Do game reviewers need to be good at video games?

[Angst]

It seems like a lot of the gaming community tend to villify games media for oftentimes being "bad at games" and thats why they have the opinion they do. Do you think a reviewer needs to generally be good at a video game for their opinion on it to have merit?

Personally, I don't. When you are reading a review, you are reading about that persons subjective experience with that game. If I'm generally bad at video games, and I read a review written by someone that is bad at video games, I feel I will get a perspective that makes more sense to me. I just generally don't feel its something that needs to be a requirement to have a good review. What do you think ERA?

 

[Deleted member 1635]

Of course not, but it absolutely should be a factor we consider when reading their impressions of a game.

 

[Deleted member 48897]

No, it's stupid to think a reviewers can't approach a game from the mindset of someone who is at best casually exposed to the culture. If a game is difficult for people to play to the point that it becomes frustrating, it's good for the critical reputation to reflect that fact!

 

[Chuck Bass]

to review sega soccer slam, yes. any other game? No.

 

[TheDanimal]

I think they should be not bad at video games

 

[platypotamus]

Neither reviewers nor devs need to actually be good at games

 

[Richietto]

Nah, but they should let you know if they couldn't play the game at a certain level and what that effects in their review. If they couldn't get a handle on a twin stick game and never mention that fact then you have a problem.

 

[Ant_17]

Yes.
They don't need to be great tho.

 

[DrArchon]

It's perfectly fine for a reviewer to not be good at a game.

But that said, if that's the case then they shouldn't try to speak as an authority about high level stuff in the game unless they talk with someone else that can actually play at that level and get their opinion. Most reviews don't need this though.

 

[Swift_Gamer]

Nah, reviews aren't aimed at hardcore gamers.
Reviewers should be able to analyze if the games are broken or not and if the gameplay loop is fun and not repetitive.

 

[GavinUK86]

Yes, kind of. They need to be at least adequate enough. Not saying they need to be amazing or anything. If you're really really bad at video games in general, not just a certain type of game, then I don't think you should be reviewing them. Like if I was a reviewer I would be comfortable reviewing shooters and RPG's but not strategy games. I wouldn't want to write one. I wouldn't even want anyone to read my review of one because I can't play 'em.

 

[capnjazz]

I think they should at least understand the core mechanics of the game but they don't have to be amazing at the game by any means. The Wonderful 101 was reviewed by a lot of people who just didn't understand action games and the notes written in the scores show that.

 

[AxeVince]

No, mainly because their skill being medium to bad reflects the biggest part of people who buy games. So their perception is closer to the one casual players will get.

 

[NoKisum]

If they can't beat every Soulsborne game in five minutes blindfolded with a hand tied behind their back, they shouldn't be allowed to review games.

Spoiler

Serious answer: As long as they have a basic understanding of the genre they're playing, it's whatever.

 

[Chucker]

Not good, proficient though. Understand tropes and concepts.

 

[Kain]

Wait, are we talking "I play casually and while I'm not a speedrunner I manage by" bad or "I'm in this for the clicks and I can't be bothered to even try to understand how this nerd thing works" bad?

 

[Karlinel]

Nope, not at all. It helps that you have an average skill, but since they are supposed to speak in behalf on the mass, no more than that is mandatory. If reviewers had ERA's average skill/patience, I wanna be the guy would be "a decently challenging romp, 8/10".

 

[Okabe]

Only if it's God Hand

 

[Firenoh]

As long as the reviewer knows and states that they're bad at video games, it's totally fine.

 

[ZanderEzekial]

If I'm reviewing a game/genre I'm not skilled at, I include that as part of the writing. I still think the viewpoint of a novice is valid, but I want to be sure the reader knows where I'm coming from so they can get the content they want.

 

[Kingpin Rogers]

It helps but it's not necessary. Just as long as you don't let it cloud your judgment.

 

[Sixfortyfive]

What value am I supposed to get from the opinion of somebody who doesn't understand what they're reviewing?

 

[Evil Lucario]

Not mechanically. Sometimes you get very good alternate takes by people who don't grasp things instantly. A reviewer who's generally not good at games but still enjoys games like Dark Souls should tell you something immensely positive about games like that.

However, I also want them to disclose what difficulty they play on (if it exists) for transparency's sake so I have an idea of where they're coming from in terms of any difficulty complaints. It's something I do if I write my own reviews.

And they should still show that they understand the game itself. Wonderful 101 suffered immensely from that kind of thing.

