Do game reviewers need to be good at video games?

[Evil Lucario]

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.

Click to shrink...

Honestly agree with this. I sometimes write reviews personally to share with my friends, and the one section I always spend the most time on is gameplay and seeing where things work and things don't, but on a broader level. I'm trying to finding the right balance between broad enough descriptions of gameplay and the nitty-gritty details.

 

[Kurdel]

Of course not

 

[Kalor]

Of course not. Most people buying games aren't good at games so if anything, it offers a more reflective experience for the audience. Though not being good at a game doesn't impact the ability to assess a game critically.

 

[Crayolan]

No, but they should be competent enough to be able to finish the game they are reviewing.

 

[AgentLampshade]

Personally, I feel its expected that they are familiar enough in the genre of the game they're covering to understand the mechanics at least a little below surface level. If they are not, it should be disclosed and made clear the review is from a newcomers standpoint.

 

[Armite]

No. If anything, an ever-widening range of consumers requires a variety of perspectives.

 

[PSqueak]

They don't need to be pro gamers or good at videogames, but they do need to have a basic understanding of the medium and in some cases genre in order to give effective review, a person getting stuck on a tutorial level for a 2d game unable to follow instructions literally spelled for them on the screen should not be reviewing a game.

 

[Budi]

No I don't think so. I personally appreciate if they have some knowledge how the sausage is made and they would understand certain design decisions in example and how those affect the game. And I want them to be familiar with gaming history and have wide knowledge of different games and genres. These are some things I appreciate more myself, knowledge and understanding over pure mechanical skill. And of course having reviewers of different skills brings needed variety to the perspectives. It's of course very helpful for the reader to know about the reviewers familiarity with the type of game they're reviewing. But having both and something in the middle is great, so people can find reviewers that suit their needs.

They don't need to be pro gamers or good at videogames, but they do need to have a basic understanding of the medium and in some cases genre in order to give effective review, a person getting stuck on a tutorial level for a 2d game unable to follow instructions literally spelled for them on the screen should not be reviewing a game.

Click to shrink...

I'm not sure if this a reference to Takahashi and Cuphead, but he didn't review the game.

 

[samred]

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

Click to shrink...

I absolutely disagree. I believe that many games include content that repeats, over and over, again and again, to the point where playing all of its 40-60 hours isn't necessarily a payoff for whatever an outlet can devote in terms of time/resources. Is it right to "score" such a review? Not always. But I've made clear in both "impressions" and "reviews" that I've reached a certain point and said "I've had enough and would rather play XXX or YYY instead."

Our Mortal Kombat 11 review at Ars today, for example, clearly doesn't include completion of the Krypt, and the text explains why, in case a reader believes they need to look elsewhere for that context. I get what you mean about games with huge amounts of content and unfolding skill trees requiring MANY hours to appreciate and fully criticize, and I simply mean that there are shades of gray about this question.

Sometimes, btw, we don't print a review or impressions when we reach the point of being bored/annoyed and throwing up our arms, out of concern that we're going to get "YOU DINT FINISH GAME" blowback.

 

[BadWeddingSpeech]

The chances of someone not being at least serviceable playing video games and being able to truly talk intelligently about game design, difficulty, direction, are very slim.

Yeah, you have to be at least decent at video games to be a reviewer.

 

[Scion]

I'd like to actually see this question flipped on its head. It obviously is a rare occurrence, but what if someone was so good at the game that most people were unable to engage on that level. How useful of a perspective is it for a general populace if you're one of a handful of people talented enough to engage in a game? Those few could praise the game to no end but it still doesn't get over the fact most people wouldn't be able to participate in that way. Understanding a game is far more important than being able to physically execute on the actions within a game.

Then there is the argument to be made that someone who spends a lot of time getting good at a game foregoes playing other games, giving themselves a more limited

 

[What-ok]

Can a full review be made without endgame experience or are reviews based off very little game time? Is it mostly early game play mechanics and graphics that people review? Maybe review copies have late content unlocked? I have no clue obviously but I'm curious.

 

[Nuclear Muffin]

They need to have some level of compitency and need some level of ability to use a controller properly.

But no, they don't need to be especially good at playing.

 

[PSqueak]

I'm not sure if this a reference to Takahashi and Cuphead, but he didn't review the game.

Click to shrink...

Good, because he shouldn't.

 

[Falchion]

They don't have to be good but they need to at least be competent.

 

[MisterAnderson]

They should at the very least not be bad at games IMO. While I'm not a professional, I am not very interested in reviews/opinions from people who suck.

 

[hydrophilic attack]

no

 

[Tatsu91]

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?

Click to shrink...

No they do not need to be good but they should at least be competent enough to aim with an analog stick at a speed faster than one movement ever 5 seconds appearing like they are using their palms to aim with the analog stick.

 

[Azoor]

They don't to be masters, they need to be at least competent.

 

[Mr Spasiba]

They should probably be competent. Like at least above the level of that Polygon Doom guy who actually looked like he never touched a video game before.

