Screaming Meat
Unconfirmed Member
I'd rather they were competent gamers but good writers.
-
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
SixMachine
Member
I disagree with you honestly. I like to try a lot of different games. Personally I like fighting games, and I know that I would rather hear insight from someone who is good rather than someone who isn't. I also like to play other genres of games, like MOBAs. I'm rather new to them and suck at them, but when I see a video or want to read a guide when I'm trying to get my feet wet, I want to listen to someone who went through the trenches and took the time to get good at that type of game. If I just took the word of someone who just tried something and said, "this is OP do this", that wouldn't help me because I wouldn't understand why it's good or if it is even good at all because they haven't tried it against enough people.
The layman wouldn't give me much insight. If he is talking about some Riki or whatever being fed on his team, the expert can explain it better and in more detail, while also being more inviting to newcomers by explaining things like terminology.
SliceSabre
Banned
I'm only expect game reviewers to at least be average at the game they are playing or at least able to prove knowledge regarding it. They should be able to beat a game on normal difficulty at the very least.
Like if they're reviewing a multiplayer focused game like Street Fighter or CoD I don't expect them to be great at the game because some of the people playing may not be all that great at it. But they must be able to display knowledge regarding it so that I feel like I can trust their opinion.
Like if they're reviewing a multiplayer focused game like Street Fighter or CoD I don't expect them to be great at the game because some of the people playing may not be all that great at it. But they must be able to display knowledge regarding it so that I feel like I can trust their opinion.
AllIsOneIsNone
Banned
Yes, they should be. You should be very competent at something if you review it for a living.
Terrible_Majesty
Member
Dad gamers nowadays are the ones that beat Ninja Gaiden, Battletoads, Ghouls n Ghosts and countless hard games. Games these days are loaded with tutorials, handholding, button mashing and QTEs. Maybe you mean dads that never played games.
Gamers in their late 30s/early 40s laughed at games that make Dark Souls look like a walk in the park.
Always-honest
Banned
You don't need to be great at gaming to write reviews about it. You should be well well well informed though. And a decent player. Experienced.
And for the guy that was talking about old age...... Son, these people have seen it all. They have been gaming from the start. Their reflexes might be slower but it's not like they suddenly became retarded. It might be that some of them have become a bit cynical and have lost their sense of wonder.
Some even seem to have lost their inner child.
And for the guy that was talking about old age...... Son, these people have seen it all. They have been gaming from the start. Their reflexes might be slower but it's not like they suddenly became retarded. It might be that some of them have become a bit cynical and have lost their sense of wonder.
Some even seem to have lost their inner child.
No, but they should have played plenty of games.
I say this because before 2012 I had taken a long hiatus from gaming other than my iphone which was making up for not having any current console.
When I got back in one of my first games was Assassin's Creed which I took for granted my not being able to control the character well was due to me sucking at games. After playing several games after that, I realize that at least some of it is due to clunky controls.
You don't have to be good at games to realize when sometimes its the controls and not you. But you do have to have a decent amount of experience with different games to start realizing when it is the controls vs. when it is you.
Also, you have to be able to write and be able to express what about the controls or game that you found didn't work or did. Not just know it doesn't feel right (that I would have a problem with. AC's controls feel clunky but I couldn't put in words other than clunky exactly why I find them annoying. I just dislike how you have to rely on the computer to correctly interpret when you press up (or sometimes sideways) to mean you want to go up vs. when you want to jump off. Either their algorithm to read what you are trying to do at an instance isn't very good or they should give you a more precise way to say what you want the character to do. And now I went off on a tangent
(I'm bad about that).
I say this because before 2012 I had taken a long hiatus from gaming other than my iphone which was making up for not having any current console.
When I got back in one of my first games was Assassin's Creed which I took for granted my not being able to control the character well was due to me sucking at games. After playing several games after that, I realize that at least some of it is due to clunky controls.
You don't have to be good at games to realize when sometimes its the controls and not you. But you do have to have a decent amount of experience with different games to start realizing when it is the controls vs. when it is you.
Also, you have to be able to write and be able to express what about the controls or game that you found didn't work or did. Not just know it doesn't feel right (that I would have a problem with. AC's controls feel clunky but I couldn't put in words other than clunky exactly why I find them annoying. I just dislike how you have to rely on the computer to correctly interpret when you press up (or sometimes sideways) to mean you want to go up vs. when you want to jump off. Either their algorithm to read what you are trying to do at an instance isn't very good or they should give you a more precise way to say what you want the character to do. And now I went off on a tangent
(I'm bad about that).I have to agree with this. Yes there was a study done in Korea on how age affects gaming. This is why you don't see competetive Starcraft players that are 30's.
