backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 94 comment(s) - last by SandmanWN.. on Dec 3 at 1:30 AM
Blasting Kane & Lynch may have left Jeff Gerstmann swinging in the breeze

When deciding what game to spend their hard earned dollars on, players often turn to review sites for information if playable demos are not available. Naturally, one would hope that the writers for these review sites are remaining unbiased in their views of a game -- if it's wonderful, say as much, if it's flawed, point it out, and if it's absolute rubbish, leave it at the side of the curb for pickup.

Unfortunately, when the game in question is the same one that the front page of the website is devoting a banner ad and a full-background splash to, problems can arise. What began as a rumor across gaming forums worldwide last night has been all but confirmed early this morning -- GameSpot's editorial director, Jeff Gerstmann, has been fired for writing a negative review.

While the text-based review for Kane & Lynch: Dead Men certainly doesn't paint a sparkling picture of the game, it makes it seem like a AAA title compared to the brutally scathing video review. When many of the same written words are spoken, the context and inflection of "Kane & Lynch is an ugly, ugly game" and "if you have a chance to see it, take a look - but it's probably not worth the purchase" takes it down to a whole new (lower) level of garbage.

In a bit of prophetic cartooning, Penny Arcade posted a comic outside of their usual schedule (language may offend some) up last night, showing poor Mr. Gerstmann being asked if he understands the connection between the torrent of Kane & Lynch advertisements and the box of his possessions outside his locked office.

While Jeff has responded to Joystiq confirming his termination, he stated that he was "not really able to comment on the specifics of (his) termination" at this time. Joystiq has promised to continue digging, but already the Eidos forums have come under attack from legions of angry fans, which required them to be taken offline and restored to a snapshot from Thursday -- currently, some members are reporting that they are completely unable to post.

The Kane & Lynch user review score on GameSpot has also rapidly plummeted -- currently sitting at 3.9 -- as reviews of "1.0 - Abysmal" flood in from disgruntled users.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
wow
By Moishe on 11/30/2007 10:16:36 AM , Rating: 5
If that's true (and if the review was honest)... it's seriously messed up and GameSpot deserves a beating over it.




RE: wow
By SandmanWN on 11/30/07, Rating: -1
RE: wow
By Sahrin on 11/30/2007 10:27:38 AM , Rating: 5
"Hey boss, I don't really want to do the work that you're paying me to do because I don't like it."

"You're fired."

Different Situation. Same Outcome.


RE: wow
By SandmanWN on 11/30/07, Rating: -1
RE: wow
By DigitalFreak on 11/30/07, Rating: 0
RE: wow
By Moishe on 11/30/2007 11:20:35 AM , Rating: 3
pretty extreme? his post is just about as worthless as 50% of the posts on this site including some of mine, and yours.


RE: wow
By cochy on 11/30/2007 12:38:59 PM , Rating: 3
points for making me laugh though heheh


RE: wow
By SandmanWN on 11/30/07, Rating: -1
RE: wow
By Treckin on 11/30/2007 3:18:59 PM , Rating: 5
Oh wow.
I.
Think.
You.
Just.
Proved that playing violent video games, coupled with the certain destiny of remaining a virgin for the remainder of your miserable life causes violent and idiotic tendencies within prepubescent males...

Also, Jesus just took a dump on your eternal soul :P


RE: wow
By SandmanWN on 11/30/07, Rating: -1
RE: wow
By Sahrin on 11/30/2007 10:39:11 AM , Rating: 5
Ad hominem.

To allow a writer to decline writing something due to an inherent bias requires a very high degree of integrity as a news service.

Gamespot clearly lacks the integrity necessary, if they chose to fire a writer based on a negative review of a client's products. They pay him to create content - not to report the company line. It's fundamental.

Either you're saying he should have been honest with his dishonest bosses, in which case it seems he would've been fired anyways; OR you're suggesting he should've stuck his head in the sand and "towed the company line" to save his neck, sacrificing his integrity, the integrity of Gamespot and betraying his audience.

Now how do I "know nothing about" this situation?


RE: wow
By Parhel on 11/30/2007 10:52:10 AM , Rating: 3
That's just not how it works for professional writers.

A professional critic shouldn't have to decline writing a review due to a bias. Roger Ebert doesn't slam each and every movie of a particular genre that comes up. Why? Because he's a professional.

If a particular reviewer only wanted to review FPS, I would seriously question whether that person possessed the necessary qualities to write reviews. If I were that person's boss, I wouldn't accept it.

That said, if the game sucks and they fired this man for doing his job and telling it like it is, I will never trust another Gamespot review again and probably wouldn't even go to their site.


RE: wow
By Sahrin on 11/30/2007 11:09:54 AM , Rating: 2
Wow...you just took what I said, and restated it with more words.

I was granting the premise of the poster to whom I replied in order to show the logical fallacy of his argument.

Doesn't mean I subscribe to his views.


RE: wow
By Parhel on 11/30/2007 11:25:19 AM , Rating: 2
Sorry, I must have misunderstood you.


RE: wow
By SandmanWN on 11/30/07, Rating: 0
RE: wow
By Sahrin on 11/30/2007 5:55:34 PM , Rating: 2
The two statements by him are conflicting.

