This page is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles
This talk page is for discussing the
reliability of sources for use in video game articles. If you are wondering if a video game source is reliable enough to use on Wikipedia, this is the place to ask.
When posting a new topic, please add a link to the topic on the
Video Game Sources Checklist after the entry for the site. If an entry for the site does not exist, create one for it and include the link to the topic afterward. Also, begin each topic by adding {{
subst:find video game sources|...site name...|linksearch=...site URL...}} in order to provide other users with some easily accessible links to check up on the source.
GMR is a
Ziff Davis US magazine that provided computer and console game reviews from 2003 to 2005. The magazine had an editorial board and the magazines were closely linked to online content on the
1Up Network website, a reliable source under
WP:VG/S. Given the publisher, plenty of the contributors turn up in other reliable sources, such as Greg Orlando, Che Chou and Ryan Scott. The only thing that is unusual is that the magazines were sold in Electronics Boutique. But it's a
Ziff Davis publication and the review scores suggest this had no more of an impact on editorial independence than compared to other magazine reviews. You can find all the issues on the Internet Archive.
Hardcore Gamer, a currently reliable source that has been considered such for nearly two decades,
was purchased by Valnet around a year ago. Knowing the status on Valnet sources here, a new discussion on the status of Hardcore Gamer is needed. Even if they weren't purchased by Valnet, the source was last assessed in 2006.
From what I see, while they publish a lot of game guide content, they still seem to publish decent reviews and appear to publish higher quality content than sites like CBR on average. Maybe it could still generally be used to demonstrate notability even after being purchased by Valnet? Some opinions here would be appreciated. λNegativeMP1 20:15, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
They still seem okay for now. I agree that their content is higher quality than other Valnet sources. That may change in the future, but if they're still decent today I wouldn't preemptively downgrade them. As a personal anecdote, I really liked
Marcus Estrada who covered a lot of niche Japanese/Visual Novel stuff that otherwise wouldn't get much English RS coverage. But it seems like he was a casualty of the Valnet acquisition, so RIP using him as a source.
CurlyWi (
talk) 18:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I agree. Let's not be too purist about it. Valnet might be a red flag for some people, but it's not an instant disqualification. Organizations don't instantly change the moment they are acquired by new owners, and Hardcore Gaming seems to be holding its level of quality for now.
Shooterwalker (
talk) 21:21, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Well, I guess that would explain a few things. Some of their articles are terrible. I can't provide links because it's just a passing thought I've had while trying to source articles. If the ratio of good to terrible becomes worse, I guess we can revisit this. It'd be a pain in the ass for me, though, because I lean on this source more than I'd like to demonstrate notability for indie games.
NinjaRobotPirate (
talk) 04:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Shouldn't affect previously reliable coverage, but might affect things going forward.
Axem Titanium (
talk) 22:36, 30 April 2024 (UTC)reply
CBR
Just out of curiosity, is there any reason why CBR is listed as less reliable than other Valnet sources? -
Cukie Gherkin (
talk) 18:29, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I've been wondering the same thing. I think it should be treated like the other Valent sources; reliable pre-buyout and situational post-buyout. You can argue that it should be generally unreliable since 2023, due to the AI content, but otherwise, I would have it marked situational post-buyout.
MoonJet (
talk) 06:09, 30 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I agree with the above, though I will mention the claims AI content seems to have been a false flag, as we haven't seen signs of it and Valnet themselves stated it wasn't something they were pursuing (yet). Until we actually see evidence, I don't see a reason to go full unreliable at this time.--
Kung Fu Man (
talk) 06:19, 30 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Quick quote that I posted elsewhere before, but if they're not using AI, then I'd question their editorial standards even more when adding in 'hallucinated' information like this example:
> I saw them recently mentioned for
an inaccurate article where they've used ANN as a source but seemingly made up some extra details that can't be found on the ANN article or the original Japanese source such as English voice acting.
DarkeruTomoe (
talk) 08:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)reply
A few quotes from other times this has been discussed that may add context
> CBR was a great source that had many experienced writers and received numerous awards for their journalism throughout the 2000s and early 2010s. In 2016, they were acquired by Valnet and most of their writers left as they shifted to churnalism
> I saw them recently mentioned for
an inaccurate article where they've used ANN as a source but seemingly made up some extra details that can't be found on the ANN article or the original Japanese source such as English voice acting.
DarkeruTomoe (
talk) 08:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The CEO Noah Roman isn't particularly qualified in terms of journalism/etc instead having qualifications on the ICT side, but the Managing Editor Raul Ochoa has experience as a News Writer at Games Rant (Valnet, Situational) and a degree in journalism which is somewhat promising at least.
There's no Editorial policy that I can see. They talk a little bit about their ethos and having standards that writers need to meet but that's it.
They note that a large portion of their writers started without any experience.
Their content seems good overall from what I've seen. They're on OpenCritic and have quite a bit of industry access which does indicate a certain minimum level of professionalism and notability, though shouldn't be taken as evidence alone.
DarkeruTomoe (
talk) 08:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Unreliable - no editorial policy and largely uncredentialed writers...
Sergecross73msg me 20:48, 15 May 2024 (UTC)reply
GameLuster as a source?
Currently working on
Draft:Papa Louie (game series) and found a great review by GameLuster, but didn't see this listed under any sources or in this talk archive. They seem to have a dedicated writing/senior staff where they do both reviews and game news:
https://gameluster.com/
Would love to get input on this source and how reliable it may be.
Squiddyonwiki (
talk) 20:31, 4 May 2024 (UTC)reply
They have staff. However, they apparently don't have any notable credentials. Some mention having graduated from some universities, but most of them just mention being "big fans of Nintendo" or something. Maybe it could be useful for Brazilian-related topics, but I think there's better options. Skyshiftertalk 19:24, 12 May 2024 (UTC)reply
On some spot checks, I see Victor Vitório also writes for PSX Brasil (no reliability discussion that I can see but on MetaCritic) and the other high level staff only seem to work for Nintendo Blast and the presumably related GameBlast.com.br. At least one of their regular writers writes for an unreliable site (Ivanir Ignacchitti at NoisyPixel) but the rest of the 10 or so I checked didn't seem to write elsewhere and some only had a few reviews under their belt.
I can't see anything like an Editorial policy which isn't too promising either.
More promising is a few mentions of high education or experience with things like having had books published or some game development experience.
DarkeruTomoe (
talk) 19:33, 15 May 2024 (UTC)reply