However, the caveat here is that difficulty is very subjective and gaming journalists need to walk that fine thread of deducting points just because they can't finish a game. It's one thing that the game is "cheap" it's another that you just suck at it.
I'm not so sure there is some kind of gamer skill required.
I do want them to be extremely experienced with what they're talking about.
For example, no matter how accurate it actually was...when I was a teen, I cared most about whatever Sushi-X of EGM said when it came to fighting games, just because he had that rep/cred of knowing a good fighting game when he saw it.
I dont know how IGN does it now, but.. i truly think a jRPG lover should review a jRPG, and a Mario/Platfformer love should review the Raymans and Marios and Kirbys of the world etc.
I sure as hell hope it's not random or something.
I do want them to be extremely experienced with what they're talking about.
For example, no matter how accurate it actually was...when I was a teen, I cared most about whatever Sushi-X of EGM said when it came to fighting games, just because he had that rep/cred of knowing a good fighting game when he saw it.
I dont know how IGN does it now, but.. i truly think a jRPG lover should review a jRPG, and a Mario/Platfformer love should review the Raymans and Marios and Kirbys of the world etc.
I sure as hell hope it's not random or something.
D
Deleted member 125677
Unconfirmed Member
I don't think they need to necessarily be fantastic gamers. Obviously they should be able to complete the game they review as a minimum, otherwise it would not be a complete evaluation.
But what's much more important is to be experienced and knowledgeable with video games as a media, just like you'd expect a film or book reviewer.
But what's much more important is to be experienced and knowledgeable with video games as a media, just like you'd expect a film or book reviewer.
Morrigan Stark
Arrogant Smirk
Competent, surely. Or at the very least, very self-aware.
That's just silly. Trophies don't always indicate if the player is skilled or not.
Rhazer Fusion
Member
They should be decent enough where they can at least progress through a healthy portion of the game or preferably finish the game to formulate an accurate and unbiased opinion on it. The reason I say this is because I think some reviewers deduct points off games due to frustration or misunderstanding certain aspects of the game which can sometimes be because of lack of skills or unfamiliarity with certain types of games. Imo, it would be like being a movie reviewer and not finishing the movie. I think they should also possess solid writing skills and a little or preferably a deep passion for games also which is important.
They need to be knowledgable about games, not necessarily good at them.
i expect a reviewer to have played a lot of different games including some important old ones.
For big competitive games like street fighter or Dota and MMO's there's dedicated sites. I don't expect the average reviewer to be able to give more than a rough overview of such a game.
i expect a reviewer to have played a lot of different games including some important old ones.
For big competitive games like street fighter or Dota and MMO's there's dedicated sites. I don't expect the average reviewer to be able to give more than a rough overview of such a game.
I think reviewers really should know what they're talking and be competent enough to actually get what and how the game they're criticizing work.
You wouldn't care about Stephanie Meyer reviewing the last Harry Potter, right?
As for guidelines for reviewing games?
I'd let Updike talk (it's really about books, but applicable to games too) :
You wouldn't care about Stephanie Meyer reviewing the last Harry Potter, right?
As for guidelines for reviewing games?
I'd let Updike talk (it's really about books, but applicable to games too) :
Updike said:
Aaron-Lagann
Banned
I'm not saying the laymen is the one way, in fact I think reviews should primarily be done by fans of the genre, but I'm also saying that there is some value to an outsider reviewing a genre they're not familiar with, since it gives another viewpoint and could be more relatable to the average person who isn't super into that genre.
The average person looking at a fighting game review isn't going to care about the technical aspects, being into them or at least interested in competition means you want a nuanced review, but that's because to you the multiplayer is literally all you need. To the random guy walking down the street who liked Street Fighter as a kid, he'll be better served by being told about the content from someone who doesn't just say "get good at versus" since that's not what he wants from the game.
grandwizard
Member
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOG_pcFEkwo&t=13m50s
This is why I don't trust the opinions of reviewers when dealing with games that go beyond the most basic left trigger-right trigger mechanics. Anything beyond what is safe and accepted is seen as a barrier in their race to the reviewer deadline, and marked down accordingly.