Here are the two statements I made: (in summary)

It requires a lot of integrity on the part of the news service to allow a writer to decline to write a story based on bias. (This comment was made in response to your assertion that the writer 'might not like FPS's, it might just be bias' - for which you provided no evidence).

I think went on to say that Gamespot, if it fired a reporter for writing a legitimate piece, lacks the integrity required to allow a writer to decline to write said story. (Again, made in response to your baseless assertion of bias on the part of the writer).

Finally, I stated that REGARDLESS of WHAT the writer chose to do (within the scope of your baseless assertion of bias) - he would've been "compromised" (that is, the result would be the same - he would be fired, or lose credibility).

You say I said that a writer with a bias should have enough integrity to not write a review. - This isn't true. I said that you are wrong about your assertion of bias, because in THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION - he would've been fired EVEN IF HE WAS BIASED.

My essential point, in any event, was that you are wrong - the writer would've been fired in any situation, and that's bad.

Parhel said, in response:

That said, if the game sucks and they fired this man for doing his job and telling it like it is, I will never trust another Gamespot review again and probably wouldn't even go to their site.

Or, to summarize in my own words: No matter what the writer did, he would've been fired...and that's bad.

Respond to my points, don't pick out subtle grammatical errors and focus on them like they're the meat of the argument.


RE: wow
By SandmanWN on 12/3/2007 1:30:34 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
It requires a lot of integrity on the part of the news service to allow a writer to decline to write a story based on bias.

Most reviewers are broken into specialties. Like another poster here confirmed with first hand experience. They generally only cover certain genres.

quote:
Finally, I stated that REGARDLESS of WHAT the writer chose to do he would've been "compromised"

This is a baseless claim. Choosing not to write about something you have a bias about is not a compromise. Its called journalistic integrity.

quote:
Respond to my points, don't pick out subtle grammatical errors and focus on them like they're the meat of the argument.

Are you senile? What grammatical errors? WTF are you talking about.

In the end it comes down to this... You assume he will be fired regardless of what he chose to do but you cannot possibly know this. You have no proof of your assumption either. Its all an assumption until it happens.


RE: wow
By Moishe on 11/30/2007 10:55:02 AM , Rating: 2
exactly.
The writer has a choice that he was probably fully aware of. He can lie and keep his job or tell the truth and hope the bosses have integrity.


RE: wow
By Treckin on 11/30/2007 3:23:01 PM , Rating: 1
Either Or

That would be another simple rhetorical fallacy, which you handily vomited onto your keyboard proceeding a semi-technical term which you figured would make you sound intelligent.

Ill call the Web Sheriff on you if you don't clean up, PAL.


RE: wow
By Sahrin on 11/30/2007 5:33:50 PM , Rating: 2
Touche.


RE: wow
By SilthDraeth on 11/30/2007 10:42:30 AM , Rating: 3
First, you just said, that you would give an MMO the lowest possible score, simply because you dislike them. Then you say, he should of asked someone else to review the game instead, and you end it all by telling someone they have no clue what they are talking about, when you just demonstrated that about yourself.

There is a reason that games have a rating scale. Let me spell it out for you.
Graphics (The visual quality of the game)
Sound (The quality of the sound effects, musical score, etc)
Game play (ie control, camera angles, etc)
Longevity (Replay value, does the game offer incentives to play it over and over once you have "beat" the game)
Multi player (How well does the game play in a multi player environment.
Fun Factor (This is usually where the most bias would come in. IF the reviewer does not enjoy the genre, then his fun factor review will most likely be low.)

It is possible to be objective about everything, except personal enjoyment out of playing a genre.


RE: wow
By Parhel on 11/30/2007 11:00:25 AM , Rating: 4
It's also quite possible to be objective about personal enjoyment in that regard. Compare how much you enjoyed that game only to others in the same genre.

Too many writers don't think about who the audience is, especially on the Internet. If you're reading a review for a MMORPG, chances are you expect that it will be compared to other MMORPGs. You don't want to know if it was better than Need for Speed.


RE: wow
By BladeVenom on 11/30/2007 12:01:44 PM , Rating: 5
I don't get all this discussion about bias and possibly not liking the genre. He gave the game a 6 which is close to what most sites gave the game.

I heard Gamespot pulled the video, but it's still on YouTube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FuJ81sDR2o


RE: wow
By Lonyo on 11/30/2007 12:05:14 PM , Rating: 2
Usually publications have specific reviewers for specific genres. If you don't like a genre/are not interested in it, you don't review games in that genre.
I would assume Gamespot would be the same.


RE: wow
By DM0407 on 11/30/2007 12:08:45 PM , Rating: 2
Why didn't they just NOT post the review. If it was that big of a deal they could have reprimanded him and wrote another. This isn't any less sinister but at least the guy would still have a job and this site wouldn't be getting half the sh*t they have been.
It seems to me that the review was posted by someone other than him ( no one is going to write and implement a product)and the person saw nothing wrong with the honesty it contained. The Edios got involved and probably threatened to pull there ads (and money) if something wasn't done.

Personally I go to one site and trust there judgement, but I also try to get a second opinion. Anyone that cares about how they spend their money certainly wouldn't be fooled by an insincere review.

Heres an idea, put out a decent game and it will sell!


RE: wow
By Sureshot324 on 12/1/2007 2:18:03 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed.

