We live in a world where video games are a literal way of life. For many, a single day can’t go by without playing a game. What’s more, the internet is full of sites that cover game news, give game reviews, show videos of playthroughs, etc. But, with all of that, there are also those who claim to have played the games, but actually haven’t. Fake reviews are sadly a way of life. But what’s more, some sites don’t go as in depth as they should when talking about titles.
For Redditor Andinator, this strikes him as odd. He’s seen websites talk about games, but then not how little they actually played them before stopping out of boredom or something like that. This made him ask the question, should journalists have to do a certain amount of playing before talking about the game?
Ironically, it was a comment on the thread that really hits the nail on the head for this question. The comment basically stated that it depends on what discussion is going on. For example, if it’s a review, or any kind of “complete” breakdown, then yeah, the journalist should definitely try and beat the game before reviewing it. However, if it’s a simple impressions, or a “first look”, or a demo breakdown, there’s no real reason to go far, especially if they aren’t “grabbed” by what they are seeing.
It’s a fine line for sure, and it’s one that many people walk, and it is up to fans to help try and keep these journalists honest. For if the integrity of these sites are in questions, it needs to be voiced so we can get answers.
After all, we value other people’s opinions, but it’d be nice to know they’re giving accurate ones, and not just guesses.