Videogame culture needs to stop fetishizing skill!

[Blayze]

make the comments within context without the comfort of cherry picking.

That's never stopped 'em before.

[Strangebrew]

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.

Fuck off retard.

Still don't understand what the fuck you are even trying to type, go and eat some fucking pills.
Now please get me banned so i don't have to deal with an mongoloid like you again.

[slime]

So in every aspect of everything we do as humans, skill is desired. Why the fuck should video games be any different.

[sarahtasher]

Insults aside, what is odd in pointing out that people who are supposedly skilled often make 0/10 reviews on games that make slight changes ?

X-COM 2 War of the Chosen have people crying over a mechanic that prevent you to use constantly the same characters. (X-COM 2 is the most recent challenging game I can fathom ATM). While I concede that usually speaking sports or chess games don't change the rules every year, it's almost like people who think themselves ''skilled'' are good at a very narrow sets of skills instead of ''the game'' in general.

And short of that, how qualify ''skill'' in a field that evolves constantly ? If a WOW boss have a mechanic change, are people downing it before the change less or more skilled than the ones before ? For all the whining about Vanilla WOW, how would you actually compared skills levels required in 2004 to those required in 2017 ?

[Amerrol]

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.

Have you never heard the term movie buff? That's the exact same thing as someone who describes themselves as a gamer. Your comparison is dumb and you are clueless.

[sarahtasher]

Have you never heard the term movie buff? That's the exact same thing as someone who describes themselves as a gamer. Your comparison is dumb and you are clueless.

Actually, what is required to be a movie buff (having watched lots of movie) or a literature buff (having read books) is quite different than what is required from being a ''pro'' gamer.

[Edge-]

Actually, what is required to be a movie buff (having watched lots of movie) or a literature buff (having read books) is quite different than what is required from being a ''pro'' gamer.

Except nobody is asking or expecting media to be pro gamers. I have no clue where that narrative keeps coming from but I keep seeing people argue how unreasonable it is.

You're right, it is unreasonable. And nobody is making that argument to begin with, so I'm not sure why it must be countered.

[Amerrol]

Actually, what is required to be a movie buff (having watched lots of movie) or a literature buff (having read books) is quite different than what is required from being a ''pro'' gamer.

No, but I'd expect them to be able to make a fucking jump-dash when directions are specifically displayed on screen for them. Just like I'd expect a movie buff who has watched many movies over a 25 year period to be able to follow the plot of a movie without constantly having to ask what is going on. Or someone who reads a lot to be able to handle big words. I don't expect them to speed clear the game in world record time, but at least don't look like they have down syndrome.

That aside, I think this is one of the most rational things I've ever seen you write. I agree that being a pro gamer is much more involved then reading a lot of books or watching movies. No one expects game journalists to be pro though.

[Joodoc]

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'?

Using WoW as a basis, as we all here likely know it, there is a ton of content that doesn't require much of a challenge, you can get the fun.

If you like raiding, but don't have the skill or time to invest, but want the lore, you have LFR. And you have varying levels between that and mythic to match whatever difficulty you want.

Dungeons have varying levels of skill, but the basic level is quite simple with just gear you can get from world quests.

Questing almost never requires skill, and the handful that do can almost always be beaten later by outgearing it.

Yes, all of these have Challenging aspects as well, but that's to cater to the other end of the spectrum. WoW caters to both, not everyone wants to grind for hours to wipe for hours trying to kill that mythic boss, but at the same time not everyone wants to be able to kill bosses more because of overgearing than any kind of forethought.

Old WoW, vanilla and BC. Those were very focused on "skill"(at some points it was more time investment than skill). If you wanted to raid you had to put tons of time investment in, and there were no options. If you wanted to raid final tier, you had to climb through all the tiers. Even wrath, raiding still had that skill level. With heroics introduced it was more forgiving, but still some. But Wrath introduced the catchup mechanics that made it easier for less invested players to do it. And then with LFR that made it entirely possible for people who had no interest in raiding, just wanted the lore, to go see it.


As to your "What happened to just having fun?" I understand some people don't like the challenge, it kills the fun level, but fun is relative. There are loads of people you enjoy a challenge, they find that challenge adds to the level of fun. For them, that IS just having fun.

[sarahtasher]

No, but I'd expect them to be able to make a fucking jump-dash when directions are specifically displayed on screen for them. Just like I'd expect a movie buff who has watched many movies over a 25 year period to be able to follow the plot of a movie without constantly having to ask what is going on. Or someone who reads a lot to be able to handle big words. I don't expect them to speed clear the game in world record time, but at least don't look like they have down syndrome.

That aside, I think this is one of the most rational things I've ever seen you write. I agree that being a pro gamer is much more involved then reading a lot of books or watching movies. No one expects game journalists to be pro though.

Actually, the clarity of instructions and on-screen prompts, especially when there are no longer written manuals, could very well be a key concept to rating videogames (IE, the game is easy to pick up without prior knowledge, the controls are intituitive, the interface is very clear,
the games explain very clearly it's mechanics...is a praise that should be heaped for Nintendo AAA productions)

If a movie require you to go to a site for detailed explanations about the plot, it's indeed a very bad sign.

I can't honestly remember the last time I was able to pick a videogame and finish it without requiring to Google for a specific mechanic that should have been explained in game.

