Table of Contents

What Is Video Game Journalism?

Video game journalism is the reporting, reviewing, and critical analysis of video games and the gaming industry. It covers everything from review scores that influence millions of purchase decisions to investigative reporting on studio working conditions to cultural criticism examining what games say about society. It’s journalism applied to a $180 billion industry — with all the usual tensions between access, independence, and audience expectations.

What It Actually Covers

Game journalism spans several distinct formats:

Reviews — The most visible output. A reviewer plays a game (ideally to completion) and publishes an assessment of its quality. Reviews typically evaluate gameplay mechanics, story, visuals, sound, performance, and value. The numerical score often gets more attention than the actual written analysis, which is a persistent frustration for critics who spend thousands of words explaining nuance only to have readers skip to the number.

News reporting — Game announcements, studio acquisitions, release dates, platform launches, earnings reports, and industry events. The Games industry operates with significant secrecy (NDAs and embargoes are standard), making genuine news breaks relatively rare and highly valued.

Features and longform — In-depth pieces about game development, studio culture, industry trends, and game history. Jason Schreier’s reporting on crunch culture at major studios (Rockstar, BioWare, Naughty Dog) has influenced industry labor practices more than any review score.

Criticism and analysis — Academic-adjacent writing that examines games as cultural works. What does this game say about violence, identity, politics, or human nature? This category generates the most passionate reader responses — and the most controversy.

Guides and walkthroughs — Practical content helping players work through difficult sections, find secrets, or optimize builds. This category drives enormous traffic and has become central to the business model of major outlets.

A Brief History

Print era (1980s-2000s) — Magazines like Electronic Gaming Monthly, GamePro, PC Gamer, and Edge were the primary sources of game information. In an era before broadband internet, monthly magazines provided the only previews and reviews most gamers could access. The influence was enormous — a cover story could make a game’s marketing campaign.

Web 1.0 (late 1990s-2000s) — Sites like IGN, GameSpot, and Kotaku emerged, offering faster coverage than print could match. The transition was brutal for magazines — most folded or went digital-only. The web also introduced reader comments, which… changed the active.

YouTube era (2010s) — Video reviewers and commentators gained audiences rivaling or exceeding traditional outlets. Channels like Angry Joe Show, Jim Sterling (now Stephanie Sterling), SkillUp, and ACG demonstrated that personality-driven video criticism could be more engaging than written reviews for many audiences.

Creator economy (2020s) — The line between journalist, critic, content creator, and influencer has blurred significantly. Newsletters (via Substack and similar platforms), podcasts, and YouTube channels operated by individuals or small teams have fragmented the audience. Some traditional outlets have shrunk or closed. New models continue to emerge.

The Score Problem

Review scores are game journalism’s most contentious feature. A 7/10 sounds reasonable — above average. In practice, the gaming industry treats anything below 8/10 as a failure. Developer bonuses have been tied to Metacritic scores. Publisher stock prices react to aggregate review scores.

This creates several problems. Score compression means the effective range is 7-10 rather than 1-10. A 6/10 game (which should mean “above average”) gets treated as a disaster. Different reviewers use scales differently — one person’s 7 is another’s 8.

Some outlets have responded by dropping scores entirely (Eurogamer, Kotaku at various points). Others use simplified scales (buy/wait/skip). The tension between nuanced criticism and a reductive number has never been resolved.

The Access Problem

Game journalism depends on publisher cooperation. Review copies arrive weeks before launch (or sometimes on launch day, a red flag). Press events provide hands-on previews. Interviews with developers require PR approval. Advertising revenue comes from game publishers.

This creates an inherent tension. An outlet that writes consistently negative coverage risks losing early access, advertising, and exclusive content. Most reputable outlets maintain editorial independence — their review team operates separately from their business team. But the perception of coziness with publishers is a recurring credibility challenge.

The rise of independent reviewers has partly addressed this. A solo YouTuber who buys games at retail has no access relationship to protect. But independence comes with its own challenges — less access to developers, no institutional editorial standards, and potential bias from sponsorship deals and affiliate links.

The Labor Realities

Game journalism pays poorly relative to the expertise required. Reviewing a 60-hour RPG properly takes weeks of play time plus writing and editing time. Freelance rates for game reviews often work out to well below minimum wage when you calculate hours played plus writing time.

Staff positions are scarce and increasingly unstable. Major outlets have undergone multiple rounds of layoffs. The business model — primarily advertising-driven — struggles as ad rates decline and audience attention fragments across platforms.

Despite these challenges, the field continues to attract talented writers, critics, and creators who genuinely care about games as a medium. The best game journalism combines the rigor of traditional reporting with the critical insight of arts criticism and genuine expertise in the subject matter. Finding ways to sustain that work economically remains the field’s biggest unresolved challenge.

Frequently Asked Questions

How do game review scores work?

Most outlets use a scale of 1-10 or 1-100. Metacritic aggregates these into a single score that significantly influences game sales and developer bonuses. The practical range is narrow — a score below 7/10 is considered poor by industry standards, even though that should be 'above average.' This score compression has been widely criticized, and some outlets have moved to scoreless reviews or simplified recommendation systems.

Can you make a living as a game journalist?

It's possible but challenging. Staff positions at major outlets (IGN, GameSpot, Polygon, Kotaku) pay $40,000-$80,000 depending on experience and location. Freelance rates vary from $0.10 to $1.00+ per word. The field is competitive, with many aspiring writers willing to work for low pay or free. Many game journalists supplement income through YouTube, streaming, or work in adjacent fields like PR or marketing.

Is game journalism biased?

Like all journalism, it has inherent tensions. Publishers provide review copies and advertising revenue, creating potential conflicts of interest. Most reputable outlets maintain editorial independence from advertising, and many have written ethics policies. The rise of independent creators (YouTube reviewers, newsletter writers) has diversified perspectives but introduced new bias questions around sponsorship deals and affiliate links.

Further Reading

• Society of Professional Journalists
• Columbia Journalism Review
• Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard