I'm a firm believer in the concept of psychology and how it can explain human behavior and thought processes. And I'm writing this blog because I recently read a great article on IGN ( http://games.ign.com/articl... )and was really compelled by it, so much so to write a blog post about it. The best part about it is that it isn't from the viewpoint of some game journalist who thinks he knows what he's talking about or some supposedly unbiased "I have no preference for either game" person. It's from social psychologists who are experts in their field of study taken to analyze what is happening and giving their input of why it's happening.
If you didn't read the article (which I highly recommend, but you should be fine if not) it's about the Metacritic user score of MW3. Yeah I know what you're thinking "another MW3 vs BF3, c'mon man", sure I agree it's tiresome, but looking beyond the simple outright example that's stated in the article it can be analyzed into a more broad and general outlook of the whole macrocosm of fanboyism itself.
Now look into any MW3 article and I can guarantee you that there will be someone bashing it claiming "MW3 sucks because it's the same game, haha more like an expansion pack/MW 1.5. BF3 is way better because it's innovative (which is arguable but that's a whole other discussion, maybe I'll write a blog post about that too)" Now the situation with the Metacritic user score is that it's extremely low with an absurd amount of zeroes. The way that Dr. King explains the extreme ratings by the users is that people are showing their dissatisfaction for lack of innovation based on the comments associated with those scores thus giving it a 0/10 to show the full extent of how they feel, but you and I both know that that reason is only partially true. One does not give a game a zero out of ten solely because of lack of innovation or same-y-ness, it's because of anti-MW3 users down voting it because it's a direct competitor to their game BF3. In fairness, the same thing happens in the otherside of the spectrum as well, there are MW3 fanboys that do give MW3 a 10/10 and downvote BF3, but it's reasonable to say that MW3 is definitely not a 0/10. (Also not to say that everyone who gives MW3/BF3 a high postive or low negative score is a fanboy, because I know there are some outliers who do truthfully state what they think).
"This black-or-white, hot-or-cold mentality completely undermines any honest, legitimate reviews – negative or positive. How can a regular consumer be expected to sift through piles of childish hyperbole and irresponsible exaggeration for any thoughtful discussions of a game's flaws, or measured praise of its strengths?"
Now the question is what is the rationale of BF3 fanboys doing something like this?
Now this is my favorite part of the article in which the psychology factor really shines, and I'm going to leave it largely untouched with none of my input because it's pretty self explanatory.
"There's a concept in social psychology called 'Ingroup Bias,' This refers to the preferential treatment that people give to those who they perceive as belonging to their own group or follow their way of thinking. Ingroup bias is very common among hardcore gamers. Berating someone's favourite game if it differs from your own view is about asserting perceived ingroup dominance, and ensuring that an opposing view does not threaten one's interests as a member of an opposing group."
(Going along with the example in the article, BF3 fanboys are the "group" and MW3 is the "opposing group")
"Clinical psychologists often think of people's minds as a duality of rational and experiential thought processes. The rational mind is based on objective fact, logic, and reasoned argument. You can change the rational mind quite easily with new information. The experiential mind is less easily changed or swayed. It's based on emotion, instincts, intuition or gut feelings. Logical information won't have much or any effect on the experiential mind.
There are lots of people out there who engage with video games using their experiential mind. Some people are so emotionally attached to video games, and certain video game franchises in particular, it's hard for the rational mind to win over the experiential mind."
If you frequent the N4G forums and you've seen my posts about MW3 then it's pretty easy to categorize me as an MW3 fanboy, but that simply isn't the case. I go out of my way to defend (key word DEFEND) the game from emotionally minded people that unjustly criticize MW3 saying it sucks because it has no innovation (which I also disagree with the general opinion in how they define innovation, maybe next blog post)and blah. All I'm saying is MW games are by no means bad games, if you don't like them then that's fine but saying that they're terrible games or saying they have no redeeming qualities then that's when I take offense to. Sorry for such a long rushed post but I definitely wanted to write more and elaborate more, but I'm kinda short on time and this is making me procrastinate too much on my HW.