Edios was pissed so Gamespot picked the easiest scapegoat to fire: the reviewer. There were probably many editors/managers that approved that video to go on the site, but they only needed to fire one to make Edios happy.


RE: wow
By sumdumbguy on 11/30/2007 2:08:01 PM , Rating: 4
not really. More like

"Hey, boss. The work you are paying me to do is unethical and I have a problem w/ that."

"You're Fired."

I dont know if he did or didn't but he should inform his boss that he can not give the game a positive review before he publishes the review. Though he has a moral obligation to not deceive the public he also has an obligation to his employer.

weeeee ethics.


RE: wow
By DFranch on 11/30/2007 12:13:17 PM , Rating: 2
Why do you say this. I've read a couple of negative reviews of this game at other sites. You see a game review is not supposed to rely on the reviewers preference. It must take into account how that game compares to other games in that genre. You must consider if people who like this kind of game would enjoy playing it. I read in another story that he has been an editor at gamespot for 10 years. I doubt he would have kept his job for that long if he had no objectivity. You would make a poor game reviewer because you cannot overlook your personal genre preferences when doing a review. Judging by the content of your follow up posts you are probably not even in high school yet.


RE: wow
By Bioniccrackmonk on 11/30/2007 1:00:32 PM , Rating: 1
Wrong reviewer for this game? Did you even see the review he made or at least check out other reviews from different companies prior to posting? I am willing to bet no, you just blindly wrote the first thought that popped up in your head.

Heres the link to the Gamespot review done by Jeff. Do some research after you watch this and see what everyone else is saying about it that isn't being paid to advertise the game. Give or take a point here and there, his review was just about dead on with everyone else's.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FuJ81sDR2o


RE: wow
By SandmanWN on 11/30/07, Rating: -1
RE: wow
By MrTeal on 12/1/2007 12:40:05 AM , Rating: 5
Way to take his comments completely out of context.
1) A character being a criminal has nothing to do with his likeability. If the character annoys you every time he opens his mouth, chances are it detracts from the game.
2) He never said that using the fword was bad, just that they overused it because they were too lazy to create actual dialogue.
3) If you're going to include a mode where you control a squad, make it so the squad at least performs in an intelligent manner. He's critizing the AI, not saying a group of criminals should be a black ops killing machine.
4)What's wrong with saying the whole game is ugly, if you feel it is?
5) If I'm playing MGS and every time I want to crouch or hug a wall I have to enter the Konami code, that's not just not to my liking, that's crappy controls. The two are entirely separate.

I still don't see where you're getting that he hates this type of game, and that's the reason for it's poor score. Got any links to other games in the same genre that he's posted lower than the rest of the industry? K&L got panned by everyone. Deal with it.


RE: wow
By timmiser on 11/30/2007 1:27:21 PM , Rating: 3
That's not exactly how it works. There are different reviewers for different genres of games. When I was a game reviewer for an online website, I specialized in sports and simulation games that I would review because I was an "expert" in those genres. I could talk about dynamic campaigns, photo scenery, and flight models in flight simulations until the cows come home but I don't know a thing about casting spells and building up mantra and slaying dragons which is why I wouldn't review those types of games.


RE: wow
By Keeir on 11/30/2007 4:07:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
it's seriously messed up and GameSpot deserves a beating over it.


Especially since there were alot of other actions that Gamespot could have taken that would have better addressed the problem.

Hosting/producing a counterpoint review (similar to Penny Arcade's review of AC) could have increased page views AND helped soothe Eidos.

In the end, Gamespot appears to have forgotten that no matter who writes the check, the end good being produced is "effective" page views. Having the appearence of a paid shill, never is good for producing effective page views.


Nothing New
By Murst on 11/30/07, Rating: 0
RE: Nothing New
By gaakf on 11/30/2007 10:39:24 AM , Rating: 3
I've never detected a bias for 360 games on IGN. If your comparing 360 games to PS3 games, usually the 360 version IS better. Achievements, graphics, and Xbox Live usually give it the edge. Maybe the story will turn as developers get a better handle on PS3 hardware.


RE: Nothing New
By Murst on 11/30/2007 11:01:46 AM , Rating: 2
I will certainly agree that most 360 games are better (madden, AC, etc), and if there is an advantage, they should be ranked higher. For example, AC should be ranked higher on the 360 than on the PS3, and that is certainly the case. Again, I have no complaints there.

However, the same should apply the other way around, shouldn't it? Rockband, for example, would probably be better on the PS3 due to wireless controllers. However, you'll find no separate review of the PS3 version than the 360 version. Perhaps it will change in the future, but the only time you'll find a separate review of PS3 and 360 games on IGN is when the 360 gets a higher score.

Maybe it is bias, maybe coincidence. But with scores like 7.0 for Heavenly Sword (for comparison, Simpsons got a 7.7), it doesn't appear to be coincidence.


RE: Nothing New
By BladeVenom on 11/30/2007 12:16:55 PM , Rating: 2
Microsoft has sent laptops to bloggers. What do they send game reviewers?


