COLUMN: 'The Aberrant Gamer - Auto-Neurotic Asphyxiation'
March 23, 2008 8:00 AM | Leigh Alexander
[The Aberrant Gamer is a weekly, sometimes NSFW column by Leigh Alexander, dedicated to the kinks and quirks we gamers tend to keep under our hats – those predilections and peccadilloes less commonly discussed in conventional media.]
We throw around lots of insults on message boards and comment threads, but there is perhaps none so common – and so virulent as fanboy.
What does that word even mean? Dictionary.com has no idea, but UrbanDictionary.com has several definitions. “A passionate fan of various elements of geek culture… but who lets his passion override social graces.” “A person who is completely loyal to a game or company reguardless [sic] of if they suck or not… a pathetic insult.” “An arrogant person… [who takes] the console war very seriously, as if it were a real war.”
Perhaps only in games does being a passionate fan become a negative. In film, hobbyists might have loyalty to certain directors or screenwriters, and comics has its Marvel versus DC – but is this sort of aggression so prevalent on movie or comic book websites?
This column has been quick to evaluate mob psychology in gamer behavior and condemn it as one of the major elements restraining games from attaining widespread social legitimacy. But fanboyism is a much more complex issue – particularly because none of us is immune. Not even the press.
The "Friend Response"
The human brain is engineered to respond with fondness directly proportionate to how often it sees something. Faces that it sees on a regular basis are programmed into the mind’s memory as “friends” – regardless of whether or not that’s really the case. Watch the same news anchor on a nightly basis, and your subconscious will instinctively consider that person as an ally of yours, even if you never meet the newsman face to face. When the mentally unbalanced send emotional letters to newsdesks or stalk actors, convinced that the actor is “in love” with them, it’s a maladaption of this so-called “friend response” mechanism, the stalker’s brain becoming all-too-convinced that that regular visual presence is a genuine element of his or her life.
But despite how people behave in comment threads, you don’t need to be insane to have a “friend response.” Just take the case of what might be called the average lifelong gamer. Chances are, his or her first console was a Nintendo, and his first favorite game was a Mario, maybe a Zelda. Even in eight bits, those characters were preserved and personified in a chain-reaction of positive association – perhaps even more quintessential than being “real people,” Mario and Link became proxies for our positive associations with our experiences. Mascots for our pleasure, just as they were for the company they represented.
Our Secret Language
We often discuss our desire for characters we can really believe in and fall in love with. But Mario, Sonic, Samus, Snake and others have even transcended characterization; during our long relationship with them, they became more like a language – just like a word, each of them is a single-symbol shortcut that corresponds to a distinct emotional loyalty, reinforced by the fact that for most of our lives, gamers have felt part of an exclusive minority culture. That also explains the affinity for Atari T-shirts, 1Up mushroom wristbands, and game-related forum avatars and profile pictures – though to us gaming is as important as any other hobby would be to non-gamers, we are more likely to attach to symbology, and more passionate about the color of the flag we carry.
Most lifetime gamers, then, have a built-in bias engine, whether they acknowledge it or not. For some, it’s much more conscious and overt – hence the “Fanboy” network of platform-specific sites, hence forum flamewars, hence almost frighteningly irrational ire over certain reviews. Most reviewers dread having to evaluate a new flagship Nintendo title of the Mario or Zelda heritage; while the PlayStation 3 struggled to gain traction in the market early on, every new release was viewed as a flashpoint as fans were desperate for a killer app, and detractors were eager to see it fail. Those early reviews, then, might as well have been a general’s decision in a war.
For others, it’s beyond awareness – I certainly do not suggest that all gamers are conflict-craving flag-carriers who flock to message boards to vehemently defend even the slightest perceived insult against their favorite characters, developers, publishers, consoles, what have you. But the truth is, the cultural lexicon of games is still so young that it’s quite small, and therefore the repetition of certain elements or characters over time has been, and continues to be unavoidable.
None of us did not grow up with Mario, for example, and none of us is immune to the “friend response” of that repetition. And even those of us that might have managed to avoid the tide of early fandom have probably developed a counterculture – in favor of PC adventure games, in favor of the Japanese import palette, in favor of another, less-appreciated mascot, with our faith all the stronger for having been minimized in an already-small arena.
