The Video Game Critic

Does a video game reviewer's age matter to how you react to a game review?

I recognize this question is skating on the thin ice of stereotyping people based on their age. Anyone, young or old, can be knowledgeable about an area of expertise - whether its Astroblast or Astrophysics. Yet, given 2 reviewers both have at least some knowledge about gaming, does age matter?

If an older video game reviewer gives a modern video game a poor review, do you ever think that maybe the reviewer has aged out of the target audience, or 'just doesn't get it' or isn't with the times anymore? Conversely, if a younger video game reviewer gives an older game a poor review, do you think the reviewer just doesn't have a good frame of reference for reviewing older games?

When you hear a reviewer mispronounce a game's name, say Zaxxon, you realize they obviously never lived through the time when Zaxxon was a cutting edge arcade game. The opposite is also true when The Critic here sometimes begrudges facets of modern gaming.

Does the age of the reviewer matter when reviewing games?

This is an interesting question, and I think the same could be asked regarding music and film reviews.

For me, it doesn't really matter. I value a reviewer's experience with games (and the genre of the game reviewed in particular) a lot more than their age or even the length of their career. I also look at how closely the reviewer's perspective on games aligns with my own.

Video games are still young enough where we have gamers around from pretty early on. Does not having lived through an era give a reviewer more credibility? Does having experienced previous generations not color a reviewers perspective (for better and for worse)

ptdebate wrote: I also look at how closely the reviewer's perspective on games aligns with my own.

I'm intrigued. Tell us more, more friend.

Age is irrelevant as long as the reviewer has at least some knowledge on the subject (which doesn't necessarily have to be video games). Roger Ebert reviewed virtually every current-at-the-time movie for decades until his death at 70 and though his opinions occasionally skewed from the general consensus, he was still able to appreciate various films from all genres. His more controversial opinions (one being that video games could never be considered art) were rooted in bias rather than his age.

eneuman96 wrote:Age is irrelevant as long as the reviewer has at least some knowledge on the subject (which doesn't necessarily have to be video games).

We can broaden this to music and movies and other media, that's fine.

I think age does matter. Listening to an interview with Gene Wilder - Willie Wonka, Young Frankenstein, and more - who has done almost nothing for 25 years. When asked why, he said he was still getting scripts and invites all the time, but that he finds modern comedy unfunny. Comedy is one form of entertainment tied strongly to current values and issues, and many comedians' age out' after awhile. Not all to be sure - George Carlin was going strong until he died, but many.

To return to video games though, if I want to really understand the impact of a game, I find a reviewer who was a young adult when the game was new. They lived through its heyday, they have both the nostalgia and passion and *personal experiences* of the game at the time. When I think of the AVGN, I think NES games, since those were the games of his youth.

Now, I'm generalizing that someone from 12-25 is in their 'gaming prime', and we can debate that too, but that's what I go for. So, if I want to know about NES games or N64 games or modern games, I'm looking for different reviewers of different ages.

I guess age doesn't really matter to me, but it would give me a better perspective as to how the reviewer viewed the game. Someone who's 18 would (perhaps) have a different perspective than a reviewer who is 48.

I know this goes without saying, but a reviewer's writing style and (sorry) grammar skills do matter to me. If I see a review with a very basic writing style, a ton of grammatical mistakes, and/or spelling errors, I probably won't take the review too seriously.

Interesting thought provoking thread Scotland.

Echoing JWK's sentiments a little, it really depends on what game review. I'll be bluntly honest here I check out VGC for game reviews for 5th gen backwards as I trust his judgement for these eras.
However for more modern games 7th gen on, I prefer other sources. I can't properly convey why, I just don't think his finger is on the pulse with modern gaming and pre-existing traditions stop me feeling that he has a great connection with the HD era gaming. But for older games the Critic is almost gospel for me as we like similar style games.

scotland wrote:Video games are still young enough where we have gamers around from pretty early on. Does not having lived through an era give a reviewer more credibility? Does having experienced previous generations not color a reviewers perspective (for better and for worse)

ptdebate wrote: I also look at how closely the reviewer's perspective on games aligns with my own.

