Two weeks ago, GamesBeat uploaded a video and hands-on from Gamescom 2017, featuring reporter and lead writer Dean Takahashi playing Cuphead. If you play video games on a regular basis, the video will be a maddening one, as Takahashi tries and fails to overcome a column in the game's tutorial stage. The rest of his performance on the video isn't much better, stretching out over 26 minutes of gaming slapstick. 

Dean Takahashi is a primarily a reporter on the business side of games. He is well-versed in the gaming industry, able to write and report on the trends of that industry. That's his job, and it's one he does well. The video hurts me as a player, but the error attributing the game to Super Meat Boy's developers is the bigger problem as a journalist, one GamesBeat has since corrected in an editor's note. 

On GamesBeat's small team - they're larger than we are, but I believe their total editorial team tops out at 10 people - Takahashi happened to be one of the few (only?) sent to Gamescom to cover the event. That's an editorial decision, probably based on getting more quotes, interviews, and business-centric coverage from the show than previews and hands-on impressions. It happens. Not every outlet has the resources to send a whole team. We here at USgamer generally have to subsist on a single person per conference, with the exception of Electronic Entertainment Expo (E3).  

So, the Cuphead impressions are based on limited resources. They had an appointment to see the game, Takahashi was the man onsite, and you see the result. It happens. Things doesn't always line up and allow your site to connect up your best resources with a publisher's or developer's title. I'm sure given the option Scarymazezgame.org would've sent someone else to play Cuphead - Takahashi admits his faults when it comes to play - but that was what they had to work with.  

This video has reignited an argument that sits as one of the pillars of the gaming community. It's one of those arguments that we've had before and will have again, because it's a pertinent question: Should games journalists be good at the video games they cover?  

Honestly, I lean on the "Yes" side of that answer. I think that a games journalist and critic should have at least some facility with the title they're covering, especially in the case of a review, which is where my focus lies as review editor. If you're covering Street Fighter V, I'd prefer you to have some understanding of fighting games as whole and the Street Fighter franchise in particular. That allows you, in the case of a review or preview, to provide an informed perspective on a game, which is useful given that many sites cater to an enthusiast readership.  

Already though, you run into a few snags and issues. 

We All Want Different Things

As Reviews Editor, it's generally my job here at USgamer to align our limited resources - we're only five people - with the wide variety of games launching every month. There is some overlap, as we enjoy a number of genres, but it doesn't always work out for the best. I try to avoid assigning a writer to a game or genre they hate, as that doesn't usually help anyone, but folks will occasionally land on a game they don't have any facility or history with. 

I find as long as this perspective is given openly and honestly upfront, then it's fine. I was new to Yakuza, but I reviewed Yakuza Kiwami, coming from the perspective of someone who has not played the series in the past. That's useful information, because while some feel you should only write towards the fans, the readership is wide.  

People want different things from a review. There are folks who lack the background to understand a review written for a veteran of a franchise, something I caution myself on when writing about games I'm deeply familiar with. Some readers and writers focus on more different pillars of a game - aesthetics, narrative, or mechanics - and there should be some coverage available for everyone. As such, a reviewer should be open about what they prize and where they stand.