Why the Preston Garvey hate?

[stebbinsd]

That said, to actually address the video, my impression of that VGA guy is that he's... not intellectually equipped to even be having that discussion. Not only it's really just yet another case of random guy justifying his cognitive dissonance over why HIS choice of factions is the absolutely right one, but he blatantly doesn't even understand Checkov's Gun or game design. Or really, even literary theory, since he brings that up.

So why don't you go and contribute to his discussion on his video? That is why he put it there, don't you think?

 

Do you just think that this reasoning is so stupid that he doesn't deserve any recognition, views, comments, or any audience engagement, just for the crime of being an idiot? Well, that's kind of mean, don't you think?

 

If his logic really is so flawed, why not help him improve? The description of that video openly welcomes constructive criticism, so long as it's not filled with insults. And I think everybody has the right to earn a decent living on youtube, even if they have a steep learning curve to overcome.

 

Or do you just think that he doesn't deserve any recognition ... that he should just delete his channel because, if he doesn't have an English literature degree, he's just wasting everyone's time? Again, I think that's kind of mean.

 

And even if his arguments on the Minutemen are stupid, his video really made me re-think my position on the Brotherhood of Steel. I always thought the Institute were just the bad guys, through and through. How's that for thought-provoking?

Edited March 28, 2017 by stebbinsd

[Moraelin]

Cracked's arguments for Jar Jar are hardly comperable to Preston Garvey. The Sole Survivor was never "dragged" into joining the Minutemen. You have to agree to join them - which you don't have to do - before he'll start laying radiant quests on you. You have to agree to help the people of Tempines Bluff before he'll ask you to join the Minutemen.

Well, yes, but as I was saying, I haven't seen any LP where people go hostile to Preston at that point. Partially also because at that point, as you say, he does give you the choice to refuse.

 

It's only afterwards that he starts being annoying, and sure enough, it's only afterwards that people start getting gradually annoyed by him.

 

I'd also point out that the fact that you can refuse right in the beginning isn't all that much of a saving grace, since, barring omniscience, you don't know at that point what you're getting into. He hasn't shown any sign yet of what an annoying twit he'll turn into if you say "yes".

 

It's hardly fair to give the player a share of the blame there, when they never had the information to make an INFORMED choice.

 

Or to put it otherwise, there's a reason why the justice system has the standard of what a reasonable person of average intelligence (for their job, role, etc) could have foreseen. You can't be liable for stuff that an average Joe or Jane would never have had the information to foresee.

 

But back to choices and consequences, basically if I ask you if you want a kick in the nuts, and you say yes, sure, fair enough, you can't blame anyone else for it. But if I just ask which way to the railway station, and then gave you a kick in the nuts as reward for your help, it's hardly fair to point out that you could have said no to helping in the first place. Unless you're a psychic or something, you had no reason to expect that that would be the result.

 

EDIT: Doubly so when it's not even about foreseeing human nature or anything, but foreseeing bad game design. If you think about what information you use to make such predictions or decisions, in any realistic situation as you've had before, you can say "no" to just about any request. Even if they phrase it as an order, you always have the free will to say "go <bleep> yourself, and don't come back until you learn to ask nicely." And not just in real life. In just about any game you've played before, INCLUDING Fallout games, you pretty much always can say "no" to sidequests. Hell, for the vast majority of other quest givers in THIS game, AND for the conversation you're having right now, the choice to say "no" is there. I don't think that a reasonable person would have any reason to foresee that just in this game, and just for this one character, the game would lack that dialogue choice ever after.

[Moraelin]

So why don't you go and contribute to his discussion on his video? That is why he put it there, don't you think?

 

Do you just think that this reasoning is so stupid that he doesn't deserve any recognition, views, comments, or any audience engagement, just for the crime of being an idiot? Well, that's kind of mean, don't you think?

 

If his logic really is so flawed, why not help him improve? The description of that video openly welcomes constructive criticism, so long as it's not filled with insults. And I think everybody has the right to earn a decent living on youtube, even if they have a steep learning curve to overcome.

