7th July 2005, 10:02 PM
I will say now that my favorite series of games, if I had to pick, would be Zelda. I've always been much more drawn into the latest game in that series than whatever else I may like at the time. I do think Nintendo is one of the best game deveopers of all time. However, I reached that decision based not on them simply BEING Nintendo, but on the fact that I like their games. Since I used the latter, it lets me enjoy all sorts of games for other systems, that is, if they are in fact something I would enjoy.
That's not to say that brand name is not an indicator of quality at all. If a company gives nothing but gems, then it is reasonable to expect the next game they produce to also be a gem and really look forward to it (Rare, Blizzard). However, the important thing is that the fact that games in the past have been great should not BLIND you to when all of a sudden that changes. A skeptical attitude is to always pay attention to any new data presented and change your views according to the data, rather than "changing the data" (as if that's possible) to fit your views. So, if all of a sudden a company like Rare releases Star Fox Adventures and it is lackluster, then they can no longer be considered a company that ALWAYS produces awesome games. Rather, they must now be viewed as a company that MOSTLY produces awesome games, except that last one. (Of course since tastes are subjective, some may have truly loved SFA, and more power to them, I'm just saying be honest with yourself.)
Basically I'm stating common sense we already know. So, no big deal.
Also, it's never a good idea to out and out villafy a company without some evidence to show they really ARE evil.
There's a basic ethical rule of thumb to follow. Never assume malicious intent so long as accident is still a viable alternative. By that, if a company produces a flawed product, do not assume they were actually intent on releasing a flawed device knowingly until you actually have sufficient evidence to make it unreasonable to believe otherwise. Fanboys, as generally defined, fail to do this. They see every single thing done by "the enemy" as a sign of their evil, even though in fact they have no evidence to show they really were being malicious. They believe already that the company is evil and so when that company screws up, they believe they have the proof right there. There is a serious logical flaw there of course.
That's not to say that brand name is not an indicator of quality at all. If a company gives nothing but gems, then it is reasonable to expect the next game they produce to also be a gem and really look forward to it (Rare, Blizzard). However, the important thing is that the fact that games in the past have been great should not BLIND you to when all of a sudden that changes. A skeptical attitude is to always pay attention to any new data presented and change your views according to the data, rather than "changing the data" (as if that's possible) to fit your views. So, if all of a sudden a company like Rare releases Star Fox Adventures and it is lackluster, then they can no longer be considered a company that ALWAYS produces awesome games. Rather, they must now be viewed as a company that MOSTLY produces awesome games, except that last one. (Of course since tastes are subjective, some may have truly loved SFA, and more power to them, I'm just saying be honest with yourself.)
Basically I'm stating common sense we already know. So, no big deal.
Also, it's never a good idea to out and out villafy a company without some evidence to show they really ARE evil.
There's a basic ethical rule of thumb to follow. Never assume malicious intent so long as accident is still a viable alternative. By that, if a company produces a flawed product, do not assume they were actually intent on releasing a flawed device knowingly until you actually have sufficient evidence to make it unreasonable to believe otherwise. Fanboys, as generally defined, fail to do this. They see every single thing done by "the enemy" as a sign of their evil, even though in fact they have no evidence to show they really were being malicious. They believe already that the company is evil and so when that company screws up, they believe they have the proof right there. There is a serious logical flaw there of course.
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." ~ Charles Babbage (1791-1871)