Slashdot Mirror
Great Gamers Not Always the Best Reviewers
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.
couldn't the same be said for movie reviews?
i mean ebert and ropurt (sp) may not be the movie critic world after all.
video games are after all entertainment. so maybe reviews should be changed from
1.graphics
2.sound
3.difficulty
to
1. replay value
2. entertainment value
3. difficulty
maybe then we'll see that game reviews that give very entertaining but only worth playing once instead of these graphics and sounds are ultra-leet
The best gamers are those who spend most of their time playing games so almost by definition they lack certain interpersonal communication and writing skills. This is nothing new. Great football players are not the best sport reporters either. Great politicians are not the best journalists. Not because of their inevitable bias or the lack of insight but because an expert in one field is not necessarily an expert in another. As the story goes, there is no jack of all trades.
Sincerely,
Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
"Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."
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
Really, it is kind of silly that game reviews have tried to emulate the whole movie review system. Not only is game play a much more individual experience than movies because it depends on the player, not merely the game itself. Depending on skills or strengths, a good game fro one person is a waste of time for someone else. Personally, I think the Penny Arcade guys have it right. No rankings or stars or whatever. Just what they enjoyed, why the liked it, and what other things they have liked in the past. Really, it is the context this provides that is almost as important as anything they say about the game itself.
"How articulate are avid successful gamers? Well, judging by blogs and forums and reader responses of all types posted on the web, I would have to say the communication skills are not generally very high."
You know I just don't see blogs, forums, and reader responses from kiddies pretending to be l33t as a clear indicator of the communication skills of successful gamers.
While I do agree that good game players *might* make pitiful reviewers, there are probably quite a few that could be good reviewers. Gaming and reviewing can be seen as two completely different jobs in related fields. Some people will be good at both while some will not.
Take the example of sports boradcasters. Some people are good sports announcers but not good athletes (ex. Gumbel). Some are good athletes but are terrible broadcasters (ex. Deion Sanders, who obviously can't read very well). Then there are the people who are good at both (ex. Howie).
To some, it's being "uber l33t killah doodz", gankers, griefers, pk'ers; which may or may not be a good thing depending on the game. Being good a twitch games (FPS) is just one kind of good.
To others it might be finding and completing every quest/task/mission, or exploring every map/structure, and finding every drop/treasure; regardles of how many monsters/players you kill.
In an RTS, 'good' might be resource management and strategy. To a pure RPG'er it could be great role-playing skills and character development, having a respected guild, etc.
I think it goes back to the socializer-achiever-explorer-killer categories. How you define 'good' will largely be based on how you fit into that.
But even if you say you're 'good' in all the above examples -- one person's 'good' is another person's 'annoying jack a*s' (I'm talking mainly in a multiplayer context). People have different playstyles and goals when they game, so 'good' is highly subjective and relative imo.
'The unexamined life is not worth living' - Socrates
The casual gamer who plays the campaign on easy and occaionally skirmishes with the computer is going to want a review based more on 'is it fun to play' which is what you get from some one who is a journalist first and gamer second. Does it look and sound good, is it entertaining and are there any major techincal issues.
however a serious (die hard) gamer gets a very different experiance from a game.
Often issues like linear missions, minor balancing issues, cut corners on AI and pathfinding do influence the 'fun' these guys have.
When Empire Earth came out, it got solid reviews from most everyone. Great fun, epic scale, yadda yadda yadda.
As a die hard RTS fan, I was dissapointed to find about 1/2 the campaign missions were made with painful linear design, most of the ages (epochs) were terribly unbalanced (in one gameplay mode or another) and the AI was worthless, it cheated on every difficulty and had no concept of strategy.
Needless to say what the reviews were looking for a what a 'gamer' was looking for were quite different.
... that they were convinced to buy Ninja Gaiden because it was 9.5/10 ... and then got OWNED.
Reviewers often apply scores to games, while completely ignoring the game's replayability factor. Others do talk about that, but often say junk along the lines of "the game lets you be good or evil, and gives you two endings!!". Wow! It doesn't make me want to play through the whole thing a second time, but that sure is neat! I won't pay $50+ for a game that only lasts a few hours and it done. Similarily, games I play need depth (contributing to replayability), usually some sort of modding ability, and a good replayable multiplayer, skirmish, or sandbox mode. Quite often I find reviews ignoring or downplaying things like this, talking about the game as if it was a movie that one could pay $7 and watch at a theater or rent. I can rent many games, but that doesn't work so well on the PC.
This is why video game reviews usually cover replay value. Unfortunately, most video games these days, especially those for game consoles, tend to have very little replay value. Only a golden few (most of which get mediocre reviews) actually are fun to play over and over again.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"