I won't confirm or deny the statement above, but those things are taste & preferences. You can't blame people for those.
The problem comes from some specific behavior not shared by every fanboys.
- People that consider YOU are the problem because you don't share their love for the product. Not even your taste, yourself. They don't discuss your argument, but try to undermine your person. This isn't the kind of individual the most encountered, but it is really painfull to see that kind of guy around.
- Also, an often read comment "someone who hate Fo3 shouldn't be lurking in the Fallout communities. They don't like Fo3, so they don't like Fallout, why should they bother ?" A comment often coming from someone that refuse to even try 4 out of the 6 games of the series. As a side not, they never blame you from hating FoBOS...
- Group of people that don't read the very thread they are answering and repeat ad nauseam the same argument, no matter that it was countered numerous times before. You end up in a loop instead of evolving. Some times the same people are repeating the same thing where the same topic is brought again. Amongs the few subject i think about. When mentioning the possible removal of Fast Travel, they all say that they don't want to walk the whole way, not matter the billions of alternative you might have mentioned. You have to repeat all the time that walking and teleport aren't the only options, but instead of actually discussing, half of the post are about people that don't want to walk. We recently had a discussion about alternatives to essential characters. Half of the post were about not wanting npc dying at random, not aknowledging the fact that 25% of the other post were about alternatives to that possibility.
- People who say that they really don't understand "people who think X". Then some of the people who actually think X will try to explain it to the guy why they think X. First, he will argue as if some group is wrong and another is right or that those people don't say enough to convince him. But the point isn't to convince him to share the same opinion. It is just explaining why those people who think X actually think X. You are only explaining what works for you. It doesn't mean that it should work for him too and that one of you is right/wrong. The next week, the very same guy would repeat the very same statement "I really don't understand why those people think X". They explained to you moron ! You don't have to share their opinion, but they told you why THEY think it.
- People who state that people think Y while they never though Y. If they have the patience to explain, well... Just see above.
- People who just want the other to be wrong, no matter if their own explanation is convincing or not. They don't want to leave any point/ground/anything to the other guy, even if they aren't convincing themselves. For instance, saying that there is much more Choices & Consequences in Fo3 than in FoNV. It is perfectly fair to prefer Fo3, but come on... FoNV run litterally around those things, while Fo3 considered those as an afterthough. It won't make you any wrong to prefer Fo3 despite its lack of C & C. You are totally free to love something that don't have all the qualities above another title. That other titles can indeed have those quality without questioning your own tastes. Loving something that has less C&C won't make you a moron. Not admitting a fact, on the other hand...
- People that don't understand that the very idea of an RPG is to be able to sustain various playstyles. Considering that Fo3 is very linear, they don't get why some people might enjoy different way of playing the same game or having different storyline depending of their playstyle. As they only promote a single way of playing it, they are perfectly willing to remove everything that fit with other playstyle than theirs. "I don't kill npc, so they should be essential. I prefer fighting over diplomatie, so they should remove pacifist options etc..." Not considering that one of the strenght of the series is to allow various playstyle.
- It might be arguable, but i find dubious at best when i read someone telling that Fo3 is the best game of the series, while they only played Fo3 & FoNV. Sure, it might be the best game you played in that series. But you cannot know if it is actually the best of the series until you played the other games.
- Also arguable, but some common statement can be pretty annoying when you hear those quite often, but it is more the result of those comments that is annoying than the people who produce them. They simply lack of knowledge in some specific areas and often soften a bit when you bring some fact. For instance, isometric games are things of the 90s or they made it isometric because of money limitations. Once again, it doesn't mean that isometric/TB is superior in any way, but isometric is a conscious design choice, not an engine limitation, it doesn't predate (or not much) 1st/3rd person view, it provide some experience/option other perspective don't, and it was already niche in the 90s, not an evolution of the mainstream from isometric to 1st person. And last but not the least, if iso isn't superior to 1st person, you can also say that 1st person isn't superior to iso. Amongs other hot topic, there is "Bethesda saved the Fallout IP" or "aliens were always part of the franchise" etc... It is up to the older fan to be civil about that if the younger isn't hostile, but i get that it can be annoying after 10-100 persons making the same kind of uninformed statement...
I am not trying to be hexaustive, but the point is, those behaviors are things i really mind from Fo3 fanboys, those behaviors, not the fact they love Fo3...
"
