be because other types of "geeks" aren't quite as self-loathing as videogame fans sometimes are.
Which puts me back on topic. I think a lot of the people we call "fanboys" are really,
really self loathing. I mean, these are people that get so worked up about the fact that their taste in videogames isuniversally approved of that they feel the need to fight it out on the internet with other videogame fans who have just
slightly different tastes than theirs. I know that to a Sony fanboy or a Nintendo fanboy, the difference between the two companies may seem huge, but to most people it's like arguing about what's better, llama farts or donkey farts.
OK, not really. I just wanted an excuse to type "llama fart", but you get the picture.
My point is, what does that tell you about the the self esteem of a "fanboy" that the need to constantly put others down in order to build themselves up (in their own mind, anyway) and fight their fear of not being perfect? Those are all signs of someone with "little ego strength" as they say in the psych world, and are meant to be pitied, not further belittled.
On the other end of it, some people who only buy console per generation and go on to "fight" to prove that their console is the "best", do so out of genuine investment in the evolution of videogames. These are the "fanboys" who take their stance in "the console wars" to be more like a democrat of a republican takes on an election. If they go about their self appointed tasks properly, they don't completely ignore the strengths of the other party, but ultimately, they still want their philosophy to win.
That's because with videogames, these "wins" matter. The kind of game that becomes dominant in the market right now may continue to be dominant for a long time, or at least, that's what the opinionated fan sometimes believes. As someone that loved 2D games (and still do), I admit that I was quite the raving "fanboy" in the mid 90's, when 2D games started to die out and polygon based graphics started to take over. I didn't want my favorite types of games to become extinct, and sadly, they did anyway. All my letters to DieHard Gamefan about how Street Fighter Alpha looked better than Tekken 2 did nothing to stop the tides of gaming's development. Yes, I was a sad, angry panda at that time, thought I've since learned to shut up and just love 3D fighters for what they're worth.
Anyway, that kind of near-complete extinction of an entire genre
is still possible with videogames, because videogames are the only form of entertainment that is still really, truly evolving. All genres of film, music, books, even fine art have all pretty much established themselves by now. The same kinds of movies made big money in the 70's still make money now. The same types of books that people wrote in the 60's are the same that people write in today. Styles change over the years, but the at their roots, the genres of romance, drama, horror, and comedy are still the same, and still all have a place in entertainment.
Videogames aren't like that. There has been a constant evolution in videogames since the start, and certain genres have more or less died out over the course of that evolution. When games first got big, it was games like Pac-Manthat sold, then Super Mario Bros, then Street Fighter II, then Final Fantasy VII, then Metal Gear Solid, then GTA, and now Wii Fit; all them totally different types of games, all steps forward in the evolving face of videogames. With that level of variance in the "dominant" gaming genres over the past 20 years, fans are going to see the medium as a malleable, dangerously fragile thing; one that could change into something they don't like at all any time.
That's why I initially didn't like the 360. I saw it as a representation of everything I didn't want gaming to become; overpriced consoles focused on online, monthly pay-service games with "realistic" graphics and inflated "blockbuster" budgets. Since then, I've come to really like the 360 and what it represents, but that's because it now costs $199 and has games like 'Splosion Man, Geometry Wars, Castle Crashers and Braid.
That said, I don't think anyone, from the niche' genre fans to the online FPS fans to the "blockbuster game" fans to the old-school platforming fan has anything to worry about these days.
We're all "winners" now.
Just about every genre of game can become a hit these days. That's why I think this is really the golden age of gaming. To have Uncharted 2 and Critter Crunch both get great reviews and sell very well (by early reports anyway), and both on the PS3, and both come out
in the same month shows me that today, every type of game has a chance in today's market.
So on one hand, I understand why some people get heated about their favorite kind of game and the chance that it will eventually becoming extinct, but I also think that that kind of thinking just isn't necessary anymore.
I think it will probably be a few years before "fanboys" figure that out though.
Jonathan Holmes's blog
follow this blog
subscribe via RSS
send message
invite to meetup+play
Thanks, Holmes. This makes me feel a lot better about myself.
@ Mkshiranui- Really? Great!
How come?
Because now I know from a reliable source that defending something, even if it's only a plastic box, isn't a crime if you do it well. I was starting to get the idea we were all supposed to be equally supportive of everything.
@ Mkshiranui- Well, I don't know that I'm a reliable source, but I do personally believe that getting passionate about the games you like and don't like is a sign that games mean something to you.
When different art movements came and went throughout the 1900's, people certainly got pissed off and "fanboy-ish" about their favorite style of art giving way to new styles.
Personally, I think it's all in the way you show your passion. Insulting people who like the stuff that you don't like just makes you look like an Ad Hominem abusing butt-hole.
Personally, I think talking about what you like, and how it differs from waht you don't like, can go some way towards spreading the word about stuff that might otherwise be ignored.
Speaking of which, I have to get cracking on that Domino Rally review.
Defending things from unjust criticism is one thing (the Wii gets shat on entirely too much), but only owning one system and making uneducated statements about the others is just ignorant.