I guess I can get the stance that everyone can buy games so everyone should be allowed to give their thoughts, but I feel like that wiggle room should be cutoff somewhere before it gets to people who are paid money to play video games.

 

[Budi]

Good, because he shouldn't.

Click to shrink...

He did praise the game though, specifically complimented the difficulty saying that making it fun and a lost art. So maybe he's onto something afterall.

 

[Nintendo]

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.

Click to shrink...

I don't think multiplayer GaaS games should be reviewed at all, at least not in the traditional manner since they change so much and sometimes become drastically different anyway.

 

[Joe_Bush]

"Good at games" is meaningless devoid of context tbh. I don't give a shit how good someone is at like Sekiro or Cuphead or any of those sorts of like hard games if they're reviewing Baba is You or Obduction or Unavowed or something along those lines. Just because somebody's good at the most dominant forms of game doesn't mean they're "good" in every single situation

 

[Z-Beat]

Depends on the game, but generally a good game should be fun regardless of your skill level.

Fighting games and things like Dreams are a different story

 

[LavaBadger]

No, but they need a certain level of comptence in the medium to be able to engage with it on a deeper level.

That's what I'm looking for anyway. There are any number of surface level hot-takes anyone could give on a game, or a movie, or a book. It's hard to get beyond the surface if you're struggling just to play it. I don't blame those people for struggling; the game might be really bad at explaining itself or helping a player to engage with it. But it's unlikely I'll get something out of the review if that's the case.

If I was very new to games, maybe those reviews would be useful. Even then though, I doubt it unless they're actually talking about why mechanics are difficult.

 

[Mugy]

They should at least know how to play the game they are reviewing

 

[Duffking]

No, not all. It's important that not every reviewer is good at games imo becuase not every player is good at games. Game reviews aren't just for the average gamer.

 

[BeaconofTruth]

Honestly agree with this. I sometimes write reviews personally to share with my friends, and the one section I always spend the most time on is gameplay and seeing where things work and things don't, but on a broader level. I'm trying to finding the right balance between broad enough descriptions of gameplay and the nitty-gritty details.

Click to shrink...

The criteria is shit, the structure is lousy, the business model is limiting, the standards n virtues of what makes a good game are questionable at best. Depth simply isn't contextualized or discussed beyond simple lip service.

Most new reviewers learn how to write reviews the way reviews have always been written. And those simply put were never actually good enough to offer anything of substance about a video game.

 

[Deleted member 679]

I don't think they need to be anything, I'll just favor impressions from those that deliver me the kind of content I want to read, but I don't think reviews I personally find worthless shouldn't exist or anything.

If there's an audience who is more than happy with that content, why not? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

What i do think is their job, however, is to have a proper understanding of what they're criticizing. If you review a game and you complain that it lacks a mechanic that is actually there, just not taught well enough, then in my opinion you did a poor job. You should have above average understanding of games and the game you're reviewing specifically, so that you're able to figure it out by yourself and can properly criticize the game for poorly teaching, instead of lacking mechanics.

But, again, I don't think someone doing a poor job from my point of view should be fired, or anything. If their readers don't mind, then more power to them. I'm just not interested in that content.

 

[JINX]

No, just knowledgable about the game franchise or genre they are covering.

 

[hikarutilmitt]

They don't need to be good, but they need to be competent enough to get through a large chunk of the game (I honestly want to say at least half, but "half" seems like a weird arbitrary number the way games are made, now).

 

[Atom Heart Mother]

You don't have to be a pro, but if you can't get past the tutorial level in Cuphead like that one dude. Just stop.

 

[Kinsei]

Nope. If they are unable to finish the game then a small disclaimer is needed, but that's it.

 

[Deleted member 4037]

I would say basic competence is required, like the cuphead one is just kind of too dumb, but nobody needs to be an expert or even average. As long as everyone expresses how they are skilled, people can come to their own conclusions. Maybe you want someone less skilled because you are, so a more surface level would benefit them.

 

[MisterAnderson]

One example that comes to mind, and I know it's kind of silly to use this game as an example due to the controversy and issues behind it, but watching some footage of certain reviewers play Anthem as if flying wasn't a part of combat was painful to watch. I can't remember where I watched it, but there was one reviewer in particular talking poorly of the combat mechanics when they very clearly were playing the game wrong in the paired footage. They were running around on the ground, never flying and never using the cooldown abilities in every piece of combat footage, only using the guns like a traditional 3rd person shooter.

It was painful to watch and I couldn't take the review seriously after watching them play.

 

[Genesius]

Game reviewers mostly need to tell me if a game is broken or not. I could care less about whether they think it's good or hard or whatever. They are practically QA testers for me at this point. I can tell by watching 10-15 minutes of game footage if something is going to be up my alley. But I've also been playing games for a very long time and know my tastes and what I'm looking for out of game in terms of length, gameplay, story, immersion, etc.

 

[Tibarn]

No, they should at least complete a good part of the game before releasing the review.

At least Spanish reviews seem to be more focused on "looking smart",having good writing and comparing the games to films than to reviewing the actual game, which is kind of lame.

