Jeff Gerttsman let go from gamespot?

[quote name='thespamofpower']Sounds to me like one of those stories made up by Kotaku. There is a reason they've gotten the reputation as the tabloid of the gaming industry.[/quote]
Don't blame the 'Ku. It's labled as a rumor, not as fact. Instead, love the 'Ku.

I've heard that CNET did the firing on this one, which would make way more sense (to me, at least.) Since they own the site, they are the ones most likely to control advertising, and they would probably always have the option to pull the plug on any employees at any time. Either way, this doesn't seem like something that Gamespot itself would want to risk their relatively reputable reputation on.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']
EDIT: I guess the big question I have is this: do y'all really follow game reviews? What for? Let's be honest: do you genuinely base your purchasing decisions on reviews, or do you use them as a psychological mechanism to feel better about your purchasing decisions (one fine example being the feigned outrage over Gerttsman's Zelda: TP score)?
[/QUOTE]

I use the aggregate sites like Game Rankings to help decide wether to bother checking out a game I don't know much about, or was on the fence about. But I don't bother for reviews for stuff I'm pretty sure I will like.

But for the most part, I barely have time to keep up with playing the games I know I'll like--the marios, Metroids, zelda, halos, bioshocks, orange boxes and other AAA games of the world. So it's really not that often that I even look at aggregate reviews to help decide what on the fence game to play next.
 
Official response from eidos forums, as far as I can tell.

I like put ding ding into cousin vagina

It very funny like killing poor children

I not think she like but I not care She get little bloody but make it funnier
 
[quote name='-Never4ever-']
Speaking of which, who was it that gave a CAG shout-out back when CAG was up and coming?[/QUOTE]
I think it was Ocampo, talking about a deal on one of those neo geo pockets.


Anyway, I recommend watching the kane and lynch video review posted on the first page of this topic. I like Jeff, alot actually, but if you compare that particular review to his other video reviews, its just poorly done. Even compared to the most recent Tony Hawk Video Review, which received a similar score, the Kane and Lynch review just seems unprofessional. I wonder if someone may have called him on it and he may have responded less than well.
 
Kane and Lynch deserved a 6, the game was rushed garbage. Eidos only has themselves to blame for this deal. They had a great game concept on their hands and they totally bungled it by rushing the game into an already too busy holiday season.

I know that I can personally say that Gamespot's review of the game, more than any other site, led me to rent the game rather than blindly buying it.
 
Simple. You want good reviews? Make a good game. Period

Never again will I buy an Eidos game if this turns out to be true
 
I liked the reviews that Jeff gave as they tended to be spot on.
After playing Zelda TP - I think he actually gave it a higher score than it deserved. And now this whole Eidos / K&L debate. Which to be fair the game does suck. Gamespot and Eidos have lost my respect, as well as Cnet. I will avoid them just like kim kardashian avoids a handycam, a bottle of colt45 in a cheap motel.
 
Eidos really screwed themselves on this one.

Of course, since they have never made a worthwhile game I guess it doesn't really matter...
 
[quote name='Phil']
Never again will I buy an Eidos game if this turns out to be true[/quote]

Eidos threatened to pull down the ad campaign because of the review. If CNET wasn't a money hungry machine, they would have simply let them take down the ads. But that's not the case. CNET felt it would be better to suck up to Eidos and fire the fellow who put the review up.

Not to stick up for the 'bad guys' here, because I think this whole situation is bullshit just as much as the next guy. However, don't make Eidos out to be the bad guy. They didn't fire the guy, after all- they just want their game to do well. Their tactics for doing so may be a bit dirty, but when it comes right down to it, it is CNET who is keeping the ads up.
To put it simply, CNET is the bad guy. Blame them.
 
IF this turns out to be true, I'm done with Gamespot forever. Right now if I want a single point of input on a game, it's where I go. No longer... I'll never visit it again.
 
did people forget the time where a games spy writer got upset because gamesspy changed his score for donkey kong?
 
Not really the boycott type, but if this is the reason he got fired I'll never go to their site again.
 
I stopped caring about GS reviews when Greg left. Read my sig... I have a vendetta against retard editors and the millions of good-for-nothing freelancers they hire to review the lesser games.

Ryan's reviews are bullshit. He will always take a positive tone about it even if the score ends up being mediocre.