If a gamer only happens to have a Wii: people shouldn't have a problem if they brag about it. It's when those same people start saying stuff like "Mass Effect/Uncharted 2 is a shit game", that things go downhill.
Theres a difference between arguing unintelligibly about video games, which FANBOYS do, and having healthy discussion between friends about the merits of the PS3 vs 360 vs Wii. I don't think a single person who reads this blog, yes even those who troll, arn't PASSIONATE about games. The problem is the way you argue about them, and most people who do argue about them at all do it wrong. Fanboys don't hate themselves either. It's SO easy to not be volatile about game discussion, and yet people do it anyways? Why? Because they're douchebags plain and simple. They're not at all like political enthusiasts who argue stupidly about left vs right, because thats an argument worth having. Arguing about which console is better to own isn't going to affect you in any way, and thus is just stupid.
I too mourn the benign connotation of the the term fanboy. It's a bit contrived, but I prefer calling them console crusaders. Enjoyed both this and Ryu's take.
Yo Holmes, there's a really good video on 1up by one of the editors. This week's episode was actually about Fanboyism. I figured I'd share it, since I like Scott Sharky, and I like you, and I like discussing fanboys, so triple whammy for me!
http://www.1up.com/do/blogEntry?bId=9007044&publicUserId=5048614
Yo Phoniex, thanks for showing that to me. I especially liked the part where Nixon and Hunter S Thompson think about football helmets together.
Scott Sharky seems like a neat guy.
Good stuff man! I agree with alot of it :)
Only thing. In fanboys they really hate on star trek fans and star trek fans hate on them. I mean they keep a star trek gun in the comic store to weed em out. The star trek fan calls Han solo a bitch and they run over their Kirk statue, and the brawl near the end.
The term fanboy gets thrown around way too much...
If you like something so strongly and honestly, so be it. Love it. Just don't be a naysayer and attack other people's viewpoints or opinions. And if you choose to be on the defensive, at least show a shred of common sense and, please, show a hint of intelligence, please.
360 suks. Wii is weeek. And PS3 rulez. ;P
I still lament the death of 2D. Goddam shame.
I'm taking the term "Nintendo fanboy" back. I'm a Nintendo fanboy. Was one back before 'fanboy' was a bad word, and am still one now <3
Critter Crunch hasn't been selling well unfortunately.
I'm going to buy it right now.
Other than that, I can somewhat agree with what you are saying.
I don't think the word "fanboy" was the point of ryu's original post. He seemed only to use it to argue that anyone ignorant about the quality of other consoles and of unwavering devotion is not going to change and that they will be quick to jump to conclusions, and I would add harmful to the video gaming community as a whole. The word "fanboy" can be assigned to that (as well as other things), but that didn't seem to be exactly the goal of his blog - to define terms.
One way you can look at the term fanboy is that you are a fan, and you are a boy. To be a boy though is to be immature, and though it's great to have an inner-child you shouldn't embrace the things that make being a child lamentable. Because honestly, most people being called fanboys are simply immature.
Then again, I'm pulling this out of my ass. I thought this workaround up on the fly. I'm probably the last person who should be talking about this. I don't even especially like the term gamer. I'm the poopy head that prefers to refer to himself as an enthusiast, not a gamer.
True, being immature isn't the best thing in the world, and that is a big part of what the word Fanboy means. I guess I just think that if we can keep from connecting "fan" from "immature", we probably should.
It's like the word implies that there is something wrong with being a videogame fan, which would mean that on some level, we've bought into what we've all been taught; that there is something wrong with liking videogames (especially if you're over 21).
And it looks like I was wrong about Critter Crunch and the movie Fanboys.
Way to go, me!
I'm more of a fanboy of developers than I am of consoles. While I do have certain consoles that I gravitate towards, I get much more ravenous in my support of developers, sometimes to the point of irrationality.
The only system I've ever been a fanboy for, probably, is the PC. And those can often be the most annoying, unfortunately.
nice blog!
Holmes, I gotta hand it to you...I am just now getting around to reading this post, and I sure wish I'd have done it sooner.
"Llama Farts vs. Donkey Farts" is a great way to sum up 95% of the fanboy fiasco. There's nothing wrong with being a fanboy about a game or franchise, and I defend that right until I hit the snooze button on the celestial dirt nap. What's asinine is defending a system - one backed by a manufacturing company - and most often times blindly, to boot. To say that one thing is blatantly better than the other based on some stupid version of brand loyalty seems downright lacking in the logic department. It's more than appropriate to defend the Wii because of its games rather than attacking it because it isn't an "HD" system in the traditional sense of the term. It's appropriate to champion a particular developer, and even their console exclusive offerings, but I don't believe it's fair to judge something based on the system that it's released on. If anything, the system is the foundation, and the game is how you choose to use that foundation to build something around it. You can't claim that Halo is inferior to Killzone because of the system that it runs on, nor can you claim vice-versa. Well, you can claim that, actually...you'll just come off sounding like a pathetic little asshat.
This is why some folks on this site grind my gears incessantly.