Support NeoGAF

Peltz · Sep 19, 2014

Wonderful 101 and Kid Icarus Uprising are two very poorly reviewed games that the reviewers simply didn't spend enough time to learn. I'm sure it's not an easy job, but I don't think those games deserved to get trashed by the critics.

Vanquish is another one with reviews all over the road. Some reviewers just didn't "get it" and described the gameplay wrong. You could tell they just played it as a cover shooter like Gears of War.

So I sort of do agree that critics should at least spend more time with games before reviewing them. Sometimes, a few days with the game isn't enough time to properly experiment with it. But, it's unrealistic to expect them to spend weeks with each game. So it's a problem with no solution in my opinion.

hunchback · Sep 19, 2014

Nocturno999 said:
The correct answer. Also, they need to be on the consumer's side which is rare these days.

This is the perfect answer Imo. I always made a point of stating whether I thought it was a good purchase or to wait for a price drop. I would also state whether the game was geared towards a casual or hardcore game player. In the end it didn't matter how perfect the review was because you would still get hate mail.

oceanskie · Sep 19, 2014

AcademicSaucer said:
Game Journalists should be good journalists .

Was thinking the same thing when I saw the thread title.

Right now, most 'game journalists' are more of an extension of the game industry's marketing departments.

I've only read/watched what could be considered as good journalism pieces from Eurogamer and on rarer occasions Gamespot (and MUCH RARER occasions Kotaku). That speaks volume about the sad state of 'gaming journalism' given the number of existing gaming-related blogs/outlets.

angrygnat · Sep 19, 2014

A gaming journalist should enjoy gaming. Being "good" would just be a byproduct.

Sanctuary · Sep 19, 2014

ponpo said:
Just keedeeng. What action games is your 56 year old aunt playing though.

Mostly the lighter side of action games, but she's finished The Witcher 2, Devil May Cry 1,2&3 (of course this was almost a decade ago) and Bayonetta without much of an issue. She's mostly into RPGs and action/adventure. I told her that one day I'm going to have her play Demon's Souls just so I can watch her get frustrated and quit after ten minutes.

OsirisBlack · Sep 19, 2014

GDJustin said:
I don't speak for any other journos but me. In my case, I'm usually more concerned about the words coming out of my mouth than pro-looking gameplay, when I'm recording a Let's Play/Gameplay Commentary.

One of the most eye-opening things for me, when I started working at IGN, was how hard it was to talk and play games at the same time - it was a surprisingly big challenge. And not just "talk" - actually try to be entertaining/witty/insightful. Speak in complete, coherent sentences with actual meaningful things to say, completely extemporaneously, while still playing the game itself. A game that you very likely might not have laid eyes on in the past. I care more about the information that I'm conveying and devote more of my brain to that than I do to making the gameplay look flashy.

Usually when I'm doing a let's play, I'm just trying to tour through some elements of the game. Here's the map. Here's some of your traversal options. Some combat options. It isn't rehearsed or edited.

Outside of all of this, I think the way people actually play games is different than the edited "highlight reel" that plays in their own mind, afterwards. Their 3 deaths at checkpoints "didn't count" or often aren't even recalled at all. They beat the level. They triumphed. They ARE NATHAN DRAKE. But then to watch someone else struggle and die a couple times, or not figure out a puzzle, feels really painful to watch.

Quoted the first point for truth, playing a game and commentating at the same time is very difficult.

Quoted the second point because in this generation that is no longer true both XB1 and PS4 along with PC all have ways to actually record your gameplay there is no delusional greatness either you're good or you aren't.

checkeredknight · Sep 19, 2014

They shouldn't have to be good at everything, but they should be fair. Being willing to admit you're not good at something is much more respectable than blaming the game.

Living Proof · Sep 19, 2014

nrvalleytime said:
That, we can agree upon. And that intersection is where the knowledge and wisdom of the reviewer has to be trusted.