Inherently At Odds?
There’s a quintessential conflict here, however. A reviewer must weigh, for example, a Nintendo franchise title in the context of the franchise’s history. Should someone who’s never played a Mario game in their lives be reviewing Galaxy? Shouldn’t Metal Gear Solid 4, when it’s time comes, be weighed at least somewhat in the context of its prequels? Shouldn’t games intended for the core market be evaluated by someone from the core market?
In any event, game journos play a lot of games. A lot. And it shouldn’t be otherwise; how else to generate an educated opinion but from experience? Game fans deserve evaluation from writers with at least as much experience as they themselves have.
Reviews, then, demand that same kind of strong experience that also cannot prevent that cultivated, long-lived emotional response from becoming an ingrained subconscious reaction. Every reviewer, whether he or she is aware of it or not, is a fanboy.
I would like you to briefly indulge me by participating in an exercise. Remove all of the mascots and familiar faces from Super Smash Bros. Brawl, and replace them with original constructs. Notice, if you will, the somewhat clumsy user interface, the high percentage of total content that must be unlocked to be enjoyed, the complete lack of usability of the Wii controls, and the lack of significant graphical or gameplay progression over the previous generation. It's true that even then, you’d have a good game. But would you have a 10 game?
What does it mean that I’m hesitant to even state my opinion that it’d be a 7 game? And what does that crap even mean, anymore?
Hanged In The Court Of Opinion
Game reviewers are taken to task often brutally if the readership catches even a whiff of bias. Lately, discussions of game journalism have revolved around whether reviewers should be “fully objective” or not – as if such a thing were possible. Game reviewers are cut of the same cloth as their audience, and having made their career out of it, might even be more likely than the audience is to have a few hairs rise on the back of their neck at the sound of the Hyrule Overworld theme, no matter in what context they hear it. They’ll never be able to completely resist the flood of positive association they feel when they see a familiar character, hear a familiar tune – a positive flood that can, and probably often does, influence a positive impression of a game.
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 video game 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?
The idea that game reviews somehow need reform or lack integrity is as prevalent as it is because fanboys are consistently displeased with them. It’s because of people’s innate, inherent and inextricable personal passions that the game audience is so impossible – just utterly impossible – for reviewers to please, to say nothing of game developers.
This constant discontent has the potential to disillusion both game journalists and game development. Fanboyism has become the stalker’s dangerous obsession with the TV news anchor, the unbalanced person who strangles a lover to death.
No 'Objectivity'
It may not be possible to stem the tide of fanboyism. It may not be desirable, either – who wants to be told that they must love their favorite thing less? But can it be de-venomized, at least, to minimize its ripple effect on people’s careers, and by extension, the health of the industry?
It can begin with game reviews – just picture what the industry would look like if there were a commonly agreed-upon moratorium on numerical scores. Second, let’s let go of the idea that a game review is akin to a product evaluation – it is that, but let’s accept that they’ve attained a complexity that completely invalidates the way we once did things, parsing games out by their technical components and then switching, jerkily, into an evaluation of subtext and the subtleties of personal experience.
If a reviewer’s positive experience of a game is influenced by its familiar franchise elements, it’s not a disqualification – it’s safe to say that most of the fans would experience that same influence. But for the sake of the industry’s future, the stamina of the developers (and please, the sanity of the journalists), let’s relinquish this idea that there is such a thing as “unbiased” for any single one of us, no matter how hard we try. I propose we embrace our own subjectivity, neutering fanboyism by accepting it -- because it sure ain't going anywhere.
[Leigh Alexander shamelessly declares herself a Metal Gear Solid fangirl, but still is too scared of you to discuss her console preferences. She is editor of Worlds in Motion and writes for Gamasutra, freelances and reviews often for a variety of outlets, and maintains her gaming blog, Sexy Videogameland. She can be reached at leigh_alexander1 AT yahoo DOT com.]
Categories: Column: The Aberrant Gamer








35 Comments
*sigh*
Oh fanboys... a side of the game industry that I wish could just be erased.
