Videogame culture needs to stop fetishizing skill!

[Zephire]

I still haven't beat Dark Souls 1.
Got past Ornstein and Smough and just stopped.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

But to really respond. I do think that reviewers should have some amount of skill. It's not fair if you stick someone who sucks at platformers on reviewing Super Meat Boy, because they're going to have a bad time, and that's going to reflect in their review if they just can't enjoy the game.

Partly agree. The review from someone not used to, say, platformers is useful to those not used to platformers. It's also great feedback to developers on what would be frustrating and who potentially could stop new players from playing their game. "Maybe that would not happen if our tutorial was better" or similar thoughts might improve the game and let more people enjoy it. It's usually a matter of perspective for people to become of an opinion towards the "thing". A horrible introduction may breed hate towards the game but a great introduction might make the same person love that game.

I think the real skill reviewers should have is understanding the game, understanding the phase of the game, how a good story is written and exposed and understanding what a polished experience is. All in conjunction with to whom the game is meant for and base on that, give us a good review. That's their skill.

I agree with the article though. Skill is just one way to play a game and it tends to eat away at every other way of playing at the moment.

[Deleted]

Video game critic asks people to stop fetishizing skill that video game critics lack.

How about no.

[niil945]

If he manages to remain objective about the game there is nothing wrong, but it is quite a task, he is probably bad because he does not like that game genre at all.
If he starts by explaining that he does not like that genre, or that he is very bad at playing games, well that is ok for me, i will take that into consideration when reading his review.

There is no such thing as objective when it comes to opinions. I'll give you an example of what I meant above specific to me. I'm a reviewer of a slightly different genre of gaming. The show I do is me and 4 others and we review the same content together. We're all friends that grew up together gaming, whether we're talking tabletop, computer gaming, mmo's, etc. We've been doing it for ~6 years now and we have just over 100k subscribers. We do meetups at big events a couple times a year and at our last one we had ~1200 people show. Not to say I'm hot shit or anything, just for reference about popularity (I haven't looked at those numbers in about 6 months so it's probably increased a bit since then). The hosts all have different preferences. Some are more interested in aesthetics, some more in gameplay, etc. Our subscribers often (and I mean all the time) comment about how they know whether or not they will like something because they identify with one particular person on the show. The people who subscribe know what types of games I like and if they find that their opinions are more often than not similar to mine, they know if I don't like a game that it's probably not a good buy for them. And this goes for everyone on the show. There's nothing wrong with saying, "I don't like this, I'm not good at it, I don't find it entertaining." Because people following a specific critic aren't doing so because his opinion is somehow more right than every other critic. Opinions are just opinions. And, no, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

[Soxoffender]

Feels like most of them are actual journalist who dont have the time or interest in being actual gamers. That's why reviews are always made from a super casuals viewpoint. Which is basicly meaningless

It's not meaningless to most games buyers though, because people who really care about difficulty in games are vastly outnumbered by super-casuals at this point. It might be frustrating but we're dealing with a mega-industry that is biased towards the largest possible audience and that's reflected in the games that are created and the reviews of them.

Here's the thing: there is an assumption that the better you are at a game, the more knowledgeable you are at said game. I would trust a chess grandmaster's opinion more than I would a novice's. The grandmaster had a deeper understanding of the game mechanics and thus a more informed opinion on the quality of the game.

Surely it depends what you want from the game? If I've got a few other buddies and we're looking for something fun for us to do together I'm not sure that someone like Marcelo Bielsa or Lionel Messi is going to give me the best advice about whether we should join a Sunday league football team or not. They would be able to explain tactical and technical nuances of play that set them apart from most others in the world and they absolutely understand the 'meta' of formations and how to create a winning side but that doesn't mean a thing to someone at my level. A buddy who knows the local league, understands that I'm not going to be in the gym/on the training ground/studying tape of opposition teams all day long and that I mostly just want a kick about and a laugh with friends is probably a better person to listen to.

Similarly, your chess grandmaster can tell someone how to be better and what it takes to be amongst the very best but a mediocre club player with a similar outlook and interests and willing to invest the same amount into the game is probably better placed to tell a newbie if they’ll enjoy picking it up in the first place.

[niil945]

Surely it depends what you want from the game? If I've got a few other buddies and we're looking for something fun for us to do together I'm not sure that someone like Marcelo Bielsa or Lionel Messi is going to give me the best advice about whether we should join a Sunday league football team or not. They would be able to explain tactical and technical nuances of play that set them apart from most others in the world and they absolutely understand the 'meta' of formations and how to create a winning side but that doesn't mean a thing to someone at my level. A buddy who knows the local league, understands that I'm not going to be in the gym/on the training ground/studying tape of opposition teams all day long and that I mostly just want a kick about and a laugh with friends is probably a better person to listen to.

Similarly, your chess grandmaster can tell someone how to be better and what it takes to be amongst the very best but a mediocre club player with a similar outlook and interests and willing to invest the same amount into the game is probably better placed to tell a newbie if they’ll enjoy picking it up in the first place.

