Fact check: Games journalists provide nothing of value to Gamers. They exists simply to provide paid positive reviews to games like Star Wars: Outlaws, Dragon Age: The Veilguard and Assassin's Creed Shadows, all games that the actual gaming player base found to be far less enjoyable (For christ sakes, they IGN gave Concord a 7/10 and that game was unplayable) Their evaluations of games do not match up with gamers in the slightest.

1. Summary of the results

The relationship between gaming journalism and its audience is more complex than the original statement suggests. While there are documented issues with modern gaming journalism, including shifts from objective reporting to more ideologically-driven coverage ^[1], it would be an overstatement to claim they provide "nothing of value." The evolution from traditional print magazines like GamePro and EGM to modern digital platforms has indeed brought significant changes to how games are reviewed and covered ^[1].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

Several important contextual elements are missing from the original statement:

• Historical Evolution: The gaming journalism landscape has undergone a significant transformation from print to digital media, which has affected review methodologies and standards ^[1]
• Systemic Issues: The problems in gaming journalism appear to be more systemic rather than universal, suggesting structural challenges rather than individual failings ^[1]
• Multiple Factors: Modern gaming websites face various pressures, including:
• The need to balance traditional gameplay assessment with broader cultural commentary
• Potential conflicts of interest with game publishers
• The challenge of maintaining technical expertise while covering an increasingly complex industry ^[1]

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original statement contains several oversimplifications and potential biases:

• Absolute Dismissal: The claim that gaming journalists provide "nothing of value" is an extreme position not supported by the available analyses ^[1]
• Cherry-Picking: While the Concord review is cited as an example, using single instances to dismiss an entire profession oversimplifies the issue ^[1]
• Beneficiaries of Different Narratives:
• Game publishers benefit from positive reviews regardless of game quality
• Gaming websites like Kotaku, Polygon, and IGN benefit from maintaining relationships with publishers while attempting to serve their audience ^[1]
• Traditional gaming audiences benefit from pushing the narrative that modern gaming journalism has "fallen from grace" compared to earlier eras ^[1]