Here is a good article about it: http://zeboyd.com/2013/09/10/why-games-like-the-wonderful-101-are-a-poor-fit-for-the-gaming-press/
JinjoUnchained
Member
Reviewers should be good enough at games in general to separate legitimate game frustrations from frustrations caused by their own lack of skill.
For example: poor enemy AI leading to monotonous combat and bullet sponges padding game length? Legitimate game frustration; dock some points in your review score. Reviewer dies constantly performing what should be simple tasks? That's frustration due to the reviewer'a lack of skill and shouldn't affect the score. A game reviewer should at least be able to tell the difference between those two kinds of frustrations.
Problem is, that ability takes honesty and humility; it's easier to just blame the game instead of being honest about your own shortcomings. It's human nature.
Also, people making the "sports journalists don't have to be athletes" argument are being asinine. Analyzing sports and analyzing games are not comparable because enjoying pro sports is a passive activity whereas enjoying games is an active activity. Sports journalists aren't "reviewing basketball" to give sports fans an indication of whether they should play basketball. They are passively analyzing it to increase the viewer's enjoyment when passively watching it. Games reviewers, OTOH, are giving a purchase recommendation for a product used actively. How can they know if a consumer will enjoy actively using the game if the reviewer can't actively play it??
For example: poor enemy AI leading to monotonous combat and bullet sponges padding game length? Legitimate game frustration; dock some points in your review score. Reviewer dies constantly performing what should be simple tasks? That's frustration due to the reviewer'a lack of skill and shouldn't affect the score. A game reviewer should at least be able to tell the difference between those two kinds of frustrations.
Problem is, that ability takes honesty and humility; it's easier to just blame the game instead of being honest about your own shortcomings. It's human nature.
Also, people making the "sports journalists don't have to be athletes" argument are being asinine. Analyzing sports and analyzing games are not comparable because enjoying pro sports is a passive activity whereas enjoying games is an active activity. Sports journalists aren't "reviewing basketball" to give sports fans an indication of whether they should play basketball. They are passively analyzing it to increase the viewer's enjoyment when passively watching it. Games reviewers, OTOH, are giving a purchase recommendation for a product used actively. How can they know if a consumer will enjoy actively using the game if the reviewer can't actively play it??
Clear
CliffyB's Cock Holster
I just wish more (any?) reviewers displayed a technical understanding of the form, particularly the fundamentals of design and mechanics. There's a big difference between an educated opinion and one that is just laid out in a strident tone.
Right now, there's far too much of the latter and very little of the former.
More insight and less opinion would satisfy my desire for "objectivity".
Right now, there's far too much of the latter and very little of the former.
More insight and less opinion would satisfy my desire for "objectivity".
I think they should be reasonable at games in general, and the OP is pretty much assuming that all readers are avid gamers that have been gaming for years. I don't think writers that are fantastic at a genre and have played every title in it automatically make particularly great reviewers as they can take a lot for granted that a beginner might find confusing.
I think there is general 'gamer' knowledge, such as being able to happily move and control a camera simultaneously in a 3D space, that all of us can do automatically. It's easy to forget that, to someone new to gaming, even mechanics like that that form the basis of virtually all third-person games can take a while to master. There's nothing wrong with some reviews done from the point of view of a total beginner in the genre, it's not like there aren't sites that specialise in catering to gamers with lots of experience.
There's also more specific 'genre' knowledge, which is why I don't bother reading reviews of dungeon crawlers by people who don't play them, but on the other hand such a review might be a lot more useful to someone tackling one for the first time.
In short, don't expect all reviewers to be all things to all people. Fortunately you can find at least a couple of dozen reviews of any major title, and it's incredibly unlikely that all of them are equally unskilled at that particular genre.
I think there is general 'gamer' knowledge, such as being able to happily move and control a camera simultaneously in a 3D space, that all of us can do automatically. It's easy to forget that, to someone new to gaming, even mechanics like that that form the basis of virtually all third-person games can take a while to master. There's nothing wrong with some reviews done from the point of view of a total beginner in the genre, it's not like there aren't sites that specialise in catering to gamers with lots of experience.
There's also more specific 'genre' knowledge, which is why I don't bother reading reviews of dungeon crawlers by people who don't play them, but on the other hand such a review might be a lot more useful to someone tackling one for the first time.
