-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Should Game Reviewers be good Gamers?
- Thread starter OsirisBlack
- Start date
omegashockwave
Member
They have to be decent, but more importantly need to have an understanding of the genre. Genres like fighting, character action, and RPGs require the reviewer to have prior knowledge to properly review those games.
They can be of any skill level they want, as long as they acknowledge that (for example, even if you breeze through Super Meat Boy it might be good to admit it's going to be challenging for many).
Sure, it irks me a lot whenever I see a reviewer "bad" at a game or not seemingly giving it a chance (by this, I for example mean trying to get into a specific type of control scheme or whatnot). But it's up to the reviewer. It always is.
Sure, it irks me a lot whenever I see a reviewer "bad" at a game or not seemingly giving it a chance (by this, I for example mean trying to get into a specific type of control scheme or whatnot). But it's up to the reviewer. It always is.
nrvalleytime
Member
I'm curious - you would fire a skilled writer (a valuable, rare trait) over someone good at a particular type of game genre? One skill seems to be a bit easier to acquire.
There are always going to be assholes in any group who are outcasts for the sake of being outcasts, but that is a different thing to discuss. Reviewing games takes passion, but don't make that skill only your number #1 priority. There are other qualities to consider.
Outlets and publishers work within that system. It's their fault that Metacritic is used to determine which outlets get early access to games/whether development teams get bonuses.
It's why I dont even bother with reviews. Quick looks make reviews unneeded to people who have been gaming for any period of time, imo.
Yes, because I'm not that audience. Basically a person who can only play Civ 5 on Prince is not qualified to say whether a system or feature in the game is broken or not, simply because they don't understand them.
It's the same as a person who thinks free earbuds that come with their phones are "just fine" analyzing high-end gear made for audiophiles. If they can't tell the difference, their input becomes irrelevant.
Doesn't make a person better or worse, it's just the way it is. Reviews must serve at least one purpose, after all.
But his stuff is easier to gauge because you can watch the game and why he fails. Much easier to get an idea for yourself watching him.
Only good enough that they can be reasonably competent at playing the game, make real progress, and be capable of beating it. We're not going to them for strategies, to see them pull off impressive feats, or beat other players, we're going to them to hear what they think about a game, and the only time their capabilities make their opinion COMPLETELY irrelevant is if they can't grasp the basics at all, like if you tried to get someone's grandma or grandpa to play an FPS and they can't wrap their head around using both analog sticks/kb&m at the same time along with aiming and firing.
And I do imagine a lot of us playing before getting a lot of experience may look like terrible players or have some other stupid hang up when we're still trying to get used to controlling the game.
And I do imagine a lot of us playing before getting a lot of experience may look like terrible players or have some other stupid hang up when we're still trying to get used to controlling the game.
nrvalleytime
Member
I'm sure this has happened in the past. Doesn't make it right (of course), but hopefully a reviewer would take this into consideration. It's one of the basic tenants of reviewing: how much do I know about the topic, and, based on my experiences and education, what does history show about my ability to critique it fairly?
It doesn't have to be answered in the review, but almost all of the reviewers I trust seem to understand this concept. It echoes throughout their pieces.
flatearthpandas
Member
Yeah, competent would be a start. I've been saying for ages that reviewers should be required to link their PSN/Live profiles so we can see how far they got and on what difficulty, as well as what games they like.
Kai Dracon
Writing a dinosaur space opera symphony
I'd phrase the question a bit differently. "Should game journalists be knowledgeable gamers?"
In other words, it's all well and good to say the journalist should represent "joe average". The average reader, the median audience, and be able to speak with to them. But if a writer is ignorant about the nature of the medium, there's a problem.
For example, a few years ago someone I know tried to explain basic fighting game community terminology to a writer tasked with reviewing fighting games. The writer refused to believe a variety of common terms, like "whiff" and "buffer" where real. Because the writer had never heard them before. The writer also refused to believe that the fighting game community could be any sort of reference of note, presuming this "FGC" must be a few sad nerds in a basement somewhere still playing Street Fighter 2 on an SNES.