RE: Nothing New
By SirLucius on 11/30/2007 11:02:49 AM , Rating: 4
I think he means that IGN almost always reviews the 360 version and applies it to other systems. Instead of reviewing the game on the 360, the PS3, the PC, and whatever else it may be on, they review it for the 360 and paste the review everywhere else. It's not helpful when I go to read a review in the PS3/PC section and see that it was written for the 360 version. It was really annoying when they did this for COD4 since people with multiple systems wanted to know which one the game performed best on. And the PC review was completely useless since it gave no insight into the scalability of the game or any issues that may need patching. It doesn't happen all the time, but it does occur far more often than it should.

Personally, I like Gamespot the least of all the major review sites.


RE: Nothing New
By encryptkeeper on 11/30/2007 11:55:56 AM , Rating: 2
I've never detected a bias for 360 games on IGN.

I agree. If anything, IGN is probably the most balanced. You could probably ask any of their editors in chief to do a review of a game for a competing console and they wouldn't let bias get in their way.


RE: Nothing New
By FITCamaro on 11/30/2007 10:43:54 AM , Rating: 2
Uh...they rate bad games bad and good games good, regardless of platform. I love Assassin's Creed. But it got a less than stellar review on IGN and all the other review sites. Penny Arcade gave it a more realistic review because they actually play the game to play it. Not to beat it so they can then write their review. I'm fully enjoying trying to accomplish all the achievements. Eg. Kill all the templars, find all the flags, throw poor begging women to the ground because they annoy the crap out of me and its an achievement which makes it even more enjoyable.


RE: Nothing New
By Murst on 11/30/2007 11:03:02 AM , Rating: 2
I wish you could permanently kill the beggars... however, they always come back :(


RE: Nothing New
By FITCamaro on 11/30/2007 11:05:53 AM , Rating: 3
They don't in real life............I mean yeah too bad they come back...........


RE: Nothing New
By SirLucius on 11/30/2007 11:09:47 AM , Rating: 2
Ugh, nothing is worse than when you get two beggars dancing around in front of you while you're in the middle of a mission. I actually started killing beggars in the area of an interrogation or assassination mission before doing it just so they wouldn't get in my way.


RE: Nothing New
By Murst on 11/30/2007 11:14:59 AM , Rating: 2
Or when you're trying to pickpocket.

However, the worst for me was the drunk guys when you're trying to do anything stealthy. Fortunatelly, when you kill someone it tends to keep them away. But that kinda takes away the whole "stealthy" aspect when you have a corpse you're stepping over.


RE: Nothing New
By SirLucius on 11/30/2007 11:20:48 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah I forgot about the drunks/retards. Especially if you get a group of 2 or 3. I've been pushed into guards more times than I care to think about.

I really wish the game had some kind of body movement system. It's really cool that you can use dead bodies to lure guards away from their posts, but it would be awesome if you could pick up and move corpses ala Metal Gear.


Membership Cancelled
By MykC on 11/30/2007 10:44:49 AM , Rating: 2
As soon as GameSpot offer its annual membership program, I signed up, I thought the benefits justified the cost. With that said if this is incident leading to the dismissal of Jeff Gerstmann is true or enough evidence points to it being true I will cancel my membership at GameSpot.

I do this not because whether I like Jeff Gerstmann (its irrelevant) but because I will no longer feel like I get an honest review. I've always liked GameSpots reviews because they have been closer to what I would personally rate games (they are generally more critical than other major publications/sites).

I don't hold Edios accountable because they ultimately have no control over the employment of GameSpot staff.




RE: Membership Cancelled
By DigitalFreak on 11/30/2007 10:48:27 AM , Rating: 2
In a round-about way, they do. If they put pressure on Gamespot and threatened to pull their advertising...


RE: Membership Cancelled
By SanLC504 on 11/30/2007 10:55:57 AM , Rating: 1
"I don't hold Edios accountable because they ultimately have no control over the employment of GameSpot staff."

Well, now it sounds like they do. If I tell you to go kill someone, and you do it, do you think I'll walk away scott-free? I believe "conspiracy" is usually a good term in these situations.

Sorry for the extreme example, but you hopefully get my point. Just because a marionette does something doesn't mean the person holding the strings is innocent. Apparently, GameSpot never learned how to cut their strings, pinocchio.


RE: Membership Cancelled
By MykC on 11/30/2007 10:59:18 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, they can pull their ad which signifies not happy with your review, but ultimately they can't press the "your fired button" some one at GameSpot did that. At some point someone at GameSpot made a decision between money and quality or journalism.


RE: Membership Cancelled
By sweetsauce on 11/30/2007 11:00:31 AM , Rating: 2
Apparently you've been living under a rock. Advertisers hold way more power than you can imagine. That power might be motivated by consumers, but its still there.


RE: Membership Cancelled
By kamel5547 on 11/30/2007 11:19:01 AM , Rating: 5
Meh. Considering the impact of having your reviews looked at as being untrustworthy (loss of readership), its far worse to be in the position Gamespot is in. While the loss of one major advertiser can hurt, the loss of readership kills revenue from ALL advertisers. Given the choice I'd rather lose one advertiser (whose void can potentially be filled with others) than decrease my page views and thus all revenue.