In short, don't expect all reviewers to be all things to all people. Fortunately you can find at least a couple of dozen reviews of any major title, and it's incredibly unlikely that all of them are equally unskilled at that particular genre.
Haunted
Member
I usually don't mind because in my mind I just expect some core competency if you're working in this field.
It's not like game reviews are particularly important for games with high skill ceilings.
Although I do confess to having a moment last week after seeing Jeff green bumble through DS2 and realising that this guy is a consultant for games that are in development and he's giving feedback presumably in regards to difficulty as well.
That thought was a little bit scary.
It's not like game reviews are particularly important for games with high skill ceilings.
Although I do confess to having a moment last week after seeing Jeff green bumble through DS2 and realising that this guy is a consultant for games that are in development and he's giving feedback presumably in regards to difficulty as well.
That thought was a little bit scary.
Haunted
Member
hoo boy
Game reviewers should have a deep understanding and/or love of the genre of the game they are reviewing so they can accurately determine what makes the title good or bad, or if the gameplay is fresh or progressive in what it is trying to accomplish.
Any good boss would see what their staff is into, and push off reviews according to their preference. Far too often do you see reviews that basically say "I'm fan of x, and I really don't understand x genre, but somehow I got put on a title that falls under x, so watch as I complain about how awful this game is and give it a lousy score.
I'm also not saying that I think we should do this for better review scores, but I trust people like Jason Schrieier when they say an RPG fucking blows, vs. some reviewer who you know has a better understanding of a different genre.
Any good boss would see what their staff is into, and push off reviews according to their preference. Far too often do you see reviews that basically say "I'm fan of x, and I really don't understand x genre, but somehow I got put on a title that falls under x, so watch as I complain about how awful this game is and give it a lousy score.
I'm also not saying that I think we should do this for better review scores, but I trust people like Jason Schrieier when they say an RPG fucking blows, vs. some reviewer who you know has a better understanding of a different genre.
CyanideFuse
Member
Isn't a game like Wonderful 101 a victim of reviewers that didn't 'get it' due to the controls and just not being that good at understanding the mechanics?
Edsmells12345
Member
I think that the more important thing is an open mind; or someone who is looking to enjoy the game.
I think too often reviewers look at whats not there, (especially what they personally want in the game) rather than what is great about a game.
Most people watching the reviews are those that want to buy it but want to be sold on it's merits.
If I'm looking at a review of a Zelda game, I'm not looking for voice acting or multiplayer.
I think too often reviewers look at whats not there, (especially what they personally want in the game) rather than what is great about a game.
Most people watching the reviews are those that want to buy it but want to be sold on it's merits.
If I'm looking at a review of a Zelda game, I'm not looking for voice acting or multiplayer.
KarneeKarnay
Member
I think it's unreasonable to expect the reviewer to be good with games. In fact I don't think it really matters. TB did a video explaining that a lot of LPers will get the same audience regardless of game genre or skill. If you have the personality they will come.
As long as the reviewer doesn't let his lack of skill in a game effect his review then I think it's fine. I consider myself an adequate MOBA and FPS player, but in way would I consider myself even half/good at a sports game. Does that mean I shouldn't be allowed to review Sports Games? Certainly not, but I would prefer to leave that to those more suited to it.
As long as the reviewer doesn't let his lack of skill in a game effect his review then I think it's fine. I consider myself an adequate MOBA and FPS player, but in way would I consider myself even half/good at a sports game. Does that mean I shouldn't be allowed to review Sports Games? Certainly not, but I would prefer to leave that to those more suited to it.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
In a perfect world, every single person would have just one reviewer that perfectly represented him or her in every way,
I don't need every single reviewer to be exactly as good at games as I am, and I don't want every game reviewer to be even better at games than I am. For instance I suck at mashing buttons track and field style, but am great at solving puzzles and having the intuition on what the game wants me to do next.
I would personally want to know if there's a MGS1 torture scene style thing that would be literally impossible for me to do, or if the combos require too precise timings to be able to be pulled off by someone like me, but I would not want to hear a reviewer complain that an easy to figure out thing didn't have a handholdy line of text to tell you exactly what to do at all times.
The problem is most game reviewers are terrible at most games in nearly the exact same way. The diversity of skill levels isn't really at the extent that it should be. Hell, I'd actually really like it if IGN or Gamespot hired a pro-gamer or two just to get such a completely different perspective on multiplayer games in particular. I'm sure their skills will atrophy far from being pro level, but I think a pro player still has a way of looking at games and game mechanics that is far different from your average game reviewer, and that's something you just have or you don't.