And this writer was considered the office expert on fighting games. (His reviews were often inaccurate and poorly reasoned.)
Nobody is saying said writer should have been a tournament player. But that person was so ignorant of the genre they had no respect for it. They couldn't believe there was anything more to the concept of a fighting game besides what little they knew.
It's that kind of attitude, IMO, that crops up from time to time among paid writers who know surprisingly little about the medium they write on. It's easy for people to get a big head about their profession because they're getting paid to do it. They fail to be cautious in their self-appraisal, forgeting that incompetent people get paid to do a job (badly) all the time. Just because you're a "paid professional" is no guarantee by itself you're not in fact one of the ignorant people doing a bad job, and you don't know enough to know.
In other words, it's all well and good to say the journalist should represent "joe average". The average reader, the median audience, and be able to speak with to them. But if a writer is ignorant about the nature of the medium, there's a problem.
For example, a few years ago someone I know tried to explain basic fighting game community terminology to a writer tasked with reviewing fighting games. The writer refused to believe a variety of common terms, like "whiff" and "buffer" where real. Because the writer had never heard them before. The writer also refused to believe that the fighting game community could be any sort of reference of note, presuming this "FGC" must be a few sad nerds in a basement somewhere still playing Street Fighter 2 on an SNES.
And this writer was considered the office expert on fighting games. (His reviews were often inaccurate and poorly reasoned.)
Nobody is saying said writer should have been a tournament player. But that person was so ignorant of the genre they had no respect for it. They couldn't believe there was anything more to the concept of a fighting game besides what little they knew.
It's that kind of attitude, IMO, that crops up from time to time among paid writers who know surprisingly little about the medium they write on. It's easy for people to get a big head about their profession because they're getting paid to do it. They fail to be cautious in their self-appraisal, forgeting that incompetent people get paid to do a job (badly) all the time. Just because you're a "paid professional" is no guarantee by itself you're not in fact one of the ignorant people doing a bad job, and you don't know enough to know.
orthodoxy1095
Banned
Also the transparency of TotalBiscuit often openly stating: "I suck at this game, do not judge the game by how you see me playing it." And I enjoy hearing that. More reviewers should admit they suck.
But covering a sports team and serving as a beat reporter is different than reviewers critiquing video game content.
Sports writers are often news reporters and pundits. They don't write critiques.
I didn't say "good".
As a matter of fact I said that it isn't much a matter of ability, as much as love and passion for gaming.
To adapt your question to that, yes, I would strongly advise those I work for to fire anyone that lacks that love and passion, and even more so anyone that goes around boasting about that. No matter if they wrote ten years for the New York times.
Of course this is all strongly hypotetical, because someone lacking that passion and love wouldn't be hired at all.
Eh, no thanks. I would rather read a good writer's oppinion on a game than a good gamer's poorly written one.
If a game sucks so bad that it couldn't be finished, it still warrants a review. If you accept the premise that games are art, then critisism of how they use the form should be valid beside just nuts and bolts stuff. I see room for both, but personally have no interest in the opinions of the elite gamers.
Riposte
Member
They do all the time. Doesn't mean shit to me.
Should they be good gamers? No.
Should they be able to recognize when it's their lack of skill making a game bad and not because the game itself is bad? YES!
Case in point: Wonderful 101 because reviewers who were shitty gamers didn't have the skill to play or even grasp the mechanics of the game claiming the game was designed poorly.
Should they be able to recognize when it's their lack of skill making a game bad and not because the game itself is bad? YES!
Case in point: Wonderful 101 because reviewers who were shitty gamers didn't have the skill to play or even grasp the mechanics of the game claiming the game was designed poorly.
The Silver
Member
Well yes and no really.
