A few years ago I co-wrote a book about how politicians use the tools of public relations to deceive the public without lying called "All the President's Spin." George W. Bush was our primary example, for the simple reason that he was president at the time and an expert at deceiving without lying.

I've never brought it up before because it never seemed relevant (though I will note for anyone interested that's it's available used on Amazon.com for literally one penny; and I promise it's worth more than a penny). But today it seemed relevant when I was reading this piece that has been spreading around the Interweb like wildfire by PSXextreme editor Ben Dutka that epitomizes some of the, ummm, rather rabid response of Playstation 3 fans to any less than stellar reviews of Sony's upcoming action game "Killzone 2."

In particular, Dutka (and many of his commenters) is worked up about this review in Edge Magazine, which had the temerity to say some negative things about the hotly anticipated game and score it a 7 out of 10 (a score that is above average and means the reviewer liked the game, but let's leave that aside). I haven't played the game yet (though I have a copy and am eager to try it soon), so I have no personal beef one way or another with the review. But let's remember, it's a review. There's no way it can be "wrong" unless the reviewer cites factually incorrect evidence or makes indisputably illogical arguments. As far as I can tell, Edge's anonymous reviewer didn't do that.

Nonethelss, Dutka went pretty much ballistic, calling the review a "lie." After writing "All the President's Spin," I was particularly intrigued by these descriptions:

Notice the language used: "Elite" twice. "Superiority complexes." "Know more than everyone else." And who do these elitist know-it-alls stand in contrast to? All of us, the average consumers, who just "know" (without having played it, in the case of 99% of us) that "Killzone 2" is one of the best games ever.

"Killzone 2" defenders are the regular people, you see, the common folks who know the truth without having to do the research (in this case, playing the game). Those know-it-alls at Edge may have done the research, but the fact that they disagree with us is prima facie evidence that they're elitist snobs who just want to prove they're smarter and know better. They think they're something wrong with the game we like (or are sure we will like). Oh, and did I mention that Edge is British? (OK, Dutka didn't say that, but the fact is out there and you know that Brits think they're so much better than us Americans.)

Anyone who has followed political discourse knows this routine: It's the set of charges that have been used, often to great success, against Democrats for 20-plus years. Every Democratic presidential candidate since at least Dukakis has been called an elitist, a snob, someone trying to impress his friends in the media or in Europe or the coffee shops and colleges.

It's a classic dirty tactic of political discourse: Delegitimize your opponents' views not by engaging them on the issues -- Dutka doesn't once argue with the substance of what Edge said -- but by questioning their motives and associating with with dislikable groups.

Obviously I'm not saying Rush Limbaugh is orchestrating the "Killzone 2" backlash backlash, or that there's really any crossover between Sony fanboys and Republicans (except perhaps the fact that they've both been supporting losing causes for the past few years ). But a nasty rhetorical tactic is a nasty rhetorical tactic and it would be great if those of us who write and talk about videogames could do a little better than the bottom of the barrel of political discourse.

http://weblogs.variety.com/the_cut_scene/2009/02/sony-fanboys-starting-to-resemble-rush-limbaugh.html

Haha

Variety? LMAO , If you want to take them seriously , be my guest.

Isn't this post part of the problem the article talks about?

^^^
I was about to say the same thing lol

hahah that is funny and he did have a point--shame its from varity who tend to have a stick up their butts about anything that deals with video games---(still sore at them for being so anti wii for no reason)

I never bought one, I don't buy into fad technology.... thus I am forced to use good old fashioned mind power. And I will state that:

I still don't think you were using sarcasm, this second post of yours is merely a defence.

QFT!

This article is spot on.

Intentional or not, the irony here is so thick that talking about it is smothering me to death.

This was an interesting article, but it's not a phenomenon limited to Sony fanboys. This happens every time a game gets even a middling score when it's expected to be more or less perfect - does anyone remember the debacle surrounding Gamespot's (fair and well-reasoned) review of Twilight Princess? Same thing.

The thing here is that people like to pretend that there's an objective standard by which a quality of a game can be measured while adhering to a standard deviation of error, and anything that goes outside of this standard deviation is invalidated. Which is, of course, a big pile of steaming horse manure. Video game critics aren't supposed to be bound by the opinions of their peers, and the expectation that they should all rate things in roughly the same way is one of the worst things about gaming journalism.

The other, of course, is what leads people to want this, in that game reviews talk about whether a game is worth buying instead of whether or not it is any good, but that is a discussion for another time.