[Editor's note: Ali D takes a look at fanboyism in the videogame industry, both in the journalist side and readership side. Can anything ever be done to fix this issue? Read on to find out. -- CTZ]
I read this interesting article on tech journalism, by Farhad Manjoo and the ideas contained could easily be applied to games journalism:
“Walt Mossberg, the Wall Street Journal's influential tech columnist, reviewed Apple's latest desktop computer, the iMac G5. He absolutely loved the thing; you can tell from his first paragraph, which would not have been out of place at a beatification: "I am writing these words on the most elegant desktop computer I've ever used, a computer that is not only uncommonly beautiful but fast and powerful, virus-free and surprisingly affordable."
Now this seems like glowing praise from a fairly influential tech journo. At the bottom of the article he mentioned that the only thing wrong with the G5 was the lack of a memory card slot and the fact the machine could have done with more memory for the price. Reasonable points you would think but Mossberg received a number of e-mails complaining about his negative review. David Pogue, the NY Times tech critic, wrote a glowing review of the iPod Nano in 2005 and his only complaints were that there weren’t multiple colours to choose from (accurate at the time) and that the price per GB wasn’t as good as an iPod mini. This caused one fan to e-mail in and ask whether he was happy “licking Bill Gates balls”.
OK, so the article was particularly about Apple hardcore fans reactions to perceived bias, but let’s faces it, hardcore gamers are quick to judge and see bias where there is none. A column over at GameSetWatch written by Leigh Alexander attempts to work out whether objectivity in a games review is really what we need. More after the jump.
“In this Metacritic-driven era, then, where game companies must show high scores to their investors and where those scores determine their next moves, it’s love that makes the world go round. Fanboyism rules the videogame industry.
What’s the solution, then? To accept that reviewers will be inherently biased toward their cultural icons and attempt to assemble as diverse an opinion pool as possible? To demand more “outsiders” write major franchise reviews, even if they’re less knowledgeable about the context?”
As Leigh does in her column, let’s take Smash Brothers into consideration: a reviewer playing this game will have likely have played the previous games in the series and will actually mention this during his review. If not, critics will cry foul and deem his opinion to be unfounded and biased. So what do we want? Sychophantic reviews that tell us what we want to hear? Reviews that are fair and balanced, but always finish with the phrase “but if you enjoy this sort of thing you’ll love this game anyway” which makes the whole review meaningless.
To give you something of a personal viewpoint, my wife picked up Lost Odyssey for the 360 understanding it got good reviews and she fancied some RPG action after finishing Mass Effect. A week later, we traded it in. Why? Well for starters, JRPGs aren’t my type of game. I really don’t like turn-based combat. I found the opening part of the game rather aimless and dull. All in all, probably not a wise purchase. But I’m not going to blame Jim Sterling for his review. He’s obviously a fan of JRPGs and that showed in his review, but is that bias for a genre he obviously loves or is it simply a frame of reference? If I had reviewed the game, I would have given it a low score, but I’m not JRPG fan and that would have riled some people who would have (maybe rightly) of not knowing what I was on about. Reviewers need a frame of reference, but not at the extent of blindly accepting the “more of the same” mentality of some gamers who are eager to accept the next installment of their favourite franchise with slightly better graphics.
Maybe we have no choice in the matter; Manjoo’s article talks about a study done at Standford University that explored the press bias in a more important issue than fanboyism: the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Students from pro-Israel and pro-Palestine groups were shown identical press reports and asked whether they thought the articles were fair and even-handed. The pro-Israel group found the articles favoured a Palestinian viewpoint and vice-versa. Robert Vallone, one of the psychologists that carried out the study says:
"If I see the world as all black and you see the world as all white and some person comes along and says it's partially black and partially white, we both are going to be unhappy," Ross says. "You think there are more facts and better facts on your side than on the other side. The very act of giving them equal weight seems like bias. Like inappropriate evenhandedness."
So maybe we’re blinded by our passion. It’s great when someone agrees with you and feels the same pleasure from a book, game, movie, album or piece of art that you enjoy. It hurts when someone slams something you love (and especially if you suspect they’ve no first hand experience of it). Maybe we just need to get it through our heads that opinions are like arseholes: everyone’s got one. What do you think?
