You can't form valid opinions about certain aspects of gaming because of the order in which you experience games depending on when you were born.

Say a kid is born in 1998 aka the same year freespace 2 is released. In 2016 that kid is now 18, do you think that kid can have a valid opinion on many aspects of freespace 2 when the kid was just a baby? AKA the kid has no memory of that gaming era and wasn't a part of it so can't comment with intelligence on that aspect of gaming history.

Many comments on message board stem from the generation rift of people being 38+ vs kids, teens to mid 20's. There's decade or more gap between them. I was in my 20's in 1998, I had lived through gaming from the NES onwards and have accurate perspective on PC gaming. A place like reddit for instance is filled with young teens and 20 somethings who never played PC games during the 90's and have only ever owned a console, that means there view of gaming history is massively distorted by sheer ignorance of never having experienced that part of gaming history. They will simply make shit up and distort the truth simply because very few of them are actually interested and intelligent enough to go and find accurate information from people that actually gamed during that era.

Consider the idea that "it's all nostalgia, old games have nothing of value in them", it's a very common view on gaming boards and that is simply an ignorant comment by gamers who have no serious interest in gaming or game design, to design fun games you really need to study game history and go out of your way to play games of the past otherwise you will think games from your generation "did something first" when they didn't. I've seen people who think First person shooters BEGIN with halo. It's fucking sad. There is an entire generation of gamers who've never played Doom 1/2 or Duke nukem 3d, or descent 1/2. Games I consider key points in gaming history, since doom was really the birth of first person shooters. Decent because it had probably the most unique and amazing multiplayer experience of 3D ship combat ever made till this day, there's nothing quite like multiplayer descent 2 over the net if you can find a group of people and get over the bad graphics.

There are plenty of games that are key stones in gaming history that have never been played by newer generations of gamers who really aren't "gamers" in my estimation, since they don't pro-actively seek or play games before modern console/PC era in which they were born. Say you are in your teens during the 2000's, say 2005-2016, if you think it is the best time in gaming history you are living in a fantasy world - you have no context to understand why older gamers generally despise mmo's, steam, online drm, etc. Online DRM, the lack of mod tools and dedicated servers for things we had in the 90's have been massively curtailed, most AAA games come with corporate malware and are consumer hostile to an extreme degree.

The most important thing to do with any game is to disregard the opinions of other people on it and judge it for yourself. That's all there is to it.

Actually, my theory is very specifically about games, not movies. The logic doesn't really work for movies.

I just hope they make a sequel to Goat Simulator personally.

Maybe this was mentioned already, but that is probably the crux of the problem. When something changes in a series of games, those who liked the earlier features will complain loudly about the changes, while some who didn't like the earlier games might prefer the new one.

For instance, the new mobile version of Dungeon Keeper got lot of complaints, I presume quite much from people who knew and liked the earlier DK games on PC (and consoles). On the other hand, some casual mobile gamer might actually like the mobile DK, and not understand why so many people are complaining about it.

To me this seems to happen when:

- a game starts becoming less trendy, opening up channels for criticism that were previously closed due to the group mentality that most mainstream games create in their popularity ... it's like self-mockery

- the hype eventually calms down and the game's perfect image starts showing its cracks, so that the masses can actually recognize and see the errors that were obvious to others

I disagree with this kind of reasoning. Using Assassin's Creed as an example:

People who only like two-three games in the entire 9+ game franchise should not be called 'fans of Assassin's Creed', they should instead be called of 'fans of Assassin's Creed 2' or 'fans of Assassin's Creed Brotherhood'. There's a big difference between the two.

To me, 'fans' are those who have played at least the majority of the games in a given franchise, not a small minority of the games. As well as people who manage to find something to enjoy in a new sequel. To me these people are the actual fans of a franchise. People who value the positive parts of the game over the negative parts.

If I were a developer, 'true fans' would be those who keep buying my games, even when the review scores are not in the 8/10- 10/10 range. I would not consider those who only buy a few of the games I make to be fans. This is why gaming critics rarely get the games they want.

One of the most ridiculous things I've seen from IGN was when they had a Final Fantasy Fan panel discussion, with members from the IGN staff, but together these "fans" hadn't even played half of the games in the franchise.

Using a non-gaming examples, we would never call someone an Iron Maiden fan if they only like 2-3 albums.
Likewise, we would not call someone an Alien franchise fan if they only liked the first movie.

One of the many annoying things about gamers today is that too many consider themselves experts and 'true fans', usually under the false guise of 'honesty' and 'objectivity'.

The most vocal critics you see on YouTube and on forums are the never the actual fans. Instead these are the very people who only liked two-three games in the Assassin's Creed franchise, who only liked Demon's Souls or Dark Souls1 in the Souls-Borne franchise, who only liked Final Fantasy 7 in the FF franchise, who only liked Need For Speed Hot Pursuit or Most Wanted in the NFS franchise, and so on.

That's a "No True Scotsman" fallacy. If they enjoyed and care about a series then they are fans of that series.

I suppose that depends on how you define the term "fan".

No it doesn't. Who am I to tell someone else what they are or aren't a fan of?

Just saying there are commonly accepted definitions for what certain words mean ( or don't ), which is generally a good thing, because it helps avoid confusion. And I get the impression your own definition of the word fan isn't necessarily how it is generally interpreted. I would define it as a certain obsession or strong interest in a subject, that goes beyond just a basic interest or approval.

Fun fact: from 2008-11, I was pretty active on the forums of Hamumu Software (by the guy who created the SPISPOPD) before coming over to GOG.

http://hamumu.com/game.php - originally these games were expensive compared to other titles (priced before "race to the bottom" was a thing), but now they're very inexpensive, and pretty fun too! There are some demos and I recommend checking out Spooky Castle - http://hamumu.com/game.php?game=SPKY

And what is a strong interest? How many of the games you need to have played? Is playing it just once enough? Who decides the line between fan and no-fan?

If people define themselves as fans that's all that matters, the word conveyed the message intended, we don't need gatekeepers to pass judgement.

In my experience? Angry fanboys who feel the need to draw lines and make themselves superior "true fans".