this post was submitted on 22 Oct 2025
235 points (98.4% liked)

Games

43109 readers
4195 users here now

Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.

Rules

1. Submissions have to be related to games

Video games, tabletop, or otherwise. Posts not related to games will be deleted.

This community is focused on games, of all kinds. Any news item or discussion should be related to gaming in some way.

2. No bigotry or harassment, be civil

No bigotry, hardline stance. Try not to get too heated when entering into a discussion or debate.

We are here to talk and discuss about one of our passions, not fight or be exposed to hate. Posts or responses that are hateful will be deleted to keep the atmosphere good. If repeatedly violated, not only will the comment be deleted but a ban will be handed out as well. We judge each case individually.

3. No excessive self-promotion

Try to keep it to 10% self-promotion / 90% other stuff in your post history.

This is to prevent people from posting for the sole purpose of promoting their own website or social media account.

4. Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts

This community is mostly for discussion and news. Remember to search for the thing you're submitting before posting to see if it's already been posted.

We want to keep the quality of posts high. Therefore, memes, funny videos, low-effort posts and reposts are not allowed. We prohibit giveaways because we cannot be sure that the person holding the giveaway will actually do what they promise.

5. Mark Spoilers and NSFW

Make sure to mark your stuff or it may be removed.

No one wants to be spoiled. Therefore, always mark spoilers. Similarly mark NSFW, in case anyone is browsing in a public space or at work.

6. No linking to piracy

Don't share it here, there are other places to find it. Discussion of piracy is fine.

We don't want us moderators or the admins of lemmy.world to get in trouble for linking to piracy. Therefore, any link to piracy will be removed. Discussion of it is of course allowed.

Authorized Regular Threads

Related communities

PM a mod to add your own

Video games

Generic

Help and suggestions

By platform

By type

By games

Language specific

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

“For quality games media, I continue to believe that the best form of stability is dedicated reader bases to remove reliance on funds, and a hybrid of direct reader funding and advertisements. If people want to keep reading quality content from full time professionals, they need to support it or lose it. That’s never been more critical than now.”

The games media outlets that have survived, except for Gamespot and IGN, have just about all switched to this model. It seems to be the only way it survives.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Aielman15@lemmy.world 56 points 1 week ago (6 children)

Journalism at large is dangerously close to dying. People favour free click- and rage-bait headlines on Facebook over quality journalism. The latter can't compete because quality costs money, while cheap quality articles oversaturate the market. AI only exacerbated the issue.

[–] CosmoNova@lemmy.world 14 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Which is why the free democratic world has to keep subsiding quality journalism that sticks to the facts. Sadly that‘s dying along with private newspapers because governments believe people just don‘t want it and it‘s not worth keeping. They treat it as entertainment and that‘s a huge problem because it‘s a pillar of democracy. Defunding it is dangerous.

As for games… well, there‘s plenty of ways and different mediums to consume games nowadays so it makes sense magazines are vanishing along with game events despite the medium being bigger than ever. Most of the older game news outlets have overstayed their welcome.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ampersandrew@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago (4 children)

Getting my news from reddit or Lemmy led to the same problems, and neither actually gave me the news, so in the past couple of years, I have definitely budgeted for a news subscription as well.

[–] Ashtear@piefed.social 5 points 1 week ago

If I had the money I'd definitely do the same, but for now I do RSS instead of link aggregator communities if I'm being serious about it. Takes some curation, but at the very least it's not being run through a vote algorithm first.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Auth@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

You even see it here. People will post "quality journalism" and then it gets attacked because its nuanced and doesnt extrapolate into extreme claims.

People are so used to the rage-bait and bad journalism that its hard for actual reporting to break through. As well as it takes 1000x more effort to gather the evidence and story for quality reporting. Its bad, we need to start supporting journalists through gov subsidies and donations.

[–] setsneedtofeed@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

click- and rage-bait headlines on Facebook over quality journalism

Gaming journalism has been overrun with that.

