Marvel14
Banned
Watching Starfield have detractor backlash a la TOTK has made me want to really tease out what is driving this phenomenon of people shitting on well reviewed games. I'm going to postulate some typologies. See what you think:
1. The tribalist: dudes that identify with a rival company and feel it is their duty to attack the competition and take them down a peg. Their aim is to dampen enthusiasm but for what purpose? To reduce sales, to undermine the competition's creative achievement in the public discourse, to ensure their tribe's pedestal is not breached? All of these?
2. The scorned perfectionist: folk with elevated expectations that are not met. ( See Starfield failing to crack 90+ MC). In their case it's betrayal that drives them to seek revenge of sorts by turning against the product. They may hold an existing grudge and this enflames the open wound. Does this really happen tho? Probably easiest seen in multiplats...
3.The Rabble Rouser of Chaos. Like the Joker, these guys are driven by shits and giggles. They do it because they can and because it's fun to try to piss on the success of others. Like the Joker there is also an ego trip in getting noticed and getting reactions from people- the more passionate and offended the better.
Edit: With thanks to Elysium44 Dick Jones :
4. The Taste Differentiator. As hard as it is to accept, some people just don't like what the majority likes. Not to be contrarian but because their taste is different for a given game type. And that should be OK so I am not counting them in the poll. Although if they take a nasty approach to airing their opinion, they are treading into Rabble Rouser territory.
Edit2: just seeing some of the replies and looks like there is yet another:
5. The "Mainstream Outrager": folk who view the mainstream opinion as having an objectionable non gaming agenda and believing they have to take a stand. Paradoxically of course, by focusing on the agenda they are perpetuating the act of not discussing a game on its merits. Don't know what to do with these folk except to say they risk turning themselves into the thing they claim to hate.
So that's my hypothesis. Three different types worthy of criticism with their own motivations and another that is not about videogames themselves that you can only shake your head at.
Personally the third one is the worst since it just seeks to destroy- and creating is super hard and risky. And we shouldn't shit on the act of creation for our own entertainment. And the ego trip is pretty unbearable too.
The first is understandable as a well established part of human behaviour that has been put to the wrong use ( follow a sports team if you want to relive tribes - not products you can enjoy without restrictions between them).
The second is worthy of some sympathy. If someone is so affected by a product, then that suggests there are larger personal issues at play and the person needs support not vitriol thrown back at them.
So what do you think? Makes sense.? Something missing or need a different framing? Which one do you hate most?
Over to you.
1. The tribalist: dudes that identify with a rival company and feel it is their duty to attack the competition and take them down a peg. Their aim is to dampen enthusiasm but for what purpose? To reduce sales, to undermine the competition's creative achievement in the public discourse, to ensure their tribe's pedestal is not breached? All of these?
2. The scorned perfectionist: folk with elevated expectations that are not met. ( See Starfield failing to crack 90+ MC). In their case it's betrayal that drives them to seek revenge of sorts by turning against the product. They may hold an existing grudge and this enflames the open wound. Does this really happen tho? Probably easiest seen in multiplats...
3.The Rabble Rouser of Chaos. Like the Joker, these guys are driven by shits and giggles. They do it because they can and because it's fun to try to piss on the success of others. Like the Joker there is also an ego trip in getting noticed and getting reactions from people- the more passionate and offended the better.
Edit: With thanks to Elysium44 Dick Jones :
4. The Taste Differentiator. As hard as it is to accept, some people just don't like what the majority likes. Not to be contrarian but because their taste is different for a given game type. And that should be OK so I am not counting them in the poll. Although if they take a nasty approach to airing their opinion, they are treading into Rabble Rouser territory.
Edit2: just seeing some of the replies and looks like there is yet another:
5. The "Mainstream Outrager": folk who view the mainstream opinion as having an objectionable non gaming agenda and believing they have to take a stand. Paradoxically of course, by focusing on the agenda they are perpetuating the act of not discussing a game on its merits. Don't know what to do with these folk except to say they risk turning themselves into the thing they claim to hate.
So that's my hypothesis. Three different types worthy of criticism with their own motivations and another that is not about videogames themselves that you can only shake your head at.
Personally the third one is the worst since it just seeks to destroy- and creating is super hard and risky. And we shouldn't shit on the act of creation for our own entertainment. And the ego trip is pretty unbearable too.
The first is understandable as a well established part of human behaviour that has been put to the wrong use ( follow a sports team if you want to relive tribes - not products you can enjoy without restrictions between them).
The second is worthy of some sympathy. If someone is so affected by a product, then that suggests there are larger personal issues at play and the person needs support not vitriol thrown back at them.
So what do you think? Makes sense.? Something missing or need a different framing? Which one do you hate most?
Over to you.
Last edited: