Originally posted by alfokenty Let's first define what a failed MMORPG is. Any suggestions?
'Fail' is more of a range instead of a specific state. You don't cross a line and are suddenly 'Fail' with mmorpg. There are levels to it and even types of failure. They go hand in hand with the 'Win' side of the range too. There are things the worst games do right, even if it's only in the concept.
For instance, Warhammer failed to get the subscribers or maintain the subscribers they said they would have. They also (imo) failed at the PvE side of their game. However, their end game PvP is one of the 'Win' things they did. In reference to the article, a 'fanboi' would probably either totally ignore any and all commentary on the leveling PvE of Warhammer, or they would actively deny that it's weak.
I don't think the 'fanboi' comes in until a person responds as if they were personally attacked because the game was criticized though. This could apply to any game, no matter its rate or type of failures.
I think also the MMORPG.Com forums have taken it to the next level, where complimenting a game will cause people to be defensive about games that aren't the game being complimented. This is 'preemptive fanboi attackism'. You preemptively attack that game before they get around to talking about how your game has some aspect of 'fail' associated with it.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by kilun Originally posted by Benthon
Originally posted by just1opinion With gaming, in my opinion, it's a bit different than with cars. Games are purely for entertainment and what entertains one person may or may not entertain another. So the term "fail game" becomes very subjective.
True. But what's being said here is that the more time you've invested in the product, whether through researching it, using it, etc., the more personally attached to it you are. So basically the article is telling us nothing? You time investment= attachment. Wow. I am totally blown away by that intellect needed to comprehend such a concept. This is another obvious thing that everyone knows. If I spend 5 minutes in something I can easily dismiss it than if I spend three weeks. Product=anything. From spouse to your lawn, people care about different things for different reasons. I mean wow your self-esteem actually relates to how you interact with things. I mean think about it..seriously this is something we didn't know? Someone tells you your bf/gf/spouse is a cheating pile of crap and they show you proof. Are you telling me that is going to have no affect? Its no different than in games to the car you drive. People don't like being told that what they are doing is a waste and garbage. You do not want to read about what you enjoy as something that is not generally well liked and gets hounded on daily. You go buy a game and all your friends say its a pile of crap you like it but they don't care so something you enjoy gets tossed aside while they talk about another game they all enjoy and probably say that other game is garbage. Leaving you feel that what you do is a waste. Could go on and on about the psyche of people but I am pretty sure we already all understand this basic stuff.
The article and the study was very specific. You can judge a person's level of self-esteem by how much they identify with the product brands they like. More identification = less self esteem. The follow up is how it affects your behavior. The lower a person's self esteem, the more likely they are to respond as if being attacked personally, rather than the product brand they like being attacked.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Let's first define what a failed MMORPG is. Any suggestions?
One that closed down prematurely, not from lack of time but from lack of developer skills & funding.
That is an abosolute failure. Closing down a game completely is the result of many other failures that lead up to that situation. If a game closes down on Dec 15th, then odds are it wasn't a success on Dec 14th.
There are many layers that lead up to the extreme failure of an mmo.
It should have enough players to sustain the company and not result in massive layoffs, huge cuts in development, firing studio leadership, massive changes to the revenue model, etc.
It should have enough players to recoup the initial investment and provide a return on that in reasonable time.
It should have enough players to sustain the initial expectations and not close down huge percentages of servers within a few months. This is more of a sign of things failing, but I can't think of a single game that has done this and not been disqualified for at least one of the two points above. I think it was Mark Jacobs of Mythic that said if warhammer was adding servers six months out there were a success. If they were closing servers six months out they failed.
There are other degrees of failure to add to that. Many are subjective, but the above is a pretty good indication of success or failure.
None of the above is a guarentee that the game is going to close down though. Many projects can be cut and slashed to the point where expenses are less than revenue, but that really is just surviving. On a scale going from success to failure, that is far closer to failure than it is success by a long shot.
With gaming, in my opinion, it's a bit different than with cars. Games are purely for entertainment and what entertains one person may or may not entertain another. So the term "fail game" becomes very subjective.
