Critics Don't Need to Be "Good" at a Game to Review It

Why focusing on skill level makes criticism less useful.

[TekoIie]

If your not very good at fighters how can I trust you to explain what makes one game in the genre a 9/10 and another an 8/10?

You don't have to be good at a competitive level, but you have to be capable at playing the game to be able to truly evaluate it and talk about any in depth mechanics if that's the sort of game being played. Oh, and of course know how to read tutorials.

[HaveSumNuts]

I totally agree, critics should know what they are talking about. Some of these critics seem like the type of person who would walk into a McDonalds but they vegan, asking for natural options and shit.

[TheEnigma313]

Bwhahahahahaha that's so true though. You can tell when you see a critically acclaimed game ranging from 8.5-9.5ish score, then you have some dumbass come with a random 6 with stupid excuses why.

[PhantomS42]

Bering knowledgeable and being good are two totally different things. You can know the mechanics, how the game works and be able to explain it as to why it is good/bad or the pro/cons but that doesn't make you good at it.

[The_Sage]

If your job is to review games, you should at least be competent. I've read reviews where the reviewer couldn't even finish the game, but wrote a review none the less.

[TekoIie]

"Bering knowledgeable and being good are two totally different things"

Which is why I used the word capable. Also knowledge of a game comes through experience ;but if your incapable of playing competently then I highly doubt you'll gain that knowledge.

Remember that the point of a review is to inform potential buyers. If your not good at a certain genre then your not the person to be writing that review.

[rainslacker]

In certain genres I'd certainly agree with that. Fighters being a good example. That's one genre where you have to be able to kind of learn the moves to know if everything is balanced, and how good the mechanics are.

At best, an unskilled critic in that genre can say how the casual player might like the game. For instance, some fighters are fun to play if your a button masher, but it'd be really hard to measure the competativeness level of the game if you can't learn to play it in all it's glory.

Other games though, like a lot of 3rd party adventure games you can actually probably still get through and often tell how good they are without learning all the mechanics inside and out. But in those cases, disclosure should be given that they are looking at it from a casual stance, instead of acting like they are authoritative and took the time to really master the deeper game play that may exist within that same game.

[OB1Biker]

Its hilarious the number of pieces trying to excuse reviewers. When will they start accepting its OK to disagree and be critical of reviewers? Of course while being civil.
If explanation is needed then go for it in review comment. Is it a shocking idea to face the possibility a human mistake was made and try be better? Or is it easier to hide mistakes or worse behind its my opinion ?

[Chaosdreams]

*Big sigh*

You need a certain level of overall competence while playing a game. You don't need to be pro, but you certainly shouldn't suck, or label the ability to handle complexity/skill as unnecessary qualities in reviewing.

[rainslacker]

I have a terrible habit of being a button masher. But even then, I will take time to try and learn a games mechanics. I feel I can usually review a game better than a lot of reviewers, because I can also see the technical levels that go into a game.

I think the learning curve of a game is an important factor to reviewing games, because a reviewer can't always assume their readers will be competent. In some cases, I feel a person who is more casual in learning a games mechanics, should actually take more time to try and learn how to play an individual game, and actually spend time in their reviews to inform their readers what to expect. Too often, reviews are written from the point of view that the reader is competent at learning games. This is fine for some reviewers, but for the unskilled reviewers, there is no point in trying to appear competent when they are not.

[lociefer]

Na, git gud

[-Foxtrot]

There was no excuse for that Cuphead one

You guys get paid to review games, at least show you have some interest

[TheEnigma313]

I think you would have to enjoy that genre a bit so you aren't bias. I couldn't give an accurate review for FIFA or madden because those games aren't my thing. Same should go for professional reviewers.

[TheOttomatic91]

Uh yes yes they do.

[kayoss]

No they dont, but they need to like the genre of said game that theyre reviewing.

[kangolkyle]

If you can't grasp a game's mechanics well, and someone else can, then the game's not for you and you shouldn't review it.

[wonderfulmonkeyman]

If a reviewer doesn't have the skill necessary to at least get through a game, they shouldn't be reviewing it, because their experience is going to be skewed towards the negative "9 out of 10" times.

They should be leaving the review of said game to someone who is competent enough to at least play through the main meat of the game.

It's like saying "Oh, I played through 15 hours, I think my opinion's good enough!" on a game where the meat of the experience stretches across over a hundred hours of many different bits, then saying your opinion is just as in-depth and valid as the guy who got through the entire main quest as well as most, if not all, of the side content.

Good reviews don't work that way.

If you all want a good example of doing reviews and informed opinions the right way, look up "The Completionist" on Youtube.
Not all of his opinions are ones I agree with, but on the whole, most of his episodes really show the good and bad of each game in a fair and balanced manner.
Best of all, he doesn't "score" the games he reviews.
He completes them all the way through, then rates them from "Donate it" for crap games, all the way through a few other worded ratings, ending up at "Complete it" for games he feels are worth trying to go through 100% of their content.

He recently did an episode on Horizon: Zero Dawn that was really well done, as well as many other great games, especially from Nintendo's past and from many third parties.

[stokedAF]

You don’t need to be good at anything to be a critic. Literally anyone can be a critic. We are all critics in some form or fashion. You not being any good at a game just makes your opinion that much more useles compared to someone that is.

[Chaos_Order]

If you're being paid for your review then yes, you should at least have a decent level of competency. Nobody is expecting reviewers to be elite MLG pros, but when you struggle to grasp basic gameplay elements, or struggle to press 2 buttons at the same time, or miss vital pieces of information because you skipped every tutorial message and dialogue, and score the game less because of it, then your reviewing skills should definitely, absolutely be called into question.

I wouldn't pay attention to a literature reviewer if they didn't have a basic grasp of English. I myself know next to nothing about cars. Should I be a reviewer for a motoring magazine? NO. If you're getting paid for game reviews, and gameplay is a big part of that, then you should be at least somewhat decent. If not then you shouldn't be getting paid for it.

[bluefox755]

They don't have to be pros, but at the very least, they should have a basic understanding of the game's mechanics.

[deafdani]

They don't need to be amazing at a game, but they at least need to be decent.

[Segata]

Polygon and Doom lulz

[quent]

no you're right, they just need to spend a weekend at Zoolander's School for kids who can't game so "good"

What business/interest do you have as a game critic when you can't do you're job competently enough bc you can't be "good" at you're job, in the same way why you cant be a respectable author when you're work is full of spelling errors and you don't know how to hold a pen properly

[PigsR4Eating]

Yes they do. I remember some idiot on rock paper shotgun reviewed Hyper Light Drifter and gave it a lower score because he basically sucked at it.