Should reviewers be "good" at playing games to review games?

[JJ Styles]

image courtesy of YTBS​

Also this is me actually trying to discuss something serious for once, other than Blood, ultraviolence, and brutal murder in video games (oh and more of that will be coming VERY SOON, i promise that ;) )

I am very late in posting this since I think the whole drama has calmed down a bit, but I'll do it anyway.

In this current age of Gaming + Internet and since the past couple of years, gaming videos of recently released video games have become such an important thing for a lot of media outlets to create. This provides exposure to said recently released game, and fans, players, and even newer players alike are given some gameplay impressions coming from these media outlets, especially big ones such as Polygon, who have recently made headlines for the wrong reasons.

Since a few weeks ago, and with DOOM (2016)'s release, POLYGON created their own video of some of their staff playing said game, and struggling really hard on playing it. The said video is going to be very hard to watch so please watch at your own risk. Even if you don't play DOOM or first person shooters in general, you will kneel and pray at the horrendous footage that you are all about to see, which has made headlines in the past few weeks.


(Warning: Spoilers for those who haven't played the game, but if you're willing to see the video in order to relate to the discussion, please try to bear)

The first few seconds of Polygon's video shows that whoever was playing the game was surely struggling in killing the first few enemies that appear. As the polygon player goes on and on, whoever was playing was surely struggling, as if the person doesn't even know how to aim, shoot, and move in something as old as a First person shooter game. Basically, the player in the Polygon video is making the game look like a very broken mess because of the player's inability to play the game properly, thus the game being reviewed or played is shown in a very bad light.

This whole POLYGON vs DOOM and players fiasco has spawned a couple of controversies and serious discussions regarding gamers and reviewers. Should reviewers be "good" at playing games for them to review games? Are gamers so unmerciful towards those who are not so good at games? Social white knights have attacked gamers once again with the whole "Get Gud" attitude that is very common in almost every gaming outlet, and as such, SWKs and Polygon's defenders have heavily criticized gamers and the "get gud" mantra as the reason why games cannot be taken seriously as other media are.

Some other issues based from further readings:
1) In the DOOM video, the Polygon guy doing the gameplay was not experienced in First Person Shooters, nor was he a "gamer", but a writer.

2) Obviously that's the source of the outrage other than the poor gameplay. So reviewer has a bad time with the game, gives the game a poor review. And whose idea was to let somebody who isn't fond of FPS games (or gaming in general) PLAY AN FPS GAME for a video and think that would be good enough to upload?

So, it begs me the question: Should you be good at playing games to review games and publish videos of such? Should you be good at video games in order to create video content that involves video games? Are those who are already good and competent with video games way too cruel with those who aren't but are trying anyway? There's a crapton of questions to ask and a whole lot of answer to lead into more questions.

Discuss. And please keep a level head with this rather serious discussion. No showing off some of dem E-peens or Online ELOs around. (I'm in Challenger-tier in League and my E-caulk is already big enough, but i'm also Challenger tier in Overwatch, but unlike League, Challenger is the Bronze or starter tier of said game)

Links to several more articles will be provided as I do my "research" and "reference checking"

EDIT 2: LINKS FOR AIDED DISCUSSIONS. Some are cringy though so prepare your murderguns:
M-reddit on the Doom Polygon fiasco
Git Gud mentality = Warning = Cringe material <-- one example of Polygon's White Knights attacking us gamers and defending Polygon's incompetent DOOM gameplay video
Cringe Material No.2 = Why Reviewers need to suck at games - David Thier (you on drugs sir)

EDIT: Added a new sub-question (Should you be good at video games in order to create video content that involves video games?)

PS: even though this is a DOOM video and related issue (sort off), the whole topic spans to a much wider border. Its just that for some reason, something as MANLY and as Godly as DOOM, not just the 2016 game being under fire from reviewers, but the whole history and franchise behind it isn't safe from these days.

