Because the fields of video game journalism, research, criticism, and commentary are relatively new compared to similar coverage of traditional media, traditional sources can be somewhat rare. In addition, the simultaneous development and expansion of Internet-based sources alongside the modern video-game scene has led to a much higher degree of exclusive online coverage than is the case with other media. These factors make the determination of reliable video-game sources a complex issue.
To address this problem, this guideline provides a few general
talk page
. Remember to search the talk page archives before starting a new topic. New sources should not be added to this page until the talk page discussion has been archived.
The Internet. One of the first places that many editors look for video game sources is the internet. After using one of several
reliability. A list of sources that have been identified by the WP:VG community as reliable appears lower in this page at the Sources list
. This list is neither complete nor can it be used as definitive proof regarding a listed source's reliability determination, but it provides a good rough guide on which to base the scrutiny of sources for reliability.
Custom Google search engine. Tools are available to filter search results to target reliable sources. Editors can use Reliable Sources for Video Games (
custom Google search engine focusing on the below-listed reliable sites and filtering out many bad or non-RS sites. A second custom Google search engine, Situational Sources for Video Games, is also available to search for reliable sources on a topic. There is no guarantee a specific source is reliable even if it is listed in the search engine. Forum posts, for example, are usually non-reliable. Also, be sure to take note of the conditions and limitations required for proper use of all sources (as listed in the tables below) before relying on them. The template {{find video game sources
}} also includes a link to these custom search engines.
, sources are plentiful and easily located. Because not every source needs to be cited, editorial discretion will play a part in the exclusion of redundant and unnecessary sources. A few of the more important considerations when reviewing sources for inclusion are listed here.
Negative as well as positive reviews - It is exceptionally rare for a video game to receive universal critical praise or condemnation. For this reason, reasonable efforts should be made to reduce undue bias by presenting both perspectives on the game. For the few cases where reception is universally slanted in one direction (either positive or negative), remember that
exceptional claims require exceptional sourcing
.
Contemporary as well as modern coverage - As a general rule, reviewers of video games are inextricably tied to their temporal vantage point and because advancements in video game technology increase by leaps and bounds every few years, it is unfair to review a game in light of the game scene 20 years later. Likewise, hindsight can lead to revisionist reviews and nostalgia may lead to unduly positive scores. An effort should be made to include contemporary coverage of games if available in order to maintain
a neutral point of view
untainted by modern perceptions.
Domestic as well as foreign coverage - Because video games are cultural artifacts, when a game comes from X country, then reviews from X country can provide cultural insight that might escape foreign reviewers. Relatedly, when a game depicts Y country or aspects of it, then reviews from Y country can provide reliable, detailed, and direct reaction to the depiction. At the same time, however, when a game comes from Z country, reviews from X and Y countries will help to reduce POV and to provide an international response thereby eliminating systemic cultural biases.
Metareviews as well as individual reviews - Although metareviews tend to provide an average and roughly neutral review for games, the specific views of influential and/or well-respected individual reviewers may be of equal importance and should be presented with proper attribution despite the probability of containing a POV-heavy review. Care must be taken to avoid skewing the apparent reception by presenting disproportionate numbers of positive or negative individual reviews.
Reviews for multiple different platforms - When video games are released on more than one platform, reviews of all different versions allow readers to gain an insight on the differing perceptions of the game within different gaming subcultures. When games are rereleased or remade for later systems, reviews of all different versions allow readers to grasp the degree to which later ports and remakes were successful in evoking the original. Efforts to report reception in a
due
manner can often be enhanced by using a prose format to explain why scores on one platform are lower than those of another.
The above considerations should also be taken when seeking out sources to add content such as reception sections to video game articles.
Print sources
Print sources can improve coverage dramatically, but are often difficult to locate for video game topics—especially true when searching for sources covering the pre-Internet period (generally prior to 2000) before online sources became as established and reliable as they are in some cases today. Although it is incorrect to uncritically assume
ISSN number
) are generally preferred over unregistered journals.
While there is
no proscription against hard-to-access sources
, the fact that print sources are more difficult to verify means that it is often a good idea to include additional web-based reliable sourcing if it is available. Editors adding print-based references should also make an effort to substantiate or at least double-check their claims if they are challenged.
Fansites
Many video games have sites devoted to them that are not affiliated with the developers or publishers. These fansites enable fans to read about and discuss the game. When checked against Wikipedia guidelines such as WP:Reliable sources#What is a reliable source?, these fansites usually do not qualify as a reliable source. They frequently have little or no editorial oversight, and may be self-published (i.e., the person hosting the website is also the one writing its content). Fact-checking is often of lesser importance than publishing the latest rumours. Quoting the rule of thumb: "...the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is."
