The Video Game Critic

Can an Average Gamer Review have merit, or do they need to "Git Gud" first?

We touched on this in the thread "Nathan Drake and the Bad Review", but now a Polygon review of Doom has reignited it. We split in this forum - for instance DaHeckizThat wrote 'if its not your kind of game, you shouldn't be the one reviewing it'. I like 'everygamer' reviews, as most of us are average to weak in many games. No one is arguing that basic skills are not essential, just must a reviewer "Git Gud" first? Forbes has competing articles on this.

Basic Player Review: http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidthier/2016/05/25/why-we-need-video-game-reviewers-to-suck-at-games/#670ccc947158
Expert Player Review: http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2016/05/26/no-video-game-reviewers-definitely-shouldnt-suck-at-playing-games/#5bbc8463703b

Average Gamer Reviews are Good wrote:For every player that runs roughshod over the competition. there needs to be ten or so people just running around getting shot. It means that most players would fall on the “bad” side of things, and yet we only consider the opinions of the skilled minority to be somehow admissible.

Skilled Gamer Only Reviews wrote:Car reviewers should be above-average drivers in order to put a vehicle through all the motions to give savvy readers an in-depth take. Same applies to game reviewers.

What say you?

I don't think videogame reviewers need to be skilled at the particular genre of game unless they are explicitly reviewing games for an expert audience. It also depends on the type of game in question. A Starcraft II review by someone inexperienced with RTSes would ignite a furor, and for good reason. There's no way a reviewer can competently cover all the points necessary to make that review valuable for introductory and expert players alike.

I also think that it is absolutely critical for the reviewer to reach the game's end state (where one exists). This is especially important for narrative-heavy experiences like Call of Duty, Uncharted, or FInal Fantasy. There's absolutely no way to construct a valid review without having finished the game.

ptdebate wrote:I don't think videogame reviewers need to be skilled at the particular genre of game unless they are explicitly reviewing games for an expert audience. It also depends on the type of game in question. A Starcraft II review by someone inexperienced with RTSes would ignite a furor, and for good reason. There's no way a reviewer can competently cover all the points necessary to make that review valuable for introductory and expert players alike.

I also think that it is absolutely critical for the reviewer to reach the game's end state (where one exists). This is especially important for narrative-heavy experiences like Call of Duty, Uncharted, or FInal Fantasy. There's absolutely no way to construct a valid review without having finished the game.

I agree with ptdebate. It really depends on the type of game and the audience you are shooting for. Honestly, having people review games for genres that aren't their favorite is helpful as well because it isn't always going to be hardcore fans trying to decide if they want to try a game or not.

I don't think you need to be an expert, because chances are you are writing for a general audience. However, the reviewer should at least be proficient at the game. How else could they dig deep enough into the game to write a proper review?

For clarification, what I meant when I said that is that we shouldn't get people to review game genres they already know they don't enjoy. I don't like sports games, so you wouldn't want me to review the new Madden game because I wouldn't be able to be objective about it. If someone hates RTS games, don't hand them a copy of the new Warhammer 20K game to review.

As for being good at it, that's subjective. I suck at spectacle fighters like Devil May Cry, but when I played it I could still tell that it was a very well made game. It was more MY fault that I didn't enjoy it than the game itself's. Likewise, if someone were to play Dark Souls, even if they weren't very good I'd hope that they could still see that the game was polished, balanced, and very well made, even if it's not for them. It's all about being objective, and the main thing that gets in the way of objectivity is a preexisting bias against (or maybe even FOR) something you've been asked to evaluate

Also, my name is DaHeckizDAT, thankyouverymuch.

You forgot your period after 'evaluate'. Youareverywelcome.

VideoGameCritic wrote:I don't think you need to be an expert, because chances are you are writing for a general audience. However, the reviewer should at least be proficient at the game. How else could they dig deep enough into the game to write a proper review?

Says the guy who got to the bridge in Bloodborne and gave up! Lol

I kid, I kid!

I don't think that somebody needs to be amazing, but they should be good enough to cover a lot of the game, otherwise their review is somewhat useless.