Do You Expect Game Reviewers to be Capable of Good Gameplay?

Gamespot just had a very lazy 'Kingdom's of Amalur : Reckoning' feature go online with a tiny article attached and three gameplay videos from hell. The player is clearly incapable of properly executing gameplay fundamentals such as proper blocking or looting, nor does his gameplay in general show any kind of awareness and skill. The constant fails are cringe inducing. Showing off gameplay of lvl 20 characters, I'm assuming the player has more than 20 hours of playtime with the game.

I do expect professional videogame reviewers to be capable of understanding how to play a game the best. To recognize design intention and check out if it works. Like seeing how designers built the UI in favor of doing 'loot triage' right when looting, as in comparing gear and sorting out junk items right away. Or doing proper blocking or timing attacks instead of hitting thin air. Or being aware of an empty manapool. Or popping a manareg potion in such a case. Or properly executing simple one-button-push special abilities.

Also - sites like Gamespot and IGN often post gameplay without commentary. It's obvious to me, this dude didn't spend a minute of thought on these classes, respectively the game, and rather than a poor commentary, it just comes with no commentary at all. Like every ethusiast gaming site does commentary on all their videos regardless if they're balls-deep into it or not. Giving some insight. This guy has none. Shameful is what it is.

I think it's paramount that professional game critics and reviewers are capable players. Why would an oaf's opinion be of any value to me?

Dreadful gameplay indeed. And no commentary to boot. With an article that's not worth mentioning. Shoddy work by whoever's responsible at gamespot to say the least. At least the game itself is looking good. Only thing that's worrying me thus far, the lack of enemy variety.

If you're posting a video? HELL YES. Do not waste my time by being terrible at the game. If it's just a review, however? Then it's not really a priority, since somebody sucking at the game doesn't come across as well in a text review.

yes and no.

yes, because a reviewer should be capable of fully experiencing the game like it should be played, with some decent amount of skill. Without that experience i feel his review will never fully do justice to the game they have reviewed.

no, because most games should be able to be played by novice gamers. Even someone who has never played such a game and therefor does not understand all the mechanics completely, can give their opinion about such a game.

reviews are for a big part opinions and experiences, those differ for everyone, n00b or l33t.

yeah i do. and if they don't it bothers me deeply and i make thread about it.

Yes. If you can't be good enough at a game to give it a fair review then fuck off and give it to someone else. Failure leads to frustration and frustration leads to reviewers blaming "the game" for their own failures.

I expect them to have the skills of an average gamer, nothing more.

Regarding these videos as somehow being examples of the reviewer's awesome skillz, most of the time, especially in larger outlets, gameplay footage for previews etc. are recorded by interns or other people specifically in order to record footage. Few people bother recording footage of all their playing in IGN or Gamespot.

As to the subject, games should be played on their own terms. If a reviewer gets stuck due to not nailing those tricky jumps, and no other options exists, they usually (or atleast back in the day) used to have a variety of console-enabled cheats that allowed them to pass such tricky spots so they could review the game eventually.

I am not expecting reviewers to be the worlds greatest gamers or anything, I expect an average level of competence.

@Prodstep said:

I am not expecting reviewers to be the worlds greatest gamers or anything, I expect an average level of competence.

Yeah same.

No. I don't want a person who plays Starcraft professionally to review Starcraft 2, for example, because their opinion of the game isn't going to be how the average gamer would perceive it. I'd like their skills in a given game to reflect that of a person who has never played that game before, if they are great at playing the game before it is even released then they are incapable of providing a fair and objective review.

If the reviewer sucks at the game, then he sucks at the game. Maybe it's the game's fault and that's the most important part of the whole review. Makes no difference to me.

I think you are expecting too much, they should be able to play the game on a normal standpoint but i don't expect them to be pros at the game. What i expect or care about more is the reviewer having a good degree of knowledge on the game they are covering.

No, no I don't. I expect them to be good at writing/voicing their opinions and to come as close as possible to forming an unbiased opinion.

@Video_Game_King said:

If you're posting a video? HELL YES. Do not waste my time by being terrible at the game.