The only editor I like that's left at GS is Brad, and that's only because he plays it very safe and doesn't do much to piss people off.
--
I don't really care if Jeff leaves, or the reasons behind it. He has character, but I can't say I'm a fan of his reviews of late (The Darkness, anyone?)

This Kotaku article is going to be HUGE. It's gonna be interesting seeing how this impacts the site as a whole. All I know is, I'm loving the drama.
 
"Shacknews can confidently confirm via its own sources that Gerstmann was indeed fired yesterday from his position at GameSpot. The source declined to comment as to whether the firing was directly related to the reported Eidos situation, but the circumstances are suspicious at the least."

Wow, seriously... Jeff has always been my favorite reviewer. Going back to when he reviewed PC games.

fuck CNET and Eidos... I'm done with both of them.

Edit: By the way, it's Jeff Gerstmann. Not Gerttsman.
 
Man. WTF. First Rich Gallup leaves, now this?! Gerstmann was the man. He was always very funny and knowledgeable on The Hot Spot and On the Spot, it really does sadden me that such an event could even occur.

I was actually curious as to why he wasn't on the latest edition of the Hot Spot.
 
According to NeoGaf, Protesting Eidos includes not buying/discussing:
Kane & Lynch
Tomb Raider
Hitman
Commandos
Deus Ex
Legacy of Kain
Thief
Fear Effect
Just Cause
Age of Conan

Which sounds fine to me. Of course it's like me giving up knitting for lent, but whatever.
 
Kane & Lynch: Dead Men has a lot of promise, but nothing in this game works out nearly as well as you'd hope.

Kane & Lynch: Dead Men is an ugly game, and we're not necessarily talking about the graphics. This criminal tale is packed with a collection of completely unlikable characters with no redeeming value whatsoever. It's impossible to even root for them as antiheroes. Once you get past the messy, meaningless story, things don't get too much better because you're saddled with clunky artificial intelligence on the part of your allies and your enemies, as well as a core shooting mechanic that simply doesn't satisfy. The unfortunate part is that the game does have a few bright points and feels like it had a lot of potential that just didn't come together as well as anyone must have hoped.

The story mode opens with you in the role of Kane, a death row inmate on his way to his execution, apparently convicted of being a very savage criminal as part of a notorious gang called The7. You're on your last ride with a quirky guy named Lynch who tells you to cover your head. After an explosion, you're both busted out and on the run. That might sound great, but it's a fate worse than death. The surviving members of The7 have busted you out to force you to recover something they think you stole from them. They consider you a traitor and will kill Kane's family if he doesn't comply. Lynch is sent along for the ride to watch over Kane and report in if anything weird happens. Circumstances change over time and the back half plays out like a revenge tale, but it's a revenge tale where you don't actually care if anyone actually gets their revenge. Every single person you play as or encounter is despicable and wholly abrasive; thus, it's extremely difficult to care about anything that's happening to them. You can play through this story alone or with a friend in co-op mode, though this mode is only available locally and takes place on a vertically split screen that makes it difficult to follow the action, even on a widescreen TV.

The core gameplay in Kane & Lynch is your standard third-person shooter with cover elements and a light dusting of squad tactics. You can fire from the hip, but it's somewhat more accurate to fire while aiming. Unfortunately, even when you're aiming, hitting your targets is more difficult than it should be because your automatic fire has a wide spread on it. Kane is supposedly a badass arch-criminal; he should be able to hit his targets with short, controlled bursts. You're able to get behind cover and either blindfire or pop out for aimed shots, but there's no easy way to stick to walls. You don't press a button or anything; instead you sort of get up against a wall and turn sideways. Then after jiggling the controls back and forth a bit, you'll eventually snap into place to get behind cover. It's such a pain that you'll rarely want to use it, and it seems like you're always snapping into cover behind something at the most inopportune times, making the game quite frustrating. There's no health meter, but if you go down, you don't die immediately either. You can be revived by one of your teammates with an adrenaline shot. If you get that shot too frequently, you'll overdose and die. If your teammates don't reach you in time, you'll die too. Also, if one of the guys on your crew gets dropped, you have to make sure he gets revived. If he dies, the game ends. Between your poor accuracy, the enemy's sharp accuracy, and the boneheaded AI from your squadmates, this all adds up to you keeping your squad on a very short leash.

