2 points against your argument:
First, in at least one example, you used another person's subjective experience to figure out whether an opinion about the games you were judging from afar was the correct judgment. But what makes these people qualified to answer the question of whether something is good? And ultimately, didn't someone had to actually play the game? I don't think you can plausibly judge a game with no one ever playing it. It's like judging a book without no one reading it.
Also, I do think you must play the game to give an opinion. Let's say I know nothing about house building, and I pass by a contractor (someone who knows about house building) and a client. I hear them discussing some point about the foundation, and I step forward and proclaim, "That's not how to build a house!" These people would want to know what experience I have with house building, i.e. how much knowledge about the subject. Why should I be as qualified at house building as the contractor granted I have no knowledge about house building? It goes against our typical conception of what it means to know something or what it means to be a worthy expert. As far as I see it, the argument is flawed in these two ways at least.
"
All of us gamers who enjoy the medium wish we had the time to play all the games we want. I think it was easier in the past to play everything, but the new accessibility to different and interesting games is definitely a pro. Also, indie game creators are more prominent than ever and will continue to be so. Without the originators of the game journalism industry helping the medium grow, as well as word-of-mouth sales which were aided by old game journalism, we wouldn't have the indie world we have today. So, I'd say pros and cons. Trust me; I wish I had all day to sit around and play my backlog list, but I'm more happy that so many games exist that it's possible for me to have a backlog list.
Also, <3 Man-God Bettenhausen. Still miss old EGM and old 1up, but still supporting.
"
This was an interesting read, but let me present 2 points that aren't necessarily objections but related to what could be objections.
Number 1: Innovation within the journalism industry might be something you're forgetting. With regards to covering everything, some places do cover all industry information, but maybe not review everything (Kotaku, Jostiq). These sources provide for the emergence of (at least the birth of new) business pundits, or some mix of the fields you have presented. I love games and track industry sales and movement for example.
Number 2: You're forgetting about you! Think of a place like Bitmob. This is a very unique place but in a special way. The whole community acts as this new and interesting medium for people like us to discuss matters like this. I'd also suggest that just us being here and discussing this stuff suggests that the video game expert isn't dead but has evolved; we're a new breed of our own, writing personal, critical stories about games, the industry and how they matter or should be improved. Maybe amateur game journalists (if we deserve such a title, which might be too pretentious) are the old video game experts.
Hope that helps.
"
I do trust reviews, primarily because I understand the intention of the reviewers. That is not to say the people counter to my position don't, just for reference, but let me explain.
Reviewers look out for your best interest. When a game gets a 7 out of 10, a reviewer is really saying, "This is average and may not be worth your money." When a game gets a 10 out of 10, a reviewer is really saying, "You should spend your money on this." It's about money mixed with their reaction, less so the negative reaction against the game that you may read. Reviewers don't want their readers to have a bad experience with something.
The same strategy in reverse doesn't work though. There is nothing inherent about a 7 that stops people from having fun. Some reviewers may say "If you play [7/10 rated game] you won't have fun," but I think they are really making a probabilistic claim. "If you play [the same game] you probably won't have fun." That may be the case for some, and the opposite case for others. You mentioned how you felt as though someone had attacked your childhood hero, which tells me you maybe had a personal opinion before playing the game. Besides that though, it sounded as though you took the negative scores as a personal attack against your preferences.
What I would say is understand where reviewers come from. They aren't saying, "You suck," for liking something. They are trying to protect you from an experience you may not enjoy. If you want that experience regardless of their argument, then play it, but don't look at reviewers as misguided, pompous, or fools. They are really out to help.
"
First post I've wrote for Bitmob, and I had trouble getting the blog post even open in the first place. With regards to your comment, I do think open-world games have some linear aspects, at least with regards to programing, in that programmers establish how the narrative will move. You can disregard those elements, but I think you will miss out on the experience intended. One of the truly non-linear games I can think of would be something like Noby Noby Boy, where the experience is solely the player's interaction with an environment; Noby Noby Boy's narrative is somewhat limited though. Maybe that is the trade-off"
First, I'm a philosophy major and study aesthetics. As far as the good or bad debate about any art, things are very complicated. There are certain problems with a relativistic approach, as well as problems with the objective approach. If there is no objective definition, then the ability to compare things gets very difficult and stumbles into epistemic problems about truth. If there is an objective definition, how do we find it clearly? If anyone is interested in this stuff, go read the literature.
My main concern with the article is the definition of what it means to be hardcore and how that term is used. I come from both sides of the camp in this article, in that, I don't play Demon Souls (tried) but do play considered hardcore experience, like Mega Man 2 on Difficult for example. I think the really thing that makes someone hardcore or not is a mix of two things, time and intent. Take something like Dance Dance Revolution. If someone is playing it for exercise and no other reason (intent) but plays it a lot (time), I wouldn't consider them a hardcore gamer. If someone plays DDR a lot purely because they love the game and want to play the game, I would consider them a hardcore gamer. Consequently, if someone took a casual experience and played it solely for the reason to play the game, I would attribute them with being a hardcore.
Hardcore, as I understand, is an appreciation for the art form and the activity you are doing. If you want to pass the time, are playing because your friends are, or exercise, etc., you are playing the game for some external reason outside of the video game realm. But, if you are choosing to play games because you love to play games, then that spirit is what hardcore gaming is about.
Sorry if this is rather long. had a discussion with someone about this very topic recently"
It's funny. There was a story a few weeks back that was in direct opposition to this opinion, and I was also against the idea that people don't need to play something to judge it. With our medium of choice, it's an extreme must to play something before really being able to put a well-informed opinion on it. I think people can have opinions about anything, but they should preface their knowledge with whatever opinion they are relaying. That way, people can say what they want as long as it is in context. I know I've talked about games I haven't played, not necessarily with some sort of biased negative or positive, and I always make sure to say what my experience level with the game is. Overall, I really do agree with you, although I probably wouldn't use the sentence at the end in most conversations.
With that said, I'm wondering what you meant by something... "Commentators will comment on such 'news' and spread that around so much that eventually it will stand as gospel 'truth' (e.g., Gerstmanngate)." Without starting anything big, I was around when Jeff was fired from Gamespot, and it was a huge story. I'm confused about what you mean here from the quote. Are you suggesting that what happened to Jeff was fair, or that the news that was reported was false? I don't plan on causing some immature flame war, but as far as my 2 cents go (which will be all I say about the matter), I think what happened to Jeff was very unfair, and subsequently, I canceled my premium membership with Gamespot when the whole thing went down. Anyway, please clarify the quote. It's slightly confusing when you are talking about opinions on games and move to something like a real life news story.
"