 

[pkmin3033]

Hmm...well, this ties into a lot of things, really. I'm going to dip in and out of a few topics.

Reviews are almost-always written with gamers specifically in mind; people who have been gaming for a few years, have acquired some skill at games, and want a perspective similar to their own to base their judgement off of. So having a review written – or worse, a video review played – by the unskilled isn't going to help them one bit. It gives the wrong impression, makes it difficult for them to come to a decision, and it generally isn't helpful. It defeats the whole purpose of there being a review in the first place.

But I think it's helpful to have one or two reviewers out there like that, though, with unskilled players or new players who aren't as good at games who can provide that perspective. Gamers tend to be a fairly elitist lot as a group: we frequently forget that we were once new to things too. Not everyone is as good as you are; skill is variable. Some people are better. As a great example: despite the media raving about how hard Dark Souls III is, I found it pathetically simple. I've gone into plenty of games expecting a challenge and found them lacking. Similarly, there have been one or two instances where I've found a game ridiculously hard and absolutely nothing about it has been mentioned in any reviews I've read either before or after. Hardly any of the reviews I read at the time mentioned how ridiculously punishing Castlevania: Order of Ecclesia was, especially when compared to past titles, for example.

People starting gaming and basing their opinions and expectations on skilled reviewers is just as unhelpful as skilled gamers basing their opinions and expectations on unskilled reviewers. I imagine it would be very off-putting for a new gamer to buy a game thinking they'll have an easy time of it because a reviewer hasn't commented on or demonstrated the difficulty, only to find they struggle immensely with it because it requires a level of skill they don't have, especially when there are easier alternatives which would help you to acquire the skill necessary to tackle that other game. Similarly, being told a game is hard and expecting a challenge only to find you blaze through it, is equally disappointing.

So on balance, I think that yes, reviewers should have some modicum of skill, because the target audience of their writing will have that too, and it's for them that the review is being written. A site like Polygon? Absolutely. But there IS a place for unskilled reviewers, and I think that "casual" market should be catered to by reviewers who are of similar ability to them. All opinions are of equal validity, even if they are not of equal use. As they are of equal validity, there is a place for all of them in my opinion – it is up to the individual to decide how much emphasis they place on that.

Just because some people don't think beyond what the reviewer tells them 90% of the time doesn't mean it's the reviewer's fault because they got the wrong idea about the game, it's their own damn fault for taking a review as gospel. A review is an impression one individual had of a title, not an absolute measure of its quality. Really, we need a better system in place; the issue is more with archaic point scoring systems and reader tendency to place a ridiculous amount of emphasis on the judgement of others.

I think it would be helpful if everyone commented upon how challenging they found a game so there is a baseline for comparison between reviews. But I don't think unskilled gamers should not be allowed to review games at all. Not only because their perspective is part of having a balanced set of "official" viewpoints on a title, but because there are plenty of unskilled gamers out there who would find these things helpful: it's still going to be a useful resource to some. To the skilled who take umbrage at that, I would say this: don't be so selfish. It's not just for your enjoyment. You were new to things once too. Take your stick out of your backside, think for yourself, and just don't base your judgement on a review you're obviously not going to agree with. Christ.

 

[saifors]

The simple answer for me is yes, reviewers who are bad at games will often unfairly blame the game for being "too hard" rather than their own incompetence.
Note: I say this for the sheer fact that most considr reviewers and a metacritic score to be tthe "objective point of view" things like this show the opposite of this to be the case.

 

[JJ Styles]

Before I do speak again, let us take note that the "reviewers" i am putting in context here will refer to the writers and staff members of these sites. Polygon has already gotten a crosshair aimed at them, and one of those crosshairs are mine. Heck, one reviewer decided to not even play Rock Band 4 and still wrote some poorly written review of it.