When you've got a team with you, you can order team members around individually or order the team all at once by telling it to regroup to your location, move to a specific spot, or attack specific targets. Telling team members to move to locations is the most effective move because you can keep them close and revive them when they get shot down. Sending them after targets results in your squad running around aimlessly and trying to get too close to targets. That leads to them getting dropped in the line of fire, where you probably won't be able to rescue them. So whether you're doing the shooting yourself or hanging back and letting your men do the dirty work, the game is a real letdown.

There's only one multiplayer mode in Kane & Lynch, but it's a great idea. It's called Fragile Alliance and puts up to eight players in one team of criminals. Then, it sets the team off to steal money, cocaine, and jewels from various locations seen in the single-player game. So you might start out in front of a bank, run in, collect a bunch of cash, and then escape from in a van out back. The catch is the way the money is split up among teammates. If you all work together, the money is split evenly. But at any point, a player can go rogue and gun down one of his teammates. This brands you a traitor; thus, any money you collect and escape with is yours to keep. Of course, this also means that other players who are still part of the team will try to waste you before you escape with their hard-stolen loot. So every round is a tentative affair where you always expect the worst--you're just never sure when someone's going to finally turn on you. When you die, whether it's from the AI that opposes you or another player, you respawn on the other side of the heist. Now you need to stop the heist by eliminating the other players and you earn money by collecting it before the criminals collect.

It's a great idea that's mucked up by a few different things. First, you're still playing Kane & Lynch, so all of the inaccurate firing issues and poor cover tactics from the single-player still apply. But another problem is that you can see the names of the other players over their heads from a distance and through walls, even if they're on the other side. While you can run while crouched to make your name disappear, it's pretty stupid that you can see the names of the police team members as they head your way. There's no element of surprise. Also, there are only a handful of different scenarios for this, and they play out the same way every single time. The security guards are always in the same positions in the bank and the cops are always waiting for you right outside, so it gets old fast.

Technically, Kane & Lynch has some good-looking player models, with Kane and Lynch both looking appropriate as over-the-hill criminals. And even though their faces don't animate much, they still look good. Most of the animation isn't so hot, though, and you'll see a few ugly textures here and there too. Some of it looks a bit unfinished, like the way you see guys go through the motion of hitting you with an adrenaline shot, but their hands are actually empty.

The soundtrack is probably the best part of the whole game, delivering some tense music when the game calls for it. There's a lot of voice acting in the game. The voices are appropriate for the characters, but the dialogue is hokey and filled with lazy cursing. The good ol' F word is certainly appropriate, given the nature of what these guys are doing, but when it's every third word out of every character's mouth, it comes across as a crutch that drags down the rest of the game a bit. Lynch frequently responds to your squad orders by just shouting "F*** you!" That's just lame.

Kane & Lynch: Dead Men is a premise with promise, but the gameplay isn't sound while the story and characters go nowhere. And it's got enough random AI-based glitches to make you want to scream. Considering the nearly ridiculous number of extremely high-quality shooters available recently, there's not much room for something like Kane & Lynch. But the multiplayer is a really great idea that's worth seeing, even if playing it makes you wish that it was used in another, better game.

http://www.gamestop.com/article_viewer.asp?article_id=29418&product_id=270066#29418

They didn't take the review down on Gamestop's site. :lol:
 
Why wouldn't they just not run the review vs. putting up a poor review and then immediately firing the guy for writing a poor review?

I guess they figured they were going to have integrity until they found out it might affect their wallet. Hmm kind of calls into question the legitimacy of any ad supported review site. (Which is pretty much all of them AFAIK.) Too bad consumer reports doesn't review games...

I like to think EGM doesn't get swayed by crap like this, but can you really know?

Another company needs to make a big splash of hiring this guy with a subtle note that they review games honestly regardless of who buys advertising.
 
People at gaf are now confirming that he was indeed fired. The details have not been disclosed yet, but he said they would be coming.

fuck Gamespot.
fuck Eidos.
I will never visit Gamespot again, nor will I buy another Eidos game.
 
