I'm not a fan of Polygon's review staff, but I expect no more skill from game reviewers than I expect athleticism from a sports writer. Their job is to be knowledgeable about games and to be good writers. That's it. I don't care if they're "bad" at games (whatever that means).
That is an interesting point. It is closest to being a real defense of Polygon's video. But I would say the crucial distinction is that with professional sports there are only a very few individuals that perform professional sports, and the main action related to it is the rest of us watching and enjoying.
Video games are different in that they are a pastime for the masses. It is like reading a book or watching a movie or driving a car. It is meant to be used and experienced, not just watched from afar. And therefore the better analogy is one of those activities.
If you are going to review a game, you hopefully have some experience with playing games. You certainly could be a game reviewer and never had actually played one. That would be a very interesting angle to take. An outsider's perspective as someone who doesn't play them could be very novel. Sort of like a food reviewer who never eats anything.
But usually car reviewers are people that have driven many many cars, and have some facility with shifting and fast speeds and handling. If someone got in a car and didn't have their driver's license I expect that their review of the car would be very immature and lacking. Much like this review from Polygon was. It was from a naive, inexperienced position and therefore not very insightful or relevant to game players who are looking for quality writing on games.
Bottom line, it seems sort of a no-brainer that if you want to write intelligently about a subject, you should have some knowledge and experience with the subject. If you have never played an fps, you can't write about them very smartly.
I don't understand why people would be arguing against that idea.