I don't need every single reviewer to be exactly as good at games as I am, and I don't want every game reviewer to be even better at games than I am. For instance I suck at mashing buttons track and field style, but am great at solving puzzles and having the intuition on what the game wants me to do next.
I would personally want to know if there's a MGS1 torture scene style thing that would be literally impossible for me to do, or if the combos require too precise timings to be able to be pulled off by someone like me, but I would not want to hear a reviewer complain that an easy to figure out thing didn't have a handholdy line of text to tell you exactly what to do at all times.
The problem is most game reviewers are terrible at most games in nearly the exact same way. The diversity of skill levels isn't really at the extent that it should be. Hell, I'd actually really like it if IGN or Gamespot hired a pro-gamer or two just to get such a completely different perspective on multiplayer games in particular. I'm sure their skills will atrophy far from being pro level, but I think a pro player still has a way of looking at games and game mechanics that is far different from your average game reviewer, and that's something you just have or you don't.
petran79
Banned
Yeah, at least at point n click, strategy and rpg, journalists were very good both at understanding and playing those difficult genres. No need for special reflexes either.
Camp Freddie
Member
Diversity is important, as always.
I want to be able to read a Destiny review by a hardcore 16 hours-a-day MMO poopsocker, since they'll have a good opinion on the game's longevity and endgame.
I want to be able to read a Destiny review by a hardcore 10:1 k:d FPS guy who loves BF/CoD, so I can see if the PvP mode is going to be interesting.
I also want to see a review by someone who's essentially a "dad-gamer". They'll have the best opinion on how easy it is to get into. They'll tell you if it works for players who just want to grab a quick PUG and run a strike or two for fun during a couple of hours of spare time.
The subjectivity of reviewers is a great and essential thing. There is no one true way to play a particular game.
I want to be able to read a Destiny review by a hardcore 16 hours-a-day MMO poopsocker, since they'll have a good opinion on the game's longevity and endgame.
I want to be able to read a Destiny review by a hardcore 10:1 k:d FPS guy who loves BF/CoD, so I can see if the PvP mode is going to be interesting.
I also want to see a review by someone who's essentially a "dad-gamer". They'll have the best opinion on how easy it is to get into. They'll tell you if it works for players who just want to grab a quick PUG and run a strike or two for fun during a couple of hours of spare time.
The subjectivity of reviewers is a great and essential thing. There is no one true way to play a particular game.
That proves the point though; competitive Starcraft is an 0.01% situation in terms of how much it demands, and yes, age could be a problem when you simultaneously need 300+ APM and need to keep track of 10+ things at once, but that's not the vast majority of games (even "twitch" ones) in single-player or lower level Multi-player. He might be physically incapable of competing in GSL even if he devoted his life to it, but I'm still calling bullshit when someone like Adam Sessler says their age is getting in the way of finishing the average SP game.
BeforeU
Oft hope is born when all is forlorn.
I wouldn't say they need to be good at playing those particular games. But they should have knowledge of the genera and other games within that genera inside out. Than only you can truly speak of it. But if FPS guy is reviewing Diablo, even though anyone can be good at it, that review will not be good.
You can be good (or at least decent) at fighting games, and be able to give a good fighting game review that is tailored towards lay people, if you have writing skills and understanding .
http://www.gamespot.com/reviews/arcana-heart-3-review/1900-6322454/
I'd post more but the place she posted them is kaput. She tends to be pretty generous with review scores, but she writes good reviews.
I've played her, she knows what she's doing, but she's capable of understanding how it's different for non-serious players.
That said, it's hard to find the combo of skills+ writing. Tom Chick is a great for strategy game reviews, but his reviews of fighting games are laughable. (And the one time I did a piece, his editing helped me out a good deal)
I can say that good skills+ poor/inexperienced writing (and I am a mediocre writer at best, despite my best efforts) doesn't make for a good review.
That needs to be said whenever someone says "Reviews should be like this". A variety of perpectives and writing styles is a good thing.
In my case I like fighting games but not to a really high level and so find reviews from hardcore players mean little to me. As they will be into mechanics I'll likely not use. On the other hand I don't like the really basic fighting game reviews either which focus on basic stuff I find irrelevant. If I can't find someone in the middle I just have to try and take what I need from both perspectives.