I think one of the bigger problems these days is that a lot of these "reviewers" tend to justify their lack of competence or even BASIC (yes BASIC) mechanical abilities in playing certain genres (Like letting a non FPS guy play something like DOOM even on its easier difficulty settings) in such a way that they still consider it their job to do so since they are still playing the game. But the thing is, if one is really lacking in EVEN THE MOST BASIC mechanical abilities in playing a certain game genre, why would one even consider doing the job? That's like sending a chef into a battlefield with actual terrorists (ehem a job done my actual soldiers) in order to test out the US Army's new XM69 Assault Rifle Mark IV in combat. We all know that will end in horrible disaster.

Other reviewers such as youtubers who review games of their specialty, such as ggmanlives and FPS games, can easily get away with their reviews because someone like him is already experienced enough in the genre. While he may not say about his actual skill level, whether he's godly or not, at least he has the basic mechanical ability to play a First person shooter and make a well justified review of it because he has the necessary tools and credentials. As mentioned by some, You do not have to be a literal "GOD" in playing a game in order to review it, but you do need a modicum of basic mechanics to actually play and show the game in the most decent light as possible, unlike that Polygon DOOM video. The issue being that they thought that the video was a good enough of a representation of the game, despite how horrible their footage looked, and thus tried going away with it. Because pay matters to them. Sadly, we players of whatever skill and tier level know. We have eyes Polygon. Some people in this forum may have even played more Doom from its classic roots, to even "Running with Flashlights Simulator" aka Doom 3 than you did Polygon. Maybe they could have gotten me to do their first impressions review and Polygon wouldn't be getting caulk-slapped and be assembling their Social White Knight alliances to battle against our Horde.

What also kinda sucks in that POLYGON video is that they made a first impressions video, WITHOUT ANY COMMENTARY! We all know that making a gaming video with insightful, witty, or even hilarious commentary is already a challenging task in of itself. But not in their case. it was silent. Okay sure, they may wanted to go for more raw gameplay footage because DOOM is best played like its Protagonist does, silently without much words spoken. But the DOOMGUY could play the game better with his pubic hair. I could play the game with my teeth better than whoever Polygon staff was playing it. Oh and this is Polygon.. since when they actually did insightful commentary on a video game? Dunno. Correct me if you must.

And i would like it when a "not-so-good-but somehow trying" player and the "already decent one" player play the game and make their impressions out of it. I don't think that the issue won't be that bad as long as there's a decent consensus about their judgment of the game in their perspectives.

And yes I am triggered as heck because even though i got my butt kicked in Rainbow Six Vegas 2, even on EASY mode because of my toaster of a laptop having FPS drops on it and me not having played the game for quite a while now, you don't see me ranting about how "OMG RAINBOW SIX VEGAS IS SO HARD EVEN ON EASY SO I DONT ENJOY IT THEREFORE ITS BAD" now do I?

Also, i feel that the Polygon and the Get Guud drama has gotten beyond that DOOM video, because SWKs like doing it. Attacking us for it. Yet we only pointed out how bad the footage was and why was that considered to be a good of a video to use.

 

[Okage]

Hmm...well, this ties into a lot of things, really. I'm going to dip in and out of a few topics.

Reviews are almost-always written with gamers specifically in mind; people who have been gaming for a few years, have acquired some skill at games, and want a perspective similar to their own to base their judgement off of. So having a review written – or worse, a video review played – by the unskilled isn't going to help them one bit. It gives the wrong impression, makes it difficult for them to come to a decision, and it generally isn't helpful. It defeats the whole purpose of there being a review in the first place.

But I think it's helpful to have one or two reviewers out there like that, though, with unskilled players or new players who aren't as good at games who can provide that perspective. Gamers tend to be a fairly elitist lot as a group: we frequently forget that we were once new to things too. Not everyone is as good as you are; skill is variable. Some people are better. As a great example: despite the media raving about how hard Dark Souls III is, I found it pathetically simple. I've gone into plenty of games expecting a challenge and found them lacking. Similarly, there have been one or two instances where I've found a game ridiculously hard and absolutely nothing about it has been mentioned in any reviews I've read either before or after. Hardly any of the reviews I read at the time mentioned how ridiculously punishing Castlevania: Order of Ecclesia was, especially when compared to past titles, for example.