I will sort of agree with that, though. If you are going to post game play videos, especially ones without commentary, then you need to not be completely horrible at playing. Even then, though, I don't expect them to be great at the game or anything.

I don't expect a game reviewer to be capable of being good at a game or being good at writing a review. Most of them aren't. It doesn't really annoy me that badly unless it's someone complaining about a game being too hard to finish for a review. Very few things out there nowadays are like that.

Ayup. They can't experience the full game without at least some degree of common skill.

I'm not saying they should start researching optimized character builds on some obscure websites or anything, but at least knowing that pressing the dodge button when a bad guy is about to hit you would certainly help.

Yes I do.

I do, Jeff, Ryan and Brad a good at their respective gaming choices thats why I think it's great that when a more PC centric game comes out they either get Drew or Dave to look at it.

Simply average. I don't expect them to be very good at multiplayer games because they don't have the time to linger on individual games like that post review.

I do. It wouldn't make any sense for me to review some high-powered supercar. Sure I could drive it and maybe not kill myself, but since I don't have the skills to really drive it my opinion wouldn't be worth a whole lot.

inb4 Brad.

I don't care what your profession is, if you're being paid to do something, you should be good at it.

And if you're being paid to play games and then write about them, you should be good at both playing games and writing about games. I'm not saying you have to be a master who can beat every game on hard, just good enough to be, well, good.

In a review, if they can not grasp something, or are playing on easy i expect them to say so.

While there is some value to be found in the views of someone who is not an extremely good gamer, on average I want my coverage done by someone who's skills are respectable. Primary reason why I take anything Ryan Scott says with a huge grain of salt.

If a review is to relevant to me specifically then yes I do. Otherwise their opinion becomes less relevant to me. Because lets face it that's what reviews are, opinions of some other people. If the person providing the opinion is terrible at games that already means our interests and abilities are diverging. But reviews these days rarely dictate what I buy anyway, so whatever.

Part of the reason I like GB, i'm not here for their reviews (tho i still read now and again for funzies), but mostly for the video content and arguing with people on the forums :)

I knew this was a KoA-defense thread before I clicked on it.

But, yes.

@SirPsychoSexy said:

I expect them to have the skills of an average gamer, nothing more.

This.

I expect them to be better than "average" because they play games on a daily basis. I honestly don't know how you can be in the games industry, E3 every year, been doing the games gig for 10+ years and still be "poor" or even just "average" at gaming. I'm not saying every type of game - I've been gaming for over 10 years just as a hobby and I wouldn't be able to play a fighting game like Street Fighter to save my life. On the other hand I'm above average in platformers and first person shooters, I'm good at driving games and push comes to shove I could probably play a Real Time Strategy on an average level. So I expect a reviewer to at least have one type of game that they're above average at and at least be able to adapt to others.

They need not be good at it as long as they understand the game.

Their quality of play is irrelevant to me. As long as they can develop thoughtful insights into the mechanics of a game and write out their opinions and thoughts on their experiences with the game in an easy to read fully developed manner then I'm happy. A person doesn't need to be an expert at games to do this. They just need to be good writers and intelligent enough to determine what it is that they are getting out of a game in a way that others can understand.

I expect them to be capable of competent play.

I wouldn't say "good" specifically, because a lot of people seem to use their own skills as the baseline for what's "good" play and treat everything below that as "terrible". This is readily apparent every time Giant Bomb plays an action game.

I expect them to be able to beat dark souls.

Yes I do. People who're not capable of actually playing a game shouldn't review it or even try to help other people. I remember how a friend of mine tried to find a proper video guide on youtube for a game that's actually pretty easy. And most of the people who made guides were outright horrible. You could clearly see how they simply did the level over and over again untill they finally succeded instead of knowing what they're doing.

The same goes for game reviewers, how should he be able to properly judge a game if he isn't even capable of playing it?!

@SirPsychoSexy said:

I expect them to have the skills of an average gamer, nothing more.

Basically this. I don't expect them to "own" any game but understand the controls and be able to proceed through a significant amount of the game at a reasonable rate.

I don't particularly care and find people that do obnoxious.

The same goes for game reviewers, how should he be able to properly judge a game if he isn't even capable of playing it?!