Some fansites provide forum excerpts by developers from the game's forums. Favour citing the forum post itself over the fansite's article and commentary about it. When citing a forum post on a fansite's own forum, special scrutiny is advised. Make it clear that it is the post that is cited, not the thread or forum in general. Consider forum posts like journal articles, except that in this case the "journal" is unreliable (see
WP:SPS
), but the "article" may be, because of its author. Use real names over forum nicknames where the real name is available.
In articles about video games, citing the game itself is often attractive. Wikipedia
favours secondary sources, and the use of primary sources should be minimised. Games are primary sources in articles about themselves. Whether it is good to use them as a source varies by perspective, subject and game. For a reader, it is usually very hard to use a video game to check facts. Provide transcripts wherever possible, and enable readers to check the facts themselves by noting which area, level or episode is cited. Using the later levels of games with a linear level progression as sources (without transcripts) should be avoided. The same applies to bonus levels or easter eggs
.
It is very hard to find proper sources for sections about the plot or setting of a video game without using the game itself. In many of these sections, the game itself is used as a source, but make sure that it is not the only source. Furthermore, the kind of statements that can be backed up with a reference to the game itself is limited. For example, it is impossible to use the game itself to back up that it "... takes place in a high fantasy setting".
Statements of a technical or critical nature should never contain references to the game itself. Technical details (like the type of
original research
. Criticism should not be the editor's own, but for example a reviewer's.
However, instruction booklets, player's guides, and other game-related publications may be cited as normal.
The most important sources for most video game articles are the reviews of the game itself.
Aggregate review sites such as Metacritic and GameRankings are useful in the critical reception portion of a video game article, as these list numerous reviews for a game, more than can readily be included in Wikipedia. Aggregate review sites should be handled carefully. Individual reviews should cite their original publication, not the truncated aggregator summary. Because aggregators choose which publications to include in their score, they often include reviews from less reliable sites. Additionally, the score is averaged between reviewers without regard for the different rating systems used.
Aggregated user-submitted content (e.g. "user scores" and "user polls") available on Metacritic, GameRankings, and other aggregators is not considered reliable because it is susceptible to vote-stacking and demographic skew, and because the general public has no proven expertise or credibility in the field. Similarly, sites allowing
users to submit content
, like Wikipedia itself, are often not independent, and are not reliable because they have not been checked for factual accuracy by an editor. It is also important to make a distinction between review sites and directory listings. The latter often repeat information from press releases and the game's official website, and do not constitute a reliable source for establishing notability. Their use should generally be avoided as well.
The review table template allows for an organized presentation of all relevant review scores. Only include reviews in this table if they are cited within the text.
Retailers
Retailers are only considered
red flag
as to the legitimacy of the statement, and should not be used unless confirmed by a more reliable source.
In video gaming communities, the adjective "official" is often used to describe information released by the game developer. It denotes that the information is definitive, reliable and sometimes important. This is without regard to whether said information is deemed canonical.
Merely being "official" does not guarantee that information is usable under Wikipedia's editorial standards. Information deriving from official sources but published in generally unreliable ones such as blogs, fansites, or forum posts is likely unusable. Much of what is called official often stems from primary sources such as the game itself, which should largely not be used (see above). Additionally, not all reliably sourced official information merits inclusion, and in fact the bulk of the article may be unofficial. An example of this is the release date: when the official date is at 1998 according to accurate but unreliable (by Wikipedia policy standards) information, but a reliable source writes that it is 1999, Wikipedia should include the latter. Even if one has the knowledge of memory or the word of a trustworthy individual, original research is off-limits.
The crux is that "official" is not relevant to Wikipedia standards. In fan communities, all information released by the game developers is official and important. In a Wikipedia article, information released by game developers is no different from any other reliable source; in fact, it may be less reliable under possible interpretations of the policy regarding self-published or primary sources.
self-published source about self
". As long as the interview's authenticity can be reasonably ascertained, we allow the developer's own words as a primary source when the claims are (1) not exceptional, and (2) about the team or individual making the claim. Greater claims require a secondary source with a reputation for editorial quality. Whenever possible, prefer the editorial distance of a reliable, secondary source over a primary source interview.
Sourcing style
Main articles:
MOS:ITALICS
When citing a print magazine, the name of the magazine should be written in italics. Likewise for the video games themselves. The usage of italics for an online source depends on the nature of its content, and is detailed in the
cite
}} handle this sort of thing for you automatically.
The following is a list of sources that have been established as reliable in the field of video gaming per past consensus. If you know of a source that is not listed and you cannot find any previous discussion regarding a source's reliability, start a discussion on the talk page before adding them below. Remember to examine the limitations listed for each situational source in the tables below. "Media" refers to the publication's principal means of content delivery.