What I, and I think many people, want are trustworthy, knowledgable reviews.

I can't trust any of the major publications. I trust a small handful of YouTubers who are giving me more of what I want than the entire professional industry.

[–] Rai@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Good riddance to any gar journalists who rate games on a 6/10 to 10/10 scale. I insinuated because sponsors, but fuck that.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] njm1314@lemmy.world 24 points 1 week ago (5 children)

I mean I'd like to be upset but honestly video game journalism has always been the lowest form of Journalism. Mostly it's just pure propaganda and press releases from major game companies. 90 to 95% of Articles written by these game journalists were just useless fluff.

[–] yermaw@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 week ago

They were useful in the past as a magazine by the toilet really helped.

[–] bleistift2@sopuli.xyz 4 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Remember how Cyberpunk got hyped across the board? Not a single critical voice before launch (as far as I’ve heard). If that’s the “journalism” you’re providing, then I’m sure as hell not paying for it.

[–] Chozo@fedia.io 10 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It's hard to be critical of something that hasn't been released yet. All anybody had to go off of were statements from the developers, until the product was actually released and people could get their hands on it.

[–] setsneedtofeed@lemmy.world 12 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

That might be exactly part of why gaming journalism is irrelevant.

If the "news" about an upcoming game is just repeating developer hype, then it's just useless noise. At that point the only thing that matters are reviews, and independent YouTubers are beating the professionals in quality and trustworthiness.

So what's left? Actual dry industry news? I suppose some small amount of people care, but not enough to support the amount of gaming journalists out there.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Ashtear@piefed.social 3 points 1 week ago

Maybe it's because my experience with it goes well back into the print era, but very little of it is actual fact-finding capital "J" journalism, and even that part has only come on in the industry more recently. I've always put the games press in its proper buckets of "previews for access" and then game criticism. Quality for both varies, but I'm rarely disappointed when I stick to a publication I like (until the inevitable EIC churn, anyway).

[–] mostlikelyaperson@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

Yup, I remember even back in the print era there was significant criticism about the relationships between games publishers and various magazines resulting in what was essentially advertising disguised as articles. Payment was either indirect (exclusive access to preview builds etc) or direct via in-magazine advertising. Can’t badmouth the big flagship game releases too much when EA just paid big bucks to advertise the very same title for the next view editions.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] chunes@lemmy.world 19 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Anecdotal, but I have never read a game review in my life that was from a journalist. It's always been in forums, and lately some small youtubers. I want to hear from normal gamers, not people getting a paycheck for it.

[–] setsneedtofeed@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago (6 children)

Back in the late 90s-early 2000s the PCGamer magazine was actually worthwhile. It had reviewers who specialized in different genres and if read enough you could get a feel for their writing style and critical voice. The fact it was a monthly publication meant they weren't racing to get a review out in the first 24 hours.

Nowadays it all seems like publications race to put reviews out online for relevance, and the reviewers often seem to have a disdain for video games and even if they don't they aren't genre experts.

I don't like fighting games. My review of a fighting game would be trash. Yet major publications just pump out reviews by whoever.

Individual youtubers at least can develop a recognizable critical voice and stick more to genres they know and enjoy.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] dukemirage@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

I‘d rather read a well articulated opinion that is embedded into a rich cultural context than some rambling from strangers. I know the former is hard to find (Eurogamer and RPS are good, but suffer from layoffs, too). The latter I only skim through to find things I might find distracting that were omitted by others.

[–] setsneedtofeed@lemmy.world 18 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (7 children)

The entire industry was flooded with mouthpieces for developer statements, and opinion piece hottakes. How many of those people does an industry really need? (Or more importantly: How many of those people can it financially support?)

As for reviews, they are for the most part similarly worthless and hard to trust. There's about five YouTubers who I actually trust the opinions of, and I haven't felt left out at all with that as the extent of my gaming journalism intake.

