Do Fanboys Matter?

OK, so I was looking into getting XCOM, but being dubious into getting any strategy game other than Civ or StarCraft I wanted to get some outside opinions. So looking at some user reviews from different sites, I saw mostly positive reviews. Except for a grip of 1-star reviews from old-school XCOM fans saying the usual fanboy stuff (simplified=baby game, old is better, unrelated COD comparisons, etc). So do you think that developers of well-loved franchises should keep listening to a minority, but loud opinion, or should they just do what they want in order to make a great game?

You should be thankful for those who viciously fight for the standards and heritage of great games. Without the shitstorms and the complaining and demanding and arguing and even whining, developers could get away with a lot of half-assed and YES, simplified games with a full price tag.

The fanboys keep the developers on their toes and consequently make them improve their game, it was proven a hundred times. I saw that happen most notably with Battlefield 3 because I was involved with the community throughout the entire pre-release year and I SAW how fanboys made the game 10 times better than what DICE initially had in mind.

You should be thankful for those who viciously fight for the standards and heritage of great games. Without the shitstorms and the complaining and demanding and arguing and even whining, developers could get away with a lot of half-assed and YES, simplified games with a full price tag.

The fanboys keep the developers on their toes and consequently make them improve their game, it was proven a hundred times, especially with Battlefield 3 because I was involved with the community throughout the entire pre-release year and I SAW how fanboys made the game 10 times better than what DICE initially had in mind.

Fanboys will always find some problem and focus on it in hopes of the devs getting it "right" the next time, no matter the game. Only take fanboy reviews seriously if you were a fan of the original franchise. Otherwise, those reviews aren't for regular people.
 
Regarding XCOM: a good general rule of thumb is that if you're a fan of a franchise, and the developer who makes that franchise is the only one who works on it, and it's practically the only franchise they work on, you should give their new game that's not in that franchise a shot. I'm going to buy Agent if it ever comes out because I like the main GTA games, even though Rockstar North hasn't made anything but GTA in a long long time. Similarly for DICE and Mirror's Edge back when that came out.

I think it's a bigger question than any of us but my personnel opinion is that if you're making a sequel than you should listen to the community and see what you did wrong in the first one. If it's a multiplayer game you would be constantly patching and listening to the community. If it's a long running series than i think you probably know what you're doing (take The Legend of Zelda series for example; they know exactly what the fans want [except an obvious few exceptions])

X-com was a decent game thanks to the parts it borrowed from the old X-coms, had it used more parts it would have been even better. So yeah, they should listen to fanboys at times. But apparently "complex" stuff like inventory-management and the ability to strip your soldiers in the field is too advanced for the modern gamer.

fanboys may have a point from time to time.

but their exection is embarrasing.

Fuck the fans. Developers shouldn't have to please anyone.

@AhmadMetallic:

*snicker* *snicker*

They think developers actually give a shit about their fanbase.

@cexantus said:

@AhmadMetallic:

*snicker* *snicker*

They think developers actually give a shit about their fanbase.

No no, they don't care about their fanbase, they're scared of disappointing those fans because they rage and make a scene and occupy the forums and create popular scrutinizing youtube videos, and give the game a negative buzz.

@cexantus said:

@AhmadMetallic:

*snicker* *snicker*

They think developers actually give a shit about their fanbase.

No no, they don't care about their fanbase, they're scared of disappointing those fans because they rage and make a scene and occupy the forums and create popular scrutinizing youtube videos, and give the game a negative buzz.

How you're using 'fanboy' makes absolutely no sense to me.

I don't think developers 'owe' old fans of a franchise anything in particular, if that's what you're asking. There is usually a reason why certain old games have passionate fans though, and it's because they were good games in the first place. It's not a bad idea to listen to those fans because they typically have an idea of what it was that made the game good. What you also have to keep in mind however, is that the fanatical and vocal fans only represent a small percentage of the old audience, let alone of the intended new audience, so what they think isn't the be all and end all of everything. Developers should listen to them, but not blindly follow what they have to say.

Personally, I think XCOM is (only) a pretty good game. If you haven't played anything like it before then I think you are going to be much easier to impress than I am and should probably check it out. I think it's a good place to start if you're looking to expand your gaming horizon beyond the regular AAA dross. If you can handle Civ (even Civ 5, which I think I saw a baby playing one time) then you aren't going to struggle with XCOM, if that's what you're worried about.

Only fans that matter are the ones who were passionate enough to dedicate themselves towards game development, make their way into the industry, and help develop the product.

Felt the same issue with Jagged Alliance: Back in Action, fans fell apart when the mechanics were more of a "pause,command, and go" thing rather then a turn based thing. In the end it was a different game but i don't think that made it a bad game.

No, people like that are killing games. They want everything to play like it did in the 90s and expect it to still be able to live up to today's standards in games. They are a walking paradox and should be ignored.

@AhmadMetallic said:

You should be thankful for those who viciously fight for the standards and heritage of great games. Without the shitstorms and the complaining and demanding and arguing and even whining, developers could get away with a lot of half-assed and YES, simplified games with a full price tag.

