Poll: Should regular gamers be allowed to rate/be a critic of video games

[The Knightly Gamer]

Hello everyone,

So here is the question. Should we as regular game be allowed to rate and be a critic of video games? Now I do believe everyone is allowed to have their own opinion about a game. But with the recent "zero bombing"(going to sites and giving a 0 out whatever on gaming sites) due to people not liking/hating a game has raised my concern on the issue. People hated games like Dragon Age 2, The Halo Series, From Dust, COD etc. I think we as regular games cant really look at a game like a videogame critic does. I mean when games are getting decent to good scores from all the videogame critics but then you have a lot of gamers just giving it a zero it really says something. So what is your opinion on the matter?

Edit: I am not against gamers reviewing games. I am just against "zero bombing".

 

[Something Amyss]

I think trying to separate "critic" from "fan" is a pretty bad idea from start to finish.

If aggregate scores really concern you, I suppose it's a big deal. But reviewers are hardly free from bias, And worse, there's a corporate push towards positive reviews and score inflation because of the incestuous relationship between review sites and games.

A reviewer of games should be a gamer.

The problem isn't that the layperson can't view it the same way, it's that not everyone is equally equipped. While there are plenty of gamers capable of criticism, there are also slobbering fanboys who RAAAAAAAAEG at the drop of a hat. That doesn't devalue the lay-opinion, though.

 

[The Knightly Gamer]

I think trying to separate "critic" from "fan" is a pretty bad idea from start to finish.

If aggregate scores really concern you, I suppose it's a big deal. But reviewers are hardly free from bias, And worse, there's a corporate push towards positive reviews and score inflation because of the incestuous relationship between review sites and games.

A reviewer of games should be a gamer.

The problem isn't that the layperson can't view it the same way, it's that not everyone is equally equipped. While there are plenty of gamers capable of criticism, there are also slobbering fanboys who RAAAAAAAAEG at the drop of a hat. That doesn't devalue the lay-opinion, though.

I am not saying regular games cant. Its just when reviewers do they at least give reason to why they assign said score. If gamers would at least give reason for why a zero I would be fine with that.

 

[MisterDyslexo]

"Only if they can not be bias."

.... What?

You know, I was gonna post a big wall of text, but I like how Jim Sterling put it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-oeOqgRi7E&feature=player_detailpage#t=330s

 

[VARIABLE]

Scoring a game and reviewing a game communicate two separate things. When someone rates a game with a numerical score, it conveys more than anything the degree of his/her endorsement of the game. When someone reviews a game, hopefully, said person is providing insight and context to the pros and cons of the game. Comparisons and contrasts of past video games become relevant; So do current trends within the industry as well a skill for artist analysis since many games these days are considered a form of art. I think this difference should be kept in mind when discussing the question. Or at least, in view of this, ask a second question: if regular gamers have a right to "score" a game, do they have one to "review" a game (especially on/in a publication such as The Escapist, which I think is the subtext here).

 

[Owen Robertson]

Should they have the freedom to? Yes. Should they use that freedom? Not really. For the most part, when I talk games I get 3-5 people saying "Hurr hurr, CoD is cool cuz thurs guns n slposhunz!!!11!!1" etc... and then I come across 1-2 "Well the art style is refreshing, but the linearity of the map design gets old rather quick." People who actually bother to make a post about a game generally have valid points. You may not agree, but usually you can't argue their validity.

 

[Joccaren]

Anyone should be able to review a game, unless they write the game up as the best game ever made simply because they liked the previous ones, or write it off as the worst because they didn't.
If they add in a disclaimer at the start 'I am a fanboy of' or 'I have always hated' then I don't mind so much, but review bombings are useless and impractical.
I do still, however, prefer a review of a game where it states 'Sure I did/didn't like this game, but rather than tell you why, here is a brief overview of the game' and run through gameplay mechanics, basic story structure without any spoilers (Although, the 'Mass Effect/Bioshock/Starcraft in 5 minutes' series works for me, as I still end up getting more out of the twists then they tell me), any game breaking bugs and an all round rundown of what makes up the game, without pretending they know what you like to play. That is a mistake I see with a lot of non-professional reviews and even some professional reviews, especially those that tell you 'you will/will not enjoy this'. I don't want them going along and saying 'Oh but this system spoils this system, and this story type is not good [all subjective BTW]' because I may like those systems or stories, whether you do or not. IMO, a review should give the reviewers opinion on the game, but not let it influence the entire review. Everything other than their opinion should be unbiased information.

 

[Zhukov]

Of course they should be "allowed" to.

However, most user reviews are going to be a useless load of utter shit. A lot of them give 10s or 0s in order to affect the average as much as possible. There's the slavering fanboys with their, "Oh God, best game ever! It changed my life, 10 stars!" And on the other side of the spectrum you have the irrational haters: "Portal 2 has purchasable hats?! What an abortion of a game. Zero I say, zero!"

