AI this. AI that. You hear the word so much that it’s becoming part of a daily routine. And of course, many of us try our best to ignore it, like putting our heads in the sand. But we all know that simply isn’t possible. Day by day, AI moves ever closer to becoming part of our lives. But what happens when it not only becomes part of our lives, but sneaks its way into places we simply don’t want it to be? For myself, and for the scores of gaming journalists out there, that’s exactly what’s happening right now.
You see, Capcom’s greatly anticipated Resident Evil Requiem / Resident Evil 9 was put into the hands of game reviewers and content creators. As per usual, we say goodbye to our lives, locked ourselves in a dark room, and played until we beat it, and then got to writing about the experience. Well, most of us did exactly that. But one outlet, once a major player in the gaming scene, Videogamer.com, did something I still can’t wrap my head around.
They used AI to write its entire review. No, that’s not even the worst part. They lied. They lied to the PR company that provided them a code. They lied to Capcom, telling the company they loved its game. They lied to readers who trusted them. And to be honest, the review was terrible, even more so than perhaps running into a real-life zombie. I’m not going even going to link to that review, but you know where to go if you want to read it for yourself.
What do I mean when I say they lied? Let me take it from the top. Sometime in February 2026, the owners of the outlet reportedly fired most of their human staff and replaced them with AI writers. Multiple former editors confirmed the shift toward automated content creation, mainly AI slop. There may still be humans involved, but from what’s been said, their role seems limited to overseeing whatever the AI spits out and hopefully catching obvious mistakes. Which doesn’t seem to be working out for them.
Ok… now that you’re filled in, let’s talk about the crime.
Fast-forward to February 25, 2026, embargo day. Reviews for Resident Evil Requiem went live across the internet as outlets and creators hit publish. Speaking of which, we have a Resident Evil Requiem review. Have you read or watched it yet? You should. It’s really good. Anyway, back to the crime.
As fans began combing through reviews, one in particular stood out, and not in a good way. It didn’t read like a review. It read like a word salad. It barely discussed the game in any meaningful way. It was incoherent, and nothing in it would help anyone help decide if they wanted to play the game or not. Naturally, people began questioning it because it didn’t seem real. I wasn’t even aware of the situation at first.
The only reason I started putting two and two together was because of an email from Metacritic, a site we fought tooth and nail to be included on, arrived in my inbox. An email that genuinely made me stop and think, “what the hell is going on?” “Were we being blamed for writing a review with an AI?”
Our policy is that we will never include an AI-generated review on Metacritic, and that if we subsequently discover that one has been posted we will remove it immediately and sever ties with that publication upon an investigation.
What? Who would even try something like that? Especially in a volatile, cutthroat industry like this? Well, I’d find out who, much to my disappointment.
After jumping into our Discord, I found out that Videogamer.com had done the unthinkable. They allegedly created a fake persona using AI, built out a bio page to make it look legitimate, and published an AI-generated review of Resident Evil Requiem under that fabricated identity, assuming no one would notice. Brian Merrygold, a fake person, with a fake avatar image and one that referenced Chat GPT. Wait. Did they just tell an AI to make up a person to use for this article? Yes. The answer is yes.
Oh, and people noticed. By the time I dug into it myself, the internet had already caught wind of the situation. It spread quickly. A travesty, to say the least. And more than that, a warning sign. If it happened here, how many other outlets are experimenting with the same thing behind closed doors?
Thankfully, Metacritic pushed back. The review was removed and, as far as I’m aware, Videogamer.com is now banned from the platform. But that doesn’t feel like enough. Actions like this shouldn’t just result in a slap on the wrist, there should be consequences across the board. No more early access. No preview builds. No review codes. Nothing. Because what happened here wasn’t just lazy, it was dishonest. It showed a complete lack of respect for developers, PR teams, and readers alike. Whoever is running the show for this outlet needs to rethink its plans or even better, sell the domain to someone who actually gives a damn about it.
As for Metacritic, I applaud them for their actions. More so, this needs to set a precedent. It needs to show other outlets, creators, anyone operating in the gaming space, that this kind of behavior won’t be tolerated. Not now. Not ever. The line needs to be drawn and for anyone attempting to do the same, they need to understand that there will be consequences.
Sadly, I don’t think this will be the last time we see something like this happen. However, thanks to this incident, at the very least, everyone will be more alert and ready to ensure we don’t get bamboozled again.
