Reviewers Bad at Games?

A reviewer can't be super amazing at all games because they have to play so many games in a short amount of time, they cant dedicate lots of time to becoming good at any one game.

That being said, a reviewer does need at least some average competence in a game in order to write a review that would apply to the bell-curve esque average amount of players.

And that Doom gameplay was just... below average, to put it lightly

And theres a difference between AH Let's Plays and actually reviewing a game. AHLPs are more for entertainment than to get an idea on whether a game is good or not. I watch AH for the personalities playing the game, not the game itself. A game reviewer tho, I'll watch or read for their opinion on a game and whether or not it would be worth my money. Sure, sometimes they overlap, like AH or another letsplay channel might play a game and make me want to buy it, or a reviewer might have an entertainment value, but it normally doesnt end up that way.

If you are employed into a certain job, especially in a field where your opinions carry weight, there are always requirements that need to be met. In this case, people are expecting your opinion to matter since you are employed by a company known for opinion pieces. If you are in that industry then you should at least have the skills to have the optimum experience for an average gameplay. If you can't play a game properly enough then you shouldn't be able to influence the public.

After the Star Fox debacle I stopped reading Polygon reviews. All I could think was that this was a job hundreds of people desired and this guy just didn't care enough to do what he was payed for. And if they can't even show us a gameplay video with an average gamer I just don't feel they take their consumers (or themselves) seriously enough.

Like Lawrence was saying in the most recent Dude Soup, a reviewer needs to be objective enough to say "I would recommend this game even though I personally do not care for it.". They would need to have enough knowledge and analytical skills to understand what makes a particular game good in whatever context.

That being said, I pretty much take my recommendations from LP's and such before buying a game I'm not familiar with.

This is part of the reason I ignore reviews. Even though I got burned on Unity.

Summoning in Dark Souls is the easy mode. You get 25% more health and 1-3 higher leveled people play the game for you. I spent all day yesterday helping people fight bosses and ran into quite a few people who made it to the end of the game without understanding simple mechanics. Watched as one person ignored messages and opened a mimic chest and died while I tried to warn them...and this was in the final area. Meanwhile I've found the game too easy because it's not a super difficult game, it just requires some learning which I have from previous games. This puts FROM in a tough situation of compromising for newcomers and veterans. Two modes seems like an easy fix but it ruins what the series is about, you're meant to learn while playing and realize you've legitimately grown as a player. Seriously, that's what ember was there for, you get extra health and can get people to beat the game for you. Meanwhile I just solo'd and ended up a lower level for NG+

I feel as though if a reviewer understands how to learn to play the game they are reviewing while reviewing it that's enough. I don't expect reviewers to be MLG no-scopers.

My favorite part is in final outtake, you can see Meg's face change when she finishes processing what's still coming out of her mouth

I find it funny how someone noped out of Stellaris for being too hard; it's significantly easier than EU IV or CK II (both from the same developer, Paradox), which makes me believe that a person who's reviewing a game should know what they're getting into when reviewing a game. For instance, if you're reviewing a game such as Uncharted 4, you should have some vested interest in the previous games. If you're reviewing Stellaris, you should know what to expect when plunging into a grand strategy game.

While I'd love to see someone from AH/RT dive into a Europa Universalis IV game or a Stellaris game, I know it wouldn't make good content because it's not a game that would mesh well with their style of playing video games, and they would come off with a sour taste about the game because it's not really something for them, and it's the same way for anyone playing a game to review it; if they're unfamaliar/straight up bad at the genre of game they're reviewing, they won't have an accurate review regardless of the quality of the game.

Unless Polygon's goal was to make the game look bad, they should not have released a video that looked like they handed the controller to a six-year-old with one hand.

You want to claim to be a professional organization? Put forth a professional product.

You want to claim to be a game critic? Take five minutes before you film to optimize your controls for yourself. If FPS isn't for you, ask your buddy to run the sticks for your footage. If they have nobody in their organization that can manage to actually play the game semi-competently, then it means that I have no reason to seek their input with regards to FPS or action games.

I've played DOOM enough (four hours, stupid work taking me away from delicious new DOOM) to know that it isn't immensely difficult for an average-skilled player like myself to not look like a gibbering idiot at the wheel.

I'm sorry but if you are worse than Gavin at video games you should stay the hell out of writing video game reviews

You don't need to be "good" at gaming to review them, but you really need to be familiar and proficient at playing games, at least. You wouldn't hand the keys of a new car to someone who's never driven before to test drive, right?

I had heard they were bad but in those clips it looks like someone playing with only their thumbs.