The Problem with Fanboys

First off, let me apologize for the lack of updates recently. It's been a busy month or so for me and Paul, especially with finals next week. Rest assured though, we plan on catching up on our writing over the winter break, so keep checking the site for updates. Now onward to the article!

***

With the advent of competing technologies comes groups of zealous fans that openly declare their allegiance to one company while denouncing the competition and their supporters. Nowhere is this more evident than in the world of video games.

Since the beginning of the industry, we've had advertisements telling us to buy an Intellivision over an Atari 2600 if we wanted a baseball game that was "the closest thing to the real thing." During the era of 16-bit gaming, Sega won many fans by touting the so-called "blast processing" capabilities of their Genesis. Fans of the system quickly joined together under the infamous battle cry, "Genesis does what Nintendon't." Of course, advertising and competition are nothing new. If companies want to try and make their product successful they must show that their competitor's product is inferior to their own.

Instead, what I'd like to focus on is the brand loyalty that is so inherit in gaming culture and the consequences of such loyalty. I will refer to this behavior as "fanboyism."

Gamers are fanatical when it comes to their hobby. Simply implying that one console or one company is better than another is enough to start a giant flame war on most message boards. People are so unyielding in their opinions that they will spend hours telling others why Console X sucks, why Console Y is awesome, and why supporters of Console X are idiots and need to "STFU."

But, why are people so adamant about their gaming preferences? Is it just blind brand loyalty? Could it be the result of years of playing one company's systems? What if one person had a bad experience with another company's console, never finding any games that interested them? Whatever the reason, fanboys (and fangirls) are prevalent throughout the gaming community.

And they are hurting the growth of video games.

By pledging loyalty to one system, players become extremely close-minded. They worship their console of choice, declaring it perfect and failing to see that no console is infallible. In some rare cases, fans will refuse to even play games on other consoles, coming to the conclusion that if it's not on their system, then it isn't worth playing. This results in players who lack appreciation for gaming as a whole. They are so adamant about supporting their favorite system that they miss out on the innovations and creativity of other games and consoles. If gaming is to grow and mature as a medium, then gamers must experience all forms of gaming available.

One of the biggest examples of how fanboyismis detrimental to gaming is my very own childhood. Since I was born, I was a Nintendo fanboy. I have had almost every Nintendo system at one point in time. This is because the NES was the first system I ever remember playing. Essentially, I developed brand loyalty from the very beginning. On the playground, my friends and I would argue over what systems were the best, and I would always side with Nintendo.

It wasn't until the previous generation of gaming that I bought my first non-Nintendo console: an Xbox. The reason for this sudden purchase? When the Gamecube was released, I found myself disappointed in the lack of good games the console offered. A friend showed me some of the games he had on the Xbox, including the original Halo. It was these occasional Xbox sessions that convinced me to buy my own system.

As I got older, I continued to branch out to other systems and see what they had to offer. It was through this that I realized the error of my fanboy ways. It's true that I played some incredibly important and influential games on Nintendo consoles, but there were so many other games that I missed throughout the years. Last April I beat Metal Gear Solid for the first time. I was ecstatic at how revolutionary the game was, and at the same time I was kicking myself because it had taken me 10 years to play such an important game. Likewise, only after I've finished Half-Life 2 am I now going back and playing the original. I've also just recently been introduced to all the old Lucasarts adventure games, and to this day I still get ridiculed for never beating Final Fantasy VII. I even missed the Sega Dreamcast, a system that was way ahead of its time. The point is that, by being a Nintendo fanboy, I ignored other games and other systems that were just as important to the growth of gaming.

The fact that I am arguing against a group of people that I was once a part of reveals an interesting point. It shows that no one is safe from fanboyism. If that's the case, then does that mean there's no way to completely eradicate fanboyism? There's no denying the fact that no matter how hard people try to rid the world of console zealots, there will always be a few present. However, if the majority of gamers can get together and be open-minded about their experiences then the fanboys and fangirls will become a dying breed.

In an ideal world, I see gaming as a Socialist business*. Each of the big console creators would come together and make one super console, that all games would be playable on. Then there would be no fanboyism and everyone would be able to experience every important game ever made. Until then, gamers need to put aside at least some of their petty brand loyalty, so that they can be open to the many different experiences video games can offer.

*This statement is in no way supposed to be representative of my political and economic stances. It's just a metaphor people, don't read too deep into it! Oh, wait...

A brief birthday message.

Hey everyone, today is Paul's birthday, so congratulate him on being one year closer to death! :D

I couldn't think of what to get you Paul, so here's a picture of a weighted companion cube birthday cake:

Have a good one buddy! :D

Also, I totally knew it was your birthday and not because facebook told me through it's automated stalker tracking system.

...Honest.