Look, Ebert talked all the time about how he hated certain genres. But he understood that bias and why it existed, which made him the perfect candidate to try and convince your genre movie was the exception.

I just don't know how we can have one conversation without equally discussing the other.

You're entirely correct. It's imperative that the artistic merits of a game be considered in any review-- because the game simply wouldn't exist without those crucial components, and they alter our perceptions greatly. It's necessary to acknowledge that interactivity is an integral part of our favorite hobby, but enjoyment doesn't come solely from skill or technical prowess.

So: do you think we're lacking critics in this industry with the type of critical analysis that Ebert provided? Are there any reviewers we can all point to and say that they're structure and critique is exemplary? I think the very nature of our hobby makes it an extremely divisive and tumultuous environment and what constitutes as a good review is in itself ineffably subjective because of what each individual hopes to find and identify with while they read, but I'm interested in hearing examples of what people consider to be excellent work (and why it's excellent!).

Damerman · Sep 19, 2014

gamer journalist have a WAY bigger issue than being good at video games. How about covering the game medium in a professional way. How about actually covering every aspect of the game medium. How about reorganizing your websites in a more meaningful and useful way, instead of segmenting games into consoles and handhelds.

DarkHeartedKill · Sep 19, 2014

Peltz said:
Wonderful 101 and Kid Icarus Uprising are two very poorly reviewed games that the reviewers simply didn't spend enough time to learn. I'm sure it's not an easy job, but I don't think those games deserved to get trashed by the critics.

Vanquish is another one with reviews all over the road. Some reviewers just didn't "get it" and described the gameplay wrong. You could tell they just played it as a cover shooter like Gears of War.

So I sort of do agree that critics should at least spend more time with games before reviewing them. Sometimes, a few days with the game isn't enough time to properly experiment with it. But, it's unrealistic to expect them to spend weeks with each game. So it's a problem with no solution in my opinion.

They should have people that have different tastes in games and assign the game to the reviewer accordingly. Give a person who only likes/plays FPS games and give them an RPG, RTS or TBS to reviews, and they're not going to like it too much and will likely give it poor reviews. Through no fault of their own really, it's just not their thing. And all though they're supposed to be unbiased, if it's a game they aren't used to or don't get it will turn badly for the game.

Peltz · Sep 19, 2014

SneakyStephan said:
this.

Though they can't all be awful, bayonetta has a metacritic score of 90,I can't imagine that game being much fun if you just bumble through it.
I notice many of the more niche and unique games tend to mostly get reviewed by people who know what they're talking about, though that might just be because the people who crash into every wall in driveclub don't want to touch those games with a ten foot pole...

Then again gamespot gave natural selection 2 a 60, no doubt because the initial learning curve was too high and the game mechanics were too much ...
edit : I knew I remembered this review for a reason!, it's exactly what OP was talking about, it was full of inaccuracies and mistakes showing the reviewer barely played the game (and never played ns1) and it was then pulled and re reviewed.

Some games just need a reviewer who understands the genre of the game, I wouldn't go review a street fighter 6 either because I don't know shit about fighting games. If I tried my review would be garbage, I'd miss everything fans care about (negatively as well as positively)

As for the gameplay footage OP described : It's crazy how people who are willing to put so much energy into hyping games will put so little into actually playing them.

I agree. I couldn't fairly review a game like Blazblue to save my ass. Heck, it wouldn't be fair for me to review a COD game either. It's just not a genre that I have enough experience with.

Coffee Dog · Sep 19, 2014

orthodoxy1095 said:
They are completely comparable. Journalists, i.e., the people reporting the news on a subject do not need to be good at or talented in the subject they're dealing with. They need to be passionate about it, sure. They need to understand what they're talking about, sure. But they don't need to be good at sports or good at playing a certain game.

