All bantering and fun-being-had arguments aside, it really does make me happy that you said this. That was my predominant reason for starting the blog (to get away from the obnoxious 'this is what I did today' or 'OMG dis vid on YOUTUBE is teh awesomest!'), so it makes me feel like that's at least partially succeeding.

"I think a little of both. "

Touche`

"I agree with everything you said save one point: I don't think it's possible to over analyze things"

I used to think this as well.

"relegating them to the ignorance of "it's just fun" is vastly understating the potential to learn about the human condition from them."

Ahh, but relegating the idea of "it's just fun" as ignorance, is ignorant in my opinion. This case in point, if you truly want to learn the human condition, then you will need to accept the point that there are many of us who simplify it down that much. Otherwise, you would be leaving us out of your studies as well.

I'm not necessarily saying ALL think things are just that simple, but I would say a vast amount does. A good amount of study will of course be needed to learn about it all. Even the idea of why some of us think it is just "fun" could be the reason for much study.

Looking over the most simple of things is a common mistake, even our best doctors, scientist, etc, do it everyday. Ever have a medical problem that you just know how to fix, but the doctors will almost always say that can't be it for "blah blah" reason. So you never get the treatment you need. All because they won't listen to basic idea that yes, I just do have those problems.

Happens to millions, including myself, all because the simplest concept wasn't taken. "It just is." Now don't get me wrong. You can then go on to try to study why "it is," but first that takes a step in the direction of admitting "it is."

Occam's Razor hold relevant for a reason.

Now look at you, got me babbling on like some intellectual type. How dare you make me think!

I agree with everything you said save one point: I don't think it's possible to over analyze things.

There's a reason that things are "fun." And that reason impacts many different people in many different ways, so understanding the how and the why of that reaction is imperative.

I plan on dedicating the majority of my scholarship in my life to TV, Film, and contemporary literature. A lot of people don't consider that stuff to be worth analyzing, so any scholarly criticism is going to be seen as over analysis. I disagree. Things are phenomena for a reason, and even if they're "fun" (which I don't deny that the geek wars are in many ways), there is still a foundation that needs to be understood.

Without people over analyzing as you put it, a lot of meaning is left hidden in work because it's socially deemed as inappropriate to and/or unworthy of study.

You look over the most basic reason… Because it's fun!

You get close when you mention that this is essentially knowledge (or hobbies, or interests, etc) that only geeks are interested in.

Well it is just as the gladiators of old loved pitting strength and prowess against an opponent. It is a only the human urge to compete with one's best abilities, and despite popular belief, geeks are indeed only human.

Our infinite bounds of useless knowledge as our strength, and our wit as our sword. There is rarely more fun to me than a good ole' fashion geek-off!

The biggest problem I see, is when people do start to take it personally, or down right resort to personal attacks. But it has been my experience that only proves their own inadequacies.

As we become more "civil" in time, the purpose does not change. We still want to better our opponent. Only the battlefield and weapons have changed. We use brain and tongue instead of sword and shield.

It reminds me of my favorite Conan quote by Robert E. Howard,"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing."

Wow… So much I have written only to say so much is over analyzed!

Hypocrisy or irony?

Haha!

That's as true of politics as it is of the game industry. As long as people are arguing over which DIKU game is better, the basic assumptions of what an MMO is (or ought to be) are conveniently ignored.

I don't understand the rabid fans or foes, either, but then, I do try to see these things objectively, and the whole "us vs. them" is anything but objective.

Star Trek is good (my significant complaints about the recent film and Enterprise notwithstanding), Star Wars is good (lame Anakin plot and pathetic New Jedi Order notwithstanding), and I have plenty of products from both IP dynasties.

I will never understand why people have to denigrate someone else's fun if it doesn't align with theirs. It's the core of the solo vs. group debate, incidentally, not just IP fanfights.

Oh, and yes, let's not perpetuate the Michael Bay strain of Transformers. Oi.

Nice article. Good call on the infant geek wars as well, that's a pretty good read on things, as far as I can tell.

@Sharon: I think you hit the nail on the head, so to speak. What gets me is that even when geeks don't want to actually make the transition from niche to mainstream, they want the outcome and increase in quality/quantity of their product that only mainstream attention can give.

@Longasc: That fanboyish worship you mention is why I actually stopped reading forums for a while and avoided getting into blogging. I was too far from the fanboy mentality myself to want to be around it. Luckily, I have found a circle of blogs I read regularly that avoid that which have replaced the forums I used to frequent, but the fanboy worship is one of the main reasons I've avoided being an active community of any IP I love for a long time. You're right: being passionate is fine, but when it crosses the line into zealotry, there's a problem.