This list is not meant to be exhaustive and only covers works that regularly report on video games and the industry. Sources that otherwise are considered
accurate information for medical sciences
.
Consensus can change
, so any sources on this page may be upgraded or downgraded based on further discussion.
Ensure that the content is staff authored, not user generated. Older reviews and reviews by freelancers may look as though they are by "members" and not "staff" - this is misleading, all their main reviews are by staff, user generated content are marked in the URL as "user-reviews". Do not use release dates from their game overview pages, as their database is shared by GameFAQs, which is unreliable. Belgium, China, Netherlands, UK, USA.
Head editor is Gamasutra author Kurt Kalata. Content written by him or Retro Gamer's John Szczepaniak are very reliable. All content is edited by Kalata before publishing, and should be considered acceptable, but take additional care with claims made by other authors and in older articles. HCG101 has been cited by many other reliable sources.
Shared database with GameSpy. Make sure news items are not user-submitted info or blog postings; blog postings from site staff are most likely acceptable. Articles submitted by N-Sider (such as [1]) should be avoided per this discussion.
Specializes in Japanese game news and is considered reliable for news and interviews in this domain. Should be replaced with a higher-quality source where possible.
Wikipedia makes no restriction on the use of non-English language sources (see
WP:NOENG
), but editors should take care to verify any translation into English and not simply rely on something like Google Translate, particularly for potentially contentious information.
Older issues deal with computers in general as the magazine transitioned to computer/video gaming. As of September 2003 the print magazine is known as MeadiaMixx Gaming Magazine.
In addition to its own editorial, GameBonfire has official licenses to translate articles from Famitsu, Game Informer, and Polygon into Chinese, among other reliable sources. This website has been evaluated by the WPVG on zhwiki and thus is 'presumed' reliable.
Chinese language site that partners with 4Gamer. Although it accepts user-submitted articles, these are clearly marked; articles by staff are 'presumed' reliable. This website has been evaluated by the WPVG on zhwiki and thus is 'presumed' reliable.
This magazine has been evaluated by the WPVG on zhwiki and thus is 'presumed' reliable. Also consider other defunct Chinese language magazines including "家用电脑与游戏" Play, "电子游戏软件" lit. Video Game Software, "大众软件" lit. The Masses Software, and "软件与光盘" lit. Software and Disc.
Focus on video game development, for video game developers.
Rebranded from Gamasutra to Game Developer on August 26, 2021.[5] Content published on the site prior to that date should be considered published by "Gamasutra", and content after that date to "Game Developer".
The site and its staff have been cited in numerous publications and have been the subject of multiple interviews by online gaming news sites with several of its members receiving prestigious awards for their work. (See
Aggregate sites take scores from various publications and provide an aggregated value, which may be weighted based on various internal criteria. Only use aggregators for aggregate scores; scores from individual reliable publications should be retrieved directly from the publication.
Weights the scores of publications "based on their quality and overall stature." ([10]). Do not use their release dates, as their database is shared by GameFAQs, which is unreliable.
OpenCritic provides two metrics of review aggregation: "Top Critic Average", an average score similar to Metacritic's Metascores, and "Critics Recommend", a percentage of positive reviews similar to Rotten Tomatoes' Tomatometer. Top Critic Averages should only be used if a Metascore does not exist since it is usually too similar to add anything, but Critics Recommend can be used alongside Metacritic as it is a distinct form of measurement that serves a different purpose.
Sources are often direct from gaming companies or have close ties to them. Generally very reliable for the facts but should be avoided for opinions, and do not establish
Officially-sanctioned strategy guides. Prima published physical guides until 2019, when it transitioned to online-only. Some guides contain commentary from and interviews with game developers.
While these sites are defunct, with content either merged into other sites or otherwise lost, they can still appear in web searches, and if you can find a link, you can use Archive.org's Wayback Machine to see if a copy exists there. The content of these are still considered reliable.
An extension of AllMusic by the same company for video games. There is a consensus that AllGame is usable for reviews, with attribution. However, some editors question the accuracy of its raw database for facts such as genre and credits, and recommend more reliable sources when available. Only games with full prose reviews count towards notability, and raw database listings do not.
The print version of this magazine was suspended for a while and reappeared in a bi-monthly form (CVG Presents) focusing each issue on the life history of a single games franchise. Ceased publication sometime during 2009. Website is a separate entity and unaffected by changes. CVG (1981–2004), CVG Presents (2008–2009)
Only counts sites which produce a stipulated minimum volume of output ([12]). Do not use their release dates, as their database is shared by GameFAQs, which is unreliable.
