Edginess vs. fanboyism - Which is more beneficial, and for whom?

[J_C]

A balanced individual is the best obviously, but if you cannot choose that, then:

Being a fanboy is clearly best for the individual, since he will enjoy himself and enjoy gaming. And being a critic (not the same as an edgelord, as the poll suggests) is good for the industry.

So, I will be a happy fanboy and enjoy my hobby, and you can be the bickering critic who don't enjoy gaming buy you will help make the industry better for me. It is a win-win for me.

 

[buru5]

I see this as "red pill" vs "blue pill" issue, with the red pill being the edgelord and the blue pill being the fanboy.

Naturally, being blindly faithful and happy with everything you get (fanboy) is going to lead to a better overall disposition in life. Being extremely critical is going to lead to severe dissapointment and frsutration with everything (edgelord). The middle ground is the best option.

In the grand scheme of game development, however, edgelord is probably more beneficial for gaming as a whole since developers will usually (hopefully) revise their future games based on the harsh criticism which will in turn lead to better games. Although after typing that I realize that it's not completely true, considering people had gripes with Oblivion and Bethesda turned around and made Skyrim even more dumbed down. Basically whatever sells better is going to be regurgitated over and over until people get sick of it, whether you like it or not.

 

[luj1]

Seems like we've a consensus,


edgelord best for incline

fanboy for decline

balanced for inner peace

 

[Wayward Son]

Balance is always superior. Both sides have their flaws, but a balance of the two mitigates most flaws while keeping most advantages.

This. I've always been a fan of multi-classes, myself.

Your categories are bad. What if someone just wants more real rpgs being made and attacks games that are toke rpgs, rpg-lite, or just console shit for idiots and promotes all games that further the rpg agenda? Lets say he also likes consistency from idiots who love console shit and is easily confused by their love and hate of pretty much the same exact game with different names and slightly different rpg-lite systems?

I think it is more like this

A - Idiots who like what they are told to like and dislike what they are told to dislike and just let the "community" do the thinking for them.

B - Idiots who go against the grain by being part of a smaller, belligerent "community" that likes what the major "community" doesn't like and vice versa.

C - Normal people who think for themselves. On this site it means people who also like rpgs. Naturally they are going to like some games and dislike others. A true rpg fan wants more of what is rarely made (rpgs), and less idiots who like kid shit and console games monkeys.

Can't believe I just brofisted a RoquaYES! post.

 

[Iznaliu]

In the grand scheme of game development, however, edgelord is probably more beneficial for gaming as a whole since developers will usually (hopefully) revise their future games based on the harsh criticism which will in turn lead to better games. Although after typing that I realize that it's not completely true, considering people had gripes with Oblivion and Bethesda turned around and made Skyrim even more dumbed down. Basically whatever sells better is going to be regurgitated over and over until people get sick of it, whether you like it or not.

WHy do I keep having to tell people that gamedevs will ignore you if they don't like what you're saying?

 

[Vorark]

Spoiler

Ehh, it's better to be a realist/pessimist than an optimist. The fanboyism path tends to lead towards disappointment.