You are just out of touch with the passion many of these players have for their games. If it was just a game, they wouldn't be so passionate.
I don't think you understood what I said. It had nothing to do with PASSION. You can be utterly passionate for a game, yes, but...if you ARE...it's probably entertaining to you. See my point? It has to do with the value of entertainment which.....is subjective. Regardless of what someone else thinks of a game, someone that enjoys it is not going to see it as a "fail game." For THEM....it's not.
If that is what you mean, then you are just wrong.
Look just because I look at players who can't let go a game as losers doesn't mean you shouldn't keep loving that game. But at some point, people need to grow up and IF a game gets people into negative cycles of thinking, then they need to see a shrink for addiction or ocd or whatever their problem(s) are. It's too easy for people to run away from life by finding games "very entertaining". If games are causing a problem in your real world, then you need to seek help.
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what
it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience
because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in
the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you
playing an MMORPG?"
With gaming, in my opinion, it's a bit different than with cars. Games are purely for entertainment and what entertains one person may or may not entertain another. So the term "fail game" becomes very subjective.
True. But what's being said here is that the more time you've invested in the product, whether through researching it, using it, etc., the more personally attached to it you are.
I agree. I wasn't disagreeing with the article, more with the term "fail games." And probably also with associating gamers' love of games with Toyota and that whole fiasco. Cars aren't an entertainment article. I think mentally we probably "bond" much more with our modes of entertainment.
Time invested and it's effect on passion for a thing, are also somewhat subjective. I might get very attached to something after only a week whereas someone else might not attach to it at ALL, or take much longer.
I'm sorry....I just take issue with some of the things we're trying to give concrete definition to in this thread. Things vary so widely from person to person that it makes it almost immeasurable. This is in MY opinion, of course.
Another article on how people identify with brands and how it affects their self esteem. It goes into why people will defend a brand even when there is something bad being shown about the brand. The example given is the Toyota recalls. I think it could apply very well to the MMO scene...especially here on MMORPG.Com.
With gaming, in my opinion, it's a bit different than with cars. Games are purely for entertainment and what entertains one person may or may not entertain another. So the term "fail game" becomes very subjective.
You are just out of touch with the passion many of these players have for their games. If it was just a game, they wouldn't be so passionate.
I don't think you understood what I said. It had nothing to do with PASSION. You can be utterly passionate for a game, yes, but...if you ARE...it's probably entertaining to you. See my point? It has to do with the value of entertainment which.....is subjective. Regardless of what someone else thinks of a game, someone that enjoys it is not going to see it as a "fail game." For THEM....it's not.
If that is what you mean, then you are just wrong.
Look just because I look at players who can't let go a game as losers doesn't mean you shouldn't keep loving that game. But at some point, people need to grow up and IF a game gets people into negative cycles of thinking, then they need to see a shrink for addiction or ocd or whatever their problem(s) are. It's too easy for people to run away from life by finding games "very entertaining". If games are causing a problem in your real world, then you need to seek help.
You obviously just don't understand what the word "subjective" means. You don't get to be right about something just because you WANT to be. It doesn't work like that for ANYONE. This entire thread is about topics that are completely subjective. There is no "right" and "wrong" when it comes to "defending a 'fail game.'"
I'm not going to try to explain subjectivity to you any more. If you don't get it, you simply don't get it.
With gaming, in my opinion, it's a bit different than with cars. Games are purely for entertainment and what entertains one person may or may not entertain another. So the term "fail game" becomes very subjective.
You are just out of touch with the passion many of these players have for their games. If it was just a game, they wouldn't be so passionate.
I don't think you understood what I said. It had nothing to do with PASSION. You can be utterly passionate for a game, yes, but...if you ARE...it's probably entertaining to you. See my point? It has to do with the value of entertainment which.....is subjective. Regardless of what someone else thinks of a game, someone that enjoys it is not going to see it as a "fail game." For THEM....it's not.
If that is what you mean, then you are just wrong.