Now, pundits and reviewers are a different matter. Should a sports commentator talking about Thursday Night Football be "good" at football, at least at a cerebral level? Yes. They need to be able to explain plays and machinations of the football field. Should a movie reviewer be knowledgeable about the history of cinema, art direction, film techniques, etc? 100% yes. Should the guy reviewing the next Final Fantasy be "good" at RPGs? Absolutely. You shouldn't have an incompetent boob reviewing an RPG. But someone with a terrible taste in movies can still report on them and someone who is terrible at RPGs can still report on them.

This is a problem with the games industry. We have conflated people who review games with "journalists." They're not.

Roger Ebert was a movie critic. He needed to be "good" at movies. He wasn't a journalist though. Joe Shmoe McJournalist does not need to be "good" at games. He needs to be good at reporting news, facts and interviews back to consumers.

postcyberpunk said:
Yes; a good critic knows how to interact with the medium. A good film critic is a good watcher of film. A good literary critic is a good reader of literature. Good game critics should be good players of games. Does this mean they have to be elite gamers? No, but they should be competent.

These are two really good posts.

Aeqvitas · Sep 19, 2014

This is something that has bothered me for a long time. I feel like a lot of games have gotten unfair reviews because the reviewers often seem to be very incompetent. I suppose it gives the masses a good idea of what they will experience, but I think from a critical perspective it is doing the medium a disfavor. So many games are completely different on harder difficulties. For example, Ryse goes from being a snooze fest you can "play with one hand" to at least a competent brawler on the hardest difficulty. There are probably scores of better examples out there (I don't want to draw fire for saying something positive about Ryse), but that was the most recent one I remember being appalled by after actually playing the game.

Sub_Level · Sep 19, 2014

Reasonably competent, yeah.

I propose that reviewers should make public their list of achievements and trophies. Full disclosure. If u can't hack it then git out. Obviously this could never be enforced but any reviewers reading this post who want to score major brownie points, just think about it. I would give so many hits to a reviewer who did this and link their articles in a prolific fashion across multiple forums.

JPS Kai · Sep 19, 2014

RockTurtle said:
I don't know how i would feel about a reviewer who can't do a simple hadouken to review the next fighting game.

Also if they can't do a simple shoryuken focus cancel dash into ultra finish

some level of competency/intricate knowledge with a genre i think should be expected.

that's why i feel somewhat iffed when reviewers review dynasty warriors games and don't let it be known if it's their first trek through it.

I'll be honest, I get to review every Warriors game that comes through just because I'm the only staff member hats even played the series. Hyrule Warriors and Samurai Warriors? On my desk sometime next week.

That being said, there's only so much Musou one can handle!

On a different note, if I'm playing a game prior to it hitting mass audiences, I strive to get as many trophies as possible prior to release in the event that I have to write a trophy guide or something of that nature.

GalacticAE · Sep 19, 2014

another thing is that journalists dont get enough time to really explore a games system. You cant play Xrd for example for a few weeks in an office and talk about the game beyond a basic and superficial level. They play a game once on normal and sometimes easy and theyre done. I feel i get more information and break downs from gamefaqs guides. Whats the point of reviews then? Why should we read what they write if theyre not good at playing games or of theyre forced to rush reviews because of deadlines?

King Tubby · Sep 19, 2014

Games journalists/reviewers don't need to be godlike or even all that good, but they should be at least average in whatever genre they're reviewing and take the time to learn the systems of a game (if reasonable).

You don't want to read a review by someone who doesn't know they can level up for example (as happened with Mass Effect I believe, don't recall the link). You also wouldn't necessarily trust someone's 95/100 for some incredibly complex game that you can only enjoy if you've gone through some insane effort to learn the mechanics.

I think this is one of those untapped markets in games journalism, to have games reviewed by genre experts. So if you're a fighting game fanatic and you've played all the incarnations of SF4 to death you want to read a review of the newest SF4 game by someone who knows their shit like you do (even if they're not necessarily pro status). Or an RPG review by someone who is dedicated to RPGs, pours in 70 hours or whatever and can really dissect the game and its mechanics. I would definitely frequent a site that did their reviews in this manner even if it meant their review wouldn't be out for a week after release. I'm sure there are some sites like this for certain genres but not for all, and not all in one place.