I'm intrigued. Tell us more, more friend.

I say this because different reviewers emphasize different things. For example, I don't usually look to the critic's reviews of modern games because they usually focus more on things that don't matter as much to me (such as online requirements, download sizes, "motion sickness," or use of profane language) than things that do (quality of storytelling, artistry, originality of gameplay, replayability). When it comes to retro games, though, I should add that I do find his reviews short, to the point, and a useful guide to unfamiliar libraries.

Having lived through an era gives one historical perspective, but it doesn't necessarily enhance one's ability to assess the quality of an entertainment product.

Time creates distance. Young retro reviewers don't lack for passion, but they're very hit or miss. "Super Mario World" is the hardest SNES game ever made." "Hahaha, it's a Lynx. Wow, this thing sucks." "Don't make fun of Hard Drivin on the Sega Genesis; I can see why this was once considered beautiful."

I can't imagine anyone my own age making those mistakes.

At the same time, I know a guy who wasn't even alive when the Amiga was released, who can be blown away by the graphics on an Atari 2600. He understands what it means, to create something like Oystron on a machine that was only designed for Combat and Pong. He also bought me Undertale, just because he wants everyone to experience it.

It's not just about the games themselves. There's always a good story to be found, when creative men and women face limitations, even self-imposed limitations, and overcome them. It's why the genius that created The Birth of a Nation or Triumph of the Will can still horrify audiences today.

Time creates distance. Would anyone argue that those movies were better understood in their own time?

More important to me than a reviewer's age, would be the speed of their reflexes (which decline with age), their pattern recognition (which make some games much easier as you age) and their overall ability to understand the difference between "I had fun." and "This is a good game." (Which comes with wisdom) It's possible to enjoy both a masochistic experience like Ghouls N Ghosts and an easy zen one like Aria of Sorrow, on their own merits, but too many critics throw a screaming tantrum if the game isn't catering to their playing ability, exclusively. ("Double Dragon Neon made me play a level over again. Outdated, obsolete arcade trash." "I didn't once see an instant fail state in Megaman Legends 2, so I'm here to become one instead. I don't just hate the game, I hate everyone who enjoys it.")

Gleebergloben123 wrote: a reviewer's writing style and grammar skills do matter.

I've always favored content over style and grammar. To go outside video games, Stephen Hawking has an emotionless electronic voice, but its what he is saying, not how he is saying it that matters. ee cummings had horrible grammar.

Sut wrote:I'll be bluntly honest here I check out VGC for game reviews for 5th gen backwards as I trust his judgement for these eras. However for more modern games 7th gen on, I prefer other sources.

ptdebate wrote:...different reviewers emphasize different things. For example, I don't usually look to the critic's reviews of modern games because they usually focus more on things that don't matter as much to me (such as online requirements, download sizes, "motion sickness," or use of profane language) than things that do (quality of storytelling, artistry, originality of gameplay, replayability).

ThePixelatedGenocide wrote: More important to me than a reviewer's age, would be the speed of their reflexes (which decline with age), their pattern recognition (which make some games much easier as you age) and their overall ability to understand the difference between "I had fun." and "This is a good game." (Which comes with wisdom)... too many critics throw a screaming tantrum if the game isn't catering to their playing ability, exclusively.

I think these are all similar and solid. If you want to know about Colossal Cave Adventure in the 1970s, aren't you going to seek out someone who was in college in the 1970s? However, age changes a gamer in many ways, from constantly 'unlearning' game mechanics or game design, comparing the new to the old, being motivated by different things, being comfortable with simpler graphics, their commitment to time spent gaming, etc. This affects how they see a games 'quality' as it relates to how much fun they had.

Age may be just one factor among many - a younger Dave or an older Dave may have had the same sensitivity to profanity, or an older game not care about arcade stylings, but age does seem to be an important one.