Gamer Poetry

Last year I wrote poems that focused on playing computer games. 

The best one is a sonnet. I didn't base this one directly off a video game experience, but I think you will see its connection to gaming.

"Play"

I brought my water gun outside to play

In Thailand's ninety-degree humid heat

No other kids were in the field today

No fun from victory, none to defeat.

Some chickens crossed the road, play things for me

They clucked their way near me and reached the creek

Unsmiling, I pumped the gun. Wanting glee

I aimed; I fired; I struck and soaked the weak-

Est yellow chick who hit the ground all wet

It crushed its eyelids; it could not make sound

It shuddered, freezing in the heat; it let

The air out of its chest, froze on a mound

Of dirt now wet, it slept, alone. And I

Stood by, now silent, asking why, oh why...

I submitted this to UCSD's Mania Magazine, and it's in the Fall 2008 issue. I recommend picking up a Mania Mag! They are good. 

It's gonna be awhile...

Argh! 

I have three hell-papers due within two weeks. I'm not going to have time to post anything super nice for sometime. 

But I promise to get this utility of gaming for fun series done by Winter Break.

The Utility of Gaming for Fun Part 1: Fun

THE POLEMIC AGAINST FUN: Fun most often perpetuates misery.

Fun, pleasure, the activity that fulfills your desire, has a bell curve effect on your happiness. It isn't a perfect curve, but it resembles it. From a state of happiness, fun will lift your happiness level and, once it is over, drop your happiness off the floor it started. How ironic a life of hedonistic utilitarianism is. It's ironic enough that the great pessimist philosopher Arthur Schopenhaur wrote of the things that bring us happiness as mere exciting transitions that, when over, leave us unhappy and wanting them again, making life a futile cycle of desire-pleasing.

That's the classic, secular argument against desire-pleasing, against pleasure, against having fun. But it's not enough to explain why it perpetuates misery.

A modern argument comes from the importance of good time management- both the "unlike money, you can never get time back" argument and the "place pleasure takes in the Time Management Matrix" argument.

The Time Management Matrix has to be partially explained first. First, click this link to view a Stephen R. Covey Time Management Matrix:

http://www.orgcoach.net/timematrix.html

Do that. Stare at the matrix and then continue reading.

Okay, have you stared at it yet?

Good.

I have to explain what to do with the "not important" boxes numbered III and IV: Do nothing that dwells in those traps. By doing unimportant things, you lose time you will never get back.

Playing games for fun can, and often does, match: "many popular activities"; "time wasters"; "pleasant activities" (this one is from another version of Stephen Covey's Time Management Matrix); and "escape activities"-all in the "not important" boxes. They can feel so fulfilling that our bodies and our materialistic, fun-addicted culture can convince us that unimportant activities are actually important to us

to the point where our self-esteem level is dependent on how much fun we are having right now.

Doing unimportant things increases the negative stress in your life. For so many, fun most often perpetuates misery.

THE APOLOGY FOR FUN: We cannot come close to maximizing happiness without fun.

What is the point of living? The universe is so large, why can we say what we do matters beyond our deaths? What's the point of moving people from a miserable life of poverty and war to a miserable life of wealth and peace? I.e. what's the point of taking people from unhappiness to unhappiness?

And would you pick a life of no stress and no fun over a life of high stress and lots of fun?

That last one is a weird question because it beckons the question: Can a person avoid being stressed out when their life has no fun?
That last one is a weird question too because it beckons the question: Can a person have no fun? Thinking can be fun.

Argh!

So the best apology for the apology for fun is: If it is the only way to maximize happiness, why not?

And now we have a paradox between the polemic and the apology: Fun brings misery and bliss.

But I believe the apology wins, and here is why: Fun shared between human beings is a powerful bonding experience, something that, when done habitually, makes something that lasts; fun fosters relationships when had well. Fun can also relax the body and mind which, for some people in some situations, prevents personal destruction. (Fun as praised in this paragraph goes in the 2nd box of the Time Management Matrix, "Important and Not Urgent." The matching descriptions in the box are "recreation" and "relationship building.")

These arguments may seem petty when we say: "Well, other activities do those too." But then we can regress to: "If it is the only way to maximize happiness, why not?" and combine it all.

Only fun can foster relationships, prevent madness, and bring states of bliss all at the same time. We cannot come close to maximizing happiness without fun because fun brings bliss. The apology for fun wins.

In part 2, I discuss how this relates to playing computer games for fun.

Utility of Playing Games for Fun Introduction.

Hedonism
noun
the pursuit of pleasure; sensual self-indulgence.
The ethical theory that pleasure (in the sense of the satisfaction of
desires) is the highest good and proper aim of human life.

"How is gaming no different from hedonism?" a special forces operator asked me. And I told him about The Sims and its time management lesson- how in The Sims, time, the game's non-cheat code-based resource, presents a utilitarian calculus from which our sims and we gods achieve things.

