Support NeoGAF

[nrvalleytime]

He asked if journalists should be good gamers not game developers.

The question itself is loaded. Do they need to be successful at playing the game in every way?

No, because a good journalist will know enough about design, structure, implementation, expectations and their own limitations to recognize a poor game from a game that forces them to play well.

We can't separate the two, and this conversation isn't as simple as you might want it be, unfortunately.

Every profession requires you to be good at what you are supposed to do. Would you want a person who likes telling stories but can't write for shit work for your favorite news company? Could you imagine a college kid who loves to play basketball, but can't manage to shoot any damned hoops, end up in the NBA?

Spoiler

yeah, hyperbolic comparisons, but it's ludicrous to imagine game reviewers should just "like" video games instead of being good at them

I have thought extensively about how certain reviewers, when bad at certain (or all) video games, will actually allow this to negatively affect the score. This is a serious problem, and it's similar to the topic at hand.

No. We're placing too much emphasis on the interactivity of gaming in this discussion. If we want to make it that, then we draw attention away from the aesthetic, artistic side of gaming that has an objective and grounded history. We can compare those areas to other mediums, and simply being "good" at a game makes you no more qualified to talk about game's merits as watching a movie makes you a movie buff.

 

[Living Proof]

Every profession requires you to be good at what you are supposed to do. Would you want a person who likes telling stories but can't write for shit work for your favorite newspaper or magazine? Could you imagine a college kid who loves to play basketball, but can't manage to shoot any damned hoops, end up in the NBA? How about a person who loves cars but can't stop getting into accidents-- would you let them drive you around as a taxi driver or on a public bus?

Spoiler

yeah, hyperbolic comparisons, but it's ludicrous to imagine game reviewers should just "like" video games instead of being good at them

I have thought extensively about how certain reviewers, when bad at certain (or all) video games, will actually allow this to negatively affect the score. This is a serious problem, and it's similar to the topic at hand. Now, they can admit to having difficulties and explain why they did, while encompassing what may be perceived as an overall viewpoint that many gamers as a whole might share-- that's totally acceptable and preferable, allowing for their concerns to be voiced while acknowledging how the wider audience might also experience the game. Not every person is good at every genre, for example, but they can reasonably tell what qualities are good and acknowledge the fact that they aren't as good as others may be.

 

[GolazoDan]

Not really. More often than not their perspective should probably take into consideration the average gamer so if they're in line with that it's okay. Of course the perspective of, say, someone well seasoned in fighting games isn't a bad thing, it might just not be ideal for the wider audience. Basically, if your writing can communicate your experience for a player of your skill level then that's alright. Self-review is a huge part of it.

 

[jwhit28]

Nope. Even if they're bad at the game, their opinion is as valid as anyone else's.

I think that only works for more passive entertainment. Playing the game is similar to taking a test drive. If their opinions are based on flying through the game on easy, what good are their impressions to people that will delve deeper? It's like a car reviewer just driving to the grocery store and back, or a GPU reviewer playing League of Legends and spitting out an opinion.

 

[OsirisBlack]

They should be at very least competent and well informed about the genre they are writing about.

I completely agree with this and I think I may have not gotten my point out accurately. I am not suggesting that people who review games be pro level and compete in EVO. I am just saying they should at least possess the basic fundamentals.

Using my earlier example if you shoot the wall in front of you then shoot the floor back up get shot twice move back and forth aimlessly and then die you do not need to cover the third person shooter genre and should probably stay away from fps shooters as well.

Got any actual stats to back up the claim that as a gamer's age increases, their skill level decreases? Furthermore, that devs are purposely making "easy games" so that all those Olds won't feel so bad and review it more favorably?

Don't believe that at all... I am pushing 40 and play fighting games and mobas at a competitive level.

 

[Fushichou187]

Spoiler

No it's just my conspiracy theory (._. )

lol ok then

OT, I'd rather a reviewer be someone that is enthusiastic about-- or at the very least interested in-- the genre they are reviewing. Don't give a horror game to a reviewer that by and large dislikes-- or even worse, is dismissive of-- the genre; don't give an FPS game to someone on staff that has recently burnt themselves out on the genre, etc..

It'd be nice if the people reviewing the game were also competent at playing what they're reviewing, but if they aren't then I'd like them to be self-aware enough to include that in their review.

 

[fedexpeon]

No, they just need to know how to read, and understand basic physics eg: running+jumping=greater distance.

 

[DeSolos]

Good? No. Decent? Yes.

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

This.

Your average gamer is average at playing games. The more your experience aligns with the consumer's the better.