Contest:
9:23 PM on 03.25.2008
| 
I personally don't believe absolute objectivity is possible, no matter how hard we strive for it, when it comes to games. We play them because we are passionate about them, as as a result our emotions are involved, likely on a deep level that roots back to childhood or whenever we first discovered them. Many gamers will tell you they found games got them through hard times: loneliness, lack of friends, difficult life events, etc. Now take that kind of background and try to be objective about games!
A fanboy, on the other hand, is a word that means to me tha a person judges without really seeing what is in front of him. A fanboy loves Sony so much that he refuses to even hear the complaints about the lack of games for the PS3. Nintendo fans are so dedicated they will slander your name if you even breathe a slightly critical word about their beloved Wiis. Surely there are a dedicated group of 360 maniacs too, ready to strike at any given moment.
The problem isn't in any console, but in the way these people treat others. It's a lack of thoughtfulness and rationality. In the end it doesn't matter which console is "best"(none of them are, as they all have flaws)It's about (as you said above) respecting the fact that everyone has an opinion, and whether it's right or wrong, they're still entitled to it.
Keep up the good work, bro.
Of course the problem would really be solved if everyone realized that I'm always in the right...
Very true. I shall bow to your ultimate wisdom from now on :)
BTW,thanks for the positive comments guys, I appreciate it.
For example, certain people are gameplay-first types, so a great story and great visuals are merely icing on the cake, but by themselves do not make a great game. Then there are others (I probably fall into this category), who put a great deal of value on things like story and atmosphere i.e. I love Rez HD, but admit that it has good, not great gameplay, but I am totally willing to overlook that in favor of other elements.
This is why number scores are inherently flawed. Two authors from the same review site/magazine are going to use two totally different criteria for grading the game, as they are two different people with two different sets of ideals. This leaves the reader a bit confused because they are naturally going to want to compare to compare the numbers from game A to the numbers from game B. If all reviews were only words, no numbers, there would be only the merits of the reviewer and the points he or she brought up to debate, and not something trivial like a score. I think we would see many less people up in arms over reviews and much more civil discourse taking place in the comments section.
But then again, the numbers are neat and tidy and easy to print on the back of boxes or in commercials, and I don't think they are going anywhere.
Hopefully that made sense.
I think the problem lies with the internet being a open market for people to run there mouth safe in the knowledge they will suffer no harsher repercussion then a few hateful words. Take Xbox Live for instance, i could go into a room and slate a certain gun, map or mode and chances are i will get a response from someone looking to prove them self.
Freedom of speech is a bad thing in the wrong hands, even in the right hands it still gets brought down by jerks.
Let's break the mental chains people.
For example, it's hard for me to imagine why someone would buy a $350 console knowing that is is likely to break. I understand that it may have a superior online experience, good games library, and does many things right, but because I haven't experienced them for myself, I have little incentive to embrace the positives. That's why I don't spend a lot of times talking about negatives; I will be speaking to an audience primarily consisting of people who do not fully understand the situation.
/geek
Oh well.
/not THAT much of a geek, I guess.
It's no big deal, it's just human nature.
People love to have their opinions vindicated, and hate it when they're not.
That, and people tend to make grand assumptions about you based on your favored console. Or whatever console you bought because you couldn't afford a more expensive one at the time. Like, I own a Wii, so apparently I'm a casual gamer who thinks that Nintendo can do no wrong. A Nintendrone if you will.
No, I'm just a gamer.
It is a very interesting view to see that all of us, no matter what, have some sort of gravitational pull to a certain side. But what about a rational thinking fanboy?
Someone who yes, prefers a certain media, but he/she/it is cautious and knowledgeable about rival medias and is black and white when it comes to comparison on all subjects. Yet that person still sticks to a certain side. What do you call that type of person?
But also... we can't forget one of the hardest things to acknowledge, and Colette, props to you to, that is a very important issue, and that is, "not all people can see through other peoples eyes" meaning, if you like FPS, and I like JRPG and we both hate each other tastes in gaming, it will be very hard to post something positive from our counter taste.
Like for e.x. I already noticed Samit loves sport games, (which no offence, I hate most sport games) I used to like sport games back in the snes era, but ive grown out of liking them. It would be very hard for me to post something about a sport game when I totally dump it as a whole due to my current taste. Does that make me a fanboy or a ignorant person?
Points of reference in a critique are almost required, but not to the point of weighting the contents therein to the point of uselessness by anyone with a different opinion.
I've tried writing multiple critiques for SSBB lately and have had to deal with quite a few people being upset with me and I don't even do this for a living! I can only imagine the death threats and hate mail that journalists get. Sheesh. More power to 'em.
