• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Do you think a reviewer should be above average at a MP game to review it?

E

Exploratory

Banned
I've been noticing that some reviewers lately are kinda bad (some of them really bad) at playing the games they're reviewing when it comes to a multiplayer setting. I never noticed it but now that some of these reviewers are playing on twitch I can see how bad they are moment to moment game to game.

If the person reviewing the game isn't any good at it I've noticed they can't understand the subtle nuances that differentiate the game from its peers or make it better. You shouldn't have to be good to enjoy a game but being competent at it seems like a requirement before judging it and tell others your opinion right? What say you GAF? Keep in mind I mean MP games specifically.
 
There's no way to enforce that and it's fine to get reviews from people with different skill levels, so no.


We will get SFV reviews by reviewers that don't know shit about fighting games and it will be amusing.
 
Most reviewers are bad at playing single player modes too. I don't think it's a problem. I mean, I'm bad at multiplayer games so it all falls in line.
 
My two cents as a reviewer: It sure it helps. You can always tell the people who don't have a firm understanding of a game's multiplayer from the ones who do. It's up the assigning editor to find the right person for the job.

Exploratory said:
I've been noticing that some reviewers lately are kinda bad (some of them really bad) at playing the games they're reviewing when it comes to a multiplayer setting. I never noticed it but now that some of these reviewers are playing on twitch I can see how bad they are moment to moment game to game.
Click to expand...

In fairness, playing on Twitch is pretty damn hard. It's tough to keep your focus on the action when you're answering questions and trying to point things out to the audience. It's the gaming equivalent of driving while talking on your cell phone. I admire people who can pull it off effectively because my skills always go straight to hell when I'm streaming.
 
Honestly, I would argue the opposite.

Most reviewers are writing for the mass market, not professional gamers.

Someone who is really good is not the mass market.

Someone who best matches the general audience in skill level is probably best suited to voice an opinion on the game for that audience.

That's not to say that a reviewer shouldn't have a solid understanding of all the game's fundamentals and how they work, but it doesn't mean that the reviewer needs to be able to play at a semi-pro or pro level just to write a solid review.
 
NateDrake said:
I think a person can appreciate what the game offers without the need of being awesome at it.
Click to expand...

But won't understand the nuances of map design and balance. They will understand if it is fun on a surface level but that is it.

Syriel said:
Honestly, I would argue the opposite.

Most reviewers are writing for the mass market, not professional gamers.

Someone who is really good is not the mass market.

Someone who best matches the general audience in skill level is probably best suited to voice an opinion on the game for that audience.
Click to expand...

I reckon someone who is better at MP games would be able to better understand and articulate how good/bad it is in terms of the mass market appeal.as well.
 
A good reviewer doesn't base his review of a game's multiplayer component on whether he's good at it or not. You can completely grasp a game's mechanics and still suck. A good reviewer will avoid bias.

If this is about Joe, then lmfao at you
 
The majority of their audience are also bad-average at the game as well. Common person experience is incredibly more valuable than MLG-Pistol-Only-Headshot Pro.
 
Zabuza said:
A good reviewer doesn't base his review of a game's multiplayer component on whether he's good at it or not. You can completely grasp a game's mechanics and still suck. A good reviewer will avoid bias.

If this is about Joe, then lmfao at you
Click to expand...

I think that's impossible
 
zsynqx said:
But won't understand the nuances of map design and balance. They will understand if it is fun on a surface level but that is it.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. One can understand the map design and its strengths/weaknesses, but still fail at being able to make use of such things in a meaningful way.
 
I think there's an argument that it's up to a game to make multiplayer fun even for shitty players. I would just like it for reviewers to say, "Yo, I suck at this, but it was still fun/it wasn't fun. So, if you're like me, here's the deal."
 
I would say "competent."

My only issue is when they say stuff like "I didn't have fun, but then again I suck at multiplayer."