Abriael · Sep 19, 2014

It's also a matter of pride, and IMHO a gaming at writer should have some. Yesterday I was recording some Driveclub gameplay at tgs and I screwed up noear the end in two races (I'm not used to racers with a cotroller).

I sure as hell didn't leave until I got in a good run. After recording 5 people flippering between guard rails I wanted to show something relatively competent.

EventHorizon · Sep 19, 2014

Should Game Journalists be good Gamers?

Yes and No.

Reviewers are there to represent the public. In theory they take the bullet of bad games so you don't have to. The complicated part is that "the public" isn't uniform. Some are pros. Some are horrible, and by definition most are average. A game that might appeal to very talented gamers, might be too frustrating to the average or poor gamer. Likewise a game that is perfect for poor gamers might be too boring or repetitive for those looking for more of a challenge.

So the best outcome would be to have reviewers of all skill levels with most of them being average. Then it would be up to the person to find a reviewer who most closely matches their tastes and abilities, when trying to get insight on how much they'll like a game.

ForsakenLotus · Sep 19, 2014

Generally I'd say no, because one doesn't need to be an excellent shot to understand the good and bad of a shooter. To be sure it can be a barrier, and the more prerequisite knowledge needed the more intimate a reviewer should be with the genre (Madden for example).

Also, we need to understand that a lot of professionals are constantly bouncing around in games, so they don't have time to build up skills for a certain game or genre. This is, I believe, especially true for multiplayer centric games. On top of the necessary motor skills, reflexes and decision making, online games demand a certain understanding of maps, weapon differences, normal player pathing, etc.

Anyways, I'm not an elitist. As long as they are competent at the game I care about the quality of the critique more than anything.

Abriael · Sep 19, 2014

King Tubby said:
I think this is one of those untapped markets in games journalism, to have games reviewed by genre experts. So if you're a fighting game fanatic and you've played all the incarnations of SF4 to death you want to read a review of the newest SF4 game by someone who knows their shit like you do (even if they're not necessarily pro status). Or an RPG review by someone who is dedicated to RPGs, pours in 70 hours or whatever and can really dissect the game and its mechanics. I would definitely frequent a site that did their reviews in this manner even if it meant their review wouldn't be out for a week after release. I'm sure there are some sites like this for certain genres but not for all, and not all in one place.

It's not so untapped. A lot of (mostly smaller) sites give reviews to people passionate about the genre and quite proficient. Maybe not "pro," but pros who are anso flexible and good critics are hard to come by.

SonyToo! · Sep 19, 2014

DarkHeartedKill said:
They should have people that have different tastes in games and assign the game to the reviewer accordingly. Give a person who only likes/plays FPS games and give them an RPG, RTS or TBS to reviews, and they're not going to like it too much and will likely give it poor reviews. Through no fault of their own really, it's just not their thing. And all though they're supposed to be unbiased, if it's a game they aren't used to or don't get it will turn badly for the game.

I think that's usually how it works with maybe the reviews editor being more of a Jack of all trades since they have to cover if a specialist can't be found.

I don't check reviews as much as I once did but I do often see WiiU and to a lesser degree 3DS reviewers accused of being unsuitable for the game they're reviewing. It might be that some sites have just one or two ppl covering Nintendo games, which if true is wrong as someone reviewing Sony games rather than genres.

Another problem with specialists is that imo it adds to homogenisation if they get used to playing just one type of game and a curve ball like 101 or Vanquish comes a long and they hate it because it doesn't have the features their fave games do.

HK-47 · Sep 19, 2014

Fairfax said:
It depends on the game. It doesn't take a Mario 64 speedrunner to review the latest Mario game, but I'd never take a Civilization (or any non-casual strategy/RPG game) review seriously if the journalist can't play on the top 2 difficulty settings.

