I have, in the past, held this view. Its what I call the, "expert argument." You assume that you (or someone else) is an expert on a particular topic, then because you (or they) are an expert, you assert that clearly the weight of expertise makes your opinion more valuable.
Well, yes, that's EXACTLY the claim. Except the part about claiming I'd be the expert.
Even if, let's be honest here, I totally am.
And no, I didn't make videogames, but I
am familiar with software development. I was even my path of study at some point, even I ended up quitting and moving in a completely different direction in life (I manage a boxing gym, imagine that. Currently closed for lockdown because of COVID-19, too. Fuck that).
Then again back to my example most expert about motors didn't engineer one and doctors didn't genetically engineer bodies from the ground up either; in the same way most critics in most fields aren't expert practitioners on the that matter.
But that's not the point. Is it? I never claimed that my credibility (or the one of any other "game expert" on a studio or forum) should come from an authoritative resume, as much as from the reasonability and specificity of the suggestions I brought so far.
And yes, expertise (or if you actually want to be that fastidious about it, let's call it INTIMATE FAMILIARITY WITH A TOPIC) totally DOES matter.
Because if you have no clue of what it's technically feasible, nor you can mention a broad range of examples that addressed a given issue in the past, what does your suggestion matters, exactly?
Is "We should totally have mounted combat and be able to hire armies like in Mount & Blade" a pertinent suggestion, when it comes to the type of game BG3 is trying to be?
Is "Well, I don't think this is too bad. I know no games that did it better" when there are dozens THAT valuable as an opinion?
Then again, "the opinion of experts matters" and "Whatever any expert suggests should be automatically held as a Gospel" are two very different things, aren't they? Especially since experts have conflicting opinions about a given topic all the times.
Saying that competent and well argued opinions should have certain weight and claiming that unless you have a life-long list of achievements in a field to have right to suggest something seem very different things to me.
Because the latter is what you are attempting to argue for rhetorical points, while the former was my suggestion all along.
Dismissive handwaving as "Oh, well, the experts are just a few, while most of our audience doesn't know shit and is happy anyway" doesn't strike me as that much of an argument in favor of lousy mechanics, and... Is it really any LESS condescending that the alleged crime of "gatekeeping", anyway?