Look just because I look at players who can't let go a game as losers doesn't mean you shouldn't keep loving that game. But at some point, people need to grow up and IF a game gets people into negative cycles of thinking, then they need to see a shrink for addiction or ocd or whatever their problem(s) are. It's too easy for people to run away from life by finding games "very entertaining". If games are causing a problem in your real world, then you need to seek help.
You obviously just don't understand what the word "subjective" means. You don't get to be right about something just because you WANT to be. It doesn't work like that for ANYONE. This entire thread is about topics that are completely subjective. There is no "right" and "wrong" when it comes to "defending a 'fail game.'"
I'm not going to try to explain subjectivity to you any more. If you don't get it, you simply don't get it.
Opinions are in most cases subjective. Also I hate the term "fail" what happened to "I don't like it, not my cup of tea"?
Take Rift played it for some weeks, figured out it became too much like another not so much liked game soon, so I canceled but that doesn't neccessary mean it "failed". From what I've been reading lately its doing quite ok or maybe well.
Or maybe a better example the new WoW did fail for me at so many levels, but some others like it so who is right now? Well both cause opinions are based on personal likes.
We need a MMORPG Cataclysm asap, finish the dark age of MMORPGS now!
"Everything you're bitching about is wrong. People don't have the time to invest in corpse runs, impossible zones, or long winded quests. Sometimes, they just want to pop on and play." "Then maybe MMORPGs aren't for you."
The explaination in the article is what I've pretty much figured to be the case for years.
A lot of people use the products and brands they like to build their identity. When they do this, they tend to perceive criticism of those things as personal attacks because they present a negative view of what they have built into their identity, and thus creates insecurity about ones self.
The reality is that other people have different preferences and opinions, and they're fully within their right to feel that way. Just the same as the "fanboy" is fully within their right to like what they do. The major pitfall however, is the overreliance of these people on commercial products and brands for their own self identity. Personally I don't think it's healthy to heavily integrate a brand or product into ones own identity.
With gaming, in my opinion, it's a bit different than with cars. Games are purely for entertainment and what entertains one person may or may not entertain another. So the term "fail game" becomes very subjective.
You are just out of touch with the passion many of these players have for their games. If it was just a game, they wouldn't be so passionate.
I don't think you understood what I said. It had nothing to do with PASSION. You can be utterly passionate for a game, yes, but...if you ARE...it's probably entertaining to you. See my point? It has to do with the value of entertainment which.....is subjective. Regardless of what someone else thinks of a game, someone that enjoys it is not going to see it as a "fail game." For THEM....it's not.
If that is what you mean, then you are just wrong.
Look just because I look at players who can't let go a game as losers doesn't mean you shouldn't keep loving that game. But at some point, people need to grow up and IF a game gets people into negative cycles of thinking, then they need to see a shrink for addiction or ocd or whatever their problem(s) are. It's too easy for people to run away from life by finding games "very entertaining". If games are causing a problem in your real world, then you need to seek help.
You obviously just don't understand what the word "subjective" means. You don't get to be right about something just because you WANT to be. It doesn't work like that for ANYONE. This entire thread is about topics that are completely subjective. There is no "right" and "wrong" when it comes to "defending a 'fail game.'"
I'm not going to try to explain subjectivity to you any more. If you don't get it, you simply don't get it.
Opinions are actually objective on the internet.
They have been for half a decade now
Damnit....I forgot about that.
Well paint my boots red and shove 'em in my mouth.
EDIT: I don't know why I said that. OMG....I'm "a fail." *uncontrolled sobbing*
Yeah....my REAL attitude about most things is "meh, blow me," but I worked really hard on my "give-a-shit quotient" for this thread, only to be met with people just as sarcastic and snotty as myself. Go figure. lol
They even use 'fanbois' in the title of the article. :-)
So they poison the well even before the first paragraph?
My expectation of an unbiased article are not high.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
Well, in response to the thread title, if it hasn't been addressed yet, "why do those who consider a game failed in their eyes, continue to keep tabs on, berate and talk shit about it!?" If its such a failure, why do you care then...move along and go play what you think is a success for fracks sake!