***
Added on November 29, 2011
Saw this on IGN, and thought it was relevant and funny to my blog. Please to enjoy.
http://www.ign.com/videos/2...
Also saw a comment in that video that pretty much sum up my sentiments exactly
"They're considered trolls because they gave it unrealistic scores. Even if they were upset with the game, it doesn't deserve a zero. That would mean that it was absolutely unplayable. It's possible to be both disappointed and reasonable at the same time." - Greed1914
***
Square Enix will announce a new title in the Life is Strange series on January 20 at 10:00 a.m. PT / 1:0 p.m. ET, the company teased.
Where Winds Meet on PS5 is a wuxia MMO with strong action combat, open-ended exploration, and plenty to do if you like setting your own pace.
Travis Bruno of Capsule Computers writes:
"It is hard to believe that there would be a time that not only would the Western releases of The Legend of Heroes franchise manage to catch up to the Japanese releases of this incredibly lengthy franchise, but that the game’s that helped kick it off would be getting remade at the very same time. A few months ago we reviewed the fresh remake of Nihon Falcom’s Trails in the Sky 1st Chapter and now here we are, visiting the most recent release in a story featuring characters and plot elements spanning all the way from that very first game twenty-two years ago. It’s not often that a video game sequel requires full knowledge of its predecessors, and in many ways The Legend of Heroes tried to do that with Daybreak, but now that everything has gathered together in The Legend of Heroes: Trails Beyond the Horizon, players best be ready for the most character packed, lore heavy, game of the franchise since Reverie."
Good Blog and I agree on a few points. I have BF3 and I may not have MW3 yet(I'll probably get in the future) but I hate it when on almost every other BF3 article, there is some guy who has to say that BF3 is going to be better than MW3.
Let's assume for a sec that "MW3 = MW2.5" and "MW2=MW1.5". Considering the fact that you liked MW1 and MW3 is "the same game with new maps". What's the problem? You should be liking it too, no? "But it doesn't innovate". Which sequel honestly innovates? There are a few gameplay changes, and bumped up graphics but that's it. The formula is the same, that's the point of it being a sequel and not entirely a new game.
I find it funny that IGN release an article like that, 'against'the 'fanboy wars' but, as one commenter pointed out on their site, they make money off these wars and instigate them with many of their articles...
You're right about WM3, it's not a terrible game, but it's not flawless. I would give it an 8 in the most unbiased manner I could.
"I'm a firm believer in the concept of psychology and how it can explain human behavior and thought processes."
Yea, no shit, That's what psychology is....
I couldn't read the rest of the piece, sorry :\
Some of the issues with people on this site, is that they lump legit people into the same field of "fanboys" and such.
For example I did have fun playing MW3 in a few of the modes, but it really does have flaws within the game. Problem being, is that given with how mainstream the game is, they either blindly lump you in as an anti-fanboy of the game or hater if you point out any of those flaws and then you have those that blindly praise the game without even so much as mentioning WHY they feel it's good outside of vague answers.
Personally I don't think the game should be given so much praise as it is now, but whenever I see someone contest that, all someone does is just point out "sales = end argument" situation.
I don't hate the CoD franchise, but I do dislike that every iteration has the same fundamental flaws, which I found irritating to the point that I abandoned the series at MW2. From speaking to friends who still purchase every year, I hear that lag, network reliability, cheating and abusive community are still prevalent.
What I find baffling about this site is that I'm having to be very careful what I write about CoD as it can be too easy to stir up a hornets nest of fanboys calling anybody negative a hater or a Battlefield lover. What's wrong with disagreeing and maturely discussing why.
Just to clarify, I don't own Battlefield 3 so I can't be dubbed a fanboy (logic would dictate that I own it to be one), and I don't hate CoD, I'm just not interested due to the reoccurring flaws.