Adrenaline Vault's Bob Mandel posted an interesting think piece last weekend regarding whether or not good gamers make good game reviewers. The article's main argument is that the skills needed to succeed at games are different than those needed to succeed at reviewing.
There are certain personality traits that often go with being a top gamer capable of winning various kinds of competitions. Without getting into negative stereotypes, such players often seem to outsiders to be neurotic, obsessive, narrowly focused, impatient, inflexible, impossibly definitive, and condescending to those outside of their circle. None of these characteristics associates with the potential to be an outstanding reviewer. Moreover, many of the best players lack the perspective and maturity to take a more detached and overarching view of the titles they play.
Mandel goes on to judge gamers lacking in communication skills based on blog and forum posts and postulates that gamers "used to an unending stream of positive feedback" would not be able to handle the harsh rejection of the game journalism world. "Without getting into negative stereotypes," indeed!
Video game are unique among reviewed entertainment media in that some people will literally not be able to experience the whole work before writing the review. If you asked someone who had never watched a movie to go see "Citizen Kane" and write a review, he might overlook some key points -- ideas of pacing, directing, cinematography, mise en scene and so forth acting would be totally lost on him. But at least he will have seen the entire movie, beginning to end, in a little less than two hours, and probably will have a basic understanding of the movie's basic story elements.
Imagine the same scenario with Metal Gear Solid and a person who has never played a video game before. Even with the instruction booklet, the reviewer will likely awkwardly fumble with the controller, randomly run around and jam on buttons, die prematurely and generally be unduly frustrated. If the reviewer finishes at all, it will only be after dozens of hours of painful learning and development as a game player.
Obviously, game reviewers need to have some skill at games to be able to fully experience them. For this reason, I don't think there's such a thing as being too good at games. Even if I, as a reviewer, find a game too easy, I think I'd be able to use my memories of my gaming skill development to determine if other gamers might find it difficult. The alternative -- not being able to complete and fully review a game that's you find too hard -- does a greater disservice to gamers who would be able to beat the game easily.
That being said, Mandel does make some good points. His thoughts on comparative game reviewing are especially apt:
To me, perhaps the most critical component of review quality is the ability of the reviewer to place an offering in a deep and rich context, with extensive references to relevant releases in the same genre. Having experience with similar titles and being able to bring comparative insights to bear within a review is thus absolutely vital. The ability to play games well does not appear on the surface to increase or decrease the likelihood that this vital contextualization will occur in reviews.
Mandel has it backwards in that last sentence, though. While game playing skill does not necessarily imply a broad, contextualized view of gaming, any gamer who has played enough games to have gain a broad view would probably develop some above-average gaming skills along the way.
In short, while being good at games doesn't necessarily make you good at reviewing games, I'd say it probably doesn't hurt either.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I find that when reviewing games, it helps to compare the game to only games in the same genre. For example, you can say that Final Fantasy X-2 has a lot of plot compared to, say, Madden 2005. But if you compare it to another Final Fantasy game, you get a completely different review.
ReplyDeleteReminds me of something my boss said to me once. ("VideoGameX" will stand in for the name of the property I work with, for NDA's sake.)
ReplyDeleteWhen talking about hiring new people, he said this: "I'd rather hire a good writer than someone who knows about VideoGameX. It's harder to teach someone who knows about VideoGameX to be a good writer than it is to teach a good writer about VideoGameX."
Of course, this was followed up with, "You can teach them."
He's also commented on how they don't hire writers at the strategy guide publishers necessarily because they can write.
Book reviewers don't necessarily finish books, what with review deadlines and all.
ReplyDeleteI have no idea what Mande's trying to say, particularly when he talks about publications "testing" prospective writers by playing games against/with them. He's really talking about competitive gamers, I think, and as usual fails to mention that Avault shares ownership with the CPL.
True, book reviewers often don't finish the book before writing a review because of deadline or other pressures. The same can be said of some game reviewers. The difference is, the book reviewer is always physically able to complete the book (i.e., they're literate), while a novice game player might be physically unable to complete a game (i.e. slow reflexes). The difference necessitates some base level of skill for all game reviewers, I'd say.
ReplyDeleteBut isn't Mandel's piece a reply to a question that no one was even asking?
ReplyDeleteThe article reads as though "great gamer" applies to the hardcore few out there - maybe even the professionals. Has there been any hew and cry to hire these people?
And then he says that "If they can write, that would be good." Wow. What a concept.
Sure there is a difference between the opinions of a harcord elite gamer and the general reception that a game will get. Check any internet forum dedicated to a particular game or genre and this can be confirmed.
But for the most part, we want experienced gamers to be reviewers since these are the people who can put a game in context and maybe recommend an alternative to the reader. Experienced gamers are hardly novices, especially if we insist that genre knowledgeable people review certain games.
I never got the appeal of Mandel's articles, myself, but this one was especially unsatisfying.
It's funny that he should take this angle, when he's so keen to point out what an amazing gamer he is:
ReplyDeletehttp://pool.cream.org/revarch/mandelwatch.htm
Ur, this makes me weird, I realise.
