Video game journalists have been under criticism after Gamergate, with consumers questioning whether the content they’re producing is legitimate or a farce and the huge increase in harassment of women hasn’t helped either. With reviews, in general, have generating a myriad criticism with consumers, voicing their concerns powerfully. The evolution of new mediums to watch and produce content on the internet have made these voices louder and larger. We have so many sources that look from various angles for each game release, news story and opinions with unbelievable speeds. Yet a sense of doubt still lingers about whether the information is legitimate. How do we know who is telling the truth, who can we trust and why? Do we put faith in developers, publishers, consumers or even ourselves?

Information delivery is the center of all these problems: who do we trust and why? If information is corrupted we then lose faith in that disruptor and turn to other competitors who promise to deliver valid data. Whether it’s about the video game industry, global politics or basically anything that attracts traffic. However, during the 1990s, the way we obtained this information was racially different.

It wasn’t always easy to watch, or read, a video game review. During the 1990s, computers were a rare commodity for most people. Only those with a large sum of income could afford one of these glorious machines, and those who did purchase one didn’t have the level of freedom we have today. Obtaining information was still a difficult process due to connectively speeds and limited options to link to the internet. Those who sought after the latest in video game news and reviews would have to wait, and purchase, the latest issue of Game Informer, watch television, or ask friends and family to understand what’s currently happening.

I remember being in the dark for what was going on within the video game industry. Waiting for someone to introduce new information about the latest game, console in development or rumor. Looking back and realizing the large amount of sources that I now use to gather this same information is remarkable. Instead of waiting patiently I can immediately log into NoobFeed, IGN, GameSpot, Twinfinite, Game Assault Weekly, Rooster Teeth, Giant Bomb, Machinima, or any of the various sites to find out the latest news. Best of all I’m no longer limited to one or two voices to create a solid opinion, now I have over tens who can explain what is going on and with this determine whether it’s valid or lacking. However, despite this, rumors of biased information or bribery still haunt these outlets, with people criticizing whether these companies are worth believing.

When a review is released the first comments that usually appear within the comments are negative criticisms, outlining why the review is wrong. Let’s look at the review for Naughty Dog’s The Last of Us. Eurogamer, GamesRadar, IGN, NoobFeed and various other sites praised the game, giving Naughty Dog’s new IP near perfect scores. However, other sites, such as GameSpot, gave the game a lower score than the other sites. Commenters criticized Tom Mc Shea with his valid claims of why he gave the game a 8/10 instead of the near-perfect scores from other sites. While his critiques were valid, pointing out the lack of exploration and weak story, he still highlighted the same strengths, such as the voice-acting and brutality of the game’s combat to justify his score. But this of course didn’t faze a lot of commenters who attack without mercy.

As a consumer we expect these sites to produce a review free from outside influence. This ensure that the product we’re choosing to buy is up to the standards that we expect from the final product. Last year a multitude of broken games were released with positive reviews. Games like Assassin’s Creed Unity and Halo: The Master Chief Collection causing massive issues that caused the publishers to release a constant stream of patches to resolve the problems and provide free content to the consumers who invested into these products.

It’s a troubling issue for video game hobbyist. Credibility tarnished through flimsy products and companies delivering false information creates a cycle of deceit. However, with so many sources trusting one person isn’t ideal, instead listen to multiple voices. If the same information is constant we can assume that it is true. Learning what one says about a specific topic and viewing changes in other sources it how you determine the validity of the information at hand. And while news stories do vary opinions are not facts, simply the view of a specific individual.

New stories are a lot easier to analyze; we simply have to check the source and how other publications wrote about the same story. Opinion pieces are bit more difficult, as I’ve discussed. It’s the view of the individual of why certain things are terrible, entertaining, better, worst or simply boring. Yes one can strengthen their argument through proper reasoning and examples but ultimately it’s up to the reader, or viewer if it’s a video, of whether they agree or not. Someone could give a detailed reason why The Witcher 2: Assassins of Kings is better than Dragon Age: Origins but that argument could go both ways and foster a multitude of fan-based arguments filled with vulgar language and lackluster bickering. The person you can trust the most is yourself, after all you determining whether you want to purchase something or visit a publication. It’s less about who we trust and more about who you trust.

Adam Siddiqui, NoobFeed
Twitter | YouTube | Facebook