For instance I'm a casual fighting game fan and a harcore fan of the character action genre(I still hate this term)
Most fighting game reveiwers are probably at my skill level so there reviews would work well for me, however a game like DmC is the opposite.
I don't really care what they have to say on the game as they mostly on play it on the surface level. I'm a hardcore fan and will go much deeper into the game and pick out all sorts of flaws in the combat system compared to the previous entries. All these other reviews praising the production values the accessible gameplay and giving it 9/10s mean nothing to me.
For instance I'm a casual fighting game fan and a harcore fan of the character action genre(I still hate this term)
Most fighting game reveiwers are probably at my skill level so there reviews would work well for me, however a game like DmC is the opposite.
I don't really care what they have to say on the game as they mostly on play it on the surface level. I'm a hardcore fan and will go much deeper into the game and pick out all sorts of flaws in the combat system compared to the previous entries. All these other reviews praising the production values the accessible gameplay and giving it 9/10s mean nothing to me.
flatearthpandas
Member
A skilled writer usually researches and investigates what they are writing about. Even if they happened to be writing game reviews because of some act of God or Satan, we would not have many issues of that person running their mouth off about things they don't understand.
A different approach: I would hire a J.K. Rowling with vision to write movie reviews over a blind William Wordsworth. At some point, writing talent is just not enough to save you for certain tasks.
Nocturno999
Member
The correct answer. Also, they need to be on the consumer's side which is rare these days.
SneakyStephan
Banned
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 never said they had to finish it if it's bad, just that they need to be able to finish it. If a game is too hard for a reviewer and they need to bump it down from normal to easy then that review is completely worthless to me.
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.
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.
Zombie James
Banned
They get payed to play and critique games for a living. Yes, they should be damn good gamers.
Cutter Jones
Member
I don't care about their video game skills. They just damn sure better be good journalists and writers.
There are too many hacks out there that were raised on the AVGN's and Seanbaby's of the world and think just being witty is what'll get them fame. No, it's quality writing and journalism skills.
There are too many hacks out there that were raised on the AVGN's and Seanbaby's of the world and think just being witty is what'll get them fame. No, it's quality writing and journalism skills.
Deified Data
Banned
That's not a consideration for me at all. The important thing is that they don't allow their skill or lack thereof reflect on the game one way or another. I'm perfectly capable of enjoying games I'm terrible at, and describing why I enjoy them. And vice versa, I'm awesome at some games that I find bland and boring, and could elaborate on that as well. An informed perspective means more to me than a reviewer's skill level.
Monocle
Member
Reviewers, yes. You need to know what the hell you're talking about if you're going to review a game properly, and it's hard to do that unless you can personally unpack and explore the gameplay with an experienced eye. This is especially important for fighting and action games, because their quality depends almost entirely on combat mechanics and related aspects like controls.
If all you can do in Bayonetta 2 is mash PPPPP, pausing occasionally to use the weak pistol button that exists only to preserve your combo score when enemies are out of reach, stahp. Hand the controller over to someone who knows how to dodge offset and then retire.
That said, game journalists in general don't necessarily need to be skilled players.
If all you can do in Bayonetta 2 is mash PPPPP, pausing occasionally to use the weak pistol button that exists only to preserve your combo score when enemies are out of reach, stahp. Hand the controller over to someone who knows how to dodge offset and then retire.
That said, game journalists in general don't necessarily need to be skilled players.
I know GJ/reviewers are under payed but this and what difficulty setting they played would be useful.
Passion for the hobby should be present in each writer, and a general sense of skill at the games they are covering. I remember playing Gears of War 3 against members of the media prior to launch so we could all test the game modes & get some competitive playtime in. Most of the people I played against were terrible. Slow moving, couldn't active-reload, terrible shots, and couldn't use basic strategies or weapons correctly.
I'm currently playing Forza Horizon 2 & I'm pretty bad at racing games, but I can win the races and generally do well. Other people would kick my ass without effort. I'd consider myself an average skilled racer.