Lots of simoleans. Lots of commodities. Lots of friends. Death by furniture fires. Or, if game time is 'misused,' you have sims whose average happiness remain low for (in the first game) ever, with those few points of rapture in their lives being a horror show in juxtaposition with whatever else in their virtual lives you see.

The Sims is both a satire and a proponent for our lives, I told him; therefore, computer games are fun and can be didactic art at the same time!

But his question still pokes me because I know why he asked it: Most computer games, as of now, teach us nothing particularly useful nor provide game spaces where we practice potentially useful skills, including most of the best games. Most of the best games instead maximize fun.

So here's the question he should have asked:

"How is playing games that only maximize fun not a waste of time?"

I believe the best way to answer this question is to analyze fun and
time management.

Thoughts on Gaming Journalism

Recently, Dan Hsu has been posting articles examining all of the behind-the-scenes details of game journalism on his blog. About a month ago, he asked for readers to submit their opinions on the subject. After the deadline, he selected a few to post on his blog. Since I'm interested in doing game journalism, I figured I'd submit an article. Unfortunately, my article was not one of the few chosen to be published on Dan's blog. But, everything is a learning experience, and since I've started my own gaming blog in the intervening time, I decided to post my article here so I can get some feedback on what works and what doesn't.

For proper context you might want to read Dan's articles first:

Part One
Part Two
Part Three
Part Four
Part Five
Article submission announcement

And here's the article I submitted (AGAIN! FEEDBACK IS MUCH APPRECIATED!):

October 5, 2008

Game magazines have always been present in my life, even when I was young. Often, I would sit down with a copy of Nintendo Power or EGM and absorb every detail in that month's issue. As I read, I thought of how cool it must be to be a game journalist. You spend all day playing video games and then write about them! How could that not be a cool job? Of course, as I got older, I realized such thoughts were naive. There's much more responsibility required of the job than I previously thought.

As a reader, I feel the most important responsibility of a game journalist is to write for their audience. There must be a strong bond between the writer and the reader. The writer ignores any outside persuasions and biases, providing the reader with an article as honestly written as possible. The minute a writer makes an article for a game company, or in order to reach some weekly article quota as instructed by their employer, the journalist loses a portion of their integrity and the quality of their writing suffers.

I understand the role of PR events and press conferences. They're a way to get the press, and the public informed and excited about new games, and they're simply a part of the game journalist job description. There is nothing wrong with attending these events as long as the main focus is the game or something that compliments one's understanding of a game. I agree with Shoe that there may be some merit in being treated to a UFC match if you're reviewing a UFC game. Living the experience can help a writer judge how accurate or realistic the atmosphere of the game is.

However, there are a few problems with this corporate relationship. One problem is the events where the main focus is not about the games, but rather throwing lavish parties for the press in hopes of swaying their opinion. Treating clients and business partners to fancy dinners or a night with a female companion are just cultural methods of doing business. The problem is that even if the journalist knows the old song and dance, there's still a possibility that these events will compromise the integrity of that person's article. It might convince a writer to be a little more lenient on that company's game, or even worse, make them believe that if they write a harsh review, the company will use their free dinner or swag as leverage against the writer or the company they work for. In the latter case, it would be comforting to know that your supervisors would support your opinion. Yet, they may not support your article at all, especially if the game company threatens to pull their advertising over a bad review.

Journalists are not innocent in this relationship either. In order to maintain an unbiased opinion, journalists must take caution in what gifts they accept and what requests they make. Making outlandish demands of a company's PR group is not only unprofessional, but also brings a journalist's moral values into question. It feels a bit like a black market trade. If the company gives them free tickets to a baseball game, or a five star meal, or washes all their clothes for them, then the journalist will write a more favorable review of their game. Therefore, the journalist is no longer writing for their audience, but for their own personal gain instead.

The main thing a reader wants is honesty. As long as the writer provides a fair and truthful opinion about a game, the reader will be content. Shoe's advice on dealing with PR groups is great. It's okay if the writer partakes in a free game or a fancy event every now and then. If they're straightforward and honest with readers, then the readers will be respectful to the journalist. That being said, working for a company that appreciates your honesty doesn't hurt
either. Even if a person gets fired for reasons irrelevant to a score they gave a game, if the company isn't honest about what happened, readers will assume the worst. This is why game journalism must maintain a strong and truthful relationship with its most important subjects: the readers.

Written by Colin "Satchamobob" Wheelock

Jennifer Tsao Leaving 1up.com

Another good journalist is leaving 1up.com for another job in the game industry. 

Take a look at her send off; it says a lot about the history of gender in the business (the post is titled "Girl Talk"):

http://www.generaltsao.com