Thats ridiculous.

I also think there is value in someone who isnt gung ho about a certain type of game reviewing it. I dont give a shit about the score. The reasoning matters.

MattKeil · Sep 19, 2014

ponpo said:
Dear god, yes.

Reviewers now are all too old and are terrible at games. Because Metacritic matters so much now, devs have to make their games easier so DAD GAMERS can not suck at the game and thus not review it harshly.

That's just reality.

That's pretty far from reality, actually.

Also: Experience, lad, you should learn to appreciate it. I'm in my late thirties, but I can still beat just about anyone in the reviewing business at the fighting game of your choice.

SatelliteOfLove · Sep 19, 2014

Sanctuary said:
If the Demon's and Dark Souls "Hardest games ever created" hyperbole was anything to go by, almost none of those that reviewed them were good at games. The series isn't a pushover and it's definitely on the harder side of things, but they could really only be considered "the hardest" if you didn't start gaming until 2006 or so.

Most people don't remember what games were LIKE back before 2006. It's complete fog of war. And I'm not just talking about kids 14 or younger, either...

grap3fruitman · Sep 19, 2014

I've never read a fighting game review that didn't read like someone paraphrased the back of the box.

HowZatOZ · Sep 19, 2014

I definitely agree. Anyone reviewing anything or reporting on anything should have prior knowledge of the field, the more the better. I myself am an avid gamer, so when I write about games I hope that my knowledge is noted and that my opinions can be read without worrying that I don't know what I'm talking about.

Eric the Red · Sep 19, 2014

There are much more important things such as being a good writer. However that doesn't mean they can't also be competent players. So my answer is yeah they kind of do. Actually maybe a better way to put it is that reviewers need to be game literate. They can't be confused as to what's happening and why it's happening. They also need to be intellectually honest with themselves. Where is your frustration coming from? Is the game directionless or do you just not like talking to NPCs? Was that bad battle scenario design or do you not know all of your combat options; instead just spamming X?

Even though some called out Brad Shoemaker for being kind of bad, he doesn't shy away from complicated or intimidating games. His love for Starcraft and DoTA shows that as well as his more recent Lets Plays of Dark Souls 2 and Demon Souls. So good on him for confronting his weak spot and trying to be considered regarding it.

grap3fruitman said:
I've never read a fighting game review that didn't read like someone paraphrased the back of the box.

I remember that 1up's fighting game reviews used to be always great back in the day. Richard Li was their man who put up some good ones and then later they tapped the Nor Cal FGC and got Haunts to do their reviews. Haunts reviews were all excellent and very professional.

DocSeuss · Sep 19, 2014

I think being good at games implies more than just being able to land some headshots or drive adequately. I think it also means understanding the systems behind the game well enough. I've seen reviews from people (a certain SimCity review comes to mind) that seemed to demonstrate a complete lack of understanding as to how the genre worked. It was like...

...how can you adequately review a game if your only metrics are about whether or not a game has bugs, whether or not it looks nice, and how easy it is to get into the controls? If there's a story, maybe some surface level discussion will go on there, but it's mostly "did I understand it and did it have any overtly objectionable content?"

This is like... 90% of the gaming writing I read. It's not got any "oh, well, this mechanic does this or that, which leads to a complete breakdown..." so you get these often meaningless reviews. They're "does it function," not "does it work."

Game reviews are like... getting reviews from someone who hops in a car and drives it and goes "yeah, that worked nice and is a pretty good-looking car." It doesn't tell me anything.

I honestly think the reason my freelance work is so well received (

I've been told that I am, in fact, the best writer a certain site has ever employed by a good number of people now; it's weird

) isn't because I'm a phenomenal writer. I'm not. Guys like Tom Bissell have put far better words down on the page than I. The response I get is, I think, because I'm tapping into something not many people get, which is not "does the game work," but "here's how the game works." I think people respond to that really positively. If better writers than me actually tried writing like I do, I'd be out of a job. But, uh... I don't think many of them actually... know as much about gaming as I do. The ones who do tend to leave the industry and go make games for real.