 

Or do you just think that he doesn't deserve any recognition ... that he should just delete his channel because, if he doesn't have an English literature degree, he's just wasting everyone's time? Again, I think that's kind of mean.

 

And even if his arguments on the Minutemen are stupid, his video really made me re-think my position on the Brotherhood of Steel. I always thought the Institute were just the bad guys, through and through. How's that for thought-provoking?

Well, I never said that being an idiot is a crime -- Atom knows most are born that way for no fault of their own -- but I don't have any obligation to argue with every single idiot to enlighten them, either. Most of the time it's not even going to do anything useful anyway.

[stebbinsd]

 

Cracked's arguments for Jar Jar are hardly comperable to Preston Garvey. The Sole Survivor was never "dragged" into joining the Minutemen. You have to agree to join them - which you don't have to do - before he'll start laying radiant quests on you. You have to agree to help the people of Tempines Bluff before he'll ask you to join the Minutemen.

Well, yes, but as I was saying, I haven't seen any LP where people go hostile to Preston at that point. Partially also because at that point, as you say, he does give you the choice to refuse.

 

It's only afterwards that he starts being annoying, and sure enough, it's only afterwards that people start getting gradually annoyed by him.

 

I'd also point out that the fact that you can refuse right in the beginning isn't all that much of a saving grace, since, barring omniscience, you don't know at that point what you're getting into. He hasn't shown any sign yet of what an annoying twit he'll turn into if you say "yes".

 

It's hardly fair to give the player a share of the blame there, when they never had the information to make an INFORMED choice.

 

Or to put it otherwise, there's a reason why the justice system has the standard of what a reasonable person of average intelligence (for their job, role, etc) could have foreseen. You can't be liable for stuff that an average Joe or Jane would never have had the information to foresee.

 

But back to choices and consequences, basically if I ask you if you want a kick in the nuts, and you say yes, sure, fair enough, you can't blame anyone else for it. But if I just ask which way to the railway station, and then gave you a kick in the nuts as reward for your help, it's hardly fair to point out that you could have said no to helping in the first place. Unless you're a psychic or something, you had no reason to expect that that would be the result.

Ok, fair enough. But people often give quite a few different reasons for hating Preston. The VGAs guy gives two: His tendency to have you do all the work while he chills at Sanctuary (a point further driven home by the modified Uncle Sam poster that is a common meme), which he points out is entirely untrue since Preston will gladly accompany you and put himself in harm's way if you ask him to.

 

Then there's the lack of personality outside of being a Minuteman. It's hard to tell, but it appears that he's using footage from gameranx's "10 Things Fallout 4 Players Hate." It's one of my personal favorite Fallout 4 videos, and I remember that video also asking the rhetorical question "Duuuude ... do you like ANYTHING else?!"

 

He points out how the other faction-allied companions - with the exception of Deacon (and let's be honest here; he doesn't mention Deacon because he does indeed have a personality) - are all guilty of the same thing, and they don't get a tenth as much flak from fans.

 

Those two things are 100% lore, not just gameplay mechanics. This thread right here is literally the first time I (and I presume the VGA guy also) have heard anyone complain about the way Preston dumps quests on you.

 

Gee, if I didn't know any better, I'd say you're trying to come up with new reasons to hate Preston after the most popular excuses have already been debunked by him!

[stebbinsd]

Furthermore, the notion that every important character has to be for or against the main theme is so frikken stupid, it's priceless. It just shows that he never even heard of the basic and important archetype: the contagonist. The contagonist isn't necessarily against you or what you're trying to achieve, that's the job of the antagonist. Nor is he there to help you. The contagonist is there to try to sidetrack, delay or tempt the hero away from the main goal or plot. And not necessarily out of malice or even opposition to that goal.

 

E.g., if the cop's father in law offers him a corporate job away from chasing that serial killer, that's a contagonist. Or if his wife asks him to find a less dangerous job, yeah, that can be a contagonist too. He or she's not necessarily against the hero (again, he's not the antagonist), nor do they have to care either way about the hero's goal. They just have to be the guy or gal trying to pull him off the track.