AOL property with salaried staff. GameDaily was merged with Joystiq following the former's closure. Closed in 2015, a cut down version was merged into Engadget.
Also known as Nintendo Official Magazine (NOM) and Nintendo Magazine System (NMS). The magazine was relaunched with a new first issue after Future plc obtained the publishing rights in 2006.
Dexerto is a tabloid publication that rarely engages in serious journalism; while it may be used as a source on a case by case basis (with some editors arguing for the reliability of its esports coverage), it is usually better to find an alternative source, and it is rarely suitable for use on
Formerly Escapist Magazine. Between October 2017 and July 2018, most content (except for Zero Punctuation) was written by volunteers without staff oversight and should be handled with care
Forbes publishes content from salaried Forbes staff, and a vetted community of non-salaried Forbes contributors (indicated by "Contributor" in the author's by-line). Articles written by Forbes staff are reliable. Articles written by Forbes contributors do not have the same editorial oversight and may not be reliable. Editors are encouraged to find alternatives to contributor pieces.
Reliable for reviews and news content submitted in the site's blog by the site's editorial staff. Do not use the user-contributed content from the site's wikis for citations. Do not use their release dates, as their database is shared by GameFAQs, which is unreliable.
Use should be restricted to opinions only. Editorial policy/team not present. Sole operation by James Stephanie Sterling. This site cannot be used to demonstrate notability.
News posts from Kotaku between 2010 and 2022 are considered reliable, although editors are cautioned of blog/geeky posts that have little news or reporting significance (such as [13]). Articles published before 2010 had comparatively weaker editorial standards, while articles published from 2023 onward should generally be avoided due to content farming concerns and unmarked AI-written content. It should be noted that this is not a definitive cut-off—editorial deterioration is gradual, and editors have noted instances of low-quality reporting in preceding years—so articles should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
Blog and original reporting focusing on women in "geek culture". Original reporting is reliable and original blogging may be appropriate for editorial/opinions, but reblogged content is not.
Shmuplations is a website containing translations of old interviews with Japanese game developers. It is particularly useful for finding interviews that cannot be found anywhere on the internet, and the translations are accurate. However, if the original source can be located, it is preferred to cite that instead of Shmuplations.
TG is one of the first authorities on video game record-setting (mainly score attack), having endured a hiatus and change of ownership with a new site. For modern records and for speed runs, consider Speed Demos Archive and Guinness.
Content when owned by pro-gmedia (2004-2017) generally considered reliable. Reliability when owned by Resero Network (2017-2022) not established. Considered unreliable since purchase by BGFG (2022 onwards) as site looks to be low-quality content mill using AI/translation tools with little editorial oversight.
Valnet-owned properties, in particular, have repeatedly been discussed and found to be of questionable reliability. Most have situational designations at this time, if not considered outright unreliable. In particular, by mid-2023 several publications were said to have seen staff layoffs and expansion of AI content. In general, these sites should not be used to demonstrate notability outside of periods they were considered reliable or prior to being purchased by Valnet, due to concerns over
Considered unreliable prior to 2022 discussion. Current consensus is that it is not a high quality source. Some content may be user-generated (similarly to Forbes contributors). Other content may be usable, but the source should be replaced when possible. Should be entirely excluded from
Consensus is that it is not a high quality source, to be treated with caution and excluded from
BLP
pages. Topics of low potential for controversy such as general pop culture topics or game information are allowable areas. Sometimes erroneously spelled "Gamerant".
News posts and original content after August 2020 are considered generally reliable. Several editorial staff have bylines highlighting their experience working with other reputable video game media outlets such as VG247.
. When using archived versions of about.com: This site should generally be used for its sources rather than for its content. Use of this site's content is restricted to signed post-2005 content depending on the reliability of the individual author, and specifically barring its use for fringe theories and BLPs. Articles sourced to Wikipedia are also to be excluded.
Content from the site's staff are approved sources given their collective industry experience. Articles where the author is listed as "Community Writer" are not to be used.
Authorship was composed of several independent games journalist, some with a strong history in gaming journalism, working together as a "Game Trust". Reliability should be based on author. (defunct)
Use of this site should be restricted to casual games and only if the review is written by Jay Bibby. This site cannot be used to demonstrate notability.
Uses published stats and game ownership information to make educated guesses as to sales numbers on Steam. Should never be used directly to support sales numbers, but may be used if sales estimated by Steam Spy are noted by a third-party. Should never be used if there have been actual sales numbers published by another source (publisher directly, NPD Group, etc.) at some point. Prose analysis of overall purchasing trends in the market based on estimated sales may be usable on case-by-case.
These sources have been discussed but no resolution for their reliability is available. They have not been discussed at sufficient length to achieve consensus.