I can't be certain, but I suspect a lot of gamers are completely burnt out on the professional gaming journalism industry.

[–] SaraTonin@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago

Go to Steam page. Scroll to bottom. Filter out negative reviews. Read 5-10. Update filers to only show negative reviews. Read 5-10.

That’s never let me down when it comes to determining whether or not a game is one I’ll enjoy.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] M0oP0o@mander.xyz 17 points 1 week ago

Yeah, it turns out people don't like advertising pretending to be reviews.

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 13 points 1 week ago (2 children)

That's because a lot of the reviews weren't been read because they weren't trustworthy, if you reviewed a game poorly (even if it deserved the poor review) the journalist wouldn't be invited back to review the next game that studio put out or were still the publisher could blacklist you blocking you from potentially dozens of games every year. Nintendo do this all the time.

[–] Rooster326@programming.dev 5 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Nobody is stopping them from buying their own copy, and reviewing at release with an honest review.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] ampersandrew@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

Those same outlets still review Nintendo games. They just review them late.

[–] Gorilladrums@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (2 children)

Back in like 2012, a gaming journalist would write an honest review of a game they tried or they would give an update on the industry or they would share interesting tips and info about certain games and franchises. The sites would be clean, maybe a couple of ads here and there, but the overall atmosphere is driven by genuine passion.

Today, you don't get any of that. Instead you get an advertisement masquerading as an article. The reviews aren't authentic, the updates are basically a part of marketing campaigns, and the info they give is there to push readers to buy something. The sites are all completely cluttered with ads, a lot of the articles are just AI slop, and the industry is driven by greed. Why would anybody go there anymore? Might as well just go see a youtube review or get the game and try it out yourself.

[–] paultimate14@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago (2 children)

You have a much more optimistic memory of gaming review platforms than I do.

I remember getting several different magazines in the 90's and they were always the same thing. Any "professional" journalist knows that their livelihood is based on selling games. Journalists have to strike a balance between their audience and publishers, which makes negative reviews incredibly rare.

It's not just videogames. Music, movies, TV shows, books, comics, consumer products. Unkess you're paying out the nose, reviews almost always have some sort of bias towards trying to sell things. I find the best opinions come from other sources: people I know personally, organic community discussions on the internet (though those are not immune to corporate influence), or when products are only mentioned in contexts where the author clearly will not benefit. For example, a journalist making a list of the top-10 games of all time putting Ocarina of Time on it is probably not incentives to do so... Unless Nintendo is trying to promote a re-release.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] ampersandrew@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Do you feel that way about the site reporting the linked article?

And I know the likes of IGN have been a mess for far longer than 2012.

[–] M0oP0o@mander.xyz 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (12 children)

Do you feel that way about the site reporting the linked article?

Yes, although I am not the first dood, but posting as someone who did read the linked article it is a barely veiled attempt to support the "writer's" media and looks more like a lazy filler article to meet a quota. I use quotes around writer as the article in question is 2/3s quotes more in the style of an interview with "Veteran games journalist Alex Donaldson" and a few comments from "Press Engine co-founder Gareth Williams" (nothing wrong with that per say). The other 1/3 is "data supplied to VGC by Press Engine..." (again nothing wrong with this on its own). The issue is when we take the article in its whole this seems more like someone talked to a colleague or two then put a header on it using in house data from a "... popular PR tool used by developers and publishers to distribute codes and press releases to a global database of journalists and content creators." and adding a few other comments from the very founder of the program used in house to round it out making a very thin and kinda lazy article. This reminds me very much of the stuff written I saw many many years ago when I worked at a newspaper watching that media circle the drain.

Also on the point of:

The sites are all completely cluttered with ads, a lot of the articles are just AI slop, and the industry is driven by greed.