Shaan | March 23, 2008 2:39 PM
I wholeheartedly agree. The idea that objectivity should be the "goal" of the game review is patently ridiculous to me, as I believe it should be to anyone who has read reviews of any other medium of expression. Movie, book, art, and theater reviews, for example, make no claim of objectivity; rather, they provide a deliberately biased viewpoint, one that is biased by an aggregate of experience with the type of thing they are reviewing. Doesn't that make sense?
As you pointed out above, the fact that reviewers' arbitrary numerical scores determine the success of a game in the publisher's eyes is really the root of the problem. I applaud game publications that move away from such nonsense- I believe the latest EGM has switched to an F to A scale, which is a step in the right direction... I guess.
Birdsman | March 23, 2008 3:51 PM
I'll agree to what you say if you were to say NO to the following (which is basically the same thing):
-Would Sports games be THAT popular if they didn't use real team names and real players names & looks?
-Would Halo 3 be that popular if every Halo related stuff was removed and replaced with other things while keeping the same gameplay?
-Would Valve games be THAT popular if they were made by another company (keeping the same gameplay)?
-If SquareEnix made a Final Fantasy game, but later would have removed all FF elements (music, Chocobos, summons) and released it under another name, would that sale as well as it would have done with the FF name and elements?
the_importer | March 23, 2008 6:33 PM
What an awful article. Smash Bros. is fun to play regardless of who you're playing as, but the Nintendo fanservice is part of the point of the franchise. How is getting the opinion of someone who has no relevant information important? The most likely consumer of a game like Brawl is one who is familiar with its games (as they're playing it on a Nintendo system). And honestly, Brawl is a wonderful game and an improvement over Melee, so the points concerning that are...not valid in my mind.
Also, how is liking something make someone a "fanboy"? Didn't there used to be a time when kids just liked video games, or were they called Atari fanboys back then, too? For crying out loud...
Mikintosh | March 23, 2008 7:31 PM
Please come back to Destructoid, please?
SmashBrosFan | March 23, 2008 8:27 PM
While I agree with the sentiments you posted within the article, I'll have to disagree with your choice of case study. The Smash Bros. franchise--moreso than most--is built on fanboyism. Removing the Nintendo elements from the game is like, say, removing the social aspects from the Harvest Moon franchise. Sure, it's not what the game is ABOUT (Smash is a fighting game, Harvest Moon is a farming sim), but by removing this element, you're crippling the game significantly. A much better example would've been, say, Twilight Princess. While not as recent a title, it was still hailed as a brilliant masterpiece, even though (at least in my mind) it was significantly weaker than others of its genre. That said, I still agree with the sentiments you were aiming to put across, so I suppose it's a job well done.
Apple Kid | March 23, 2008 9:03 PM
Play magazine, a review system without any kind of objectivity whatsoever.
Witness the pavlovian friend response as the editor comes across any dreck 3D platformer on any platform.
----
Everyone already accepts that you cannot have a 100% objective review, it's not just about ticking boxes.
I think the vast majority of critics have scored Brawl for what it is, fan service. The entire game seeks to capitalize on the irrational fanboy emotions, and it succeeds in that perfectly. It's an entertaining party game packed to the gills with fun for any Nintendo fanboy.
You won't find a review breaking down the game mechanics, elaborating on the subtleties of control or the nuanced balance. That meticulous study is kept for the Street Fighter IV fanboys.
Critics are reviewing this game as what it is, fun filled fan service, and that's why it's getting 10s. It doesn't even try to be serious, so neither do the reviews.
It's not like its art.
jossi | March 23, 2008 9:23 PM
Brilliant article for the most part, but I think you're missing the fact that the characters, levels and unlockables are wonderful simply BECAUSE of their association.
Asking us to replace them with equivalent constructions is like saying: "Take all of the characters in the original Star Wars trilogy and replace them with equivalent constructs. Is the movie still as good?" Those who are unfamiliar with the characters may not find the same staying power in the game itself, but the "fun" factor literally increases for those who have had fun with the characters in the past.
That may be precisely your point, but I think that there's a subtle distinction.
Clumpy | March 23, 2008 10:41 PM
@Mikintosh: FUCK NO. Keep this away; the new writers are WAY better then this. Plus they write more often.