I think it's bigger than what the article hints at, people talk about 'fanbois' identifying themselves overtly with a product or a game, but you see it in equal measures or even more with people who have linked their identity to hating/disliking a product or trend.
You see it with music, where groups of people identify themselves with a subculture that scorns and hates on mainstream popmusic, you can see it with things like anti-government movements like in the US or anti-muslim groups that people identify themselves with where the only things that bonds those people together is their shared aversion of government or islam. And you can see it with games and MMO's where people are more passionate about disliking and and spend more time and attention to bashing MMO's they dislike than to games or type of games they like, in much the same way as a guy that likes cult or indie music is passionate into bashing mainstream pop music. In a way, the thing that they have attached themselves to is their dislike and aversion and their 'superior' (in their eyes) opinion and taste.
Originally posted by RefMinor
The only people who defend "fail" games are those who continue to play games they don't enjoy. The rest are defending an entertaining product.
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums: Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
I think it's bigger than what the article hints at, people talk about 'fanbois' identifying themselves overtly with a product or a game, but you see it in equal measures or even more with people who have linked their identity to hating/disliking a product or trend.
You see it with music, where groups of people identify themselves with a subculture that scorns and hates on mainstream popmusic, you can see it with things like anti-government movements like in the US or anti-muslim groups that people identify themselves with where the only things that bonds those people together is their shared aversion of government or islam. And you can see it with games and MMO's where people are more passionate about disliking and and spend more time and attention to bashing MMO's they dislike than to games or type of games they like, in much the same way as a guy that likes cult or indie music is passionate into bashing mainstream pop music. In a way, the thing that they have attached themselves to is their dislike and aversion and their 'superior' (in their eyes) opinion and taste.
Originally posted by RefMinor
The only people who defend "fail" games are those who continue to play games they don't enjoy. The rest are defending an entertaining product.
Good point.
So what people are really doing is defending their choices in life, both of what to like and what they dislike..... (especially since they feel everyone else should agree with their choices)
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
In light of the fact that a game's quality is more subjective than a car's quality, it's clear that defending a quote-unquote fail game can easily be caused by genuinely liking the game even as the majority genuinely dislikes it. It's just a difference of opinions.
The far more interesting question is "Why do people attack fail games?"
On forums, I've seen people desperate to bury the reputation of a game and the company that made it. These attacks go far beyond warning people away from a bad game... especially when you consider that liking or disliking a game is subjective. No matter how much you dislike the game, there are people who are looking for that style of game.
I think the reverse of what the OP is stating can be just as true. The ruthlessness with which people attack a game or even a whole genre says something about their self esteem too. While some is just the honest expression of a strong opinion, I feel as though the level of barely-disguised schadenfreude is related to people who are emotionally invested in the sandbox subgenre feeling the need to see the themepark subgenre fail altogether. Ditto for people emotionally invested in the subscription payment model needing to see F2P/P2W fail. And—bizarrely—there seem to be some people who are so invested in purity of MMORPG classics that they see every new variation as something to attack and hope to see it fail.
Originally posted by Ceridith The explaination in the article is what I've pretty much figured to be the case for years. A lot of people use the products and brands they like to build their identity. When they do this, they tend to perceive criticism of those things as personal attacks because they present a negative view of what they have built into their identity, and thus creates insecurity about ones self. The reality is that other people have different preferences and opinions, and they're fully within their right to feel that way. Just the same as the "fanboy" is fully within their right to like what they do. The major pitfall however, is the overreliance of these people on commercial products and brands for their own self identity. Personally I don't think it's healthy to heavily integrate a brand or product into ones own identity.
That was kind of my final take away. If you have a low self-esteem, you'll look for things to prop it up like games or a particular brand of vehicle, whatever. But they don't really help your self-esteem. So anything that threatens it is bad.
My usage of 'fail games' was intentionally dramatic. I could have left it at 'games' since it doesn't matter if the games are successful or failures for the fanboy effect to occur.
I still think these forums take it to a whole new level with preemptive attacks on games that get compliments or articles written about them.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Opinions are in most cases subjective. Also I hate the term "fail" what happened to "I don't like it, not my cup of tea"?
