Why we need video game reviewers to suck at games

> Why we need video game reviewers to suck at games

Is he right?

Attached: 1464209743131.png (824x1080, 497K)

We dont need journo's pretending to be gamers
We need gamers pretending to be journo's

Attached: Polygon Doom.webm (720x404, 1.03M)

fucking lol

technically speaking yes, but the problem is that the reviewers tend to make their notes while playing the game and are under a time limit, which makes them suck more and therefore gives them the impression that the game is bad.

I still believe this entire video was made to torture me by satanic powers.

When has this been the case?

If you get paid to write about them you shouldn't suck at them

Videogame reviewers are those kids that were spergs and bad persons and got bullied into shape and now that video games are hip and bullying is bad they think they can go back to be ultra spergs and awful humans. they try to justify themselves at every turn while being pedantic disgusting backstabbing assholes then going back to their lairs to hide. Bullying might be wrong but these people ask for it.

reviewers who suck at games can't adequately review a game because they aren't capable of understanding even the basic requirements to play it, if people who are bad at games want to review them that's fine but it shouldn't be getting posted on major publications without some kind of disclaimer or be a part of aggregated review scores

>dude I gotta be able to relate to the reviewer's experience lmao
Fucking christ, the reviewer's job is to give an informative educated objective review of the games merits or the lack thereof
Some limp-wristed faggot that can't play for shit and obviously in consequence lacks any deeper understanding of video games can't deliver that
A shitter can't review a game adequately to anyone but other shitters, a person who can play well and understands the mechanics can not only explain to the shitters why they might not like it but also to the rest why they might

>It's not like Doom's campaign is short. I would estimate I spent about 14 hours in my initial play through on the default difficulty, finding about 60-70 percent of the in-game collectibles, fully upgrading my marine and most of my abilities. That's quite long for a single-player campaign shooter in 2016, and even a few hours shaved off of that probably would have made for a better, more consistent campaign.

I guess you're right

Straight up looks like someone having to play the game without moving the stick to aim.

the video and the review were made by different people. A 5 minute google search can tell you that.

there's a whole world of difference between getting gud and being outmarted by a pigeon, I don't expect every tom dick and harry to be legit good at any game I care to throw at them, but when people play like and expect me to take their opinon seriously I just have to wonder.

did you miss the part back in gg when they found out these places are funded by jews in (((think tanks)))?

the absolute fucking state

It's like watching someone play a game for the first time

It's not about being good at games. It's about not being hilariously awful at them. If you can't even finish a fucking tutorial stage you shouldn't be reviewing video games.

They're having a rough time of it youtube and twitch people are chipping away at them slowly and people trust them more as legitimate gamers.

No, that's an incredibly stupid thing to say. A movie critic should be knowledgeable about movies and filmmaking, should know about story structure, cinematography and how to develop characters. If he writes a review about a movie, he should know what he's talking about. Same goes for a literary critic, he should be knowledgeable about books and about literary analysis, so that he may provide a competent, confident opinion that a layman or hobbyist can rely upon. It's also the same for a music reviewer and so on.

This of course includes the video game reviewer. He should be knowledgeable about video games and about all elements of video games to some degree (mechanics, relevant technical information, gameplay, music, story and so on). Properly evaluating gameplay and the challenge the game provides does of course mean that the reviewer should be decently skilled. Nobody is saying that reviewers should be a top 0.1% tourneyfag, but some level of skill is required in order to be able to properly and completely evaluate the gameplay and mechanics. A reviewer cannot tell me his opinion on how the game plays - if he cannot actually play the game. He cannot provide an opinion or understanding on the game's mechanics if he cannot even use those mechanics. A reviewer needs to be good enough to see what the game has on offer.

Don't worry, they're pretending to be both.

"need reviewers to tell them what to play" is such a sickening sentence. I hate when "journalists" feel as if their role is to educate the public on what they should do/think.

Someone post the Cuphead webm

I fucking hate all types of journalists.

Behead those who write articles.

There's not being "good" at games, and then there's this bald faced incompetence and inability to play at all. Fuck the article in the OP for defending this unacceptable trash.