People starting gaming and basing their opinions and expectations on skilled reviewers is just as unhelpful as skilled gamers basing their opinions and expectations on unskilled reviewers. I imagine it would be very off-putting for a new gamer to buy a game thinking they'll have an easy time of it because a reviewer hasn't commented on or demonstrated the difficulty, only to find they struggle immensely with it because it requires a level of skill they don't have, especially when there are easier alternatives which would help you to acquire the skill necessary to tackle that other game. Similarly, being told a game is hard and expecting a challenge only to find you blaze through it, is equally disappointing.

So on balance, I think that yes, reviewers should have some modicum of skill, because the target audience of their writing will have that too, and it's for them that the review is being written. A site like Polygon? Absolutely. But there IS a place for unskilled reviewers, and I think that "casual" market should be catered to by reviewers who are of similar ability to them. All opinions are of equal validity, even if they are not of equal use. As they are of equal validity, there is a place for all of them in my opinion – it is up to the individual to decide how much emphasis they place on that.

Just because some people don't think beyond what the reviewer tells them 90% of the time doesn't mean it's the reviewer's fault because they got the wrong idea about the game, it's their own damn fault for taking a review as gospel. A review is an impression one individual had of a title, not an absolute measure of its quality. Really, we need a better system in place; the issue is more with archaic point scoring systems and reader tendency to place a ridiculous amount of emphasis on the judgement of others.

I think it would be helpful if everyone commented upon how challenging they found a game so there is a baseline for comparison between reviews. But I don't think unskilled gamers should not be allowed to review games at all. Not only because their perspective is part of having a balanced set of "official" viewpoints on a title, but because there are plenty of unskilled gamers out there who would find these things helpful: it's still going to be a useful resource to some. To the skilled who take umbrage at that, I would say this: don't be so selfish. It's not just for your enjoyment. You were new to things once too. Take your stick out of your backside, think for yourself, and just don't base your judgement on a review you're obviously not going to agree with. Christ.

While I agree with you on every point you've made in your post, I DO think we have to be hard on Polygon for this. They have been around for at least 3 to 4 years doing videogame related stuff, so they are not new to the videogaming world, and the way the guy in the video played is downright atrocious for a company that have been around for as long as they have. This looks like someone who is playing their first videogame EVER, and this discredits anything they've ever written about because this video shows us that they can't play a videogame correctly even though they should since they're a gaming journalist company. Hell, they even made a post about how they can't find the PS4's POWER AND EJECT BUTTONS to this day even though the PS4's been around just about as long as Polygon has. (Link here: www.polygon.com/2016/5/16/.../playstation-4-sony-power-button-eject)

 

[ZetaZaku]

Of course they need to be good at games to review them. If they can't even shoot a target right in front of you, maybe video games reviews aren't for them and they should switch to movies. And it's not just about them being bad like in that video, it's not rare that they review games on easy difficulties as well, which kind of doesn't really show the AI well in games. I specifically remember some gameplay footages of Witcher 3 released last year by these "professional" reviewers, and at first it looked like the AI was completely broken and terrible, until it turns out they just played on the easiest difficulty, rather than normal. They don't have to beat and record a game on the hardest difficulty, but at least they should have the courtesy to play on the recommended standard difficulty.

But I'm not sure who's the real problem here, some bad reviewers or people that blindly follow said reviews? We live in the day and age where reviews are almost rendered pointless, with them exclusively being there just to hear someone's opinion. Back in the day you didn't have youtube to check out gameplay, graphics and sound easily, but now one random video can say as much as average reviewers.

Although I might not be the right person to comment on these things, as I don't follow these reviews other than watching reviews by some youtubers during meals (AngryCentaurGaming for new stuff).