RE: Membership Cancelled
By clovell on 11/30/2007 4:10:51 PM , Rating: 2
Seriously, though - why would Eidos advertise on a site that gave them a bad review? That's asking for people NOT to buy your game. It goes like:

'Oh hey - cool game in this banner ad. I wonder if it's any good - lemme check it out.'
*clicks link to review*
'Aw, man - that sucks! It looked pretty cool, but nevermind'


from a GS editor, anonymous of course
By Gimli000 on 11/30/2007 7:42:53 PM , Rating: 5
What you might not be aware of is that GS is well known for appealing mostly to hardcore gamers. The mucky-mucks have been doing a lot of "brand research" over the last year or so and indicating that they want to reach out to more casual gamers. Our last executive editor, Greg Kasavin, left to go to EA, and he was replaced by a suit, Josh Larson, who had no editorial experience and was only involved on the business side of things. Over the last year there has been an increasing amount of pressure to allow the advertising teams to have more of a say in the editorial process; we've started having to give our sales team heads-ups when a game is getting a low score, for instance, so that they can let the advertisers know that before a review goes up. Other publishers have started giving us notes involving when our reviews can go up; if a game's getting a 9 or above, it can go up early; if not, it'll have to wait until after the game is on the shelves.

I was in the meeting where Josh Larson was trying to explain this firing and the guy had absolutely no response to any of the criticisms we were sending his way. He kept dodging the question, saying that there were "multiple instances of tone" in the reviews that he hadn't been happy about, but that wasn't Jeff's problem since we all vet every review. He also implied that "AAA" titles deserved more attention when they were being reviewed, which sounded to all of us that he was implying that they should get higher scores, especially since those titles are usually more highly advertised on our site.

I know that it's all about the money, and hey, I like money. I like advertising because it pays my salary. Unfortunately after Kasavin left the church-and-state separation between the sales teams and the editorial team has cracked, and with Jeff's firing I think it's clear that the management now has no interest at all in integrity and are instead looking for an editorial team that will be nicer to the advertisors.

When companies make games as downright contemptible as Kane and Lynch, they deserve to be called on it. I guess you'll have to go to Onion or a smaller site for objective reviews now, because everyone at GS now thinks that if they give a low score to a high-profile game, they'll be[fired]. Everyone's **** scared and we're all hoping to get Josh Larson removed from his position because no one trusts him anymore. If that doesn't happen then look for every game to be Game of the Year material at GameSpot.




By bysmitty on 11/30/2007 10:16:15 PM , Rating: 3
^ Wow, I wonder if this post is legit. A quick google search confirms that there is a Josh Larson on the CNet staff and it is certainly written in professional manor the way a journalist would write.

If legit, it just confirms the rumors that Gamespot's integrity is for sale to the highest bidders and that my subscription money is better spent else where.

If you really are a Gamespot employee, thank you for the insider view into this issue.

...bysmitty


By mrgq912 on 12/1/2007 2:01:17 AM , Rating: 3
If you truly are a Gamespot.com editor please for the love god rally all the other editors and go do something. This is just disgusting.

I have been visiting the site since like 1996 when the site was solely devoted to PC games. I honestly don't know what review site to trust if its not gamespot. I think I keep visiting gamespot not because of the content but because I feel like i have gotten to know the editors and the chemistry between the editors is great but with so many of the veterns having left, I really don't see a reason to keep going back to the site.


By sefsefsefsef on 12/1/2007 2:29:36 AM , Rating: 3
I've been a fan since I knew the site as Videogamespot back in the day. I used to be a paid subscriber, also. The reason I kept coming back to GS year after year was for the video reviews, and then when I got to see the dynamic between the editors on features and weekly shows like On the Spot, I saw that they were real gamers, and not just guys reading their reviews in front of a video screen, so I could relate to them all the more.

On the Spot is really what's kept me coming back the last couple years, and even though Gamespot has lost some of its best personalities in the last year (for honorable reasons), I've stuck with it because there were still a few guys on there I liked a lot and they kept the show fresh and interesting.

Now with the combination of the loss of my favorite editor, Jeff, and the cowardly circumstances surrounding his dismissal, I just don't think I can ever like GS again. Even the remaining editors that I like .... I don't think I can ever look at them the same. This sucks. As a loyal fan, I feel betrayed.


for shame!
By grimdeath on 11/30/2007 10:22:02 AM , Rating: 3
gamespot is one of my primary sources for reviews before I purchase a game. yea lately they have became a bit whorish on the ads but firing someone because they didnt give someone thats probably paying for the advertisting is a bit silly IMO.

on the otherside the reviewers should always remain unbiased. id image this wasnt his first strike to come under such a serious penalty.




RE: for shame!
By encryptkeeper on 11/30/2007 10:42:04 AM , Rating: 3
Take a look at some of the reviews that Jeff did and you'll see that many people didn't like his reviews. Several of Gamespot's reviews have been very off lately, and it seems that their editors just don't understand a lot of the games they review. Often, their reviews come several days after the game is released (the review for Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn was posted a week after the game's release). This may not be the only editor from Gamespot that will go.


RE: for shame!
By Etsp on 11/30/2007 12:20:41 PM , Rating: 3
Usually game reviewers get their hands on a game a good bit of time before the games are released...


RE: for shame!
By Wolfpup on 11/30/2007 12:23:09 PM , Rating: 4
If it's posted later it's because THEY ACTUALLY PLAYED THE GAME. They also use more of the 10 point scale, and are more critical. IGN is well known as a joke, and has zero respect from the community. It's Jeff Gerstmann that's WHY Gamespot was respected, and people went there.