 

[cecilpaladin32]

Nope, but I do think the reviewer should be able to get through or very close to the entire game that they are reviewing. If not, at the very least, they should offer full disclosure of how much they played the game to help add some transparency/more credibility to their opinion.

 

[Kalentan]

They don't need to be like professional level... but they also need to not be bad.

 

[JoeInky]

Depends on the kind of game, the target audience, that sort of stuff.

There is value in the review of someone who isn't good at games though, because most people aren't good at games either.

 

[Drayco21]

No, a game reviewer doesn't need to be good at video games to review games- they need to be good at writing, and at making constructive criticism. Frankly, they don't need to finish every game they review either.

 

[Fadewise]

Not good, proficient though. Understand tropes and concepts.

Click to shrink...

This. Raw technical skill and reaction time are much less of a factor than their familiarity with the language of video games.

 

[CthulhuSars]

No. But game reviewers should at least show some sort of undestanding of gameplay.

 

[Torpedo Vegas]

Good no. Not terrible yes

 

[Nasigil]

At least you are supposed to be able to finish the game you are reviewing.

You do need to be good at the game if you want to do in-depth critique matthewmatosis/Joseph Anderson style on a gameplay-heavy game.

 

[Scion]

What value am I supposed to get from the opinion of somebody who doesn't understand what they're reviewing?

Click to shrink...

Understanding and execution are different things. There should be viewpoints from people who have a complex grasp of techniques and mechanics, but those people are also biased since they spent so much time learning said systems they are likely going to think more of them. A wide variety of opinions, including people who can't physically execute certain aspects of games, is for the best.

 

[Firenoh]

Wait, are we talking "I play casually and while I'm not a speedrunner I manage by" bad or "I'm in this for the clicks and I can't be bothered to even try to understand how this nerd thing works" bad?

Click to shrink...

"VentureBeat playing the Cuphead tutorial" bad.

 

[BeaconofTruth]

Not necessarily, in theory someone who is bad at a game is still capable of grasping and understanding the finer points of the game mechanics, how they work, what decisions they can make, and extrapolate on higher level stuff.

That said it obviously is a benefit when you are good at a game and have a much better understanding of the game. A lot of reviews tho the problem isn't as simple as journos can be bad at games (which, lets be real), it's more so that they supremely suck at describing gameplay period. Most if not straight up all game reviews are written like movie reviews or are nothing more than describing what they felt like it was like to play the game.

There is very little detail given about the mechanics or explanation of decision making. There is every little understanding of higher level systems in a game, not one Bayonetta review has ever brought up Dodge Offset, which is absurd to anyone that understands that genre and that game. I get that sometimes this is a case of a game doing a poor job teaching you the game, but this is one example of many someone could make. Fighting game reviews for instance are the epitome of fucking terrible.

They've also often used poor language to describe shit and made a lot of it standard, when really it's never an acceptable take or even a justified take.

Criticism for art, our art as well should have a balance of being able to explain how the game works at a lower level play (when you're learning the game) and how it evolves at mid to high level play. And personally reviews don't satisfy any of that. And that necessarily doesn't need you to be good at video games, it requires more effort to learn the ins n outs of the game.

 

[Phrozenflame500]

from a purely consumer advocacy standpoint no, after all most people aren't good at video games

i'd say if they want to analyze a game in-depth though they kinda need to be

 

[Yautja_Warrior]

While they don't have to be good at games, anyone can have an opinion, I probably wouldn't take their opinion all that seriously if they were trying to tell me a game is good or bad in a review but they weren't actually good at games.

 

[Kill3r7]

No. If anything I would argue they need to be average and engage with the game in a similar manner as the general public.

 

[samred]

none of us are good at EVERY game.

most of us are expected to play, write about, and judge far more genres than we're proficient at. (especially as budgets dwindle while we all figure out how to make money for words about video games. for example, at Ars, we can't necessarily afford to bring on genre experts and keep them paid a fair wage to focus on their proficiency. we're not a Publication Of Record that covers every big game possible.)

great writing can apply to the breadth and depth of interactive content far better than skill. that great writing should include context about what players can expect, but also context when specific opinions are offered.

"This sucks." nope.

"The weapon-aiming system is comparable to that of Grand Theft Auto V, which I don't write as a ringing endorsement by any stretch." better. a sense of context/history, a sense of critic's bias.