 

[JJ Styles]

The sin is that Polygon's video production staff allowed such travesty to begin with. If you put a video in youtube for the world to see, but then play it so poorly that it makes the game look really awful and impeded the progress where people don't get to see much, then they have made a horrible video. We all know that you do not have to be a literal God/Faker/HeatoN/Daigo/XIN to do the job. As mentioned before, a basic modicum or at least a level of basic mechanical ability is needed to actually showcase the game in a decent degree. Polygon's sin is that they made a bad video but decided to upload anyway because they thought it was a good video to showcase the game. They could have easily not have prevented this travesty if they actually hired someone who was at least half-decent to provide the gaming footage, and the player, along with the rest of the writers can easily provide a much more well thought off review after their video. They should have known it from the get-go, considering their status.

So yes, we do need to be hard, not for the sh*tty player, but for basically allowing themselves to upload a bad video that could have been easily rectified if they hired a MAN AND A HALF like myself to play the game for them or at least someone who was half-decent and just played the game on the easier difficulty settings (like in "I'm too young to die" difficulty, which what Polygon's staff would be screaming in their sleep). They should have thought of it better, but sadly, they went through it, tried to defend their ground, and have their SWK army to help back them up and attack us gamers of all skill levels because we were simply pointing out that they made a bad video that should not have been allowed. Other sites and their video crews have produced better gameplay footages and have shown games (aside from DOOM of course) in better lights. Even IGN, yes IGN somehow does these kinds of showcases better, even though a lot of us do not see eye to eye with them. (nor I do agree with their reviews for most of the time)

And if they were letting me play the game on Console because of reasons i can't fathom, I'd still provide great footage of the game even if I have to work with a controller (ugh god help me), as long as i get a proper reimbursement.

 

[Pinkie-Dawn]

Isn't it obvious? Of course reviewers should at least be able to play a game the way it was meant to be. Polygon has become a joke recently. First their review on Codename: S.T.E.A.M., then their review on Star Fox Zero, and now their review on Doom 4. Both reviews suffer from their lack of skill, even on easy mode from their Star Fox Zero review. I have two words to say to that website:

 

[Necrum]

tbh I struggled with aiming in Doom when I first booted it up too. The mouse acceleration is very weird and I had to adjust my settings in my computer really high to get myself to a comfortable speed. However, upon reviewing the footage he is definitely on a controller. But the person in question playing has to at least be familiar with games, because it does look like they learned as they went. Maybe they're not really a console gamer? Maybe they just don't use controllers often? There are a lot of variables here and maybe they just don't play many FPSs. Everyone has tastes and this could have been the only person in the office that day. They should have practiced before the recording is really what should have happened.

But here's the thing: There's nothing to say that this footage was recorded by the person who reviewed the game! They could have had some intern record the footage.

I do not think you have to be GOOD at games to tell if they're quality. I know a lot of people who love games but are total rubbish at them. But a game deserves a fair chance, and the person reviewing should at least be the kind of person who likes that genre.

 

[Arsenic]

I think the better question is Should me take game reviews so seriously when it is just another man's opinion that we as consumers have put power behind that was not originally there...

The answer is no, It's just another man's opinion, and does not represent how you will interpret the game. It should only be used to help make a decision.

 

[Sir Codin]

I'd have to think you have to have a modicum of skill at "hardcore" games to be qualified to review them in general. It really should be a job requirement.

Reviewers being bad at the games they review worries me. These people tend to let their lack of skill get the better of their emotions and tend to think that the game is bad when in reality, it's actually good...you're the one who sucks, not the game.