Naturally most people would have a dimmer view of something which fails to reward their efforts.
 
I don't think it's a requirement at all, but I find it surprising just how bad most video game reviewers are at playing video games. I don't need them to be amazing (or even good), but most of the times they're downright bad.
 
Syriel said:
Honestly, I would argue the opposite.

Most reviewers are writing for the mass market, not professional gamers.

Someone who is really good is not the mass market.

Someone who best matches the general audience in skill level is probably best suited to voice an opinion on the game for that audience.
Click to expand...
Only argument I have against this is that the majority of your time with MP in a game will probably be spent at a level above "average player during the first week."

There are probably certain aspects that don't click right off and don't seem fun. If you're good, those things come faster.

I don't think this is much of an issue though. A bigger issue is that the status quo says a game that someone couldn't find any major problems with is 9/10 must buy.

I wish I could look at game reviews and know that past a certain score, I will almost certainly enjoy the game. I know it's subjective, but if reviewers can't figure out how to give meaningful reviews then what's the point? I can trust reviews on movies, music, and plays...why not games?
 
NateDrake said:
Not necessarily. One can understand the map design and its strengths/weaknesses, but still fail at being able to make use of such things in a meaningful way.
Click to expand...

But wouldn't understanding those things mean a decent amount of time spent in MP games which would likely make you an above average player. I am not asking for pro players or anything.
 
It's also worth pointing out that when reviewers are streaming, it's usually video of their first run through the game (sometimes not even a final version).

The goal for a review stream isn't to show off high level play. It's to show off the game and then get on to the next one.

That's going to be a different experience, by design, than someone who is streaming gameplay from something that they've already devoted hours to playing.
 
No, each person should go into the review and take it with a grain of salt. If the majority of the reviews are coming out negative or positive then you can lean either way. However, you wont know until you try it which is how rentals still have their place on the market.
 
Not really. Only because multiplayer lives and dies based on the community around it. And the community doesn't care about the reviews.

Also, reviews generally important during the early days. Like day of release. Nobody is going to be able to properly review multiplayer in the early days. Metagame, strategies, player skill, etc. All of these things are constantly evolving and shifting during the entire lifetime of multiplayer. You can give a multiplayer game a 10/10 and then a month later somebody figures out a broken setup that tears the game apart. You can give a multiplayer game a mediocre review only to find out that years later that people are still playing it and it's depth keeps on giving. But none of that was easily seen/found when you reviewed it.

Multiplayer is its own beast and I don't think reviews are that reliable regardless of whether the player is good or not.
 
No, someone who is really good at FPS will have a vastly different experience than me, the poor shlub who solo queues 90% of my games and gets wrecked constantly. I think my KDR in Halo 5 is like ... 0.04.

So yeah, I appreciate crappy skilled reviewers playing MP games, playing solo, but its important to play in a live environment so you can see network issues, lag, etc. Way too many games get an incomprehensible positive review because they get the multiplayer part reviewed in a safe sandbox.
 
Unless it's something like a high level comeptative reivew of, say, a multiplayer shooter, or a MOBA, or a fighting game, it shouldn't matter at all really.

And even then, that's like expecting a hockey commentator to be an pro-level player of hockey. It'd help their standing with viewers, but it's by no means the defining quality for that role.

Honestly, a good reviewer in our youtube age just means someone whose opinions you personally find valuable.
 
zsynqx said:
But wouldn't understanding those things mean a decent amount of time spent in MP games which would likely make you an above average player.
Click to expand...

No. Understanding and being able to perform are different things. Some folks just can't perform certain actions in a game.
 
NateDrake said:
I think a person can appreciate what the game offers without the need of being awesome at it.
Click to expand...

I agree. A lot of reviewers seem to be somewhat mediocre at games. This can sometimes show in a review where they clearly didn't "get it", like the infamous God Hand one, but often scores seem fair despite skill level.
 