A fanboi whining that Zelda should have gotten a 10 rather than a near perfect 8.8 (which is still too high, if you've actually played the game) is...well actually it's proof you should be keeping someone around, not firing them.


By RobinBee on 11/30/2007 11:34:55 AM , Rating: 5
I trusted Gamespot until something changed behind the scene. I woke up when I had bought two games, and suddendly also a third, all garbage. Three games that had a very high score from Gamespot editors. I really got angry that third time, buying the game World in Conflict. An average game getting a top score.

I then wrote my opinion in a user review at Gamespot. My review disappeared from the website within fifteen minutes. I saw a lot of other user opinions like mine, and they disappeared too. I saw some reviews being removed probably because of bad language, a minority. No wonder, then, that the average score of user reviews match so closely with official reviews from editors at Gamespot.

Problem is, I see this kind a »e-business« in other parts of Internet, too.

I have been thinking a lot about this. What we need is non-removable »versionized« editor articles, like »Review about something version 1.0.« And non-removable posts.

Because, this way editor can improve contents along the way without cheating, (if we can see all versions), and this way we can post without being cheated like fools. Perhaps, just an idea, editors should be able to defend themselves against highly offensive posts by moving such to a special sorting folder, an editor warning that these posts do not agree wery well with the website, making them branded but not vanished. I would like to see even posts with foul words to make sure I am not being cheated. Some kind of software ought to be able to hide such words with ink in posts, like beeps in television.

This post is tiresome. However, I do not trust any website anymore. A high quality very popular website to-day? A converted bribed profitmaker to-morrow.




By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 11/30/2007 6:43:31 PM , Rating: 4
And people rag on DT for having the comments written in stone ... :)


By Murst on 12/1/2007 12:42:37 AM , Rating: 4
Your articles, however, are editable.

Perhaps do something where you don't actually remove the content and cross it out... but then they'd get messy =/


Editorial pressure
By Misty Dingos on 11/30/2007 10:24:31 AM , Rating: 3
It was going to happen. The amount of money spent on developing these games and advertising them led to this. Someone in his editors food chain said. "Hey he isn't a team player. Fire him and get someone to write a review that may not glow but doesn't paint the picture of a steaming pile of dog poo computer code masquerading as a game. And get me a latte!"

They sold their editorial soul for their advertising dollar. They deserve what ever the customer does to them.




RE: Editorial pressure
By DigitalFreak on 11/30/2007 10:37:21 AM , Rating: 4
They are a ZDNet company after all...


RE: Editorial pressure
By MykC on 11/30/2007 11:06:26 AM , Rating: 2
CNET?


RE: Editorial pressure
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 11/30/2007 11:07:25 AM , Rating: 3
They're actually a CNET company, which has also fallen on hard times. Not nearly as hard as ZDNet's billion dollar debt... but stil.


Here's an idea...
By tjr508 on 11/30/2007 11:59:35 AM , Rating: 2
Don't put any trust into a review site that advertises individual games to begin with?

The same goes for hardware review sites that have Intel and Gigabyte banners sprayed all over them.




RE: Here's an idea...
By theprodigalrebel on 11/30/2007 10:47:53 PM , Rating: 5
Here's an interesting observation: Anandtech's positive reviews of Intel products are confirmed/verified by, oh I don't know, over a hundred different websites and a few hundred thousand folks in various tech forums.

This whole 'Anand is a shill for Intel' BS has got to stop, I'll just leave it at that.


By Heinrich on 11/30/2007 11:58:33 AM , Rating: 4
Here's my Gamespot experience - Greg Kavanaugh wrote a review of World of Warcraft that was extremely positive approximately three to four weeks after the game was released. For the first two weeks, World of Warcraft was barely playable as the servers were continually crashing. Blizzard posted a 2 week credit to everyone's account. Greg described this problem as a "minor technical issue."

When I challenged his stance that not being able to log in for 2 weeks was a 'minor technical issue', my comments were deleted. When I attempted to post in the Gamespot forums, my posts were deleted, and Gamespot forum administrators called me "crazy" in public, violating their own TOS. I read their TOS very carefully, and had not violated it. Gamespot has a hidden, invisible policy and TOS.

I do not trust Gamespot and this article does not surprise me.




Selling Out?
By Sanity on 11/30/2007 12:26:00 PM , Rating: 2
I have been frequenting Gamespot, and reading their reviews for 4 or 5 years. I've based quite a few purchases on their reviews, and I havn't been dissapointed yet. I've found their reviewers to be pretty honest with their oppinions of the games. I have however, been starting to wonder about some scores on games in the past 6 months or so.

Did you know that GameSpot is one of the most visited web sites overall? Not just one of the most visited game review sites, but most visited of all web sites. I wouldn't have guessed that, but you can bet the farm that all those game developers KNOW that. Don't kid yourself. They know the value of a review on GameSpot. And that's why I can't help but be suspicious of the plethora of Gold Metal reviews I've been seeing as the holiday sales season comes around. I've seen a few gold metals go to games that weren't reviewed nearly as well on other sites. Maybe it's just a difference of oppinion, but this news seems to paint a different picture doesn't it?

