Article on Fanboys, Exclusivity, and Sonic the Hedgehog

[Dyrnwyn]

No matter what you say or how much time you spend explaining how reality actually works you will not alter his opinion. He is...wait for it...a fanboy.

Far from it. I've found Relasine's posts to be largely devoid of fanboyism. He doesn't make the claim that PP is better in all respects. He mentioned one of the reasons that GW gets so much negative attention is that they do a number of things to garner that negative attention. PP, in contrast, does less that inspires wrath among its player base. Not that one company is objectively better than the other, but part of the reason for the continual butting of heads.

Some (and in my experience most) PP players have there heads stuck-up there arse's (Fact!)

Honestly, now. This smacks more of fanboyism than anything Relasine posted.

I don't read the PP articles. However people who tread both side of the line have told me that it is a far rarer occurence for 40K players to be crayoning on PP articles.

Large target, I'm afraid. GW is still the monolith towering over the market and that makes it an easy target.

I always felt that fanboyism is about justifying the investment you made to yourself. You invest in a game system, be it wargaming or console gaming, or even PC gaming - it's financial at first, and then after a while investing time and effort, it becomes emotional. People look at what other systems offer, and theirs doesn't, and start to get a 'grass is greener' vibe. They present arguments to themselves about why their system is best, and thus why any shortfalls they have to experience are simply a consequence of having the best. If for some reason the fanboy switches 'teams', they're likely to be vitriolic regarding their original system because they regard the time, money, effort, and emotional investments they made in their original system as wasted. This is more common in mono-system or mono-company gamers who have limited funds. The most jovial and un-fanboy like gamers I've met are old guys who have an army for EVERYTHING, and regard all of their investments as worthwhile.

As far as the GW v. PP thing goes - I agree with most of Relasine's posts. GW is a big company, it's been around for a while, and has made a number of mistakes that angered it's fanbase. PP's smaller, has had less time to make mistakes, and tried to keep itself from making the same mistakes GW made. They're currently benefiting from being smaller, younger, and seeing what to do and what not to do in following GW's footsteps. Not to to say PP is a better company - but that for some, the perception is that it's better, because it's actively avoided old mistakes, and it hasn't been around long enough to commit more than a few brand new ones (supply issues!). I'm sure if we give PP another 10-15 years, there will be more player resentment, and more issues that crop up.

At least that's my view on the issue.

[Kovnik Obama]

Why don't you address the meat of my post instead of having a hissy fit about me saying you would be a halfwitted dolt if you can't grasp the facts. I spelled out exactly why defending and understanding the rationale are different, if you can't grasp that then you would be a halfwitted dolt who lacks subtlety, I did not say you were.

Though it is quite clear you do seem to lack an appreciation for nuance

Actually, he is more right than wrong. There's even an adage that goes, ''understanding is forgiving'', or something along those lines. Basically, if you say you understand the rationale, than you state that it is a valid argumentative point, in the sense that you are finding a logical implication which can then serve as a defensible point in favour of the argument. Or...

Understanding argument -> imply logical structure to said argument -> imply logical validity to the argument.

basically, if you say

GW had a reason to increase costs when switching to a new, cheaper materiaI

Than you say that they were right. ''Reason'' implies validity.

[wittdooley]

I always felt that fanboyism is about justifying the investment you made to yourself. You invest in a game system, be it wargaming or console gaming, or even PC gaming - it's financial at first, and then after a while investing time and effort, it becomes emotional. People look at what other systems offer, and theirs doesn't, and start to get a 'grass is greener' vibe. They present arguments to themselves about why their system is best, and thus why any shortfalls they have to experience are simply a consequence of having the best. If for some reason the fanboy switches 'teams', they're likely to be vitriolic regarding their original system because they regard the time, money, effort, and emotional investments they made in their original system as wasted. This is more common in mono-system or mono-company gamers who have limited funds. The most jovial and un-fanboy like gamers I've met are old guys who have an army for EVERYTHING, and regard all of their investments as worthwhile.

Yay. Someone got the comparison I made with wargaming and video games. Shew...

[eldargal]

No. GW had a commercial reason to increase prices, but they could easily have let the savings pay for the cost of switching to resin and earn themselves a bit of respect from the playerbase. They chose not to, I understand why but I still feel it was the wrong decision.
Your statement that understanding a different viewpoint validates it is utterly absurd. It is quite possible to understand a decision you disagree with without validating it. To argue otherwise is to imply that in any given situation one side is objectively wrong which is grossly simplistic and fails to take into account the potential complexities of a situation.

Actually, he is more right than wrong. There's even an adage that goes, ''understanding is forgiving'', or something along those lines. Basically, if you say you understand the rationale, than you state that it is a valid argumentative point, in the sense that you are finding a logical implication which can then serve as a defensible point in favour of the argument. Or...

Understanding argument -> imply logical structure to said argument -> imply logical validity to the argument.

basically, if you say



Than you say that they were right. ''Reason'' implies validity.

[Mauglum.]

Hi wittdooley.
Thankyou for you reply.
I apologise for my poor writing skills.(I am an native english speaker, but I do suffer from cognative dispraxcia.)

As reguard to game complexity , this is achived using a mix of strategy and tactics.

Gamers pick the game that appeals to them the most, on the strategy-tactical loading scale.

If we use a slot racing game as an analagy.

If we view the track as the tactical interction, as the amount of track types ,corner types and thier sequencing required the players to make 'in race decisions'.

And we class the amount of cars, seperate types of adjustments we can put on the cars , tyres- , spoiler- wing set ups, etc.As the strategic elements.(The stuff the players sort out before they start to race.)