John Walker
The argument that great gamers tend to make poor writers is pretty bad, especially if it just comes from sampling message boards. Some great gamers are bad writers, but plenty are articulate and engaging. You'd be choosing ones that are articulate to write the reviews, not just picking one at random, so it seems like kind of a nonissue.
ReplyDeleteThe problem I see with having great gamers write reviews is that for the genres where there is a competitive scene, the quality of a game in the mind of the top players is determined almost entirely by how it plays at high level. The average gamer couldn't care less. A well-written review about Soul Calibur 2's limitedness at top level because of step-guard and 2G would go way over the head of 99 percent of the readers and be useless. The average gamer doesn't know or care what step-guard or 2G are. They just want to know if it's pretty and fun. Any magazine can tell you that. Having an elite player review it won't add anything useful. Even if the review is well written and informative, if it's information that the reader isn't interested in, it's not going to do anyone any good. For a great player to write a review that the average gamer would be interested in, they'd have to take themselves completely out of the context that they'd been playing the game (and in many cases, the entire genre) in and look at it from the perspective of someone that plays it casually. That's a lot to ask, even for a great writer.
-Jeremy Marcus
While you wouldn't want an unskilled gamer doing reviews, I do think there is a point where a person is TOO good to be a proper reviewer. I think people with a certain level of skill too quickly assume others will find something easy.
ReplyDeleteI consider myself an above average gamer, quite good in a few genres and worse in others, but I wouldn't win a competition in anything. However, I'm a much better reviewer than I am a gamer. I have played long enough and enough games that I can very quickly associate games to others, but also, if I have difficulty with a game, I can accurately predict many others will and likely it is a problem with the game.
I think it is the developer's responsibility to offer ways for a game to cater to all skill levels. Some games offer different skill levels. Something like Midnight Club offers built-in cheat codes. These are all valid ways of keeping a game difficult enough for the top level while not being prohibitively difficult to others.
One thing I think is nonsense generally is that someone needs to complete a game to review it accurately. Games are about gameplay above anything else and you can get a good handle on the gameplay and controls and other basics in the first five hours. If a game is crappy through five hours, there is little rational expectation that it will suddenly become great. This isn't to say you should stop playing, but that one shouldn't be disqualified from reviewing or have their review considered less valid because they didn't complete it.
I find it ludicrous to say who may and may not write a good game review. Weather or nothe the writer of the review is experienced in playing and/or writing is besides the point. Generally speaking, a bit of journalism experience may make the job a tad easier, but won't hurt. Just the same, a bit of gaming experience gould be benificial, but again, is not necissary.
ReplyDeleteTo say that a good gamer is a bad reviewer or vise versa is a grand steriotype. Probably quite the same as saying volleyball players are great basketball players. There are certain skills in each to be able to succesfully do both.
In responce to the refference to movie reviews: it can not be compaired to the review of games. Movies are not interactive or as dependent on the players actions or lack of actions. In a game, key points to boast about to sway readers to playing are graphics, sound effects, and gameplay. Of course, as is any review, the results or opinions found within are going to be biased of the reviewer.
Gamers may not be the best reviewers...but in order to provide a good opinionated review, the writer must somehow enjoy gaming. After all, if a great and wonderous writer is hired for reviewing games, and the pay is great but he or she doesn't like games, what are the readers gaining?
Seanbaby, Erik Wolpaw and Tim Rogers write the best game reviews, and they are all gamers of some hardcoreosity, at least so it seems.
ReplyDeleteThe whole question of a good writer is one of self-effacement, vulnerability, linguistic dynamism (yeah, I said it!) and a sense of context.
-christian mccrea
Seanbaby? Are you kidding me? Maybe I'm missing out on his "true body of work", having only read his EGM column, but he doesn't seem to embody any of the four criteria you've laid out. Especially the sense of context one, since much of the time he bashes easy targets like "girlie" and "kiddie" games.
ReplyDeleteTim Rogers is more interested in his own ego than the games he talks about.
ReplyDeleteHis insertcredit style is to write rambling semi-fictional stories about himself, then quickly write some pretentious comments such as how postmodern a game is.
The problem with Tim Rogers isn't so much Tim Rogers himself, but the people that take everything he says seriously.
ReplyDelete"The difference is, the book reviewer is always physically able to complete the book (i.e., they're literate), while a novice game player might be physically unable to complete a game (i.e. slow reflexes). The difference necessitates some base level of skill for all game reviewers, I'd say."
ReplyDeleteOr it points out a fundamental problem: games are too hard. On "Easy" skill levels, anyone should be able to finish them.
Or it points out a fundamental problem: games are too hard.I would be very surprised if a substantial number of people think games are "too hard" today. If anything, a lot of games are way too easy.
ReplyDeleteAnd count me in with those that think it's ridiculous that a reviewer MUST complete a game before they review it.
"I would be very surprised if a substantial number of people think games are "too hard" today. If anything, a lot of games are way too easy."
ReplyDeleteWhat games are too easy? Those people blast through in 5 hours?
Guess what? They do it because they're serious, hardcore gamers who have a seriously skewed perspective on what constitutes easy and hard.
If you put that joystick in the hand of a novice, he or she should be able to finish the game on the "Easy" skill level. I guarantee that there are few games you can do this with, because "Easy" rarely is.
Leave "Hard" for the elite, and make it legitimately hard.