If you really don't consider this a problem, you need to realize this: even though most published "reviews" of games are nothing more than one guy in particular saying "here's what I think of the game," that doesn't matter when developers are nowadays actually getting bonuses to their pay and budgets based off of how good their product is. A good of example of this is Obsidian Entertainment's Fallout: New Vegas. Obsidian was promised by their publisher a massive bonus based on the game's Metacritic score. They missed the minimum for the bonus by ONE PERCENTAGE POINT. Although I have no evidence of reviewers of that game being terrible at it or games in general, it still begs the question 'WHAT IF?' What if Obsidian missed out on that bonus simply because of a couple of incompetent reviewers who were assigned to review New Vegas? When situations like that can happen, you seriously need to consider who you assign to review a game and give gameplay footage.

What makes this debacle so controversial is that THIS was the best Polygon could come up with, apparently. It seems so mind boggling that they got THIS to represent their experience. Polygon already has a lot of deserved flak for the way they review games and publish a lot of clickbait articles. Hate the "Gamergate" movement all you want, but there are plenty of damn good reasons why Polygon earned the movement's ire and THIS does nothing to help their reputation, as it simply makes it look like Polygon as a whole a) doesn't care and b) isn't really made of people who cater to the gamer demographic.

 

[Kameken]

You should at least be able to beat whatever game you're playing on its "Normal" difficulty without ragequitting several times.

Bare minimum.

 

[machomuu]

Oh, no, not at all. I don't believe in this idea of being good at playing games, anyway.

Simply put, Being able to relate to the player and having a solid understanding of game design and the target audience is all you need. That being said, if your play is so bad that it adversely affects the review at no fault of the game (such is the case of the cringeworthy DOOM performance by Polygon), then you should not be reviewing that game.

 

[Necrum]

I wanna know who approved that game footage, honestly. "Hey we got the first thirty minutes of Doom up." "Did anyone look watch it?" "..." "What?" "The dislike bar..."

 

[mew_nani]

Isn't being at least mediocre in the genre you're reviewing sort of a prerequisite?

Doing a Lets Play of a game you haven't played before and might not be good at is one thing, as you're not doing a proper review and you're really there to just play the game and see what it has to offer. But actually reviewing a game in a genre you aren't that good at just opens up a host of issues. Your lack of skill can make you determine the game is bad even when it might not be, you'll make mistakes that might be ok in a LP but not a proper review, and since you have little to no grasp of the game or even genre as a whole you're not going to know what makes a good game and what makes a bad game. Say you're never played a platformer or bullet hell game in your life and you decide to review one; you're not gonna know a thing about what to look for, and if the game is harder for rank amateurs you might decide to call the game bad just because you're not good at it. It might be tempting to do, but you can't just say a game is bad because you suck at it; some games are really good and at the same time really hard, like Touhou. Either way you're not going to be able to give a reliable opinion on whether the game is good or not, which may hinder anyone watching the review and trying to decide whether the game is worth taking a crack at.

 

[JJ Styles]

BONUS VIDEO! IN ORDER TO INSPIRE MORE RAGE! YEAH RAGE! ALWAYS WITH THE RAGE!

For some reason, this whole debacle between players and gamers like us (most of us hopefully) and the likes of Kotaku and Polygon represent an SJW-cabal with political agenda, and they tried targeting DOOM of all things. When you mess with something like DOOM or any game with such a storied history, you know that you will be angering a massive horde of jimmies and jillies, and THE DOOMGUY himself by showing some cringe worthy content.

I still schate at the fact that Polygon seems to give no sh*ts about the quality of their gameplay. The problem with them is that they like to analyze games in a more different context, which is somewhat the source of their reviews. But the thing is, looking for DOOM and deep gameplay analysis and message is something like looking for Blood, violence, and Brutality in Undertale = doesn't exist.

With that said, this whole culture-war may extend to the likes of content creators who make videos about video games and gameplay. It may extend to the whole "Should youtubers who create video game related content be good at video games" question.

 

[pkmin3033]

I have a question of my own, based upon the responses to this thread I've seen thus far: how objectionable would you find it if there had been a second video review by someone who "knows what they are doing" as the old saying goes? Would it bother you as much?

