Should Gaming Journalists Be Good At Games?

I don't think it matters because how good of a writer you are shouldn't effect how good you are at games.

People that think differently are probably the generic guy in comments on big YouTube channels going "These guys are bad, why are they famous?" as they play GTA.

 

Well, there's a lot of problems with that view point. People who are not skilled at a game (or at least competent enough to read past the first level or so) may not judge a game fairly, which is a critical point with helping a consumer decide whether or not a game is worth their time and money.

This is different from a game being subjectively or even objectively bad in terms of design and quality, as a reviewer's skill can impact how they treat a game, review or score wise. Cause honestly, most who see a reviewer who is not skilled at a game in their video review will probably come walking away misjudging the game unfairly like "yeah, this game looks like garbage". This isn't good for unbiasedly informing consumers of games, since it doesn't give you a concrete view of how a game really is.

 

How good you are at a game has literally 0 correlation to how good of a writer you are.

I don't understand how people find this hard to understand.

 

You're kind of missing my point.

I'm simply saying that if journalists have difficulty playing, they may get frustrated and then intentionally lower the score given, just because they assumed this: difficult = bad game.

From a consumer informing standpoint, that can cause people to misinform a game's quality and doesn't give a concrete view of how good a game objectively is.

 

If you're going to review a game, you should be able to beat it at least on Normal mode, if having different modes is an option.

 

I believe they should be decent, although Cuphead is indeed a rager. In order to fully write an article about a game, you should be able to get through and enjoy the game itself.