 

Or to give an actual example of a contagonist, albeit not the best one for discussing Checkov's gun, here's a famous one: Darth Vader. Yeah, he's not an antagonist. He's a contagonist. He tries to get Luke away from the main plot.

 

And in a sense, Preston is a bit of a contagonist, albeit not the main one. The fact that he tries to keep you busy with other stuff and would rather you not take on one of the main factions if you don't immediately have to, yeah, fits that archetype.

Also, I looked it up, and it turns out ... you're wrong about what a contagonist is. A contagonist is a character who tries to change the strategy the protagonist uses achieve his goal, not the goals themselves.

 

http://thehelpfulwriter.com/building-conflict-in-a-story-with-contagonist/

[Moraelin]

He still won't go on his own, though. You can go alone, or you can go with someone else, or yes you can go with him, but he still unilaterally decides that YOU have to go. With or without him in tow, but YOU specifically are the one to do what he wants done. So that argument doesn't even address the objection.

 

Also, addressing half an argument hardly means someone else is trying to come up with new ones. It just means he's dishonest enough, or possibly stupid enough, to address just the most convenient half of the argument (and not even particularly well at that) and possibly not even realize what a piss-poor half-assed job they did.

 

The arguments about Preston are a whole. The character is annoying because BOTH he hunts you down to give you orders that YOU specifically have to do (with or without him present) without your having any option to say AND there is no in-game justification for why that's the case, instead of, say, the other one around. One without the other would be irritating, but not half as much as the combination of BOTH. E.g., Maxson telling you to go risk your life at Fort Strong, and your not having a choice to say "pick someone else or do it yourself" is at least justified in-game by his rank and position. It's when you add no justification for it, that it becomes that much more irksome for Preston.

 

So, again, addressing just the convenient half of the problem, and badly at that, sure as hell doesn't mean it's someone else at fault there.

 

And not having heard it before? Seriously? It's been said since day one, there are hundreds of meme gifs to the effect of "warning, this person will mark quests on your map without asking" all over the internet, every LP that has any anger towards Preston is showing exactly what I said... but because he didn't do that basic basic research then it's somehow someone else that's dishonest? WTH is he even doing pretending to address the issue, if he doesn't even bother to research what the issue is?

[Moraelin]

Also, I looked it up, and it turns out ... you're wrong about what a contagonist is. A contagonist is a character who tries to change the strategy the protagonist uses achieve his goal, not the goals themselves.

 

http://thehelpfulwriter.com/building-conflict-in-a-story-with-contagonist/

Ah, more half-assed research. This is getting to be a trope by itself by now :wink:

 

Actually, no: http://dramatica.com/theory/book/characters

[stebbinsd]

He still won't go on his own, though. You can go alone, or you can go with someone else, or yes you can go with him, but he still unilaterally decides that YOU have to go. With or without him in tow, but YOU specifically are the one to do what he wants done. So that argument doesn't even address the objection.

But you see ... that's hardly grounds for a complaint. His willingness to accompany you still makes him better than Maxon, Dez, or Father. Maxon sends YOU to Fort Strong to fight the Super Mutants. He expects YOU to follow his orders without question. Father orders YOU to join X6-88 to reclaim the raider synth. He doesn't offer you to put the job on any other Institute officer.

 

So this guy did indeed address the other half of the objection. The leaders of the other factions are all guilty of the same thing.

 

You previously mentioned the reasonable person doctrine in American common law. So tell me ... how many times have you gotten frustrated because a judge or opposing counsel completely ignores one of the arguments you make in your motions, and you get the feeling that the only reason they aren't addressing it is because they know it hurts their case and it would force the judge to rule in your clients' favor when they already know they want to rule the opposite way?

 

Because that's basically what you're coming off as. You ignore the part where he says "Elder Maxon, Desdemonda, and Father are all guilty of the same thing, sending you on missions while they rest at their headquarters, and only Father has an excuse for that, being terminally ill and whatnot." Then you act like he doesn't address that part of the objection when he clearly does.