This is not AI slop but good old fashioned 4:30 on a Friday human slop covered in ads, for example I got 2 pop ups with ad block reading it. This is what it looks like without ad blocker:

collapsed inline media

But then again, you get what you pay for and I guess the irony here is that the article (that could be used as a captain obvious joke) pointing out the collapse of games media is in itself an example of a degrading quality of writing leading to the demise of said media. The real joke is that the article does not even touch on the degrading quality of the writing and experience (other then a "...lack of diversification in content...") but instead putting the blame on every thing else (thanks google, AI, COVID and advertising spending I guess?).

load more comments (12 replies)
[–] whotookkarl@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Special interest journalism is usually overrun by corporate interests and inflated reviews. Find someone who knows the history of the industry and was fired or left an organization for something like reporting a low review to search out integrity for individuals.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] slumberlust@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Shout-out to Nextlander and Giantbomb for keeping gaming journalism alive.

[–] YiddishMcSquidish@lemmy.today 6 points 1 week ago

Giantbomb is legit the fucking goat.

[–] madjo@feddit.nl 3 points 1 week ago

And sites like Aftermath.site

[–] lechekaflan@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago

It's so bad now that nearly all the articles are mainly clickbait or written to favor a particular game (no matter how mediocre), and someone had to create what's called Saved You A Click.

[–] NigelFrobisher@aussie.zone 6 points 1 week ago

They don’t need humans to write the engagement slop articles anymore.

[–] Rei13@piefed.social 6 points 1 week ago

Personally haven't really read gaming journalism even before. If I want to see what score a game has, I'm much more likely to check How Long To Beat or Backloggd, where users rate games.

Or, as has been mentioned in this thread, Youtubers, if I want a singular subjective opinion as opposed to a "out of 5" or "out of 10" score which, admittedly can be tricky when different people have a different view on what each number should mean. For instance, a 5 (on a 10 scale), is average for me when I rate anime. But most of the anime community uses 7 as the average, so a 6.2 show on MyAnimeList, which you would think is above average, is actually below.

[–] Auth@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago

I hate games journalists. I'm sure there are some good ones but most of them are corporate trash and their reviews are thinly veiled ads. They dont care about the games they write about. They dont take the time to learn the games and are just generally bad at games. Basically the entire industry is just shitting out the most dogshit video game opinions 24/7. I'd rather go to Lemmy or Reddit and read what actual players have to say about games.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Um, that's how it always should have been. That's how journalism in general works, going back since pretty much the dawn of newspapers: readers pay for copy, and advertisements subsidize it.

Like the games industry, publications that cover video games have been rocked by a turbulent market since the highs of the COVID-19 pandemic. Media owners like IGN, Fandom, Gamer Network, and Valent have all cut jobs in the past year.

Is it turbulent though? This article goes over video game spending by year, and it has largely plateaued since 2019. There was a pretty big jump in 2020 due to the pandemic, but the market seems to have returned to a normalish trajectory and mobile revenue seems to be plateauing (I guess it's saturated?).

I think what happened is that people are shifting where they get their information from. Instead of relying on game journalists, who seem to be paid by game devs (hence why any big game rarely gets below 7/10), they rely on social media, who theoretically aren't paid by game devs (there's plenty of astroturfing though). The business model where they're not paid by game devs should always have been the case, since when people are deciding what games to buy, they clearly would prefer a less biased source.

IMO, games journalism should have multiple revenue streams, such as:

  • fan revenue - either donations or subscriptions should always be primary
  • curated game bundles, like Jingle Jam - run a charity event where a large portion is donated (be up-front, and have a slider so donators can decide how much goes where, even 0% to one or the other)
  • merch
  • game tournaments w/ prizes - would be especially cool to focus on indies
  • maybe have paid questions from fans that gets answered in a podcast or a paid video to discuss topics of fans' choosing

They can get very far before needing to run ads. Produce quality journalism and have some additional revenue streams and it'll work out.