[quote name='InuFaye']I will never visit Gamespot again, nor will I buy another Eidos game.[/QUOTE]

Eh, I'm not too into this absolutism thing, because it never works out that way. If you were to say, though, you vow to only buy used copies of Eidos software, that would be just as harmful to them without the need to really "stick it to them" by having unrealistic expectations of a boycott.

Then again, this whole scenario seems as clear as 2+2, so if the larger media was interested in cracking this story, it might be rather interesting to see. I, for one, won't hold my breath.
 
Very distressing news.

I remember listening to the Hot Spot where Jeff was saying the game was basically broken; I believe that was before the official review was out.

I really liked Jeff a lot and just as if he was a movie critic, I respected his opinion even if I didn't agree with it (which wasn't that often). I liked Gamespot. Like CAG, it was a site desperately in need of a refreshed look, but the content was there and the most important part, I liked and valued the opinion of the people (unlike the 1UP crew which I never did warm up to).

I am done with Gamespot. They could hire Jeff back, but frankly (if he can afford it) he should move on to bigger and better things.
 
I'm thinking that even if this is or isnt true, a subliminal message may have been sent to reviewers at all other sites/publications. This might be the impetus for a reviewer to check their respective site/publication to see who is sponsoring it before they post up their review. In my opinion, the damage is probably already done even if it is discovered this story has nothing to do with Eidos pressuring Gamestop to fire Mr. Gerstmann. I hope I'm wrong. I expect game sites to be unbiased in their review and discussion of a game. This story will be hard to get out of my mind when (or if) I decide to go to Gamespot again for a review.

EDIT - UPDATE: http://www.joystiq.com/2007/11/30/eidos-and-gamespot-forums-exploding-over-gerstmann-incident/

Submitted to digg: http://digg.com/gaming_news/Eidos_and_Gamespot_forums_exploding_over_Gerstmann_incident
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Eh, I'm not too into this absolutism thing, because it never works out that way. If you were to say, though, you vow to only buy used copies of Eidos software, that would be just as harmful to them without the need to really "stick it to them" by having unrealistic expectations of a boycott.[/quote]
Yeah, I guess that works. But is there really any Eidos games that are interesting to you? I can't think of even one that I would want to buy used (if I absolutely had to.)
 
[quote name='yukine']Yeah, I guess that works. But is there really any Eidos games that are interesting to you? I can't think of even one that I would want to buy used (if I absolutely had to.)[/QUOTE]

Tomb Raider Anniversary and Legend were surprisingly good... apart from those though, there's nothing current that somebody could feasibly be interested in, it seems.
 
[quote name='Maklershed']I hope I'm wrong. I expect game sites to be unbiased in their review and discussion of a game. This story will be hard to get out of my mind when (or if) I decide to go to Gamespot again for a review.[/QUOTE]

Just Gamespot? You should be questioning how a review site gets advance copies of a game, exclusive interviews, or excessive advertisement anywhere. All of those things are provided for review sites by publishing companies PR department, whose job it is to try an obtain a certain average on Gamerankings.

I'm amazed that a bad review would lead to someone being fired though. Normally it would pacify a company to either have the game re-reviewed by another staff member or something else.
 
[quote name='Chacrana']Tomb Raider Anniversary and Legend were surprisingly good... apart from those though, there's nothing current that somebody could feasibly be interested in, it seems.[/quote]
Yeah... already got Anniversary (for the girlfriend), so I guess that leaves Deus Ex 3 when it comes out sometime in 2010. :lol:

That's probably why they are pissed, Kane & Lynch was their main meal ticket for a while so it seems.
 
Whether or not you liked Gerstmann or GameSpot, this may be the start of a scary trend for the gaming industry. And for that, everyone should care about this.
 
I'd didn't particularly like Jeff Gerstman before this; he always gav me the impression that he gave review scores inconsistent with general critical opinion for no other reason than because he wanted to appear "tough." This situation has actually somewhat increased my opinion of him. Hopefully he's not the snot I thought of him as.

I definitely didn't like the direction Gamespot took these past few years, so this news doesn't surprise me much. Consider my Gamespot boycott to be in effect now.
 
[quote name='Killer Rabbit']I'd didn't particularly like Jeff Gerstman before this; he always gav me the impression that he gave review scores inconsistent with general critical opinion for no other reason than because he wanted to appear "tough."[/QUOTE]

QFT. This is exactly how I felt about him.
 
