>>717950479
From what I gather from this thread, they like just some aspects of a product and aren't interested in everything else, so they experience the former how they can and put aside the latter. They like the former so much they thus define themselves "fans" of the product.
I don't really find a problem with that in itself, I don't do that myself but I do remember playing
some games of which I only liked the story and not the gameplay. If I could've experienced the story alone, maybe by watching a playthrough, I don't think I would've missed much.
They also define themselves "fans" to intregrate themselves in the community surrounding the product. Why else would someone define himself a fan?
The problem is: do these fans come out in the clear about how they experienced the product? Or on their lack of knowledge of some parts of the product? I mean, do the people that only watched a video on Silent Hill 2 actually come out and say "I'm a fan of SH2, but I only watched the game being played on a video?" when they interact with the community?
If they do, everything's fine and dandy, all is clear and the community is free to react accordingly. But that's not usually the case, is it?
The problem with these "partial" fans is that they almost never come out in the clear, they always try to pass themselves as someone who experienced the product as a whole. They do it in places like 4chan because, well, no accountability. Maybe in places like Plebbit because they know the hivemind is on their side. But in places exclusively dedicated to the product? I don't remember ever seeing these people ever come out in the clear, despite being able to tell by their opinions they didn't play the whole thing through themselves.
I think the crux of the problem is this: not why someone would define themselves a fan of something they didn't experience completely, but that they lie about it. As some other anon said, back in the day these people were simply called "posers".
