You Don’t Have To Be Good At Games To Review Them, But You Do Need To Be Familiar With Them

Frank shares his opinion on the "should game journalists be good at video games"

[Bigpappy]

The whole review thing s becoming more and more and more irrelevant to me. It used to be that people who played and love game would get out there and recommend what they like. Now it's people who see opportunity to make themselves known or get some sponsorship. Some are simple fanboy for one system or the other.

Might as well let Patcher tell you what to buy. A guy who couldn't tell the difference between an RPG and a racer.

[isarai]

That's still the case, hell there are plenty of really good reviewers, though they're all pretty much on youtube. can't remember the last time i read a good written review

[OB1Biker]

I tend to agree but it's not new and big sites reviewers are no better.
Gamers need to stop giving too much credit to the reviews.
The only domain I feel reviews are still relevant is for VR games because a first hand opinion is needed. Unfortunately we have to bear flawed reviews that need to evolve and help gamers in focusing on the game and people who may enjoy it rather than their need to push a :strong' opinion

[rainslacker]

Most reviewers are irrelevant to me nowadays. Even the one's I respect I wouldn't use to make a final decision on a game. I tend to get my games early, so I tend to read reviews after I start playing them, or have at least brought them, so it's more a curiosity for me to see what others have to say, and for the good reviewers, they can sometimes cite things which I may not even notice about a game. Ultimately though, I can decide for myself if a game is good or not, and any random reviewer, even if I respect their opinion, has no bearing on that, nor will it change my own opinion.

If I listened to reviewers, I'd hate most Japanese Otaku style games, because the entire reviewing community decided to make reviews about themselves instead of the games or the target audience last gen. Something that carried over to some degree this gen, as it's more about the reviewer than the game itself....particularly when it's some console war hyped up game.

I think the good reviewers need to start calling out these crap reviewers, and start pointing out why these other people are so bad at their jobs. The whole meaning and point of reviews has been completely debased due to the bad apples.

[Big_Game_Hunters]

Only if you want to make a review that has any credibility.

[madforaday]

I remember way back in 2002 I believe Socom 1 got reviewed. He liked the SP but when he talked about the MP, he was like, "I don't think many people will give it a try because no one wants to wait around when you die." He was going on how he was dying often and etc. Socom 1 didn't have a respawn game mode to practice. I am sure the people who were killing him were having fun. It is all about the type of the game.

[Fishy Fingers]

Most people’s interest in a review ends at the score (usually discrediting anyone with one they don’t like). If that’s your bag and you don’t have a trusted individual/website then use metacritic as it will support a mix of opinions/skill sets.

Personally, if I’m on the fence I talk a friend into buying it first :)

But like anything, you should have a base knowledge/experience of the subject to critique it.

[madforaday]

Nowadays you can just go on twitch and you can see all the game play you want.

[Gamist2dot0]

My problem with some reviews is that some will rush their reviews for clicks/$$$ and give an unfair score...

If you're reviewing a game you're a not a fan of or unfamiliar with, let the reader know.

[PhoenixUp]

Game reviewers should be competent st playing games

[CrimsonWing69]

Um, no you need to know how to play a damn game if you're going to critique it! Plain and simple. I don't want someone who can't play a Dark Souls games to review a Dark Souls game because of course they'll give it low scores because they'll base the entire review on their personal experience (which isn't how a game review should be, but I digress).

And I sure as hell don't want a person who can't play freaking cuphead and who struggles on the damn tutorial to review cuphead. I'm sorry but if you can't play a game then writing about them probably isn't the job for you. You lose all sense of credibility as someone who critiques games.

[AnubisG]

And here is the problem with todays gaming "journalists"

The bar is set so low that all you need to do to be a gaming "journalist" is to be "familiar" with video games.

Just NO. You should know games and the gaming industry inside out. If I wake you up at 3am and ask you what the 10th level in Crash Bandicoot 3 called and who is the CEO of Sony America, you should know these things because that is YOUR JOB!!!

Todays gaming journalists are dumb entitled millenials who know the bare minimum of what they are writting about.

Gaming journalism needs some serious regulations because we are getting absolutely garbage from these "journalist". To a point where we don't care and trust reviews anymore like we used to in the 90's.

So stop making excuses and be better. You don't need to be familiar with games, you need to be a damn gaming God, a gaming expert, a gaming professor to have the privilage to have this job and talk about video games.

[meka2611]

So much of this.

[OB1Biker]

This is true.
The other problem is when gamers criticise reviews you get all the media (and some gamers) play offended and deride gamers as children who need to shut up.

[samden]

Them damn millennials who are only living the way they were taught by the generation before them are the problem with this world. Grrrr

[AnubisG]

Ohh here we go, it's everyones fault but not the millenials. Just to clarify: not all millenials are idiots. I like to think I'm not an idiot but if I screw up something, I will not blame it on my parents. This victim mentallity needs to die and we need to take ownership of our lives.

[rainslacker]

I don' tthink you need to know every aspect of the industry or the game itself to review it. The point of a review is to say how the target customer is likely to like the game. Knowing all the politics surrounding a game actually takes away from the game itself.

The important part of a review is to explain what it's trying to achieve, and how well it does that. Nothing more, and nothing less. After that, you relate that with some objectivity to explain how the end user is likely to feel about the game, by explaining certain pros and cons, and trying to relate that to how it will likely affect the customer, and be able to explain it in a way for the reader to be able to decide how important that is to them.

Knowing the ins and outs of gaming or the industry isn't required to do that. All that's required is to be able to eloquently express oneself, and analyze a game based on a half decent knowledge of game design, and what it is most people would probably like.

The problem with gaming journalists today isn't the lowered standards on their familiarity with gaming as a whole, it's their totally useless abilities as a writer to be able to express what is important in a way that is about the subject they're writing about, and this notion that the opinions of the reviewer are more important than the critical analysis of the game itself.....at least when it comes to reviews. There are plenty of other problems with gaming journalism today beyond this, but that's another topic.

All that being said, in order to be able to properly critique a game, the reviewer at least has to be able to play the game. Outside of a game having broken mechanics which make it exceedingly difficult to complete, if the reviewer can't manage to learn how to play the game to get far enough along, or complete it in most cases, then they shouldn't be reviewing it.

[bluefox755]

You don't have to be "good", but you shouldn't be terrible. If you can't even learn basic game mechanics, you're going to have a difficult time reviewing it properly.