Recognize the double standard. It's getting annoying

With Ruin being changed, I'm seeing a lot of stuff about "genrushing" and this often brings the argument that it's "efficiently completing the objective" with some people outright claiming it "doesn't exist"

Recognize your double standards please. Both sides, stop with this biased #########. It's getting annoying.

Genrushing is to killers as tunneling is to survivors.

What makes tunneling toxic and annoying? You are removing a player from the game extremely quickly. This usually results in a low amount of points, an unfun game, and a potential depip. This is annoying and unfun, as anyone will attest. No one intelligent will try to claim otherwise.

What is genrushing?

Genrushing is the act of completing generators extremely quickly, thus ending the game as fast as possible.

Did you catch that?

"Ending the game as fast as possible"

Does that sound familiar?

Genrushing is toxic and annoying because you are removing a player from the game extremely quickly. This usually results in a low amount of points, an unfun game, and a definite depip. This is annoying and unfun, as anyone will attest. No one intelligent will try to claim otherwise.

Now comes the argument "we're just doing our objective. That's not toxic. You're just salty"

Isn't that what tunneling is?

Genrushing apparently "doesn't exist" because the survivors are just doing their objective. You're right, their objective is to complete the generators and get out.

The killer's objective? Kill the survivors. Simple.

So by eliminating someone quickly, they have essentially done their job as efficiently as possible with no regard to the fun of the other player

Guys. Recognize the double standard. Play both sides, not only will it help you're gameplay, but you'll start to learn why one side talks the way it does. No one on this forum, on YouTube or Twitch, or anywhere else is the centre of this game and deserves to be treated like a king. No one.

Recognize the double standard. It's getting annoying.

«134

Comments