The standout example in my mind is a Metacritic user review I recently saw for Bastion. The guy it a 3/10 because the idols in the game were for fictional pagan gods rather than the Christian God. He felt this was indicative of religious self-hate or... something. Like I said, useless load of shit.

Which is why, thankfully, the rest of us are allowed to ignore the hell out them.

 

[Kingme18]

My problem is that it is sooooo hard not to be biased. This is also the case with pros. Everyone will be biased, BUT, I do feel that everyone should have a say in everything, no matter how stupid they may or may not be.

 

[Liquidcool]

From my experience on the metacritic site, a lot of users are sensationalist retards who only give scores of 10 or 0.

 

[Your Fearless Captain]

I remember when a game getting a 10 was a big deal. Professional critics aren't unbiased.

 

[Howard Kuo]

Opinion is important but there is a difference between opinion and a critique. It is extremely different when one says "Dragon Age 2 is a shitty game. Don't buy it." in comparison to "Dragon Age 2 has updated its visuals but lacks a story that has a defined conflict. (Something that is required in a good story)" Do you understand what I mean? It's not that one sounds nicer than the other but a truly objective critic would emphasis good and bad things about a game. It helps the developer understand what went well and what was complete shit. A good review also tells the consumer what makes a game good enough for them to want to buy the game rather than rent it.

Objectivity is key. Bias is unavoidable. Saying that you the regular game reviewer liked/disliked whatever game requires you to expand on what was executed well and what was executed poorly because one might have a personal bias against shooters while another might need an intervenes drip of shooters. Regular gamers have every right to be critics. The readers are the ones that will decide which critic is worthwhile to read.

 

[The Knightly Gamer]

"Only if they can not be bias."

.... What?

You know, I was gonna post a big wall of text, but I like how Jim Sterling put it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-oeOqgRi7E&feature=player_detailpage#t=330s

I mean a gamer must form an unbais opinion of the game if they are going to review it. Example being people giving Dragon Age 2 a 0 beacause it was not the same as Dragon Age Origins.

 

[Something Amyss]

I am not saying regular games cant. Its just when reviewers do they at least give reason to why they assign said score. If gamers would at least give reason for why a zero I would be fine with that.

Reflect that in your poll and original post then, next time. Your statements are exceedingly vague and seem to imply a blanket separation between gamer and critic.

 

[Something Amyss]

"Only if they can not be bias."

.... What?

You know, I was gonna post a big wall of text, but I like how Jim Sterling put it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-oeOqgRi7E&feature=player_detailpage#t=330s

I mean a gamer must form an unbais opinion of the game if they are going to review it. Example being people giving Dragon Age 2 a 0 beacause it was not the same as Dragon Age Origins.

UnbiasED. And again, it sounds like you are holding gamers to a different standard, since cries that gamers are biasED belie the underlying issue that game critics are also inherently biasED.

Why should gamers have a higher standard just to have their opinions heard?

 

[The Knightly Gamer]

"Reflect that in your poll and original post then, next time. Your statements are exceedingly vague and seem to imply a blanket separation between gamer and critic."



I wanted to leave my opinions out as much as I could so it would not have a impact on how people answered. I also did not want to "overload" the poll with so many answers hence why I mande sure to put other because I know not everyone will agree with the up to 8 choices I am allowed to put up.

 

[The Knightly Gamer]

"Only if they can not be bias."

.... What?

You know, I was gonna post a big wall of text, but I like how Jim Sterling put it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-oeOqgRi7E&feature=player_detailpage#t=330s

I mean a gamer must form an unbais opinion of the game if they are going to review it. Example being people giving Dragon Age 2 a 0 beacause it was not the same as Dragon Age Origins.

UnbiasED. And again, it sounds like you are holding gamers to a different standard, since cries that gamers are biasED belie the underlying issue that game critics are also inherently biasED.

Why should gamers have a higher standard just to have their opinions heard?

The main thing I am trying to get across is I am against "zero bombing". I have nothing against gamers reviewing/rating a game just as long as the can do it in a "good" way, not just "the game is not like the first one 0/10".

 

[StriderShinryu]

While every gamer should be able to review whatever they want, it needs to come with two qualifiers when those reviews are going to be attached to some sort of official review catalogue.

First, each review should be, well, reviewed for it's quality prior to posting. Note that I said quality and not the opinion expressed or even in some cases the accuracy of the information given (perception is at times just as valuable even if it's not always 100% accurate).

Second, no numeric grading scores should be given by public reviewers or, at the very least, if number ratings are given they should not be factored into any visible ranking metric, even if it is a separate one from the professional review score.

Why should these rules be in place? Simple, it will preemptively remove the garbage reviews, both positive and negative. Not every non professional reviewer is a bad reviewer but anyone willing to A.) write a review knowing it may not even get posted and/or B.) review a game knowing that the number they assign isn't just going to artificially raise or lower a visible metric is automatically going to be someone who has at least put some thought/care into their review.