ZServ | March 23, 2008 10:42 PM
Sorry but this article is simply shit.
This seems to be from an Nintendo-Hater, which means the same than the fanboys around.
Where do you play? XBOX360? PS3? PC? Or do you even play ?
Go, get a serious job...
Ryo | March 24, 2008 12:08 AM
"Movie, book, art, and theater reviews, for example, make no claim of objectivity"
I disagree. In most cases, some movies/books/artworks have to be considered masterpieces, no matter what you think of them. I'd say that's art critics notion of objectivity there, because that list is completely immune to subjective opinions.
BTW, that fanboy writing right above this comment is one of the most hilarious ironies I've come across yet.
shadaik | March 24, 2008 12:56 AM
As a language fanboy, I must take offense at your misuse of the word "prequel". A prequel is a sequel to an existing work in which the storyline takes place chronologically before the previous work. Metal Gear Solid 3 is a prequel to both MGS 1 and 2. However, the series as a whole are not "prequels" to MGS 4, they are merely it's predecessors.
On subject, I understand your point, but to say "Smash Bros. without the Nintendo mascots" misses the point. The essential point behind Smash Bros. was to have the Nintendo mascots beat eachother up; the existence of the game is predicated by it's premise. You are entirely correct in that the game, stripped of the massive nostalgia factor, would be scored poorer for it, but it would also be a pointless product.
frankie23 | March 24, 2008 1:03 AM
I'm a game reviewer with 30 published reviews, and I have to say that I agree with the article. We have to accept that reviewers always come to a new game from a context of their prior experience. It is far better that we state whatever bias we are aware of, and hope that a) our editors can help smooth over any rampant unfairness, and b) our readers realise that every game review is a personal perspective upon the game and need not be seen as a criticism of their personal preferences for one genre over another, however damning the reviewer's comments.
Games with a long heritage, like the FF franchise, need a mix of reviews - some from people with knowledge and experience of the predecessors (yes, not 'prequels'), and some from people coming to the games reasonably fresh. There are gamers who always buy what they know, and there are always new gamers (& old) who like to try new things. The review-sphere (to corrupt the blogo-sphere idea) needs to cater for this too.
Ben | March 24, 2008 3:06 AM
There's some things in this article I'd agree with, but you need to differentiate between fanboy and fan.
Fans love certain things. This is good.
Fanboys hate certain things which they don't have. This is bad.
I'm playing Marvel Ultimate Alliance right now. I love it, because I grew up reading the old Marvel comics, and each of the characters is evocative. If it were generic characters I wouldn't like it. That's the game.
When I mention it to my friends (which is like reviewing it) I say that it's an OK game, unless they love Marvel, in which case it's great.
The Nintendo fans who love SSBB aren't wrong to love it. A good reviewer will be able to self-reflect and know which of their own feelings a reader might share, and how likely that actually is. There is no objectivity in criticism - just knowledge of others.
This article would be very good if you didn't conflate the need-for-validation of fanboyism with the emotional relationship of fans.
poshniallo | March 24, 2008 3:26 AM
Heh, can anyone say irony?
If the comments are representative then more of this sort of dialogue on this issue is needed.
Please keep up the good work. Challenging perceptions and promoting healthy debate is warranted, particularly when the 'next-gen' games are yet to represent anything other than graphics and hardware gimmicks.
Susenki | March 24, 2008 5:41 AM
Before I even read your article, very nice read by the way, I actually asked myself seriously: What is a fanboy? Am I one?
I pondered it for a second. I wondered why it had a negative connotation, why it was an insult. I thought, maybe I am one. I came to this conclusion because before I even read your article I had this feeling you were going to dis Smash somehow. But then reason set in and I decided you were entitled to your opinion. So I clicked through to see what you had to say.
I must say, I've been away from your column (SVGL) for a time now because of my fanboy-ism, and for that I am sorry. I forget what it was, but I found myself offended and removed you from my reader. But now I'm back, it won't happen again.