 

[DarkHeartedKill]

They don't have to be amazing at the game. However, they do need to be able to play it properly or at least admit that they suck and it's not the games fault. For example I can't for the life of me solo Fume Knight in DaS2 Crown of The Old Iron King, but I find that fight to be magnificent in every aspect and a completely fair fight. The problem with some of them are that they are so prideful about their gaming abilities that if they can't beat the game it must be the games fault. So the complain about artificial difficulty, that the game is too hard, etc. There are some that are still competent, but unfortunately they aren't as big and thus their voices aren't as relevant to developers. Which is why, to be honest a better approach has been to release a demo of the game for free, let players try the game out. you know, the people that are actually going to buy the game and invest what they hope to be a buttload of time into it. You let them try it out and submit reviews directly to you and you compile all the reviews and you see what needs improvements. That's what I feel would be a very viable method to measuring how much people like or dislike aspects of the game.

 

[ponpo]

The question itself is loaded. Do they need to be successful at playing the game in every way?

No, because a good journalist will know enough about design, structure, implementation, expectations and their own limitations to recognize a poor game from a game that forces them to play well.

We can't separate the two, and this conversation isn't as simple as you might want it be, unfortunately.

The question in the OP might not be that simple but I don't think it's hard to separate 'someone good at games in general' from 'game developer'

 

[SatelliteOfLove]

I don't demand this, never will, but I do demand perspective on their actual skill at a game at the moment of reflection.

Granted, this is something I ask of everyone who picks up a game, but...

 

[Riposte]

Spoiler

No it's just my conspiracy theory (._. )

I believe it too. And so do many people who love to mention how old they are when they talk about games being too hard.

EDIT: On the other hand, it is not like they were writing great reviews in their youth.

 

[NCR Redslayer]

Yes because I think this creates different, and better, views on a game. Say a reviewer who's good at character action games rates DMC poorly because they think it falters while someone who hasn't played character action games may think its the sickest thing ever. They both give different views which will help you, the consumer, ultimately decide what you think of of the game depending on which side you fall on more(skilled or unskilled at the genre). And therefore, an opinion to help whether or not you'll buy the game.

 

[Sanctuary]

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.

 

[MadLaughter]

Reviewers don't need to be pro e-sportsmen. You need to hit a baseline, sure, but they are giving purchasing advice in reviews that is meant to be compatible with the general public. There's no shame in a reviewer saying games are hard, because the people making a purchasing decision based on their reviews need to know that.

 

[Who]

Should esports journalists (if there are such a thing), and industry reporters be good at video games? No not necessarily but they should be knowledgable.

Should game reviewers be good at games? Absolutely.

 

[orthodoxy1095]

Should sports journalists have been good athletes? No.

Should game journalists be good gamers? No.

Should both have an appreciation and interest in the area they cover? Yes.

Now, a different question is about game reviewers, i.e., the people actually play-testing and giving us opinions on the material. They need to be competent. It's one thing to report news and do interviews on games. It's another to write an informed review on the merits and issues of a game.

 

[Nasbin]

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.

This is why Hard is the new 'Normal', and 'Normal' is the new Ninja Dog.

 

[nrvalleytime]

The question in the OP might not be that simple but I don't think it's hard to separate 'someone good at games in general' from 'game developer'

Sure, that I agree with. But I don't see how it connects to game reviewing.

In fact, I wish someone like Ebert had appreciated videogames. Would he have sucked at playing them?

Yes, without a doubt. But his knowledge and understanding of art and film would have translated into perhaps a perfect review of gaming. He would have been able to articulate the balance of interactivity, experience, and creative intent, which is what every great reviewer should look for.

Just because games require direct interaction doesn't make them any less approachable. That's a huge misnomer in our industry, unfortunately.

The reasoning from the reviewer's perspective is that they have to review so many games so quickly they don't have time to get good at any particular game.

Therefore, the majority of them are terrible at video games in general. It's often why bad games get good reviews, and good games get bad reviews.

Too hard? 6/10

Too long? 5/10

I spent 5 minutes playing the multiplayer and got 100 kills? 10/10

Apart from what I'm sure is the rare example, show me consistent, numerous example of where you see this occurring. Because it sounds like you're pulling the numbers from thin air, and the example doesn't ring true.

Context matters, and knowing if you know enough to make this kind of claim is important in this type of discussion.

 

[Kinsei]

Should sports journalists have been good athletes? No.

Should game journalists be good gamers? No.

Should both have an appreciation and interest in the area they cover? Yes.

The two are not comparable. Sports Journalists aren't playing the sport against the people they cover.

 

[Zoned]

The reasoning from the reviewer's perspective is that they have to review so many games so quickly they don't have time to get good at any particular game.

Therefore, the majority of them are terrible at video games in general. It's often why bad games get good reviews, and good games get bad reviews.

Too hard? 6/10

Too long? 5/10

I spent 5 minutes playing the multiplayer and got 100 kills? 10/10

But major gaming websites have plenty of reviewers, so that reasoning doesn't make sense.

