Support NeoGAF

[conman]

No. It is much more important that they understand the subtleties and intricacies of game design (which is why folks in the games media are more likely to go into game design than they are to become professional esports players). They should also know how to write about and communicate their experience effectively.

In some cases, though, there are games that are so deeply tied to technical skill (fighting games, competitive shooters, etc) that they should at least be well versed in high-level play. But again, they don't need to be unusually skilled.

 

[OsirisBlack]

I think it's important for critical voices to be heard which are not already infatuated with a franchise/genre. It's good to hear from those infatuated people too, but not only from those people.

Agree completely. I think one of the main reasons game reviews average a score so much higher than movie reviews is that reviews are generally given to the person on staff most likely to enjoy a game based on their genre/franchise preferences.

There is absolutely value in reviews from people who aren't predisposed to enjoy a franchise or genre. I also think there is a value to reviews from people who extraordinarily committed to a genre or franchise, such as MOBA or Fighting game experts. In both cases, The review from one of these groups is going to be basically useless to people coming from the other group, but they are both worthwhile to those coming from their own side of the fence.

The answer is less homogeny in reviews, not a different kind of homogenous reviews.

Both of these are very good points and using a current game (Destiny) as an example I am generally not a FPS guy but I am a heavy MMO guy. I do not agree with the reviews for destiny but I tend to think that is because I went into the game expecting an MMO and that's what I got. I can also see how many of the reviews reflect the opinions of people who went into the game expecting another pick up and go FPS.

However a FPS guy would probably be better at nitpicking the nuances of the games core mechanics than I am and that also is very valuable in my opinion. Also many times someone who specializes in a game type is much more critical of that genre.

Reading over this leads me to believe reviews would be much better if we had a two angled approach but the people reviewing games do need to be competent players in my humble opinion. I don't expect the FPS or RPG guy go go into details about footsies and hard resets in UMVC or USFIV but sure as shit should know how to toss a fireball across the screen.

 

[Mugatu]

Like others have said, not necessarily.

They should be good writers and journalists - at least better than they are now. And making Jim Sterling type excuses and comments about it only being an opinion don't help the matter.

 

[Ophelion]

I think they should probably be good writers ahead of being good gamers, but they need to be at least competent. I'd define that in this case as skillful enough to eventually complete your average AAA action title these days. Given the hand-holding anymore, I don't see that as an exceptionally high bar.

But mostly what I get tired of is reviews that say variations on things like, "This game isn't good because it's repetitive and boring."

Ok.

What exactly does that mean, dude? I don't care if a reviewer doesn't like a game or isn't good at a game. Hell, I bought Demon's Souls back in the day on the backs of several negative reviews who described what, to me, sounded like just the right kind of gaming masochism. But if all I get is a few paragraphs that only manage to say, "It's too hard." Well, that could mean anything.