PanicFreak
Member
I don't think so. Bad gamers exist and they will want to know if a game is good or not.
However, I don't want to hear people complain about how bad the AI is if they are playing on easy.
However, I don't want to hear people complain about how bad the AI is if they are playing on easy.
Pyramid head
Banned
I don't think that's a great example tbh, that section was bullshit. I'm not exactly shit at the GoW series and comparatively sailed through all the other games without experiencing a difficulty spike a fraction as high. Hell, the rest of Ascension itself was a cakewalk too.
Yoshi
Headmaster of Console Warrior Jugendstrafanstalt
Typically, publications don't visit a trade show with all their staff. I, for instance, am definitely no expert on shooters, sports games and realistic racers, therefore I almost never review a game of these genres (it can happen but it is of course not ideal), however at a trade show, if no other more knowledgable journalist has a free slot, I'll go play the game in order to give our readers the amount of information I can. Of course, if I'm not an expert, I need to inform myself in advance, and maybe even play a predecessor, in order to be able to watch out for specific points. But even then I'll suck at playing the game at the trade show. Even at a trade show though, we try to send journalists who have played a lot of games in the respective genre or series. You will typically see me playing the new Yoshi and the new Sonic, but not the new Halo and the new Fifa.
Now, regarding reviews. I don't think you need to be an outstanding player to write reviews, but you should be knowledgable in the genres and series you write about (as well as possible) and of course shouldn't suck to no end and then whine about it in the review (I still remember Gamespot's Luigi's Mansion 2 review... painfully). If you suck at a game, as a reviewer, you should always be able to (1) learn the game (2) differentiate if it's your fault or the games' fault (which can be the case, too). Of course, no reviewer should be judged over some arbitrary high standard of what a "pro gamer" might be.
Idealistically this. Of course that's more people to be paid so won't happen but really both perspectives are valuable.
petran79
Banned
no they shouldnt, but I'd prefer the opinion of artists over art critics
SerTapTap
Member
Would be kinda weird to find a (US) sports journalist who didn't know why the football isn't round, no? I would think an above-average interest in the field of interest you report on should be an expectation at the least.
daninthemix
Member
I think average rather than good (however on earth you'd define those two). Because if they were good, they might be oblivious to annoyances that would ruin the experience of an average player.
biggersmaller
Banned
A review needs to reflect a passion for gaming, not a particular skill level. That said, I don't read reviews anymore as they are largely impersonal, taking a more universal consumer advocate approach vs a commentary on their own tastes.
So should an opera reviewer know nothing about opera so that he can mimic the knowledge level of the average person? I don't think any opera fan would accept a review written by this person.
The point of professional reviewers is that they have the critical thinking and reasoning skills to make deductions about accessibility and difficulty. They should be able to appreciate and see different view points. The opera reviewer can appreciate how some operas are less accessible to the average non-opera fan without actually being that person. That's kind of the job they do. But they should 100% be a knowledge expert on the subject. Can someone be a knowledge expert on gaming while being only average at playing games?
LegendofLex
Member
The critics and the "journalists" should be different people.
The critics should be SMEs when it comes to playing games and have an eye for quality (both in the "good vs. bad" sense and in the "want vs. not want" sense). They should also represent the target audience of the game they're playing. So if a game is targeted at core fans of a genre, a newcomer shouldn't review it; likewise, if a game is targeted at a wider audience, then a core fan of the genre shouldn't review it.
I don't think their actual level of skill is as important as their ability to detect the qualities that mark a high-quality (or desirable) game.
The journalists should be SMEs about the facts of game development, gaming culture, the information that is currently available about a game, etc. The reason they should be different people from the critics is that it is their direct job to secure access to PR by reporting on PR; it is the critics' job to validate (or dismiss) the PR.
The critics should be SMEs when it comes to playing games and have an eye for quality (both in the "good vs. bad" sense and in the "want vs. not want" sense). They should also represent the target audience of the game they're playing. So if a game is targeted at core fans of a genre, a newcomer shouldn't review it; likewise, if a game is targeted at a wider audience, then a core fan of the genre shouldn't review it.
I don't think their actual level of skill is as important as their ability to detect the qualities that mark a high-quality (or desirable) game.
The journalists should be SMEs about the facts of game development, gaming culture, the information that is currently available about a game, etc. The reason they should be different people from the critics is that it is their direct job to secure access to PR by reporting on PR; it is the critics' job to validate (or dismiss) the PR.