Great read.
Not exactly what I was on about bro. ;)
I'm not exactly talking about factions that arise between gamers of the same tastes. It's what gamers who don't share those taste might be moved to call you over a difference of opinions. XBots, Nintendrones, the list goes on. I hate that stupid shit.
And I really can't stand it when people make blanket assumptions about your gaming habits based on what console you own or the type of games you favor over others. I might like fighting games, but that doesn't mean that I like them all. I might like platformers, but that doesn't mean that I like them all. I might own a Wii, but I'm neither a casual gamer or a Nintendo apologist.
You get what I mean, right? It's all so very tiresome and annoying.
"For instance, I fucking hate Halo, and if I wrote a review about it without telling that, people would be pissed that I shit all over their savior."
Liking Halo means that you hail it as your savior then? You can't just appreciate it for what it is without being a fanatic about it? Granted there are Halo fanatics out there, but they don't represent the entirety of the Halo fanbase.
Generalizing a group of people because of your own personal opinions is one of the silliest things gamers do, and they do it so often.
But then again there is a difference between opinionated and being a jerk that needs their opinion validated.
Some people are just so caught up in their own selves, so conceited, and sooo deluded, that they think opinion is fact. But only their opinion. I get a migraine just thinking these people exist, and would love to tell them how wrong they are. But then that's just my opinion and wouldn't want to be labeled a hypocrite by imposing mine on them.
And that Stanford study is just unbelievable. Two sets of people seeing two different things? Talk about blind delusion and selective objection
"Generalizing a group of people because of your own personal opinions is one of the silliest things gamers do, and they do it so often."
I think you're reaching a bit bro. I can't speak for everyone else, but I can imagine about a million ways to have fun. Engaging in petty, childish flamewars isn't anywhere on the list.
I found D-Toid at work one day, and continued to come around because for the longest time this place was different. It wasn't a magnet for trash-talking fan-boys back when I first showed up. People seemed to be fairly open-minded about things, and seemed to handle differences in opinions like rational human-beings. Debates were handled reasonably, and rarely devolved into fan-boy trash-talking.
Things have since changed, and increased popularity has brought with it the same sort of drivel that I actively avoid elsewhere. If the community wasn't still driven by intelligent open-minded individuals by-and-large, I would've cashed in my chips long ago.
I think that at the end of the day we're all well-served to follow our hearts, but to also remember that your opinions are only that. Engaging in silly drama over something as simple as say, one's console preference is about the dumbest thing you could do to my mind. I don't know about you, but it sucks the fun out of the hobby for me. It's rare to be able to talk to someone about video games who isn't a total fucking tool about it, and I find that sort of depressing really.
Reading flamewars is no more appealing. It's just a depressing reminder of how base and petty people can be over the matter of their opinions. So not even that has an allure to me. I find the entire flamewar thing to be bothersome and stupid.
So really, I think all the fan-boy drama is less about people trying to entertain themselves, and more own to the fact that everyone has opinions and love nothing more than to have them validated. Why else do we have console flamewars and the like, when if you cut down to it, that person A didn't buy console B means fuck all?
Anyway, great concise writing. Well deserved promo.
The reason that so many game websites can exist is because people are looking for that website and the reviewers that seem to have the same frame of reference.
I dont like any of the halo games, does that mean i think that all the game sites that gave it a 8.5 are sucking at microsoft's tit? hell no, they were looking at the game from a differant point of view that made sense to them.
Unless someone says stuff that is clearly wrong (fox news), the fanboys really need to have their rabies shots.
well what you said about the reviews is certainly true, that's exactly why I like reading Jim's reviews, I know he likes stuff like dynasty warriors and jrpgs, but I do too, so if he says DW6 is worth it, it'll prolly turn out to be worth it for me too ( as clearly shown with some of his previews reviews ), but on the field of FPS's I feel Rev Anthony has more my kinda taste, so I ignore what Jim says about it and check out rev's review :-)
Like that I know for most games to who I should go to get a review that's valuable to me too :-)
No one is truely objective, and 'striving for true objectivism' is bullshit. We all have past experiences, and we have all played games prior to the one we are talking about at the time. This makes us subjective, not objective.
The only way to achieve an objective viewpoint is to be magicked into creation at the point at which your opinion is required.