 

[jwhit28]

Should sports journalists have been good athletes? No.

Should game journalists be good gamers? No.

Should both have an appreciation and interest in the area they cover? Yes.

Now, a different question is about game reviewers, i.e., the people actually play-testing and giving us opinions on the material. They need to be competent.

One is passive and one is active. Do you let a driver that can't drive manual write a review on a new sports car?

 

[Living Proof]

No. We're placing too much emphasis on the interactivity of gaming in this discussion. If we want to make it that, then we draw attention away from the aesthetic, artistic side of gaming that has an objective and grounded history. We can compare those areas to other mediums, and simply being "good" at a game makes you no more qualified to talk about game's merits as watching a movie makes you a movie buff.

Well, I edited my post a bit, but I'll also comment on this: I'm merely answering the question in the OP. It doesn't say "What makes a good review?" or something along those lines; there are obviously many aspects that need to go into a game's review in order to adequately convey the reviewer's opinion. It's clear that not every reviewer will be good at every game-- and as long as they make it clear that they're not particularly good at the game they're reviewing while also emphasizing the qualities they found in it, as well as including what might be considered a wider consensus (as opposed to saying it's bad simply because they're bad at it, essentially), then there is plenty of room to explore what you're saying in addition to the OP's question.

There's a very delicate balance to what a review needs to satisfy every type of person-- but obviously the interactivity of the game is a crucial component, arguably even more so than the aesthetics or sound design or lore, etc. No one should be saying that a reviewer needs to be "good" and that's it, but other mediums don't necessarily require the same critique as video games. That's a dangerous assumption.

 

[JesseEwiak]

But major gaming websites have plenty of reviewers, so that reasoning doesn't make sense.

But they all gave good scores to games I don't like, and gave medicore scores to games I do like, so they must be bad at games.

 

[Ogimachi]

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.

 

[JABEE]

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 should at least understand the rules of the sport. They should at least have more knowledge about the sport and its mechanics than a casual fan.

 

[Teknoman]

Good no, competent and at least somewhat knowledgeable? Yes.

 

[inm8num2]

People who write about a particular topic should be knowledgeable about it. For something like games, the knowledge comes primarily from experience playing games, but being good at the games isn't necessarily required.

Be passionate and understand what *makes* a good game. That's most important. Being good at the games is important, too, but sometimes it helps to have varying perspectives (e.g. experts vs. novices).

 

[orthodoxy1095]

The two are not comparable. Sports Journalists aren't playing the sport against the people they cover.

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.

 

[LeleSocho]

They have to be decent, i remember not too long ago watching a video of a journalist of a famous site that i sincerely don't remember (IGN? GiantBomb? Dunno never follow these sites) playing DKC: Tropical Freeze a game that he had to review and he complained about the difficulty while in reality he was just terrible at it.

Or at least they have to be intelligent enough to see the qualities of a game beyond their own abilities as a player.

 

[Drac84]

They don't need to be good, but surely as a bare-minimum they should be competent. Some of the demo videos coming out lately are just infuriating to watch. When watching driving game hands-on demos I find myself yelling at the monitor "USE THE BRAKES YOU IDIOT!" How can thes people be expected to make an informed critique of driving physics and handling when they DON'T USE THE FRIGGIN BRAKE!

This hands-on demo in particular bordered on farce.

 

[unbias]

Game press dont have to be anything, technically. If they fill a demand more power to them, just dont be suprised people complain and dont take you seriously, because you cant properly figure out how to double jump in Destiny.

 

[JesseEwiak]

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.

Even if the vast majority of people actually playing the game and reading the review will likely play on the 'normal' setting?

 

[JABEE]

I worked with some guys who were really good game players.

They made awful testers and awful magazine- and Web site editors.

I don't think you need to be good. You just need to be good enough to recognize things and understand how your limitations impact your enjoyment of the game.

There's also people who have a combination of being good at games and writing. These things aren't mutually exclusive.

Edit: I guess I would agree that a review could take the angle of someone experiencing a genre for the first time or someone who is testing new waters and their views on the game. It's ridiculous to incorporate that in the current model of definitive judgements in conjunction with numerical scoring that serves as an objective indicator of quality. These numbers are used and read by readers often as an aggregate score completely removed from the text of the review. A practice that outlets happily endorse by providing scores to Metacritic.

 

[ironmang]

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.

What games got poor reviews due to difficulty?

 

[entremet]

They should understand the audience, have a history with the genres at least.

For example, I could nerve properly review an RTS or Racing Sim since I don't have much experience with the genres. I won't be able to notice nuances that are critical to convey.

 

[AlucardGV]

no, but they should understand that it's not the game fault.

 

[Sanctuary]

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.