I expect reviewers to know what they're talking about and know the mechanics of the game they're reviewing but I'm not expecting them to be the best player in said game.

Well, the way someone plays games always influences his/her review. But even the best "gamer" in the world can still have a bad taste in games and/or write terrible reviews... A decent knowledge of how to play games and what to look for, to be able to write a fair review, is everything I expect.

I don't expect them to be insta-experts and beast mode at every game, but if you play games for a living I'd naturally assume that all of that experience would make you pretty good at playing games. At least average at playing games.

I expect someone reviewing a game to be capable of understanding its mechanics and completing it to the best of their ability.
 
I expect someone reviewing a game to be able to distinguish the difference between reasonable challenge and broken gameplay.
 
So yes, I do. I want a reliable piece of purchasing advice, not the reviewer whining about how they wish the game was or how they couldn't understand it.

I'm good at games, therefore I want the reviewer to be good at games.

Of course, at least reasonably competent.

How can you be a paid reviewer and have no gaming skills?

And why do people record gameplay to truly show off their incompetence?

I don't think there's much credibility in a review by someone who can't play the game correctly , or well enough at least to really see and experience all it has to offer.

@CptBedlam said:

I knew this was a KoA-defense thread before I clicked on it.

But, yes.

If Seppli is the thread creator then there's a 99% chance it's about KoA.

For video, I am okay with competent.

For written coverage, as long as they don't try to play off their utter lack of skill as a fault of the game's, I don't care how terrible they are.

I expect them to be no worse than I am - At the very least, average. I define average (somewhat arbitrarily) as being able to complete Mass Effect 2 (which is by no means a difficult game on Normal). They should be reasonably good at the type of game they are reviewing - and as few people are good at every type of game, different reviewers should review different games.

If you can finish ME2, Uncharted 2, MGS4 and Gears of War 3 on Normal or Above, I consider you good enough to review a TPS. If you can finish any Final Fantasy game, I consider you good enough to review any RPG. If you can finish Silent Hill, you should be able to review any horror game, and if you can win a round of Civ 5 on Prince difficulty or Finish the Starcraft 2 campaign, you should be good to at least be able to review (not necessarily compete in) most RTS or Strategy games.

I honestly don't care if the reviewer is good at the game he's reviewing. As long as the person isn't doing a walkthrough that will be used by other people, it's irrelevant imo as long as the review is good.

@jetsetwillie said:

yeah i do. and if they don't it bothers me deeply and i make thread about it.

Bahahahaha. But to the OP, if they can write a deep and understanding review that can spill out all the pros and cons of a game without being biased, I could care less how good they are with the controller (or keyboard) But if they are making a gameplay video or a "lets play" video, decent gaming skills are a must or else it risks being painful to watch.

@Seppli said:

Showing off gameplay of lvl 20 characters, I'm assuming the player has more than 20 hours of playtime with the game.

These characters look an awful lot like the three character archetypes they gave Brad to play with in his KoA video. So I don't think hes actually played for 20 hours, like Brad, they just gave him these characters to play with and he did the videos based on those.

Yes.

In this day and age, with how casual games have become, I don't expect game critics to be "good at playing video games" in a general sense. However, I would hope that if they're reviewing a game (whether that game be Peggle or Dark Souls, it doesn't matter) they would possess or acquire the necessary skill level that the game demands. They should make a concerted effort to learn the rules, systems, and mechanics that govern the game and do their best to succeed within them. It helps no one to review a game when you made no effort to understand it. It's a disservice to your readers as well as yourself.

Something that really irks me is that hosts of gaming podcasts (even the Bombcrew) will scoff at people for telling them that they're playing a game wrong. I get it. That can be annoying. But guess what. Believe it or not, "playing a game wrong" is an actual thing you can do. And you fuckers (game critics in general) do it all the time. It's not just something us lowly forum posters made up to spite you.

Depends on how they portray themselves in terms of seriousness of their posting. If it - like Giantbomb - I forgive them a lot in their quick looks because it isn't a review as much as it is two dudes playing a game and watching. Gamespot, however, get's no mercy in that regard.