Or else we could surgically remove both of a reviewers Hippocampi, making them unable to lay down new memories, which may make objectivism a possibility, but someone would probably have to follow them around with a notebook, and see what they thought. Any volunteers??
Yeah, one can't never be objective, when talking about a review I think the reviewer should mention that frame of reference to give the reader a background on what might or might have not influenced him. Personally I try when talking with friends I think I use more comparisons (found it more: funny, original, dark, boring,etc) than personal opinions when talking about games, movies, books or tv shows.
Colette said it best - "The problem isn't in any console, but in the way these people treat others."
Seriously, where is the love? I will never understand the mentality of some gamers that feel they have to rip on people who have a love for certain games/consoles/styles that differs from their own. If you have nothing good to say, don't say it. Treat others as you want to be treated. Golden rule and all that jazz. Something about the internet that brings out the worst human qualities in people, its amazing.
I for one hate it when I mention a game I love and has affected me some way and someone rips on it just because they didn't like it and have this need to be better than everyone. If you didn't like it, fine, thats your opinion. There is no need for you to drop your pants and take a steaming pile on it verbally. You wouldn't like it if I did that to your favorite game, so what gives you the right... I mean, besides freedom to be a douche bag, er... I mean, freedom of internet speech.
Same goes for anything. I have friends who LOVE country music for example. I don't get it. I tell them as much when they bring it up to me. "Its not my style. Thats fine you like it, some artists are certainly talented but I just don't like it." There is no need for me to whip my belt off and start beating them over the head with it while screaming like an idiot about how country music makes my ears bleed and they should shut their lips and learn. Some people feel the need to do that... and some people just suck.
I prefer the PS3 over the 360 any day of the week, but even I will admit to its faults. But, at the same time, I will defend it from people who lie about the PS3 and its capabilities. I believe most people tend to be this way, especially on the Web, solely because it's the norm. It's one of the reasons that the 360 is more popular, because of the oftentimes blind support of the people online who have never actually played a PS3 but just repeat what others say.
If denying the absurdity that people say on a daily basis on the Web is a fanboy, then, yes, we are all fanboys. But I don't believe that I am a fanboy and tend to be fairly open-minded about my games and consoles.
Now that I got that out of the way... lol
I really enjoyed reading this article. Thanks so much for the wonderful opinion.
This is exactly what Dtoid did in their review of Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn a few months back. The reviewer said flat out that Fire Emblem was not her forte, signaling to fans of the series (such as myself) that some of her disappointments with the game might not carry over to their experience.
I guess I'm saying that it is up to the reviewer to convey a sense of who the game is for, and who its not for -- something the reviewer should be able to discern no matter what their biases (e.g. "I didn't like this game, but fans of the series or genre will probably find a good deal to like here.").
Of course, this requires that people read the text of the review rather than just skipping to the score...
Trying to be unbiased is extremely hard but I try to look at things and put them into perspective, like is this something that's based on a person's personal taste, or merely just a fact about the product. I tend to only half listen to reviews. I look to see what they have to say and if the negatives are something that I don't tend to mind, then I still buy the product. I never bitch about someone else's opinion of the item because even though they are trying to be unbiased, it still is an opinion.
I like to think that I'm not really a fanboy of anything but I admit to sometimes having a certain prejudice towards some companies but I try not to let that get in my way of me judging the product itself, not the company. Now I don't expect people to ever agree with me unless I'm stating a fact, and not an opinion. Often times people tell me things are crap but I just try them myself so that I may judge it to my standards.
I remember that I got really psyched about No More Heroes and that it just seemed like the greatest game ever when I read about it. It came out. Rev gave it a review that said that the graphics were bad. I became greatly disappointed since I had held it up to such high standards. Attacking the review would have been childish, even thought it was something that I greatly valued. I went out and played it myself and I loved it and that was all that mattered. I later saw a terrible review for it Game Informer. This upset me though because the things that they argued that made the game bad appeared to be based on opinion, such as the game's depth.
So why did one review bother me and not the other? It was more than just my respect for the reviewer. It was about reviewing objective facts and subjective opinions.
Well said man.
Objectivity is like lies, everyone uses it to a degree and it can be switched on and off at times (even though we might deny it). Logic, sense and rational amongst other things keep it anchored for many of us, from running aground onto senseless fanboy shores. A bit of maturity also helps us not stay on fanboy island for too long (younger dtoiders will hopefully learn this in time).
The ability to respect a reviewer/writers point of view, while agreeing/disagreeing also helps.