BeamImpact · Sep 19, 2014

they should roughly be as good as their target group that they want their reviews to be read from id say
and since most sites are trying to attrack to the masses, i wouldnt say the regular journalist needs to be a pro or anything like that
they certainly shouldnt be superbad though

more importantly is that they know how to analyse, have a wide and deep knowledge in games to compare, and be unbiased

Earl_Grey · Sep 19, 2014

grap3fruitman said:
I've never read a fighting game review that didn't read like someone paraphrased the back of the box.

I maintain that most fighting game reviews are utterly worthless. Not because of any fault on the reviewer's part, it's just a very difficult genre. Even if the reviewer is genuinely brilliant at fighters, stuff like balance and the metagame takes weeks to emerge.

Servbot24 · Sep 19, 2014

They should be up front about how good they are.

Some gamers are not good gamers and it would be helpful to them to hear impressions from that perspective.

CassidyIzABeast · Sep 19, 2014

You know how you go to a friend's house and they give you the controller in the middle of some random part of the game and you play like a chicken with his head cut off because you've never played that game before? For a game journalist its probably like that every time only there's a camera rolling capturing all those screw ups.

Crashing into a wall in a racer is inexcusable though.

nded · Sep 19, 2014

I think some of them should be, yeah. Or at least acknowledge skill level may affect enjoyment of certain games.

Earl_Grey · Sep 19, 2014

CassidyIzABeast said:
You know how you go to a friend's house and they give you the controller in the middle of some random part of the game and you play like a chicken with his head cut off because you've never played that game before? For a game journalist its probably like that every time only there's a camera rolling capturing all those screw ups.

And if it's at an event, imagine you haven't slept in 48 hours, are running on red bull and gummy bears and are surrounded by screaming crowds.

Aaron-Lagann · Sep 19, 2014

I worked in games journalism for a year and by far the biggest issues are an unfamiliarity with multiple genres and a lack of being an actual journalist. Player skill was really only an issue with Metal Gear Rising, where the guy played it once on Normal, said it was too hard and used that as a negative in his review.

GravityMan · Sep 19, 2014

First of all, they should be good writers and able to think critically. Secondly, they should be able to judge games on their own merits, instead of what they were "expecting" the game to be.

For those who are employed by major sites (e.g. IGN)...they should be competent at games, meaning they can get through most games on default difficulty in a reasonable amount of time. However, they don't need expert-level skill at games, otherwise they may have a hard time relating to the bulk of their audience.

Shmuppers · Sep 19, 2014

Should art critics also be competent artists?

Of course.

GorillaJu · Sep 19, 2014

maltrain said:
No. I'm a journalist, I'm editor in chief of a digital videogame magazine and I'm not very good playing FPS, for example... but I can give my personal opinion (I don't like scores by the way) about: fun, graphics, sound, design, etc.

Are sport journalist good actually playing any sport? Almost never.

* Edited *

No but they have competency in how they read and view the game they're watching. I wouldn't want to read a match report on a soccer game from a guy who has now idea how tactics work in soccer.

DarkHeartedKill · Sep 19, 2014

EventHorizon said:
Yes and No.

Reviewers are there to represent the public. In theory they take the bullet of bad games so you don't have to. The complicated part is that "the public" isn't uniform. Some are pros. Some are horrible, and by definition most are average. A game that might appeal to very talented gamers, might be too frustrating to the average or poor gamer. Likewise a game that is perfect for poor gamers might be too boring or repetitive for those looking for more of a challenge.

So the best outcome would be to have reviewers of all skill levels with most of them being average. Then it would be up to the person to find a reviewer who most closely matches their tastes and abilities, when trying to get insight on how much they'll like a game.