 

[Temperance]

People at major outlets - being able to complete the game is the minimum I would request of them
Everyone else - no skill requirement

 

[Deleted member 1185]

Of course not. Games can be purchased by anyone, theres no skill test required to obtain your copy, so reviews of all skill levels are equally valid

 

[Baji Boxer]

They should be competent, and it also depends on the type of game. Like if you are bad at sports games and know zilch about football, you shouldn't be reviewing Madden, unless you're specifically putting out a newbie impression.

 

[Pegasus Actual]

To review games professionally you should have at least played a lot of games. If you play a lot of games you should at least have a baseline competence. Beyond that your skill is what it is but it'd be best practice to keep your reader informed of your skill level and how it colors your perspective on a certain game.

 

[Redfox088]

If they are going to criticize the gameplay and mechanics to a largely uninformed audience(reviews that go out pre launch) I think they should atleast be able to complete said game.

 

[J_ToSaveTheDay]

No, they do not.

That said, I do believe a game reviewer should have some awareness of various skill levels that exist in videogames -- even skill levels they don't fit into -- and be able to disclose their own skill-based experience within the preface of their review, so we can adjust impressions accordingly. To be clear, I'm not asking them to apologize for being bad at a game, I'm just saying that they should make an effort to be aware of where their skill level at games falls within a relative consensus and communicate that to the audience.

Reviews should never exist to validate an audience perspective on a game or any piece of media. It's a nice feeling as an audience member if those two views align, but a review should be someone's subjective experience playing the game, and I still think it's valuable for someone who is less skilled at games to voice their experience because game players come in all skill levels and games demand a wide range of skill levels, so having that voice present can give a more accurate impression of a game that covers a more diversified audience.

That said, I get the frustration with how much of the industry's measurements of success come from reviews, but I don't think the solution to that problem is to tell reviewers that they're wrong when their opinion doesn't align with the audience's.

 

[Jimnymebob]

They don't need to be esports, at the very least. That being said, they should at least be competent, or state that their unfamiliarity with said game/genre is a key factor in how they scored the game.
Like, I can't play FIFA to save my life, so I don't think it'd be fair to say something like controlling the ball is horrible, when I know there's a lot of advanced techniques etc.

 

[Tohsaka]

They don't really need to be good, but if they don't finish the game they're reviewing i'm not going to take their opinion into consideration.

 

[karnage10]

Personally it highly depends on how their present their review. If someone isn't able to fully understand the game mechanics thus needing to play in easy/medium dificulty they should state so in their review.

One practical example, review something like rome 2 total war. The game was completely broken if you play more then 30-50 turns yet most reviews gave it a good or average score.
I think we can say one of the following is true:

1. CA/sega bribed most reviewers
2. Reviewers play the game for a couple of hours thus not reaching the broken part

Personally i'm inclined to the 2nd option, reviewers just didn't grasp the game at all due to them not being good thus spreading misinformation that the game was "good/ average". I'm certain that any reviewer that played the game for 20-30h would not give the game an average score, after all most mechanics were not working as intended and thus hurting the fun factor a lot.

In short a reviewer that can't fully play a game will probably not notice glaring issues that any seasoned gamer will. It is fine if the review is wrote from a casual perspective yet most reviewers rarely mention they are casual instead making it sound like they are very "hardcore" and very dedicated to gaming. this is the reason i usually don't trust reviews from most sites.

[note] for those that don't know the game truly was broken, AI didn't work as intended, boats ignoring land, Events happening without reason, battles with 4k soldiers ending in 3 mins,etc.

 

[jotun?]

I think ideally the reviewer should be in the middle of the target audience for a game.

If the game is meant to be accessible to new gamers, then it's totally fine for the reviewer to have that perspective. But if it's something like a hardcore flight sim aimed at serious flight sim people, it would be silly for the reviewer to be someone who has never played a flight sim and has no interest in flight.

 

[DrArchon]

At least you are supposed to be able to finish the game you are reviewing.

Click to shrink...

People at major outlets - being able to complete the game is the minimum I would request of them

Click to shrink...

This is a lot harder to do with all of the GaaS games coming out.

What constitutes finishing a game anymore? If it's just beating the story, you're gonna get a lot of people saying that the reviewers didn't even bother with the endgame content. And you can't expect reviewers to put 100+ hours into every game they review, especially when a bunch of players won't even do that.

 

[RPGam3r]

Can they beat the game? Then they're good to go. Reviewers should come in all flavors, the skilled and the not so much are all welcome because their audience is the same.