Then the complexity of the game play is made up of a ratio between the amount of track and the amount of cars/ car component options.

A racing game with ONE track (starting oval,)track has limited replay value.Adding more cars -car components adds a little variety , and a little more gameplay complexity.

However, a few more sections of track can greatly increase the variation in the track layouts.

And thefore greater game play complexity is easier to achive with expanding tactical options, (track).

I view the level of tactical interaction as the 'meat and potatoes' of the game .The strategic overlay then makes up the balance.
Tactical complexity is generated by the game mechanics and resolution methods.
Strategic complexity is generated by seperate element definition.

Tactical and strategic elements are both equaly important.
And games vary greatly on how they load thier rules.

However , GW plc appears to overload on the strategic factors in 40k , simply to support short term marketing.

There is absolutly NOTHING wrong with the gameplay of 40k.Just the way the rules are written exclusivley.

If the rules were written inclusivley , focusing on the gameplay , they would be alot less complicated, and allow us to view the tactical -strategic balance more clearly.

And the limitations of the rule set would also be more obvious.I belive alot of folks make a massive investment in 40k.And then feel they have to try to justify thier level of investment.

I am not that heavily invested in any particular game.(We proxy alot at our games club...)

TTFN

[Kovnik Obama]

[QUOTE]o. GW had a commercial reason to increase prices, but they could easily have let the savings pay for the cost of switching to resin and earn themselves a bit of respect from the playerbase. They chose not to, I understand why but I still feel it was the wrong decision. QUOTE]

Then you DON'T think they had a reason. You think they had an escuse. An argumentative statement is necessarily valid toward an objective end (logical implication). Otherwise, it's a sophism, or more modernly, an excuse.

Your statement that understanding a different viewpoint validates it is utterly absurd. It is quite possible to understand a decision you disagree with without validating it. To argue otherwise is to imply that in any given situation one side is objectively wrong which is grossly simplistic and fails to take into account the potential complexities of a situation.[

No. It's impossible to understand an argument without giving it a high level of validity, exactly because any given situation has an objective truth (logical validity) that can be accepted by any reasonnable being. Of course, the simpler the argument the most apparent that objective value will be apparent.

[Gotthammer]

Finecast cost money to impliment through new moulds, trainging, packaging etc. GW theoretically had two options here - eat the cost on their end and wait for the long term savings on metal to pay it off, or raise prices now to cover the investment in a much more immediate way.

I understand the reasoning behind GW's descision to go for a quick return on the investment, it may even have been crunched by accountants as the more fiscally stable in which case GW would be obliged to their shareholders to do it. I don't agree with it.

Another example: Today at work a customer wanted me to drive to her house to bring a replacement for a faulty product. I couldn't as it's not a service the store provides. She thought it was unfair that she'd have to come back to the store to replace this item, as it was late at night, cold and raining, and told me I was being unfair to her. I understand her frustration and annoyance that she has to make the return trip to fix somthign that isn't her fault. I didn't agree with her expressing her anger at me as there was nothing I could have done to prevent it or fix it beforehand.

Thrid one: I don't like surrealist art. I understand why people find the concepts interesting, but I don't. Similarly, I like arguing about stupid stuff on teh internets, but I can fully understand that some people can find better ways to spend their time.

There is not always a single objective truth to some things that can be labelled as right or wrong. And someones viewpoint can be valid, even if I disagree with it.
Should I meet a person who was raised without ever meeting race/creed/lifestyle/subculture X in person, but only ever hearing tales about them from whoever, I can understand and see that in such an upbringing they would have misconceptions, expectations or predjudices. I won't necessarily agree with their views, but I can see that for that person with their mindset what causes their line of thinking and that it is, for them, valid.

[wittdooley]

I wish we had a thumbs system on the forums, because I'd totally thumb your post.

Ack..... I still gotta figure out what I'm writing for this week's Friday Freewrite. I have an article brewing that has nothing to do with Wargaming. Would anyone read it, or should I stick with something hobby related?

Bear in mind, the article that I've got drafted has plenty of geek-cred.

@Maug -- Appreciate the response, and I 100% agree that tactics make up the "meat and potatoes" of the game. I still think that the replayability of a game is dependent on how much meat and potatoes one can eat in a sitting. Sometimes I just need me some beer and pretzels

[mikethefish]

I don't read the PP articles. However people who tread both side of the line have told me that it is a far rarer occurence for 40K players to be crayoning on PP articles.

No offense to your friends, but they have been misrepresenting the situation. Being a fan of both systems - though especially PP - I read every Warmachine article on BoLS. I literally cannot remember an article more than 2 days old that didn't feature GW guys harassing PP games or players in some way. It varies from as little as one GW fanboy, to a whole legion, but the presence is definitely there. Ever since BoLS has started running WM articles (and I was there near the start - indeed, I found this site because of the PP articles), GW fans have been at it with a vengeance.

It's very tiresome, and no offense, but I feel pretty much zero sympathy for any harassment that has been going on in the GW areas. I agree that it should not happen on either side, but like I said - hard time feeling much in the way of sympathy.

[Denzark]

Have they Mr fish? Well as much as anyone on tinterwebz is my friend, they can remember said threads otherwise they wouldn't have said it - I wouldn't have quoted them if i thought they were often online as duty dickhead.

And remember I said it was rarer - meaning happens less. As opposed to never - I am sure it does.

And I have never seen A GW/40K player 'evangelize' about their system trying to convert PP players - probably because I don't recall ever hearing of anyone going to Warmahordes as their first system.