I agree with everything you've said 100%. Scores are lame, that body of text above the number or letter grade (seriously what's the deal with that) is what's really important. I don't think I've looked up a review score in about two months now. I like to listen to podcasts, and not just the ones for the system I own, I listen to all of 'em. When those guys talk fondly of a game from another system, then I tend to take it without the usual grain of salt. Thats when I feel like I'm getting some honesty.
BTW, don't you find it strange that there's all this Metal Gear stuff in SSBB and MGS4 is on the horizon. I thought we would be treated to music tracks from the Twin Snakes game that appeared on the cube but there's some awesome music in there from MGS3 & 4. Weird, but I love it. My favorite is Yell "Dead Cell". I may just get myself a PS2 again.
Ptolemy | March 24, 2008 6:07 AM
I agree with the article, but the fact of the matter is that fanboyism can go both ways. Fanboyism can help or hurt a game's overall standing. For instance, I completely loathe Sonic the Hedgehog, so I probably overstate problems with games that he appears in. (That's nothing major, though, because his games have been pretty horrible lately, anyway.)
While I don't believe that SSBB is a good example for this article, I must say that Nintendo games are, in general, far more prone to this practice. There are some Nintendo-made games that get far higher scores than other games that shared some of the same flaws, and that's simply not fair.
kevinski | March 24, 2008 6:28 AM
Fanboyism is what makes possible the amount of responses on this article. ;)
Franky Bones | March 24, 2008 7:16 AM
Let's consider this. Sonic the hedgehog sucked. But it had a very popular mascot, how do you explain that. While God of War, with no mascot got a 9+ from most sites. Legend of Zelda: Twilight princess was highly rated, but Half-life 2 orange box beat it in most locations.
What you're asking us to do is remove the story, and the presentation of the game, and just rate it on game play and what? The simple fact is there's no non-subjective way to rate video games fairly. Otherwise you get a list of X amount of things a game company can do to get a 10, and it doesn't matter how good the game because a great game like smash brothers, with mascots will get a 7, while a really crappy game that's boring can get a 10.
Saying Smash is a 7 game with out the mascots is fine, but the mascots is what makes smash not a normal fighter. The fact you finally can battle it out with Mario and Sonic. The whole intermingling of the worlds. That's what gives it the 9 or a 10. Not rampant fanboyism.
Kinglink | March 24, 2008 8:25 AM
I can understand the inclusion of game mascots may induce a kind of sedentary nostalgia in regard to gameplay for several hours, but I think anyone, even a raving fanboy, will be able to tell the difference between a medicore fighting game and a great one if they play it enough. I've never played SSBB, but Melee had a decent pro scene, so it must have been pretty balanced.
jamesl | March 24, 2008 9:40 AM
I really like your article and I think you've hit on some good points. It reads like a PSY major wrote this, as opposed to a random game critic. :)
However, I will say that while this doesn't detract from your article, I disagree with the line: "Perhaps only in games does being a passionate fan become a negative." I believe this is something seen in many different subcultures (also see: otaku) and exists in mainstream media as well - except that it is often diluted to the point of being less relevant. (For a good example, check out new movies done by an old action star - like Steven Segal, for example. Same mentality applies.)
Overall though, good job!
jason | March 24, 2008 1:48 PM
i can see what they mean and i do think fanboys are very annoying, despite my being one. lol. in reference to the smash brothers comment, while i agree taking the mascots away would take away the nostalgia, the game is still good. my main character is ike, and my friend's main is pit. two characters i have never before seen (i never played kid icarus). yet the game is still a lot of fun.
skjia | March 24, 2008 1:56 PM
a lot of people who play this game and love it are only acquainted with a few characters. make a game this huge with an equal amount of content and have it original and ill go buy it.
Adam | March 24, 2008 2:32 PM
Well it was an interesting read, I agree everyone is biased, it can't be help. though your stuff is just opinions as well, like for Brawl most of my friends actually prefer the wii controls ( I know they are crazy, gamecube controller for me) and when I saw the difference between brawl and melee the first thing that I thought was: "wow, Brawl has significantly better graphics than melee"
So I ask. Did we really need an article to simply state that everyone is biased towards stuff they like?