The fanboys keep the developers on their toes and consequently make them improve their game, it was proven a hundred times. I saw that happen most notably with Battlefield 3 because I was involved with the community throughout the entire pre-release year and I SAW how fanboys made the game 10 times better than what DICE initially had in mind.

BF3 was terrible in beta, it was still terrible when it came out and it's terrible today, no matter how much people complained. I can guarantee you Battlefield 4 will be just as bad and ignorant of what made the others ones so good. I've been a fan of the franchise since the ol' wake island demo, but I don't open my mouth about it. I just accept that the game I like is a thing of the past and if I want to play BF2 or 1942 right now, nothing is gonna stop me. The X-COM fans need to recognize that, too. Just cause we got a new one doesn't mean the old one ceases to exist.

No.

Fanboys matter where it counts most; in the check-out aisle. They buy stuff when it's brand new and they pay full price. That means a lot to a new product be it a console, phone or game trying to establish itself.

@AhmadMetallic said:

You should be thankful for those who viciously fight for the standards and heritage of great games. Without the shitstorms and the complaining and demanding and arguing and even whining, developers could get away with a lot of half-assed and YES, simplified games with a full price tag.

The fanboys keep the developers on their toes and consequently make them improve their game, it was proven a hundred times. I saw that happen most notably with Battlefield 3 because I was involved with the community throughout the entire pre-release year and I SAW how fanboys made the game 10 times better than what DICE initially had in mind.

The problem I have with this point is that developers developing a game other than the one they wanted to develop is bad. Fanboys should have no say what so ever to how the game turns out or how developers develop their games. When the intent and meaning of the art is compromised for sales it's hard to call the people who made the purchase fans of the art, but rather fans of the image. The game may be subjectively better because a large enough part of the population complained until they got their way, but the artist behind the game and the industry as a whole lost. Instead of purchasing a facade people should purchase games developed with them as the intended audience.

Yes, fanboys matter. Regardless of how you feel about them, they make noise. And noise attracts attention. In our world attention = money, gained or lost, depending on the type of attention.

Mass Effect is maybe the best example of this, and how a loud minority can snowball into a story "worthy" of the Times.

@CaptainThunderpants: Yes. There will always be "fanboys" in life. They matter.

Though, regardless of this question, you should get XCOM:EU. It's awesome.

@EVO:

Yeah that will sell MILLIONS!!!

@Bell_End said:

fanboys may have a point from time to time.

but their exection is embarrasing.

this

@Jimbo: When writing the initial post for the thread, I kept the movie "The People vs George Lucas" in mind. In the movie, an interviewee said that Lucas doesn't owe anything to the people who originally made him successful and "...the only responsibility Lucas has to his fans in to take their money." Lucas probably has made more money from appealing to the same demographic (older kids) rather than pandering to the 40-somethings who originally grew up with Star Wars.

Oh and my tastes are more than just AAA stuff. I just have not played a strategy game (pre SCII) since C&C: Red Alert back in the 90's and I was worried that my tastes would have changed. I did get XCOM and I really like it.

It sounds like those guys probably didn't even play the new XCOM

i feel like fanboys are the reason zelda games suck.

WTF?!?! F**K wind waker!!! they made Zelda look all childish and shit man....F***K THAT!

Nintendo should take more risks with zelda like wind waker and majoras mask.

@liako21 said:

i feel like fanboys are the reason zelda games suck.

WTF?!?! F**K wind waker!!! they made Zelda look all childish and shit man....F***K THAT!

Nintendo should take more risks with zelda like wind waker and majoras mask.

YES!!!!!

@cexantus said:

@AhmadMetallic:

*snicker* *snicker*

They think developers actually give a shit about their fanbase.

I think the developers care about there fan base, but they probably measure it in the way that actually matters to them (e.g. sales). Its not like you can spend nostalgia to put your kids through college and pay the bills. In terms of saying they care about money, that does not mean the developer is not trying to make the best game possible. It just means that they are targeting the best and most entertaining game they can make at the audience who will buy it.

I'm guessing the super vehement fanboys do not matter all that much (aside from hurt feelings over the internet), because they are a minor portion of sales.

I don't have a problem with fanboys, they're passionate about a franchise and it's nice to see someone being passionate about a hobby I share. What I do have a problem with is the way they approach the perceived problem of a video game in the standard and expected fanboy fashion. By writing a review at metacritic giving it a 1 and then going on to say "This shit sucks, older is better" or "This shitty game has awful graphics and is horribly dated, the newer <insert title here> is obviously better". The Fallout community being a perfect example of this, even back when Fallout 2 was released there were people who immediately sided with Fallout 1. Not to mention the shitstorm of old fans meet Fallout 3 instead of Van Buren (Seriously, Fallout fans are the worst).

But I think that if more people calmly, logically and more than anything else approach a problem in a civil manner, more good would be done. And I think developers should always be open to criticism and opinions of the fans, they obviously shouldn't always follow the criticism, but just listen. I myself am worried about what Fallout 4 will look like after the success of Skyrim (with it's removed attributes and spells, and yet still a great game). No more perks? Special system being changed? Less skills? I hope not. In the end, innovation is welcomed but a developer shouldn't mess too much with the core mechanics of the game if they want to keep their fanbase intact.

To answer your question, no, they aren't.