Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Great Gamers Not Always the Best Reviewers

Posted by Zonk on from the explaining-my-crappyness dept.

An editorial posted on The Adrenaline Vault posits that talented gamers are not always the best reviewers because of the necessity for those with elite skills to care as much as they do about their performance. The best reviewers, on the other hand, are generally somewhat detached from the subject material. From the article: "Spending 50 hours playing an offering when you are focused exclusively on trying to win certainly would yield very different insights than spending the same 50 hours trying to evaluate the title's strengths and weaknesses to help inform the general public about purchasing decisions." Kyle Orland's Video Game Ombudsman has further analysis on this subject.

4 of 54 comments (clear)

  1. Actually... by brkello · · Score: 4, Funny

    The same thing can said for everything in life. The best programmers may not be the best at teaching programming. The best soccer players may be awful soccer coaches. The best prostitutes may not be the best at...ok...well, not EVERYTHING...but yeah, this article is kind of a no-brainer.

    --
    Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
  2. Does this mean.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Since I suck at games, that I should be a great game reviewer?

  3. sounds like someone is pissed ... by PaganRitual · · Score: 3, Funny

    ... that they were convinced to buy Ninja Gaiden because it was 9.5/10 ... and then got OWNED.

  4. SHOCKING!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
    Next thing you know, people will say something like great basketball players dont make the best sportscasters or announcers...

    Cue footage of Magic Johnson or Michael Jordan trying to cobble together a coherant English sentence, much less a relevant or interesting one. Try telling me those guys arent intellectual powerhouses.