Great, I'm past the Event Horizon, spaghettification time nice knowing all of you!
I find reviews to be useless for me for that reason. Since they usually don't look for the same things I do in games, games they show little love for I enjoy and games they praise I don't find too enjoyable. The reviews are good for when a game comes out that promised all these neat features but doesn't deliver them, or for when a game is just bad due to poor programming and glitches. However, when it comes to gameplay I depend on my friends who have the same interests and like the same features as I do. Basically, I use my friends as guinea pigs :3.

SonyToo!;130687601 said:
I think that's usually how it works with maybe the reviews editor being more of a Jack of all trades since they have to cover if a specialist can't be found.

I don't check reviews as much as I once did but I do often see WiiU and to a lesser degree 3DS reviewers accused of being unsuitable for the game they're reviewing. It might be that some sites have just one or two ppl covering Nintendo games, which if true is wrong as someone reviewing Sony games rather than genres.

Another problem with specialists is that imo it adds to homogenisation if they get used to playing just one type of game and a curve ball like 101 or Vanquish comes a long and they hate it because it doesn't have the features their fave games do.

Does it? I haven't looked at reviews lately either. I either wait till the game is on a nice big sale on Steam, GmG, Humble Bundle, GOG, etc since I'm not in any particular rush to play the game as soon as it comes out, or I ask a friend who has it and shares my interests in games what it's like. I find the only real good way to get peoples opinions on a game is open it up for a demo or something.

Like what Elder Scrolls, Titanfall, Dark Souls 2, etc did. They allowed people that had interest in the game be able to play it first hand and submit their reviews and opinions on the game. I feel that's the best method, it lets you see how your true audience will react to the game and lets you tweak or change it based on what is the most voiced opinion.

Abounder · Sep 19, 2014

Yes because they're writing to enthusiasts. Leave the casual stuff to Conan and pop culture publications like Rolling Stone.

ponpo · Sep 19, 2014

Sanctuary said:
Mostly the lighter side of action games, but she's finished The Witcher 2, Devil May Cry 1,2&3 (of course this was almost a decade ago) and Bayonetta without much of an issue. She's mostly into RPGs and action/adventure. I told her that one day I'm going to have her play Demon's Souls just so I can watch her get frustrated and quit after ten minutes.

MattKeil said:
That's pretty far from reality, actually.

Also: Experience, lad, you should learn to appreciate it. I'm in my late thirties, but I can still beat just about anyone in the reviewing business at the fighting game of your choice.

Hm someone should eat up a multiple game tournament and invite reviewers from a bunch of different gaming websites to see who is the best aka who has the most valid opinion.

jroc74 · Sep 19, 2014

Kinsei said:
Good? No. Decent? Yes.

If you can't beat a game on normal don't review it.

I agree with this and will make it a lil easier and say they need to just be gamers period. IMO if you are a gamer in general you ....should...be able to play a game decently.

Earl_Grey · Sep 19, 2014

Well this is often a problem with readers, as well as sheer, old-fashioned bullshitting. Mention a frustrating mechanic or odd difficulty curve in a review and you'll be swimming in "git gud scrub" comments before you know it. Throw in the fact that reviews are often aimed at joe public rather than full-blown game enthusiasts and it's very easy to start painting all games journalists as incompetent fuckwits.

virtualS · Sep 19, 2014

It's definitely a problem when a game reviewer can't grasp the basic mechanics of a game to at least the point where he or she is able to finish it on normal difficulty. Giving an 'opinion' under such circumstances is akin to movie reviewer who is blind giving their opinion on a film or a sports commentator providing commentary on a sport which he or she has never played or is unaware of its rules.

Yet this happens all the time and this negative feedback loop works to the detriment of gamers everywhere.

thesolidshark · Sep 19, 2014

While I think they should, from a journalism and review position, I'm not sure that's really necessary as it feels like many games are becoming easier to improve their reception, maybe especially when it comes to reviewers who'll spread the word about the game.

Should they really be? Yes, imo.