I think some people are getting too bogged down by the hyperbolic examples, going by the reactions. I'll not dispute that they're pretty awful from any standpoint, but I still think the concept of having unskilled players review video games is not one entirely without merit provided there are no subjective labels attached to their judgements. I know all reviews are subjective, but there are two shades of that - the judgement and the interpretation. The latter will take it as gospel even though it isn't...but the former can influence the latter to a certain degree.

I mean, if an unskilled player reviews a game with footage of them being crap at the game, BUT doesn't blame the game on their own shortcomings - and acknowledges that they're not particularly good at the game - wouldn't that make such reviews a helpful resource for newer players? ESPECIALLY if they've played other FPS in the past. It can provide real insight into a control scheme and direct newer players to a game that might be better suited to them. I think in the case of video reviews what is more important is your commentary and the amount of the game you demonstrate, rather than your proficiency at the game. If your criticism is constructive and mindful, it can only be a good thing, at least in my opinion.

I'd also point out that a reviewer effortlessly playing a title they're good at gives the wrong impression as well - a lot of games aren't as intuitive as video reviews make them appear; everyone has to learn the control scheme, and you're not going to be perfect at something from the beginning. If you're "too skilled" your reviews can be detrimental as well, by casting the game in too positive a light (although the scores generally do that) or by not showcasing the difficulty/learning curve. Especially considering the review will have come off after a few hours of gameplay (unless it's a niche JRPG, in which case it'll be coming off the start screen and the opening cutscene) and they'll have had time to adjust.

The problem, as I said, lies in the tendency to treat these opinions as fact. But I think if reviewers stopped encouraging this by using loaded terms and archaic scores it probably wouldn't matter how good or bad they were at a game, provided they could at least pick up and use a controller or whatever else.

...and yes, I'm ignoring the examples provided, because they're extreme cases.

 

[JJ Styles]

I have a question of my own, based upon the responses to this thread I've seen thus far: how objectionable would you find it if there had been a second video review by someone who "knows what they are doing" as the old saying goes? Would it bother you as much?

If the 2nd player did far far better than the 1st guy, then i would let it pass. I wouldn't be bothered with the review of the game if Polygon didn't really like it that much, but then again, like what's been said before, reviews are all biased and are based towards said writer (and ESPECIALLY in Polygon's case, their ORGs) values and perceptions of what something "good" or "excellent" is, and we shouldn't really just blindly follow what POLYGON said.

I mean I've read many reviews of the same game (and in many different games aside from DOOM of course) and there are things that I like to agree with (the positives), but there are things said by other reviewers that are clearly very much either based from the reviewer and/or the org's own values and perceptions.

 

[Sir Codin]

I just....I really wanna know why that footage got passed, for the life of me I really want to know.

Like that footage reminds me of how my dad plays video games and then he always gets pissy and moany about how they're "too hard." And he always plays games he gets on THE EASIEST DIFFICULTY LEVEL. I don't give a shit about your views on "casual gaming," there has to be standards, because everytime I see someone playing like this, part of my soul dies.

 

[Rivvon]

This is a tough one because there is such a thing as games that are too difficult for their own good. If a game's difficulty curve isn't balanced it could very well be a flaw in the game design which should be rightfully detailed in any review. So my proposed middle ground would be that the reviewer be familiarized with the genre of game they are reviewing. That way they could know, by comparison, if the difficulty is appropriate, if the controls feel right, etc. Because ultimately whether a game is "bad" or "good" or "great" would depend upon the "badness" or "goodness" or "greatness" of its fellow games--Game X is the best game because it's even better than Game Y, which itself is better than almost any other game--but Game Q is kinda bad because it's worse than most other games. So if someone is not familiar with even a certain genre of video game (which generally tend to be fairly broad) I don't think their review can be even close to fair. They don't need to be a master or speedrunner or know the complete inner workings of the programming but they need to know the basics, which can be learned by knowing games.