[Mister Cheese]

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.

>Instead of playing the game I'm gonna bitch about how guns are violent and trying to make them hyper realistic is a bad thing. And bitch about how uncomfortable I am for 3 and a half minutes.

They already fucking did that. I love how the likes/dislikes are disabled too. You know they screwed up.



I saw this video first and I honestly thought it was a parody or something. I was thinking that there was no way that the thing they were satirizing could be real. But it was. The video exists on Polygon's channel and I remember rubbing my face so hard it turned red. I was that frustrated that they passed that off as a legitimate game review.

[Poppincaps]

The level of skill a journalist should demonstrate should be equivalent to what the developer expect an average player of their game to be able to achieve. Having a hard time learning to dash jump doesn't mean the developer should have to quit game journalism, but it does mean that they probably shouldn't review the game, because they may encounter a lot of frustration that an average player of that genre wouldn't experience and it may taint their review.

I don't want someone who's never played a Dark Souls game at IGN to review Dark Souls, because their experience is likely going to be very different from mine if they happen to have a bad time because of the difficulty. But at the same time, a review of Dark Souls isn't really useful to me since I know I'm going to buy the game anyways and see for myself how I feel, so perhaps the perspective of someone who hasn't played the games would be more useful to people who would actually use the review for practical purposes.

Of course I think that the main issue is that a lot of people view reviews as a critical analysis of the game, instead of a verdict on whether it is worth your time and money or not, and those are two very different things. It doesn't help that some reviewers treat it as a critical analysis and others focus more on the opportunity cost aspect. Going back to the example of Dark Souls, my critical analysis of Dark Souls 2 would sound quite different than if I was telling someone whether they should buy it or not. I think everyone who likes Dark Souls style ARPGs should play Dark Souls 2, but if I'm comparing it to the other games in the series I'd be a lot harsher on a critical level.

I think the best course of action is to have someone well versed in a genre of game to be the one reviewing it and since many of these big review sites have podcasts, have them bring on people who maybe have differing views or are coming at it from a different gaming background say what they think about it, since these reviews can have a real impact on the developers due to sites like Metacritic.

[Cosmic Janitor]

While I think that people need to stop being pathetic sacks of shit and define their own worth by pseudo achievments in games, a certain proficency of someone working in the field and showcasing products should be a given. If you fail as bad as the guy that played the demo.. yeah.. that's on the level of an electrician not knowing R=U/I

[chazus]

I think the term 'skill' is being confused with 'experience'

You can't be very good reviewer if you don't have access to the medium. If you aren't good enough to play a game, you don't have access to the game, and thus probably not a very good person to review it.

That said, this particular article in question had nothing to do with 'skill'. The game is not difficult, and somehow this guy performed more poorly than someone who had literally never seen a video game before. He struggled with literally pressing the buttons it TOLD him to. It was pretty awful.

[unholytestament]

>Instead of playing the game I'm gonna bitch about how guns are violent and trying to make them hyper realistic is a bad thing. And bitch about how uncomfortable I am for 3 and a half minutes.

They already fucking did that. I love how the likes/dislikes are disabled too. You know they screwed up.

I saw this video first and I honestly thought it was a parody or something. I was thinking that there was no way that the thing they were satirizing could be real. But it was. The video exists on Polygon's channel and I remember rubbing my face so hard it turned red. I was that frustrated that they passed that off as a legitimate game review.

Yeesh. How old is this man and why does his voice sound like it's on the verge of cracking constantly?

I was thinking something more along the lines of Anita Sarkeesian sitting down and playing Bayonetta or Hitman or an Arkham game and going on a spiel actually related to the game.

[Deleted]

Actually, what is required to be a movie buff (having watched lots of movie) or a literature buff (having read books) is quite different than what is required from being a ''pro'' gamer.

Which isn't the case of Dean Takahashi. He is completely inapt and even illiterate regarding video gaming. He is like a blind person watching a movie or an analphabet watching a book.

The worse part? This:

Dean about ME2: "The Co-CEOs of BioWare told me they changed some things because of me. And not just dumbing it down. My ineptitude led to change."

[Mister Cheese]

Even Fromsoftware will take no shit.

[Radaney]

There are plenty of online communities and people that focus on having fun over having skill. For example I have a cool set of friends I play Overwatch with who focus on having fun and generally not taking the game seriously, mostly because we suck at the game.

Meanwhile I am in a Mythic WoW guild that takes progression and our skill quite seriously and have fun that way.

Find the community you want. That's really all there is to this discussion.

Who gives a fuck what other people are doing, it doesn't matter.

[Al Gorefiend]

Have you never heard the term movie buff? That's the exact same thing as someone who describes themselves as a gamer. Your comparison is dumb and you are clueless.

Someone who dedicate their entire being to movies isn't a thing. Nobody commits to movies as many hours a day as they possibly can, get irritated when they aren't watching movies and watch the same movies over and over again to chase down virtual achievements of their skill at watching movies.

[unholytestament]

Someone who dedicate their entire being to movies isn't a thing. Nobody commits to movies as many hours a day as they possibly can, get irritated when they aren't watching movies and watch the same movies over and over again to chase down virtual achievements of their skill at watching movies.

Ah yes. The good old "this thing doesn't exist because of arbitrary rules I made up" argument.