What the hell does being a "dad" have anything to do with gaming competence? Hell, my 56 year old aunt is still playing RPGs and action games. You could have just left it at casual gamer and have been done with it.

 

[hunchback]

I used to review Pc games for a online review site in the late 90's. The way we distributed games was by the reviewer's niche. At the time I was the shooter guy. All fps games would come my way. Another person who was good at sports games would take those. Same would happen for a rpg. For the most part it worked out pretty good.
I'm actually glad I'm not a game reviewer anymore. Back then we just had to take screen shots. Now they stream live and do video reviews. I would be very self conscious playing a game knowing someone is watching me. I'm always a bad player for the first hour or so.

 

[Dahbomb]

Game journalists need to be knowledgeable about the stories they are covering.

Game reviewers need to be competent in the genre they are covering.


All reviews should come with a review that covers a newcomers perspective (ie. the "average" gamer) and another review that covers from the veteran perspective (ie. person who has played the series/genre long enough with decent enough skill to give a good analysis of how it stacks up).

 

[Captain Tuttle]

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.

C'mon son

I'm not very good at games but I know what I like and can articulate it, don't see why that would be a problem.

 

[Zoned]

But they all gave good scores to games I don't like, and gave medicore scores to games I do like, so they must be bad at games.

That's a different point. The original point was reviewers believing that they can't have expertise in a particular genre since they have to review different different games which is actually not true. As far as scores are concerned, it's not like if someone doesn't like a game, it automatically means that he is bad at it. I don't like COD, but that doesn't mean I am bad at it.

 

[Doctor Decimate]

Playing a game while providing commentary for an audience is not representative of how skilled a reviewer is. Some people get jittery precisely because there's a bunch of people watching who are going to tell them they suck and question how they have the job to begin with. Others simply aren't great at talking and playing at the same time. Either way, we really need to quit acting like the preview videos sites put out are a good look into how a person plays the game on their own time.

 

[nrvalleytime]

Well, I edited my post a bit, but I'll also comment on this: I'm merely answering the question in the OP. It doesn't say "What makes a good review?" or something along those lines; there are obviously many aspects that need to go into a game's review in order to adequately convey the reviewer's opinion. It's clear that not every reviewer will be good at every game-- and as long as they make it clear that they're not particularly good at the game they're reviewing while also emphasizing the qualities they found in it, as well as including what might be considered a wider consensus (as opposed to saying it's bad simply because they're bad at it, essentially), then there is plenty of room to explore what you're saying in addition to the OP's question.

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.

 

[RoboPlato]

They should at least be capable and be familiar with the basic mechanics of a given genre they are reviewing.

 

[bananafactory]

Their skill level should match that of their target audience - as such most main sites and publications should be "average" at least.

However, as someone who is not particularly good at games, I find it important for a review to note when a game is particularly difficult - it may be a warning flag for myself. Having an extremely skilled person review the same game - they may actually not consider it hard and thus the evaluation will be different.

 

[Abriael]

Yes, they should. Or at least they should be gamers. It's not much a matter of ability, as much as passion and love for gaming.

Not all of us are or have that passion. Some even take pride in calling themselves out of the "gamer" group.

If any one of those worked for/with me, he'd have to find another job. No matter how good of a writer he is. In my book, if one isn't a gamer he doesn't have any business writing about games.

As for competence, some would be required. If you can't put yourself in the shoes of a core gamer to judge a game's difficulty/mechanics, then this isn't a job for you. Doesn't need to be Daigo to judge Street Fighter, but you need to be able to do a half circle with the stick.

Sorry for the radical/blunt post.

Spoiler

Not sorry at all.

 

[M.W.]

Giant bomb wouldn't exist.

Spoiler

jk

But it's true.

 

[ponpo]

Sure, that I agree with. But I don't see how it connects to game reviewing.

In fact, I wish someone like Ebert had appreciated videogames. Would he have sucked at playing them?

Yes, without a doubt. But his knowledge and understanding of art and film would have translated into perhaps a perfect review of gaming. He would have been able to articulate the balance of interactivity, experience, and creative intent, which is what every great reviewer should look for.

Just because games require direct interaction doesn't make them any less approachable. That's a huge misnomer in our industry, unfortunately.

Creative intent is fine but I could imagine if a game was too difficult for a reviewer it would have an effect on the experience. But this is just hypothetical since I can't think of a time when that has happened.

What games got poor reviews due to difficulty?

Was just kidding, but similar answer to above. I don't think it happens regularly but I can imagine if a game WAS too hard for a reviewer then it would have some kind of negative impact in a review.

What the hell does being a "dad" have anything to do with gaming competence? Hell, my 56 year old aunt is still playing RPGs and action games. You could have just left it at casual gamer and have been done with it.

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

 

[shink]

Some degree of competence is welcomed.