Will they be? No, I don't think so. It would probably be hard enough as a journalist/reviewer to keep up with so many games within a genre to be well-informed enough.

I've wondered if there could be something like where journalists give their time to review upon release date or embargo, and then maybe one month later, one publication or another commissions a pro-player/enthusiast review and give some games a second, much more in-depth look (like Saur for W101, any of the EVO top 8 for a fighter, etc.). Not mandatorily for all games, but some who really have fleshed out potential or big change-ups by some (including added DLC), this could be very beneficial for looking at a game.

baconcow · Sep 19, 2014

maltrain said:
No. I'm a journalist, I'm editor in chief of a digital videogame magazine and I'm not very good playing FPS, for example... but I can give my personal opinion (I don't like scores by the way) about: fun, graphics, sound, design, etc.

Are sport journalist good actually playing any sport? Almost never.

* Edited *

If a journalist sucks at a game, they are likely not going to have much fun.

SeanTSC · Sep 19, 2014

They don't have to be Great, but they surely have to be Competent. If you're not able to figure a game out then you probably shouldn't be reviewing it.

Likewise, someone who doesn't enjoy shooters shouldn't be reviewing one. Same with RPGs or any other genre. I just immediately and completely dismiss the opinion of anyone reviewing a genre that they aren't into. And if they actively dislike the genre, which I have seen more than I should have, then they have absolutely no business reviewing that genre.

kyser73 · Sep 19, 2014

I think a reviewer should be at least competent or have theoretical knowledge of the media they are reviewing in order to deliver an informative review - for example, reviewing a retrospective in a gallery, or a music concert, are generally better done by someone who at least has a passing knowledge of both the artist and of the basic theory or historical place of the art under review.

Gaming is no different - a reviewer should be able to play the genre of game under review to at least a competent standard, and be aware of the technical aspects that affect that type of game if they are done badly.

This is one thing I think the outlets that have 2 or 3 people reviewing and offering an opinion are good - you can get views from someone who either doesn't like the genre, like it but isn't good and so on. The UK magazines Zzap!64 and Crash! both did this back in the day, and it led to some interesting reviews - especially when one of the reviewers disagreed vehemently with the consensus and was able to offer a minority report.

TGMIII · Sep 19, 2014

Earl_Grey said:
Well this is often a problem with readers, as well as sheer, old-fashioned bullshitting. Mention a frustrating mechanic or odd difficulty curve in a review and you'll be swimming in "git gud scrub" comments before you know it. Throw in the fact that reviews are often aimed at joe public rather than full-blown game enthusiasts and it's very easy to start painting all games journalists as incompetent fuckwits.

It's often how reviewers articulate their issues with a mechanic or a difficulty curve that causes the issue but that's also somewhat due to the nature of trying to be among the first reviews out for a game. When there's a literal time limit on how much you can spend playing a game it means that going back and completely understanding a mechanic that was frustrating or hard isn't always feasible which then results in factual inaccuracies regarding said mechanic or whatever it may be.

In general, I think if your job is to review games then yes you need to be fairly competent when it comes to the actual act of playing games and a players ability absolutely reflects on the experience. MGR:R is possibly the best example of this recently where many reviews were marked negatively due to the reviewers own inability to preform the mechanics asked but also lacked the ability to think critically about how they should apply the mechanics given to them.

I agree with you that reviews are typically aimed at the unknowing masses but that's not to say that a reviewer couldn't both provide for that audience and provide something for a more knowledgeable audience. For me that's the failure of many reviewers.

Support NeoGAF

Should Game Reviewers be good Gamers?

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Member

wants to fuck an Asian grill.

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Oh, bitch bitch bitch.

BIGTIME TV MOGUL #2

Member

Banned

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Murdered By StarCreator

Banned

Member

Member

Murdered By StarCreator

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Member

Banned

( ââ¿â)

Phone reception is more important to me than human rights

Murdered By StarCreator

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Similar threads

( ââ¿â)