I'm currently playing Forza Horizon 2 & I'm pretty bad at racing games, but I can win the races and generally do well. Other people would kick my ass without effort. I'd consider myself an average skilled racer.
orthodoxy1095
Banned
Good for you? It does something for me. It tells me that I can listen to their opinions on whether they're enjoying it (in spite of being terrible) and remember to ignore what the product on the screen seems to be showing.
Agreed. Especially when watching a review, it'd really be nice to know if what I'm seeing is representative of the difficulty I plan on playing at.SonyToo!™;130680083 said:
Arthr2ShdsJcksn
Banned
To paraphrase Carl from ATHF: It doesn't matter... none of this matters.
I mean, I grew up not knowing if any of the people who wrote for EGM in the early 1990s were any good at games, yet I learned over time to prefer certain personalities. If I found out now that they only played the games for five minutes and never beat a game in their lives, it has no bearing on my life anymore. They write product reviews for entertainment. Their view may have influenced my opinion, or pushed me more toward one game over another, but eventually I made up my own mind about the games I played.
I mean, I grew up not knowing if any of the people who wrote for EGM in the early 1990s were any good at games, yet I learned over time to prefer certain personalities. If I found out now that they only played the games for five minutes and never beat a game in their lives, it has no bearing on my life anymore. They write product reviews for entertainment. Their view may have influenced my opinion, or pushed me more toward one game over another, but eventually I made up my own mind about the games I played.
JesseEwiak
Member
But, on average, your average reviewer likely doesn't have the time to be "good" at any one kind of game. When you have to play a new AAA release every two weeks, you're never going to become great at any type of game.
Even when the consumer is wrong?
So, go find strategygamer.com or whatever for you? For somebody reviewing it for IGN or Gamespot, I'd argue the person who plays at normal is the best review for the vast majority of people playing the game.
Guess what I said in a similar thread applies:
"Yes. They don't need to be amazing, but they need enough knowledge to be able to evaluate things in the context of the genre the game is in, and the skill/adaptability to give different concepts and control schemes a try without immediately writing them off just because they're not homogenised.
There's room for "unskilled" reviews, but they can't really provide much insight into the general mechanics of a game like a skilled player should be able to."
To be fair this is something a lot of games journalists themselves like to state when talking about being "bad" at games. Even if there is a notable decay with age pre-50 it's still mostly bullshit (at least for single-player games) as skill in most games is about prediction and timing rather than lightning fast reflexes, so with most genres journalists state this about it's clear they fundamentally misunderstand how these games work in the first place.
"Yes. They don't need to be amazing, but they need enough knowledge to be able to evaluate things in the context of the genre the game is in, and the skill/adaptability to give different concepts and control schemes a try without immediately writing them off just because they're not homogenised.
There's room for "unskilled" reviews, but they can't really provide much insight into the general mechanics of a game like a skilled player should be able to."
To be fair this is something a lot of games journalists themselves like to state when talking about being "bad" at games. Even if there is a notable decay with age pre-50 it's still mostly bullshit (at least for single-player games) as skill in most games is about prediction and timing rather than lightning fast reflexes, so with most genres journalists state this about it's clear they fundamentally misunderstand how these games work in the first place.
Captain Tuttle
Member
brandonh83
Banned
I dunno I mean I have friends who have been playing games for about as long as I have yet cannot control Skyward Sword and watched me effortlessly play Wonderful 101 mouths agape. I honestly don't expect journalists to be good at games when a lot of "gamers" have become accustomed to point and shoot affair. These days it's either pick up and play or it fucking sucks.
Monocle
Member
Sites and magazines tend to have more than one reviewer on staff. Instead of hiring jacks of all trades, they could very well hire specialists instead. You could have a couple sports and FPS guys/girls, someone who knows action and fighting games, a JRPG and open world player, etc.