No. That's insane. I don't need to be "good" at a game to tell if it's fun or not. I'm not good at Destiny MP, but it was definitely more fun than I thought it would be.
 
The only time that this will matter is if a game can't be enjoyed by an average or below-average player. We call games like that "bad games". And so I don't think that skill should be a qualifying factor. What's more important is that reviewers are more rigorous and write from a more holistic perspective.
 
Yo for real I think that every reviewer's Dota 2 rank should be posted at the top of everything they write. Scrubs should be named and shamed.
 
Years of CS:Go and am barely even average at it. With this premise, no one's going allowed to review a game if skill is the qualification. Knowledge is enough.

Your Daily Dose of Gaming Comparison to Sports: Lawrence Frank, an NBA coach, did not even make it to a highschool basketball team, and successfully coached an NBA team, and is now currently an Assistant coach.
 
I think it's best to have reviewers of various skill levels. Having the broadest field of reviewers allows the reader decide who to trust and how to weigh each opinion.
 
I've been noticing that for some games, MP isn't even remotely weighed as heavily as the SP (Halo 5 comes to mind) which is a damn travesty.
 
No, and not just because that'd be very difficult to force.

I'm not great at some MP games, but it doesn't mean I can't ahve fun or say they're good
 
Syriel said:
It's also worth pointing out that when reviewers are streaming, it's usually video of their first run through the game (sometimes not even a final version).

The goal for a review stream isn't to show off high level play. It's to show off the game and then get on to the next one.

That's going to be a different experience, by design, than someone who is streaming gameplay from something that they've already devoted hours to playing.
Click to expand...

I mean yeah but that's really the problem. If someone plays the MP for a few days and moves on I feel like in many games you can't even grasp the mechanics. In a shooter you can't learn the maps in a few days for example.
 
Nah , as long they spend a decent amount of time with it , it doesnt matter that much.

But a good player would look at things differently so it definitely wouldnt be a bad thing.
 
yanipheonu said:
Honestly, a good reviewer in our youtube age just means someone whose opinions you personally find valuable.
Click to expand...

A good writer can convey that with detail and consistency in writing style.

If a writer says "I disliked X thing for Y reason" and is clear about the reason, then you may very well read the review and go "I LOVE Y reason. This review is bad, but it sounds like a game that's perfect for me."

Just because a reviewer has different tastes than you doesn't mean that their writing isn't useful. The point of a review should never be the score. It should be the content of the text within.
 
Depends on the game. If it's very competitive like an FPS, yeah, I would wish that they got some skills in them. At least somewhat decent.

Too many gamers now in days knock shooters off easily, not objectively:

"Shit game! SPAWN! DIE! SPAWN! DIE! THAT'S NOT FUN!!!"

Because they are bad at them. I say enjoyment can very much come from how good you are at a multiplayer game. They will look at the game more negative if it's not a decent player(for no reason other than their own).
 
Steel said:
They should at least be average and have a friend who's a beast they can try out the game with.
Click to expand...

That was much easier to do in college. Back then p/review NDAs weren't crazy strict like they are today.

Debug kit + p/review code hooked up to the community TV in the dorm made for excellent, informal play test settings.
 
Erm, absolutely not. The onus is on you to find reviewers and critics that align with your interests. If the journalist's criticisms are poor, then of course, that should be pointed out but that a separate issue from their personal skills at the game.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

  • Locked
A former MindsEye developer has accused management of sexism over a DLC featuring an above average looking woman
2
72
230
Memati187 replied
Most virtuous video game reviewer
10
251
Toots replied
Directive 8020 - A Dark Pictures Game | Review Thread
Review 
46
941
Zuzu replied
Do you think PS6 even at a high price point would still outperform a PC at the same cost?
2 3 4 5 6
255
457
Perrott replied
  • Poll
Now that GTA6 is a week away from us knowing the price, what do you think it will be?
Poll  2 3 4
167
2K
Itchy Tickles replied
Top Bottom