I know my future purchases will hinge a little (or a lot) less on GameSpot's reviews if this firing is what it looks like.




RE: Selling Out?
By aos007 on 11/30/2007 1:53:59 PM , Rating: 2
I have followed Gamespot for 8 years or so and have likewise used their reviews as a yardstick. However, in the last year I have seen quite a number of very questionable review scores. When a game like Crysis gets 9.5 and a game like Uncharted gets 8 (or Ratchet and Clank 7.5!) then you know something is not right. Let's say Mass Effect deserves its 8.5 score (I'd give it 9.0) - it's quite possible as it has a number of flaws. There is no way then that Crysis - a badly optimized, frustratingly hard to play and non-innovative (or simply NOT FUN) game can get 9.5. Mass Effect is a lot of fun to play, so much so that you will only see its flaws as annoyances and you will look forward to coming home from work to fire it up.

I don't feel reviews at Gamespot mean very much these days, unfortunately. I'm now looking at another review site, or possibly using Metacritic to get a consensus.


Zero Punctuation
By cochy on 11/30/2007 12:33:22 PM , Rating: 3
This is just insane.
By jadeskye on 11/30/2007 10:33:02 AM , Rating: 2
Reviewers are supposed to be unbiased. in order to give the full picture in it's beauty or it's ugliness it's simply how it must be. Jeff was one of my favourite reviewers on gamespot and he will be missed. but i think i've lost a lot of respect for GS.




Looking at the Gamespote site
By fifolo on 11/30/2007 11:47:43 AM , Rating: 2
The average user score for the game, based on 2,100 votes, is 3.4 so if anything he over-rated it.




The moral of the story:
By Polynikes on 11/30/2007 12:07:38 PM , Rating: 2
Don't trust everything you read on the internets.




By Wolfpup on 11/30/2007 12:20:05 PM , Rating: 2
This is just sick. I can't believe they did this. Gamespot WAS one of the most respected sites for actual CRITICAL reviews. It didn't used to be the joke that CNet is...though obviously that's changed.

Jeff Gerstmann was probably the closest the game industry had to a Roger Ebert. He set the tone for the whole site, and gave us (and inspired) actual critical reviews of games, using the actual full 10 point scale (versus IGN's pathetic 3 point scale...a 6 from Gamespot is probably like an 8 or 8.5 from IGN).

I'm just astounding by this. Don't know what to think. I respect a lot of the critics there, but obviously even if they stick around, there's going to be a complete shift in how reviews are handled.

I guess I'll need a new site...




Discrepancy between reviews
By Haven Bartton on 11/30/2007 12:56:10 PM , Rating: 2
There is also the other factor of the discrepancy between the text and video reviews, as mentioned in the article. It sounds like the text review was fine, but to go all-out and dis the game like that in the video review somewhat contradicts the message of the text review.
If I were this guy's boss, I'd want consistency between the two.




Issues
By Melric on 11/30/2007 1:03:17 PM , Rating: 2
If the negative review is supported, then it should be published. On the other hand, I have seen lots of negative reviews from critics that just did not understand the game. (Comparing EU3 to Civ4, for example).

The other issue that really bugs me is score inflation. I just read a review of Unreal Tournament where the reviewer basically panned the game.... and then gave it an 8 of 10 score. wtf?




From a former game reviewer
By timmiser on 11/30/2007 1:20:18 PM , Rating: 2
As a former online game reviewer myself, I can tell you that the conflict of interest in an online review website has always been present. As a reviewer for a struggling online game review website, and yes, they are ALL struggling, you do automatically feel pressure to go easy on games that are directly, financially supporting your website but I, myself, was never pressured to change my review scores.

Unlike game magazines, where the editorial staff represents the customers that pay them to review games through the sale of the magazine, online review websites are free and are only supported by the game publishers and developers themselves. While they claim to represent the consumer, they still must not shoot the hand that feeds them so it is always a walking on eggshells process.




Conflict of Interest?
By teckytech9 on 11/30/2007 2:21:58 PM , Rating: 2
How can one consider a review from CNET, GameSpot, or any other "review site" as trustworthy when their own clients products are the ones being reviewed? Is it logical to conclude that these review companies are merely an advertising voice for their clients?

The actions taken by GameSpot clearly demonstrates its lack of support for unbiased reviews from its employees. Clearly the reviewers who give consistently high reviews should be the ones to go. But wait, that is contrary to the game plan, since giving high reviews attracts more potential clients and ad revenue.

A mass exodus of valued subscribers will most likely happen. Hello, ConsumerReports.org




no Gamespot respect
By toyota on 11/30/2007 3:12:46 PM , Rating: 2
Gamespot lost all respect on October 29th when they LIED by claiming to have perfect SLI results on the Crysis demo with the 169.01 drivers. Some how James Yu at Gamespot got nearly perfect scaling while not one other reviewer could even get SLI to work at all. Nvidia themselves even said that SLI did NOT work in the Crysis demo with the 169.01 drivers.

http://www.gamespot.com/features/6181908/index.htm...




I'm shocked! Shocked and dismayed!
By fri2219 on 11/30/2007 4:10:53 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, it's almost as if some review sites on the web are dishonest.

Please don't tell me that reviewers are paid off by scumbag Chinese hardware suppliers, or I'll be ever so sad.




