A Hard Question

Do you need to play a videogame to have an opinion of it?

If you aren't interested in discussing this question, then I'll let you leave with a joke.

What do you call a wind elemental whose next in line to the throne?
An air.

>Do you need to play a videogame to have an opinion of it?
No. You do need to play it to have a credible opinion, though.

Is there a way to prove that you played the game?
Is it feasible to link steam profile and post screenshot of hours played?

did you hear about the guy whose whole left side was cut off?

he's all right now

Why do rogues wear leather armor?

Because it's made of hide.

What does the material have to do with it?

Oh well it's good to know he's recovered.

Rogues like to sneak around.

Here's the short and skinny of it; yes, but you can have a reasonable opinion of elements of the game without having actually played it.
I assume you're referring to watching someone play a game as opposed to playing it yourself for a substitute experience. Let's discuss the main elements of a videogame.
>Gameplay
>Graphics/Visuals
>Sound/Music
>Story/writing (if any)
>Misc deisgns

>gameplay
When it comes to gameplay, you must certainly play it in order for it to have a valid opinion. I had heard Sonic 06 was a terribly designed game. I had seen people play it and experience the many bugs, I didn't need to play it to know it wasn't made well, but it wasn't until I went over to my friend's house and tried it is when I realized just how unfathomably loathsome the controls and glitching really was. Having played Sonic Adventure 1 and 2 I thought I would have a fair grasp of the shortcomings and similarities, but I was not at all prepared.
>Graphics
I'd say no, but there are just things you see more or can focus on more when playing and knowing what you have decided to do via controller rather than just watching
The other categories I'd say you could get away with not playing it. You can hear the sounds just fine as long as the recording isn't hushed. You don't need to be playing yourself to grasp the story and judge it. Misc decisions and designs I'd also say you don't. I haven't played Mario Odyssey, but I can appreciate the lives and in-game cosmetic purchasing deigns all the same.
That said, the one thing that makes a game a game is the element of interactivity- gameplay. Thus is why I say you must experience the gameplay to have a proper grasp of the game, ergo yes- you need to play the game to truly experience it.

I've never played Other M but I've seen enough of it to know that I never want to. Is that not a credible opinion?

Should you have a strong opinion of a game without having played it? (i.e. This game is shit, SJW bullshit, fanservice garbage.)
I'd imagine most of this board has at some point, seen a game and assumed it to be garbage. Maybe the fans annoy them, or element in the game offend them.

they say he's only half the man he used to be

Nah, I don't think so. I fucking hate point and clicks, so I know that I won't like any of those. You could also watch a gameplay video, and see that it's buggy and not like it based on that.

I think that's more you not liking a game, rather then you saying it's shit for a point and click. That's perfectly fine.
The question is that should your opinion matter for a game if you haven't played the game?

You can say it looks like shit but you can't say it is shit.

Unless you're talking solely about the story. You don't gotta play a game to have an opinion worth listening to on the story, but you do gotta play a game to have an opinion worth listening to on the gameplay.

Matter to other people? No, probably not.

To address your question, I believe we must first discuss in what manner a videogame can be judged in. I think forming an opinion of a game based on things like developers, politics, etc is unjust; it's like seeing a series for its fanbase.
Take Yooka-Laylee for example. Do I think what they did to Jon's role was stupid just because of political bullshit? Yes. Did it affect my impression of the game? No. I cared about playing that game for its gameplay first and foremost, scenery and world building second, and characters were pretty low on the list.
That said you are welcome to think whatever you like about the background of the game, like when Randy Pitchfork is a complete drooling retard for his own games' PR he can't help but make them look bad, but I think only rare circumstances exist that should let a game be judged on the backgrounds. An example of a rare instance would be the development for No Man's Sky, Sean Murray lying, and little to no info on the game being divulged prior to launch. If I'm promised a feature that's not in there, I daresay that's a game changer.

Thanks for all of your replies. Have a good new years Sup Forums.

You can critique everything but controls, pacing (unless it's obviously bad), and how fun/satisfying/compelling it is to actually play since you're not getting the dopamine surges from playing it.

>You can say it looks like shit but you can't say it is shit.
I've played Other M and it's shit.
Is my word enough for him to not have to play it?

adhering to someone's legitimate opinion and taking it as advice is not the same as having that educated opinion yourself. For you to say that, it would be an uneducated statement.

>Do you need to play a videogame to have an opinion of it?
No, not necessarily.

You can for example easily tell whether a game has bad art, outdated graphics, etc. from having seen screenshots or gameplay videos. Even gameplay itself may be to some extent assessed from having seen footage and extrapolating based on having experience with the same genre and similar mechanics.

However, in order to fully assess gameplay quality itself you can't get around first-hand experience.