Take Rift played it for some weeks, figured out it became too much like another not so much liked game soon, so I canceled but that doesn't neccessary mean it "failed". From what I've been reading lately its doing quite ok or maybe well.
Or maybe a better example the new WoW did fail for me at so many levels, but some others like it so who is right now? Well both cause opinions are based on personal likes.
Perhaps the best point of this thread.
Not liking a game doesn't mean it is a failure.
Liking a game doesn't mean it isn't a failure.
The two are very different points that often get bound together and treated as one in the same.
So what people are really doing is defending their choices in life, both of what to like and what they dislike..... (especially since they feel everyone else should agree with their choices)
Hmm, yes, their convictions, the things they're passionate about and believe in, whether that's their enjoyment of a game or their hatred/dislike of a game or trend, and some take it to the point that an 'assault' on their opinion or viewpoint is regarded as an attack on their self.
A middle ground would be where you can be passionate about what you believe in, but are still able to acknowledge that there can be more viewpoints and arguments, not resembling your own taste or opinion, that can have their merits.
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums: Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
Comments
"why people make fail posts" that will be my next topic
'Fail' is more of a range instead of a specific state. You don't cross a line and are suddenly 'Fail' with mmorpg. There are levels to it and even types of failure. They go hand in hand with the 'Win' side of the range too. There are things the worst games do right, even if it's only in the concept.
For instance, Warhammer failed to get the subscribers or maintain the subscribers they said they would have. They also (imo) failed at the PvE side of their game. However, their end game PvP is one of the 'Win' things they did. In reference to the article, a 'fanboi' would probably either totally ignore any and all commentary on the leveling PvE of Warhammer, or they would actively deny that it's weak.
I don't think the 'fanboi' comes in until a person responds as if they were personally attacked because the game was criticized though. This could apply to any game, no matter its rate or type of failures.
I think also the MMORPG.Com forums have taken it to the next level, where complimenting a game will cause people to be defensive about games that aren't the game being complimented. This is 'preemptive fanboi attackism'. You preemptively attack that game before they get around to talking about how your game has some aspect of 'fail' associated with it.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
You have to find some scientific (or better yet, pseudo scientific) articles that somehow apply to making fail posts.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
So basically the article is telling us nothing? You time investment= attachment. Wow. I am totally blown away by that intellect needed to comprehend such a concept. This is another obvious thing that everyone knows. If I spend 5 minutes in something I can easily dismiss it than if I spend three weeks. Product=anything. From spouse to your lawn, people care about different things for different reasons.
I mean wow your self-esteem actually relates to how you interact with things. I mean think about it..seriously this is something we didn't know? Someone tells you your bf/gf/spouse is a cheating pile of crap and they show you proof. Are you telling me that is going to have no affect? Its no different than in games to the car you drive. People don't like being told that what they are doing is a waste and garbage. You do not want to read about what you enjoy as something that is not generally well liked and gets hounded on daily. You go buy a game and all your friends say its a pile of crap you like it but they don't care so something you enjoy gets tossed aside while they talk about another game they all enjoy and probably say that other game is garbage. Leaving you feel that what you do is a waste. Could go on and on about the psyche of people but I am pretty sure we already all understand this basic stuff.
The article and the study was very specific. You can judge a person's level of self-esteem by how much they identify with the product brands they like. More identification = less self esteem. The follow up is how it affects your behavior. The lower a person's self esteem, the more likely they are to respond as if being attacked personally, rather than the product brand they like being attacked.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
That is an abosolute failure. Closing down a game completely is the result of many other failures that lead up to that situation. If a game closes down on Dec 15th, then odds are it wasn't a success on Dec 14th.
There are many layers that lead up to the extreme failure of an mmo.
It should have enough players to sustain the company and not result in massive layoffs, huge cuts in development, firing studio leadership, massive changes to the revenue model, etc.
It should have enough players to recoup the initial investment and provide a return on that in reasonable time.