For a dedicated player the "Professional" critic reviews are useless most of the times, you'll be have far more valuable information reading/watching from some dedicated fan if you can wait a few days tbh.

 

[Temperance]

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.

Click to shrink...

I absolutely disagree. I believe that many games include content that repeats, over and over, again and again, to the point where playing all of its 40-60 hours isn't necessarily a payoff for whatever an outlet can devote in terms of time/resources. Is it right to "score" such a review? Not always. But I've made clear in both "impressions" and "reviews" that I've reached a certain point and said "I've had enough and would rather play XXX or YYY instead."

Our Mortal Kombat 11 review at Ars today, for example, clearly doesn't include completion of the Krypt, and the text explains why, in case a reader believes they need to look elsewhere for that context. I get what you mean about games with huge amounts of content and unfolding skill trees requiring MANY hours to appreciate and fully criticize, and I simply mean that there are shades of gray about this question.

Sometimes, btw, we don't print a review or impressions when we reach the point of being bored/annoyed and throwing up our arms, out of concern that we're going to get "YOU DINT FINISH GAME" blowback.

Click to shrink...

I'm always thinking of the single player story experience when I say "finish" the game. That's the majority of products that I consume and matter to me.

I agree in terms of GaaS/Online/MMOs that the finish line isn't clearly define but I think it would be fairly obvious for most games what that would entail. Games you can put 100s of hours into like Division 2 - See the credits and reach world tier 1 so you can at least unlock and play with the specialist classes. I don't expect you to put in anymore then that but most games don't ask you to.

I absolutely don't have an issue with your description of MK11 review.

 

[CyborgNumberBlue]

Absolutely, you can admit a deficit in skill depending on the genre, but you should be fluent enough to complete a game on the default difficulty.

 

[Bumrush]

Nah, I suck at videogames and I feel like it's actually helped me view games based on how tight the gameplay is, how good the story / characters / level design is, etc.

For example, Hollow Knight. I am awful at it but I recognize it's an excellent game. I beat maybe 7-8 bosses and burned out on the long treks between bosses but it's GORGEOUS and crisp, and the sound design is the best I've ever heard in a game.

 

[astro]

They should be able to play competently, or how is their review going to reflect the game properly?

 

[TheCthultist]

No. As long as they can beat it or at least see a full breadth of what the game has to offer, that's probably enough.
That said, I'm not going to take their opinion on it as seriously as I am someone who is good at it and has an opinion.

 

[Shadoken]

"Good" is subjective here. You don't need the same level of skill as an eSports professional. But at the very least enough skill in the genre to play or utilize the mechanics.

For Multiplayer games , reviews are more of less pointless because of this aspect.

 

[CountAntonio]

They are probably better on average then the average gamer which is who their reviews are for.

 

[Leviathan]

I figure if they can beat a reasonable game on normal, emphasis on reasonable, they're good to go.

 

[Redfox088]

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.

Click to shrink...

Well usually +100 hour games get ample review time right? If your job is to review games and like say KH3 you get a month to do it and let me reiterate it is your JOB to review games I most definitely think you should have it finished. If they don't give you ample time don't rush to release the review for clicks.

 

[Deleted member 984]

They need to be good enough unless the outlet is catering to a specific audience.

 

[Deleted member 679]

What I think these discussions don't talk about enough is being good at writing reviews as being more important than being good at the game. A Pro Fighting Game player may not be articulate enough to write a good review.

Like, I'm sure players of different skill levels will have different opinions on how well DMC5 eases you into all the different mechanics and characters through its encounter design, but all of those opinions are completely worthless if they're being expressed as "the combat sucks"/"the combat is soooo good". Having objective examples to support your subjective view is the way to go, in my opinion. How you felt about something doesn't tell me nearly as much as what that something did to make you feel that way.

Tell me why you think a game is "easy to learn, hard to master", don't just leave it at that. This is used for so many games at this point that it's completely meaningless.

BUT, on the other hand, it's hard to seriously ask this much from reviewers if, at the end of the day, the vast majority of the people consuming the content only want to check the score and bail. Why put in so much more effort if it won't change the one part your audience gives a shit about? So I don't know.

 

[DarkFlame92]

No,but they must not judge a game from difficulty

 

[Timewarp]

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.

Click to shrink...

Pretty much what I came to post, though you did it more concisely. It's frustrating to listen to (or to read) reviewers make completely incorrect observations while speaking with authority. It happens all the time. One only needs to delve into VR game reviews to quickly see erroneous claims made with 100% certainty. Usually around locomotion/control setting which they claim don't exist (because they never bothered to actually look for them).

They do not need to be expert or pro players, but they need to be competent. Furthermore, they need to stop making assumptions about the games they are playing. Red Dead is a good example where people weren't paying attention to tooltips on mechanics, and they clearly missed a lot of things. Game of the Year talks were filled with people unaware of certain mechanics, and then shifting blame claming "the game never tells you how to 'x, y, z' ". Nope, it tells you everything if you bothered to pay attention.