That's just one aspect of the why, for the reason I listed above. If you love horror/suspense films even if the acting is cheesy, are you going to listen to a critic that shits all over those types of movies? Certainly not. You'll find one that has tastes that are similar and listen to that person.

[stellvia]

It's not meaningless to most games buyers though, because people who really care about difficulty in games are vastly outnumbered by super-casuals at this point. It might be frustrating but we're dealing with a mega-industry that is biased towards the largest possible audience and that's reflected in the games that are created and the reviews of them.

Sadly yes. Creamed corn and rice cakes for all! If you're lucky they might give you a single dab of sriracha.

[niil945]

Sadly yes. Creamed corn and rice cakes for all! If you're lucky they might give you a single dab of sriracha.

There's no superior opinion here. If you don't like a particular game don't buy it. It's not complicated.

[StrawberryZebra]

Maybe they should state who the review is meant for. If a game is reviewed by someone of a low skill level then maybe people with that same low skill level will appreciate the review more than one that's reviewed by a super competitive highly skilled pro gamer.

The next big game on my radar is Marvel vs Capcom. It's a fighting game, for those not aware. Let's not beat around the bush here, Fighting games are hard. It takes a long time and a lot of practice to even get competant at them. Putting it in the hands of a reviewer who is either unskilled or new to the fighting genre is going to produce a review that isn't remotely useful to anyone at all. What, if anything, can they really tell you about it? They got lucky and maybe did a Hadoken once or twice?

There are lots of changes being made to the game compared to previous franchise entries, and I'd like a reviewer to be able to tell me if those add to the game or subtract from it. Like the Infinity Stones that are being added to tie in with the MCU - They're going to be a huge part of the story as well as the game play and if the reviewer is unable to say more than "I used them all and they did stuff I didn't understand" then what use is their review?

The traditional DP motion, a "Z" shape with your stick, is also going to be performed with a Down Down motion in MvC too as a a way to help newer players perform what can otherwise be a quite difficult motion to do. But even that isn't something a newbie Reviewer could tell you was good or bad! Typically these kinds of moves are used as combo enders, and without being able to perform a combo to begin with how are they going to tell me if it's easier with the Z motion or Down Down?

Quite simply they'd be neither skilled nor knowlegable enough to give an accurate representation of the game, how the changes differentiate it from other Fighters and if they're improvements or not, and that is unfair to consumers of all skill levels and the game being reviewed.

[Toogoodman]

To be fair there is far too much focus on 'skill' these days. Especially in the playerbase of multiplayer games like WoW.

What happened to just having fun? Why ask for the introduction of hair-tearingly frustrating 'challenges'?

Well, you can have fun in casual content, but when it comes to higher end content, if you cant perform, because you dont care to, youre simply not good enough.

[Ooid]

Surely it depends what you want from the game? If I've got a few other buddies and we're looking for something fun for us to do together I'm not sure that someone like Marcelo Bielsa or Lionel Messi is going to give me the best advice about whether we should join a Sunday league football team or not. They would be able to explain tactical and technical nuances of play that set them apart from most others in the world and they absolutely understand the 'meta' of formations and how to create a winning side but that doesn't mean a thing to someone at my level. A buddy who knows the local league, understands that I'm not going to be in the gym/on the training ground/studying tape of opposition teams all day long and that I mostly just want a kick about and a laugh with friends is probably a better person to listen to.

Similarly, your chess grandmaster can tell someone how to be better and what it takes to be amongst the very best but a mediocre club player with a similar outlook and interests and willing to invest the same amount into the game is probably better placed to tell a newbie if they’ll enjoy picking it up in the first place.

Sure, you probably would want someone with a similar skill level to get a good idea of how much you'll enjoy a game. But at the higher levels of play you begin to notice the issues and flaws of any particular game.

Let's go with a personal example, I played a lot of Metal Gear Rising, and after a while I was tired of having to watch the Zandatsu animations play as it took a few seconds and interrupted the gameplay. That's not something someone who plays through the game once would likely notice. My argument is that the more time you spend with a game the more likely you are to have experienced the flaws of the game. I love MGR and would recommend it, the zandatsu thing isn't a problem for someone who just wants a short action game. But for me, it broke up the flow of the combat enough for it to irritate me.

Does my skill invalidate the opinions of someone who did a playthrough and was like "Yeah that was a great game". No, but if I was talking to someone who really likes action games and plays them on the harder difficulties it would be an important point to bring up in a conversation about how the game is at high skill levels.

[Post]

My two cents?

The idea of video games having a culture is just dumb honestly. "Video game culture?" People who label and describe themselves as video game players? That's pretty gross. Video games are fun entertainment but the many who devote their lives to it sounds sad to me. Do people who watch movies describe themselves as a collective of "movie-goer" culture?

Video games should stay hobbies, not lifestyles, and people need to stop already with taking pride in how much they play.

Yeah film culture is a thing...

There's a culture around every art form, treating video games differently is just you being a dinosaur.