Flamepheonix182 | March 24, 2008 2:46 PM
alot of people have been talking about bias and how it effects games, one could make the argument that bias drives the industry (a point made several times) and what makes it worth playing games when they are released. thats pretty much the same reason i picked up Halo 3 and SSBB, because both had a real attraction to them. with out this alluring process, not only games, but movies, books, shows, music, it would all be jumbled around with all the other stuff thats out there. that would flame the fanboy war even more. without the sequel process and the remake or rehashing of old things made new this seems more like a total disagreement on business practice of the entertainment business
Fluffysushi | March 24, 2008 5:31 PM
Counterpoint: People who have never played a Nintendo game before and don't recognize the mascots often find the game fun. Very much so.
Rant destroyed.
Zorak | March 24, 2008 8:34 PM
You all have to remember that each character in a continuing franchise has had its start somewhere. From that success, people have begun to trust their product for the quality of the game that they starred in. Their gameplay is then upgraded as each sequel is released. Since you're seeing the same game over and over again, to keep people coming back, (aka the fanboys and such) the creators have to get, well, creative. That's how each critically acclaimed game is scored so high.
Imagine, if Super Mario Galaxy, Metroid Prime Corruption, The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess, Halo 1 2 and 3, the Final Fantasy series, God of War I and II, Metal Gear Solid 1 2 and 3, Super Smash Bros. 64 version Melee and Brawl, or any other successful franchise lost its core gameplay and was completely changed, would you be satisfied at all with the product? Would the gaming industry even exist then?
Sometimes, bringing back what is already amazing is a good thing, and it certainly keeps people happy. Bringing it back with more flair, visuals, music, and overall presentation is what keeps these franchises going. Our love for the mascots will not hold up if the gameplay starts to rot in the pit of failure. Remember the Sonic games? They did not hold up and sales for the game have not been doing so well. I sincerely hope that the franchise will eventually release the defining game to keep it going, but that is yet to come. "Fanboyism" will only go so far as the enjoyment of the game.
True, if the Nintendo mascots were removed from Brawl, then the game would not sell or score as well, even with its strong multiplayer. But keep in mind who the product is targeting... everyone. All who are familiar with Nintendo and like its products will basically fall in love with Brawl. And you have to admit, the content in the game is stunning, so why score it with no opinion to the characters? After all, the characters in the game is what defines it.
TheOne | March 24, 2008 10:24 PM
In passing: "Just take the case of what might be called the average lifelong gamer. Chances are, his or her first console was a Nintendo, and his first favorite game was a Mario, maybe a Zelda. "
Not if you were European.
KG
Kieron Gillen | March 25, 2008 4:47 AM
http://blogs.ign.com/thus_speak/2008/03/24/84825/
gary | March 25, 2008 5:31 AM
Green text? Green text?!?
I tried to read it, I really did.
(Green text!?)
jamesl | March 25, 2008 2:34 PM
Perhaps Smash would lose in ratings if they released games as often as King of Fighters did. I mention KOF because it's much the same idea, but then again it seems that KOF was the introduction for most people to those SNK characters, whereas most people played Super Mario Bros before SSBB.
BeamSplashX | March 30, 2008 5:20 PM
While I disagree that the IP was necessary to make Brawl fun and more than a "7", I do agree with the general gist of this article, which some of you seem to be mising.
Let me sum it up for you: people are whining about biases, and she's saying that games are too involving of a medium for us to not have them. We should just admit what they are, write our reviews, and be calm while the readers of these reviews bring their own biases into their opinions of the article.
Etelmik | March 31, 2008 12:14 PM
Imagine how much less exciting Subspace Emissary would be without well-known characters. Instead of "Hey, it's Snake!" it'd be "Oh look... some dude. Cool?" And then I can only imagine the complaints about the story seeming disjointed and single player being tacked-on. Since Nintendo used famous characters, they really needed no excuse to bring in the next one at any point. It's fine as it is, but you could NOT replace the characters to the same effect.
So I'd say the single player crowd would like it much less than the multiplayer crowd in that case.
BeamSplashX | March 31, 2008 3:02 PM
Very much so
Lucy | May 26, 2008 5:37 AM
Any structure remotly based on probability will surely fall due to human greed. People who fail to read history are bound to repeat it.
Ilda Cheers | August 22, 2011 12:53 PM