 

That would also explain your disdain for rookies who don't already know what they're talking about. People who represent themselves in court tend to be viewed with skepticism. They're expected to instantly, overnight, know everything there is to know about court procedure. Not to "learn it as they go," but to just instantly download the knowledge into their brains, otherwise they're just bogging the system down.

 

If you're a part of that social circle, that would certainly explain your disdain for people in other fields who are doing their best to contribute to a discussion, and to just have a good effing time, and don't instantly have the sort of "graduate degree" that would cause them to have truly irrefutable logic, and then saying that alone makes them an idiot.

Edited March 28, 2017 by stebbinsd

[Moraelin]

1. First of all, sure, feel free to invent any BS that makes you feel better. Sure, I'm part of some clique or another. Sure, I disdain... err... whoever. Whatver. It's at best an ad-hominem circumstantial, and as such irrelevant, but sure, whatever floats your boat. I'm not going to take it away from you. Atom knows you seem to need it :tongue:

 

 

2. The difference between someone finding themselves in court, and someone bloviating on youtube as if they're some authority on literary theory, is just that. And not just because the former usually has no choice but to appear in court, while the latter didn't get a subpoena to post nonsense and misrepresentations of other people's complaints on youtube. It may be ill advised to represent oneself in court, but it's often an act of desperation. They HAVE to be in court, and they think the lawyer assigned by the state won't do a good job. Meanwhile I don't think anyone was forced to post nonsense and pretend that they're some kind of expert. The two aren't even remotely similar when it comes to meriting disdain.

 

But more important is that last part: pretending to be some kind of expert. The former generally doesn't pretend that they're the ultimate authority on law, while the latter does. I can have sympathy for the former, but yeah, I don't have much for people who pretend they're some experts just because they're too ignorant to understand they don't know what they're talking about. The standard of competence just moved up when someone actually claims that kind of competence. Seems only fair to expect them to meet that standard, then.

 

And that goes for law, medicine, game lore, whatever. If someone pretends they're an expert on it, then yes, I would expect them to actually have the knowledge and do the research. Good for them if they're "having an effing good time" talking nonsense and totally not bothering with good logic, but that doesn't change the fact that they're talking nonsense.

 

 

3. No, actually he still doesn't address the relevant part: that those leaders also don't do the other half of the problem. Namely chasing you down to give you orders. You can leave your character overnight in the same room as Father, Maxson or Desdemona, and you won't wake up with random crap marked on your map. Hell, none of the other 3 leaders even gives you radiant quests at all.

 

As such, there is no reason to go into why the heck can't I tell them to go do it themselves. Pretending there's no relevant difference that explains why people mention it about Preston, and not about Father or Maxson, while ignoring THAT is either dishonest or ignorant. Because THAT is exactly the reason why.

 

 

4. Even addressing that half is missing the whole point, and in fact addressing a red herring, which is why I called the whole effort half-assed: The leaders of the other factions are just that: leaders. Preston claims that you're the leader. Kind of a big difference there.

 

There is no point in complaining that a leader is actually portrayed as acting like a leader. Then that's just good characterization. But when you're REPEATEDLY and without even being asked forced to be subservient and never say no to a supposed underling, then what's HIS excuse?

 

Going into "yeah, but Preston is nice and offers to risk his life with you" isn't even addressing the same question. It's going on a completely different tangent.

[stebbinsd]

Meanwhile I don't think anyone was forced to post nonsense and pretend that they're some kind of expert

You think he's pretending to be some kind of expert? I don't recall any point in any of his vids (and I've seen them all; there's only three of them) where he claims any kind of expertise in any field.

 

To me, this just seems like a guy just having fun, putting his thoughts out there for its own sake.

 

Kind of like this guy ...

 

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLpUvCDCHJKPNvBJsIP0PX79UTNx0z1VQJ

 

... or this guy ...

 

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLE6AD3F273B4DA8DE

 

... or this guy ...

 

 

So please, give me a timestamp of where, exactly, in this video he makes even the slightest pretense of being the quote-unquote "ultimate authority" on Fallout 4's main plot?