This story is starting to explode onto the other gaming sites and it's getting a flood of publicity (negative for GS). If Jeff wasn't fired for the review, GS or CNET needs to come clean and do some damage control.

IMO, this could turn out to be the gaming story of 2007; not because he got fired for a bad review, but because it shows how much control a game company has over the reviews. How can we be certain that all the 9s and 10s for a game are really 9s and 10s? Assassin's Creed is a fine example of this, it's a decent game but not 9.0 quality (I'd put it more at 7.5 to 8.0) but there are people that are clamoring over it. Morgan Webb's review on X-Play made it sound like the cat's meow and TOTALLY overlooked the repetitive nature of the game (was she paid off?).

This makes me question the industry as a whole. I'm sure Jeff will land on his feet, but GS's reputation just did a nose-dive off a large cliff.
 
http://www.forumopolis.com/showpost.php?p=1869780&postcount=52

An interesting new twist from one of the guys behind the K&L ad:

This is what I came here to say.

I worked on the K&L ads personally, and I had a front-row seat to the whole debacle.

The ads were originally supposed to point to the GS review page, as they sometimes do. When the review came out, Eidos was understandably upset, and yes—they did threaten to pull the whole campaign—but they eventually simmered down and kept the campaign. They had us change the clickthrough URL from the GS review to the official site, but other than that little changed.

The ads went up and the Eidos brouhaha was settled over two weeks ago. Jeff got fired yesterday. Furthermore, I’d heard a few people tell that he’d already been skating on thin ice for “unprofessional reviews and review practices.” I don’t know much about that, though, so I can’t say one way or the other.

My gut tells me that he got canned for larger reasons. Maybe the Eidos debacle was part of it—I don’t know. But I sincerely doubt that Eidos made Gamespot fire him. CNET doesn’t kowtow to its advertisers, and I’ve more than once seen the higher-ups turn away big advertising dollars for the sake of the company’s integrity.

I think the whole thing is likely a combination of factors, the biggest being poor timing. Gerst gets canned just two weeks after the K&L incident, so people blame it on that (especially when backed by PA, the gaming journalism equivalent to The Daily Show).

It’ll be interesting to see how everything pans out, but I’m definitely gonna keep an open mind about it for now.
It's definitely too early to tell who or what's behind this.
 
[quote name='FriskyTanuki']It's definitely too early to tell who or what's behind this.[/QUOTE]

Nuh-uh!! We have random rumors and speculation!! THIS IS CONCRETE PROOF!!!!! Eidos is TEH SUCK!!!
 
[quote name='FriskyTanuki']It's definitely too early to tell who or what's behind this.[/QUOTE]

The biggest problem isn't that it's too early, but it's impossible. No amount of evidence would satisfy the conspiracy theorists who point to Eidos' influence over the firing. Mostly because it's all performance related with regards to the subjective nature of written reviews.

Moreover, any claims of "unprofessional conduct" in reviewing will be piled right on top of the "bad timing" heap to further reinforce the conspiracy to oust him.

I have no idea one way or another if Eidos was involved, or if it really is just poor, poor timing. What I do know if this: if he was fired for other reasons than this incident, those people who believe in the Eidos conspiracy will never be satisfactorily disproven.
 
I really liked his reviews, he wasn't afraid to give a big name game a score than it deserved. Either way, Gamespot went downhill a long time ago. They were much better before they merged with CNET, and redesigned their site.

It's a sad world when GameFAQs reviews might become the most reliable.
 
Cheapy, I hope you and Wombat address this issue in the next CAGcast or atleast on the UGO Blog.. this is serious news.

Not only did a man lose his job for doing his job, but this calls every review, every preview, anything ever writtin on a videogame website which advertises into speculation over whether it was influenced by money and bribery.

I hope Jeff is able to find another gig in the industry, I didn't necessaryily agree with his reviews (8.8 for Zelda?!) but still, a man should not be punished for doing his job and not folding to corporate pressure.

CNET, Gamespot and all their affiliates have been blocked on my computer and NeoGAF have announced that those sites have been blacklisted on their forums. Until this is clarified or rectified, Cheapy, would you consider doing the same?
 
bread's done
Back
Top