It should have enough players to sustain the initial expectations and not close down huge percentages of servers within a few months. This is more of a sign of things failing, but I can't think of a single game that has done this and not been disqualified for at least one of the two points above. I think it was Mark Jacobs of Mythic that said if warhammer was adding servers six months out there were a success. If they were closing servers six months out they failed.
There are other degrees of failure to add to that. Many are subjective, but the above is a pretty good indication of success or failure.
None of the above is a guarentee that the game is going to close down though. Many projects can be cut and slashed to the point where expenses are less than revenue, but that really is just surviving. On a scale going from success to failure, that is far closer to failure than it is success by a long shot.
If that is what you mean, then you are just wrong.
Look just because I look at players who can't let go a game as losers doesn't mean you shouldn't keep loving that game. But at some point, people need to grow up and IF a game gets people into negative cycles of thinking, then they need to see a shrink for addiction or ocd or whatever their problem(s) are. It's too easy for people to run away from life by finding games "very entertaining". If games are causing a problem in your real world, then you need to seek help.
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
I agree. I wasn't disagreeing with the article, more with the term "fail games." And probably also with associating gamers' love of games with Toyota and that whole fiasco. Cars aren't an entertainment article. I think mentally we probably "bond" much more with our modes of entertainment.
Time invested and it's effect on passion for a thing, are also somewhat subjective. I might get very attached to something after only a week whereas someone else might not attach to it at ALL, or take much longer.
I'm sorry....I just take issue with some of the things we're trying to give concrete definition to in this thread. Things vary so widely from person to person that it makes it almost immeasurable. This is in MY opinion, of course.
President of The Marvelously Meowhead Fan Club
"Why People Defend Fail Games" or, "Other People Have Different Opinions."
More at 11.
You obviously just don't understand what the word "subjective" means. You don't get to be right about something just because you WANT to be. It doesn't work like that for ANYONE. This entire thread is about topics that are completely subjective. There is no "right" and "wrong" when it comes to "defending a 'fail game.'"
I'm not going to try to explain subjectivity to you any more.
If you don't get it, you simply don't get it.
President of The Marvelously Meowhead Fan Club
Opinions are actually objective on the internet.
They have been for half a decade now
Opinions are in most cases subjective. Also I hate the term "fail" what happened to "I don't like it, not my cup of tea"?
Take Rift played it for some weeks, figured out it became too much like another not so much liked game soon, so I canceled but that doesn't neccessary mean it "failed". From what I've been reading lately its doing quite ok or maybe well.
Or maybe a better example the new WoW did fail for me at so many levels, but some others like it so who is right now? Well both cause opinions are based on personal likes.
We need a MMORPG Cataclysm asap, finish the dark age of MMORPGS now!
"Everything you're bitching about is wrong. People don't have the time to invest in corpse runs, impossible zones, or long winded quests. Sometimes, they just want to pop on and play."
"Then maybe MMORPGs aren't for you."
The explaination in the article is what I've pretty much figured to be the case for years.
A lot of people use the products and brands they like to build their identity. When they do this, they tend to perceive criticism of those things as personal attacks because they present a negative view of what they have built into their identity, and thus creates insecurity about ones self.
The reality is that other people have different preferences and opinions, and they're fully within their right to feel that way. Just the same as the "fanboy" is fully within their right to like what they do. The major pitfall however, is the overreliance of these people on commercial products and brands for their own self identity. Personally I don't think it's healthy to heavily integrate a brand or product into ones own identity.
Damnit....I forgot about that.
Well paint my boots red and shove 'em in my mouth.
EDIT: I don't know why I said that. OMG....I'm "a fail." *uncontrolled sobbing*
Yeah....my REAL attitude about most things is "meh, blow me," but I worked really hard on my "give-a-shit quotient" for this thread, only to be met with people just as sarcastic and snotty as myself. Go figure. lol
President of The Marvelously Meowhead Fan Club
Fail is in the eyes of the beholder.
Nothing truly fails it is simply appreciated by too few.
Refugee from UO,EQ,AC,AC2,AO,DAOC,L2,SB,HZ,CoH,PT,EQ2,WoW,VG,SWG,EVE,WAR,DF,MO,AI,GA,LOTRO, SWTOR... Gw2 on Deck
So they poison the well even before the first paragraph?