.
By NotoriousJTC on 11/30/2007 6:57:43 PM , Rating: 2
FWIW, this is the review that's in the center of it all:

http://www.dailymotion.com/country:us/video/x3mhgg...




just a thought
By inperfectdarkness on 12/1/2007 12:23:05 AM , Rating: 2
not that you have to try it or anything...

but what if you only bought games that were made by companies that you KNEW made pure quality? like blizzard. or nintendo. or epic.

do you really trust reviewers, if they're being bought out so easily? there's a laundry list of games that were overhyped and underfun--yet sold in large quantities because of bribes. halo2 anyone?




Gamespot's new name
By Screwballl on 12/2/2007 1:19:01 AM , Rating: 2
http://cashwh0re.com/

Someone put together this site fairly quickly in relation to this story... I wonder if it is the same reviewer running it... I am not sure... but funny nonetheless




Confirmed?
By JarvisTheGray on 12/2/2007 6:12:44 PM , Rating: 2
http://www.gamespot.com/error/knl_review.html

I laughed my butt off but apparently gamespot disabled user reviews for the game (the above link works as of 12/2). In my mind, this confirms all rumors.




The real issue is...
By iFX on 11/30/07, Rating: -1
RE: The real issue is...
By Inkjammer on 11/30/2007 10:50:20 AM , Rating: 2
Reviews are not meant to entertain, but to inform. His job is not to sell you a piece of ****, or get advertisers to ad-bomb the page in order to sell a broken/flawed package to you. It's to inform and help you make a purchasing decision - and a bit of hype.

Yes, all sites like that need revenue, but they can't be held at fault, nor should be held at fault, if the product itself is fautly. The Sparkle 8800GT review on Anandtech is a perfect example of that. They went in thinking it was going to be a bomb, unsure how it would turn out given previous exampls, and were came out surprised (and with a PC hot enough that they could cook lunch with).

I go through Anand and Daily Tech because I want to get the real scoop on a piece of hardware or tech, not because I need a laugh. VG Cats and Sinfest exist for that. If I laugh, if I have fun reading the article, then I've gained more out of it than its purpose intended.


RE: The real issue is...
By MykC on 11/30/2007 10:56:03 AM , Rating: 3
Reviews are technical, they are not entertaining, they are informative. Reviewing a game is closer to reviewing a piece hardware than music and or a movie. You can see this by comparing the varying scores among a collection of reviews between games, movies and music.

I'm not sure what your point exactly was, but are you trying to say that reviewers should give out 9's and 10's to anyone who advertises with them because thats how the world works? Thats seems pretty broken. Where's the creditably then.

Dishonest reviews are worth nothing. I was never a big fan of Jeff Gertsmann work but I will continue to read his work where ever he goes because I know it'll be honest.


RE: The real issue is...
By FITCamaro on 11/30/2007 11:03:41 AM , Rating: 1
I hardly think those who review movies are fair. Personal opinion weighs heavily in them. Sci-fi movies almost never get good ratings. The original Star Wars movies got terrible ratings. The piece of shit slasher movies are out there getting 5 stars for the same repetitive crap over and over but quality movies that require someone to freakin think get horrible reviews.

Look at the Matrix. Everyone talks about how bad the 2nd two were. I found no problem with them. I could follow the story. Yeah parts of them turned into bits of how far can we go with photorealistic CG fight scenes. But it was still good.


RE: The real issue is...
By Parhel on 11/30/2007 11:29:42 AM , Rating: 3
I absolutely hated the 2nd Matrix movie. During the final action sequence, I had so completely lost interest that I went outside of the theater to have a cigarette. To each his own, I guess.


RE: The real issue is...
By aos007 on 11/30/2007 2:12:37 PM , Rating: 4
I also thought second Matrix was good. I have no idea why you got rated down.

The best thing in second one was Neo was supposed to be kick-ass... and he WAS. It is very VERY rare to find a movie where a superhero is just that - a SUPERHERO. The potential problem of how to create a drama when you can't hurt the main guy was solved brilliantly - he CAN beat anyone but he CAN'T be in two places at the same time. No pathetic stupid "oh woe is me, there is kryptonite here, I can't move" or whatever excuse they find to make Spiderman, Batman or whoever else vulnerable to even most pathetic enemies over and over again. That's why I can't stand to watch the other crap movies.


RE: The real issue is...
By Rav3n on 11/30/2007 2:40:09 PM , Rating: 2
The point of the article was to highlight the fact that the dude was fired for writing a review that his company didn't agree with on the basis of marketing and ad revenue.

The point of Gamespots firing him was to get across that their advertisers get a few points extra per game, regardless of their quality.

The point of continuing to read Jeff's stuff just by virtue of the fact that he was fired from one place? You got me there.

<speculation> Perhaps there was an in-house policy, clearly stating that advertisers would be artificially inflated, and Jeff violated this. Would you want to support someone who sells himself out, and then decides one day to stop doing so by screwing his own company?
</speculation>

You don't have all the facts, but you have pledged allegiance anyway... brilliant.


"I want people to see my movies in the best formats possible. For [Paramount] to deny people who have Blu-ray sucks!" -- Movie Director Michael Bay

DailyTech Poll
Which web browser do you use on your primary personal machine? 






44 Comments







botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki