Ok this is kind of two thread ideas fused into one so forgive me if it’s a bit all over the place.

For those that aren’t into Video Games there seems to be a growing trend of video game journalists and critics..not being knowledgeable
and/or having a severe lack in skill in games. Allegedly most games journalists don’t about video games they just begrudgingly do it because it’s a paying job.

Examples

SPOILER: Click to show

Exhibit A


Exhibit B


Exhibit C
(Big Pete and I discussed this briefly in VG, they didn’t know there was a second part to the game and subtracted some points because of this)

This has led to gamers and YouTube critics saying that they shouldn’t be critics. On the surface level it seems absurd to ask “should video game critics be good at video games? but it can be argued the interactivity makes it harder than reviewing other mediums. Plus all video game genres are different and require different types of skills.
For example i can play Street Fighter at tournament level but I’m not good at puzzle solving games at all, so I feel like I would praise and understand the former and take my frustrations of being a dumbass out on the latter if I had to review it.

Unlike Video games, movies require you to watch them with no interaction. I have less of an idea if a critic didn’t understand a concept of a movie or if they paid no attention during the film.
Most readers of reviews don’t necessarily except critics to have been involved in films, with people that just regular people that started a YouTube channel being considered as the most reliable source of film critic.

Which brings me to Pro Wrestling critics. Some wrestlers especially old school wrestlers seem to have the opinion that you can’t review wrestling matches if you haven’t been involved in wrestling.
Why? This attitude isn’t really found in any forms of critique, plenty of food critics aren’t chefs. My guess is the long history of keeping kayfabe that some wrestlers see it as criticising a magic show when you have no idea how the tricks were performed.

SPOILER: Click to show

Al Snow’s thoughts at 4:00

I think the star rating method of reviewing wrestling is fundamentally flawed and it is a bit odd when some fans claim to know the complete inner workings of a match and don’t know what feed to the right means, but I think regular fans are entitled to critique wrestling events..they are put on to entertain them in the first place not people backstage.

I just personally think the star ratings don’t consider the intent of a match like film reviews do. For example the Braun/Ellsworth match below completely executed its purpose and its rated with the same standards as Okada/Omega.

EG “1.5 stars it was a predictable squash match” is something you might read and The story is that Braun is a monster and it’s told perfectly.

Film critics don’t go see the latest Will Ferrell comedy and except it to have the same emotional impact as 12 Years a Slave for the most part.

SPOILER: Click to show

Do you consider the credentials of critics before you read/watch their reviews? Do you think you should be vastly knowledgeable about the medium you are critiquing?

Do you even consume reviews or care for them in the first place before you buy or watch a product?

I've mentioned it before, regarding wrestling journalists. Sure you can review matches as a fan. But what real credibility does someone like Dave Meltzer have? Outside of being the super-fan. He's never worked, booked or added real value to a business, nor put his money where his mouth is. So he can critique a company based purely on entertainment value alone. The day to day operations of a multi-billion dollar organization, sorry Dave you're out of your depth here.

Similarly, there's the one guy who everyone knows, you know that guy - who will talk himself to sleep about money, career, etc - yet hasn't barely got buck to his name. It's means nothing.

 

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, and everyone’s entitled to pay as much attention to that opinion as they want. Regardless of what you think of him, Meltzer has credibility because literally millions of people (including those in the business) care what he has to say.

That was a 5 star response, it would have been 6 if it were in the Tokyo Dome.

It's impossible to form a decent opinion on a game when you only have a few days to play through it. Professional reviews have been replaced with personalised reviews, as more and more people see what their favourite YouTubers are playing and follow that trend.

Professional Wrestling is a different kettle of fish, because fans experience the product as soon as the journalists do. There isn't a dependance on the journo to seive through the shows and form expectations, because the fans have the freedom to do that themselves.

For all the millions of words I've dedicated to sharing my thoughts on matches, I don't have a definitive match list. There isn't a list of matches I've seen hundreds of times, at most I've seen some matches 2-3 times and there's plenty of matches I'd consider excellent that I will never go back and watch. Still, I like that people keep tabs on their favourite matches of the year and enjoy the rationale behind the list.

As far as professional reviewers go, the only show I care for is OSW review, the old-school wrestling podcast, filmed in glorious grapplevision and encoded in blast processing.

This is a tricky one, just because you're a great footballer it doesn't mean you're a great commentator and loving eating doesn't make you a good food critic.
The whole genre is poisoned because you can't really be objective about what you like... Okay you got food poisoning or the game was full of glitches but not liking it is a very grya area to critique against.

Everyone's entitled to an opinion, but that doesn't make every opinion valid. The most frequent one that pops up for me are the people who talk about reading comics as a kid 50 years ago, and then treating the medium as it's the same monster. This person doesn't have a valid opinion, they don't have the information critical to form said opinion on the topic in which they're speaking, they can only properly judge comics 50 years ago. If the person's actually playing the game, even if they completely suck at it, then there is at least some reasonable judgement on their part. You just need to learn the opinions you disagree with and avoid them.

Jan 31, 2019 7:10:29 GMT RagnarokMike said:

Everyone's entitled to an opinion, but that doesn't make every opinion valid. 

People also aren't entitled to their own facts.

I had one that annoyed me, I recently replaced my android tablet with a Microsoft Surface Go and I actually love it.
Finally a portable device suited to creating content rather than just consuming it.
I read a review where a guy shit-canned it for not being snappier with it's handling of multi-tasking and marked it way down against an iPad Pro that has no multi-tasking at all.
In technology people are either Apple shills or they're not....
Apple is dying, the share price should have crashed when they bought Beats

Jan 31, 2019 7:10:29 GMT RagnarokMike said:

Everyone's entitled to an opinion, but that doesn't make every opinion valid.

And when challenged, feelings don't equate to credibility or integrity. In today's climate, if I'm outraged enough, offended, or as the kids call it triggered - it adds some credibility or integrity to my opinion. It does not. 

There is a place for reviewers who aren't super into the product they're enjoying, but it should be made very clear who they are and who their target audience is (and, assumedly, the more hardcore audience already know which reviewers to look for and which to ignore).

What a car enthusiast wants is VERY different from what a filthy casual wants. Give a gearhead a stick shift car with a stiff suspension and they'll be thrilled; give the same car to someone who just wants to get to work and back and it'll be a terrible, horrible car where you feel every bump on the road, creature comforts like cupholders and USB outlets to charge your phone are way more important to the daily driver.

I didn't watch those Youtube videos linked but the header on the first one -- "Dumbass journalist can't get past tutorial" -- could that also not be part of the review process? How easy is the game to pick up, and the reviewer couldn't even get past the intro? Otherwise, if that particular reviewer isn't a gamer but a lit major or whatever s/he could evaluate the game based on whether the plot makes sense, if the graphics are distracting, there's plenty to judge.

While I’ll admit Cuphead is probably one of the hardest games I’ve ever played, the tutorial itself is easy enough for a 5 year old to beat.

I think the YouTube critics are slightly unfair to video game journalists as they have less pressure from companies to give good reviews. I’ve heard that if you give a game less than a 7 the publisher will normally not want to work with said company again. Hence seeing so many IGN reviews that never go below that.