My expectation of an unbiased article are not high.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
Probably has something to do with: "being right = self esteem"
IMO, using the term "fail" is pretty, uh, fail.
While it probably started with the dawn of speech, the one-ups-manship/drama used in modern speaking really gets in the way of understanding.
"I didn't like it" = "Its FAIL"
"I have a different opinion" = "DIAF"
"You're wrong" = "LIAR"
"Not worth the $15 a month" = "fraud"
------- END TRANSMISSION
Well, in response to the thread title, if it hasn't been addressed yet, "why do those who consider a game failed in their eyes, continue to keep tabs on, berate and talk shit about it!?" If its such a failure, why do you care then...move along and go play what you think is a success for fracks sake!
I think it's bigger than what the article hints at, people talk about 'fanbois' identifying themselves overtly with a product or a game, but you see it in equal measures or even more with people who have linked their identity to hating/disliking a product or trend.
You see it with music, where groups of people identify themselves with a subculture that scorns and hates on mainstream popmusic, you can see it with things like anti-government movements like in the US or anti-muslim groups that people identify themselves with where the only things that bonds those people together is their shared aversion of government or islam. And you can see it with games and MMO's where people are more passionate about disliking and and spend more time and attention to bashing MMO's they dislike than to games or type of games they like, in much the same way as a guy that likes cult or indie music is passionate into bashing mainstream pop music. In a way, the thing that they have attached themselves to is their dislike and aversion and their 'superior' (in their eyes) opinion and taste.
Good point.
The ACTUAL size of MMORPG worlds: a comparison list between MMO's
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums:
Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
So what people are really doing is defending their choices in life, both of what to like and what they dislike..... (especially since they feel everyone else should agree with their choices)
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
In light of the fact that a game's quality is more subjective than a car's quality, it's clear that defending a quote-unquote fail game can easily be caused by genuinely liking the game even as the majority genuinely dislikes it. It's just a difference of opinions.
The far more interesting question is "Why do people attack fail games?"
On forums, I've seen people desperate to bury the reputation of a game and the company that made it. These attacks go far beyond warning people away from a bad game... especially when you consider that liking or disliking a game is subjective. No matter how much you dislike the game, there are people who are looking for that style of game.
I think the reverse of what the OP is stating can be just as true. The ruthlessness with which people attack a game or even a whole genre says something about their self esteem too. While some is just the honest expression of a strong opinion, I feel as though the level of barely-disguised schadenfreude is related to people who are emotionally invested in the sandbox subgenre feeling the need to see the themepark subgenre fail altogether. Ditto for people emotionally invested in the subscription payment model needing to see F2P/P2W fail. And—bizarrely—there seem to be some people who are so invested in purity of MMORPG classics that they see every new variation as something to attack and hope to see it fail.
That was kind of my final take away. If you have a low self-esteem, you'll look for things to prop it up like games or a particular brand of vehicle, whatever. But they don't really help your self-esteem. So anything that threatens it is bad.
My usage of 'fail games' was intentionally dramatic. I could have left it at 'games' since it doesn't matter if the games are successful or failures for the fanboy effect to occur.
I still think these forums take it to a whole new level with preemptive attacks on games that get compliments or articles written about them.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Perhaps the best point of this thread.
Not liking a game doesn't mean it is a failure.
Liking a game doesn't mean it isn't a failure.
The two are very different points that often get bound together and treated as one in the same.
This sums up Final Fantasy XIV completly.
Hmm, yes, their convictions, the things they're passionate about and believe in, whether that's their enjoyment of a game or their hatred/dislike of a game or trend, and some take it to the point that an 'assault' on their opinion or viewpoint is regarded as an attack on their self.
A middle ground would be where you can be passionate about what you believe in, but are still able to acknowledge that there can be more viewpoints and arguments, not resembling your own taste or opinion, that can have their merits.
The ACTUAL size of MMORPG worlds: a comparison list between MMO's
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums:
Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."