[Lotus Victoria]

Videogame culture, writ large, fetishizes skill. An individual’s skill at a particular game determines the validity of the argument posed by that individual, in most common spheres of discussion. But it’s not a really good barometer for critical meaning by any measure.

So, if I understand correctly, the opinion of someone who's better at the game has the same weight as someone who suck at the game?

What the hell?

[Thunderball]

No, we need emphasize more how important it is to improve your skill. We honestly need the whole noob shaming thing back in the full force.

[Mister Cheese]

So, if I understand correctly, the opinion of someone who's better at the game has the same weight as someone who suck at the game?

What the hell?

It's a word salad that nobody should give any weight to. It's some horseshit. Dean Takahashi has said nothing of worth in the last 10 years he's been in the gaming industry. As a gaming journalist he is awful. He has no skill as a gamer. He deflects criticism constantly by using strawmen. He calls his detractors mongoloids(funny considering his next insult), racists, and gamergaters. Gamergate is now a fucking boogeyman that the gaming press will use consistently even if it's not related to what is attacking them. It's pretty sad. He fucking brags about helping and making games dumber and for the lowest common denominator of person to play. But a fucking 6 year old can play games better than him. My 60 year old father, who played mario kart 64 with me when I was much younger, is better than him. This guy is an utter fucking fraud.

[PaladinBash]

I'm really good at a few games but I'm far too lazy to 'git gud' enough to go pro with it. Beyond a certain skill point which is high but not as high as you'd imagine, it is just constant practice and effort at a gradually higher level that it takes to 'make it'. That's why most people who are pros are young dudes with fuck all else to do. It takes a lot of time to refine your skill to that level and then, on top of it, compete with others. It's crazy. I'd never put that much effort into a game as it'd erode the fun. There is a point where even very skilled and serious players like me will still be a fucking casual in comparison and say "muh fun tho". I imagine that it is just a sliding scale for all of us.

Games journalists, having a full-time job, if you want to be generous enough to call what they do that, means they are unlikely to be pro gamers in most cases. The thing is that a lot of them are bad. Genuinely fucking bad. Worse than the type of people that read it and very prone to getting butthurt when called out on it. Not in a funny way like, say, Nobbel does. Have you ever watched Nobbel play? I main Ret and it makes me want to tear my eyes out but Nobbel is great at what he does and really is nice so I can't but fuck me he is bad. They are worse than that in some cases and the butthurt reaction just adds more contempt.

This is in addition to the fact that they are often social justards and hate gamers and 'gamer culture' as well so again, more reason to show them contempt which they react badly to. The fact that they suck at games is just an extra funny thing as well, showing that they aren't hired because they're skilled or able to provide good info or feedback to prospective players but that they are ideologues hired to push an agenda because that's just what social justards do.

[Strangebrew]

This is a good statement on video game "journalists"

100% correct

[Blayze]

What, do they want us to stop watching Games Done Quick and start watching Games Done With White Guilt?
Fuck that shit.

[unholytestament]

What, do they want us to stop watching Games Done Quick and start watching Games Done With White Guilt?
Fuck that shit.

To be honest, I think it might be pretty funny to watch one of these journalists play through a game and rant about how everything is racist/sexist/whatever.

But that would require them to A) be able to play the game (because ranting about the first level that keeps killing you isn't funny for very long) and B) make the comments within context without the comfort of cherry picking.

[sarahtasher]

This is a good statement on video game "journalists"

100% correct

Oh yeah, 0/10 reviews on a game because someone is crying that his rogue got nerfed in another game by this company are so much useful .

X-COM 2 War of the Chosen (example) with people crying because of the fatigue mechanic is SO MUCH useful, indeed.

In a more general meaning, what exactly means ''skill'' in videogames in 2017, short of a relative small amount of very competitive games (example, SC II or overwatch ?) The question have merit in MP games without DLCs..., have limited merits in games with restrictive save systems or ironman type saves, and almost no merit whatsoever in games in which you can either grind or save-scum.

Example : I finish the recently release Samus Returns, from a franchise that was known as being somewhat challenging. I'm ''skilled'' at what ? (the first issue being what is exactly considered ''skilled'' in this case. Speed run, flawless run, collection run ?)

At Metroid ? (the game is widely different than the original ones)
At the game itself ? (when I can retry over and over and over till perfection and there are countless guides telling me what to do ? For instance, yeah, Samus Returns apparently give really obvious hints about the location of power ups, but I somehow doubt that people replaying Super Metroid in 2017 for completion don't check Gamefaqs..)
At videogames ? (Okay, sure, Metroidvanias are really not the most common games around. But to take another example, is being really good at COD translate well to even Halo ?)
At videogames ?

[dope_danny]

What, do they want us to stop watching Games Done Quick and start watching Games Done With White Guilt?
Fuck that shit.

"and next up we have Wil Wheaton who will sit naked on a block of ice and struggle to play bomberman as he weeps 'im sorry for being white' for 60 minutes"