I don't consume much gaming journalism because it's largely BS that praises big AAAs and generally ignores indies unless they get viral. I want honest opinions about games, not some balance between sucking up to who pays the bills and mild criticism.

[–] ampersandrew@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Games media worked under an ad-supported model for about 20 years though. As those in that business will tell you, the payouts from advertisers have fallen dramatically. The ones keeping themselves afloat now have pivoted to your first, third, and fifth bullet points, as well as ads on the free content that subscribers typically get to opt out of.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 week ago (6 children)

But weren't game reviews essentially ads paid by the publisher? Because that's what it looks like from the outside, since the reviews are increasingly poor quality that largely focus on positives and ignore negatives. Some games that completely flopped due to technical issues got glowing reviews by journalists, probably because they were paid handsomely for that review.

I think game journalists should avoid advertisements as much as possible because once they rely on it, the temptation to allow their content to be colored by whatever attracts advertisers is too much. They should be solely focused on attracting readers, which means they need to be reader supported.

[–] ampersandrew@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago (2 children)

It's a symbiotic relationship that advances goals for each, but no, they're not paid ads, and it's been debunked over and over again. Some game reviews higher than someone feels it should, and they conclude it only could have been paid off, but it wasn't. Here are a few things that do happen that influence review scores though:

  • Publishers know which outlets review their games well, and they prioritize giving advance copies to those outlets and not others; this is why you'll see the average score drop by a few points after the game's official release.
  • The person on staff who liked the last game in the series, or other games in the same genre, tends to keep reviewing them, because they enjoy the work more, and that review better serves the overall audience. This can explain why a genre-defying game like Death Stranding reviews in the low 80s, but then the sequel is reviewed by people who tended to appreciate the first game, and the sequel reviews higher.
  • Publishers know which version of their game is best, and they'll send review copies of that version. That means they send the PC version of Cyberpunk 2077 when the console version is broken, and they send the console version when the PC optimization sucks.
  • When a game is online-only, publishers like to host on-site, curated review sessions with optimal network conditions in a space where all the reviewers definitely have someone to play with. Review outlets have become skeptical of reviewing games this way, and you'll more often see "reviews in progress" of games where they want the servers to "settle" first. I was surprised to see MS Flight Simulator 2024 actually held to account over its broken online infrastructure, as you're correct that, historically, they're not held accountable, but that's because of this change that review outlets have made in how they cover games like this.
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] SlartyBartFast@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 week ago (2 children)
[–] Quique@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

They were long gone before AI

[–] SlartyBartFast@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] Glytch@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

Damn Roko's basilisk, ruining games journalism.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Credibly_Human@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago (4 children)

I've never remembered seeing quality video games journalism.

The tyypes that they're describing as that always seemed hacky and liable to push very subjective opinions as facts.

Their scores almost always seemed wonky and part of that is probably because individual scores for something as complex as a game don't really make sense. They rarely make sense for anything.

Instead what you want are scores in multiple areas with no single amalgamated score.

Anyhow, for the longest while video games journalism has been rife with controversy about pulling negative reviews for ad deals etc.

I think unfortunately written media is pretty much dying due to finances, and for video games, due to never being all that good in the first place.

The details I care about, like monetization, grind, and performance, are the details that most games journalists just completely skim over or they'll glaze game companies while they perform awfully here.

My way of buying games is basically watching video reviews of someone playing and mostly ignoring their commentary to figure out those details for myself.

That and benchmarks of course.... and figuring out whether they're owned by the saudi government....

Anyways, yea, video content for games both makes more sense, and more money.

I can totally get this feeling for PC/consumer electronics hardware related articles and reviews, but for video games? Meh. I won't cry.

load more comments (4 replies)

Their game reviews are worth shit all, so their only worth is reporting on the game industry itself. And that's a niche area that not many people are interested in.

[–] stringere@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 week ago

I tried contributing to game8. They only accept payment through paypal. I've closed my paypal account.

An effort was made.

load more comments
view more: next ›