Jeff Gerttsman let go from gamespot?

Quoting from a different thread, which was closed:

http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=161932&page=2

Not sure why Trakan couldn't have just merged the threads, which would have been the rational thing to do. Maybe he doesn't have that ability, in which case I'd like to ask whatever mod might be reading this who has the ability to merge threads to please merge the threads.

(post I'm quoting: http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3658351&postcount=25)
[quote name='SL4IN']he said in the review, which I'm assuming you watched, that the game has unrelateable characters. Which granted, is an extremely piss poor reason to speak negatively of a game. If that holds true, than every game should get the "well the characters are good, but they're unrelateable" line because I can't tell you the last time someone told me how much they're life is like that of X video game character....... oh wait, because that doesn't happen.[/quote]

You hear "every single character in the game... completely unlikable.... ugly characters.... impossible to care about" and you get from that "the characters are good, but they're unrelateable"??

Either you're playing dumb or you're fucking insane.
 
I am interested to see what gamespot thinks is game of the year compared to other sites. I have always disliked there review, since they usually don't agree with what I think a game shoud get. I also used to listen to their podcast, but after sometime listen to it, it became to annoying to listen to and I lost any respect for the reviewers I had left.

I loved R&C and don't understand how they can think games like armor core 4 or Conan can get the same or better scores.
 
Now you, on the other hand, you haven't played Kane and Lynch, NOR HAVE YOU EVEN PLAYED THROUGH GEARS!!
Click to expand...

Assuming you went and looked at my achievements on xbox.com, you would have seen that I have in fact, played kane & Lynch. and if you did look further down, you would have also seen that I've played through some of gears. My reasoning for not playing the whole game? Because I beat it on a friends xbox last christmas when he recieved it. after playing the game this year (soon after I bought my own xbox 360) I saw no other reason to play through the game again since I had already beaten it last year. But of course, you're going to choose to call bullshit on me and disregard what I just said because I don't have the achivievemnts to "prove" I've beaten the game.

and you get from that "the characters are good, but they're unrelateable"??
Click to expand...

I was implying that if the characters from kane & lynch are unlikeable/impossible to care about, then almost every game should get that reasoning. But of course you can't because that statement from the video is Gerstmann's OPINION. He thinks the characters are unlikeable, you may think some character from X game is unlikeable and I think character from Y game is unlikable. It's all a matter of opinion and the fact that he used that as leverage to speak negative about the game is bullshit.
 
Gamespot has always sucked, and I'm definitely not a fan of Jeff (to put it lightly). But this, combined with pulling user reviews on Kane & Lynch, is by far the worst thing any videogame review outlet has ever done.



First off: I didn't notice Kane and Lynch on your list. I must have overlooked it. My apologies. That point had barely any bearance on the rest of my post, though.

[quote name='SL4IN']But of course, you're going to choose to call bullshit on me[/QUOTE]
I'm calling bullshit on you because you tried to imply that Kane and Lynch is as good a game as Gears, because you misquoted the review and blatantly changed its entire tone and point in order to fit into your argument, and because you think you can just slyly change "unrelateable" to "unlikeable/unrelateable" like nobody fucking noticed.

You took "completely unlikeable characters" and rephrased it as "good characters... but unrelateable". If that doesn't prove you are completely and utterly blinded and deluded, I don't know what could.


[quote name='SL4IN']He thinks the characters are unlikeable, you may think some character from X game is unlikeable and I think character from Y game is unlikable. It's all a matter of opinion and the fact that he used that as leverage to speak negative about the game is bullshit.[/QUOTE]
You're insane. Guess what else: In my opinion games that have shitty unresponsive controls suck. But that's just my opinion, so I sure as hell better not use it as "leverage" in my reviews of the game.

Here's my review for Ferris Bueller's Day Off:

Ferris Bueller's Day Off has a bunch of characters that you may or may not find like-able. You may or may not find it funny and/or enjoyable.

The End.
Click to expand...
 
[quote name='jollydwarf']Look, I can understand that a site "going against the grain" is unfavorable to a lot of people. But you know, most of the time my opinion of a game is 1:1 to theirs, that is why GameSpot has been my site of choice for (I think it's been more than 7 years.)

Yeah, but read the (non-Jade-inspired) sploogefest Assassin's Creed review, for example. Look around. The logo's the same there, but not much else. (EDIT: Please note: It is not the score I am calling into question, but instead the totally hyperbolic, James Lipton-riffic text.)[/quote]

Ok, I'll read it later. I haven't since AC doesn't interest me in the slightest.
 
[quote name='SL4IN']And so R&C future really deserves at 7.5? gamespot was the only one that thought so.

oh, and gamespot was also the only ones that thought that bioshock and twilight princess deserved lower scores than everyone else as well.

not to mention in gamespot's earlier days Jeff seemed to have some burning dislike for SEGA, because he also denounced a lot of their titles as well when sega was still in the console market.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='SL4IN']I was implying that if the characters from kane & lynch are unlikeable/impossible to care about, then almost every game should get that reasoning. But of course you can't because that statement from the video is Gerstmann's OPINION. He thinks the characters are unlikeable, you may think some character from X game is unlikeable and I think character from Y game is unlikable. It's all a matter of opinion and the fact that he used that as leverage to speak negative about the game is bullshit.[/QUOTE]

You seem to be under the assumption that game reviews are entirely objective. An objective review would be nothing but bullet points of its features, any rating of the game with words or score falls under subjective opinion. Essentially reviewers use their own opinions as leverage to speak positively or negatively about a game, it really is the basis for what they do, and it’s not "bullshit". And since peoples opinions differ, why is there an expectation that there will be some sort of parity in review scores? You would be better off finding a few reviewers that you tend to agree with for most games, and using them as your source for future games, rather than crying foul when you find the review anomaly.
 
Exactly. I always agreed with Jeff's opinion on games, hence why I would read his review and not some editor from another site.

Don't get me wrong though, that's not always the case. For example, Jeff gave Bully a really good review, where I personally thought the game was god awful.
 
[quote name='yukine']Exactly. I always agreed with Jeff's opinion on games, hence why I would read his review and not some editor from another site.

Don't get me wrong though, that's not always the case. For example, Jeff gave Bully a really good review, where I personally thought the game was god awful.[/quote]

?
 
[quote name='SL4IN']And so R&C future really deserves at 7.5? gamespot was the only one that thought so.

oh, and gamespot was also the only ones that thought that bioshock and twilight princess deserved lower scores than everyone else as well.

not to mention in gamespot's earlier days Jeff seemed to have some burning dislike for SEGA, because he also denounced a lot of their titles as well when sega was still in the console market.[/quote]haven't played R&C i wont comment on that. but when did a 9/10 become a low score? same for twilight princess, a 8.8 is a fucking good score. for some reason people only have a rating scale of 8-10 when it comes to hyped games and anything on the low end of that scale isn't worth your time.
 
Gamespot was the 1st and only site for some years that I went to for video games. I will be closing my membership there and leaving at the end of the year and moving on to some other site.
 
[quote name='triforcer']haven't played R&C i wont comment on that. but when did a 9/10 become a low score? same for twilight princess, a 8.8 is a fucking good score. for some reason people only have a rating scale of 8-10 when it comes to hyped games and anything on the low end of that scale isn't worth your time.[/QUOTE]


the issue with the R&C review is that it lost points for not having multiplayer. R&C is primarily an Action/Platforming/Shooter. Its like faulting Solitaire for being one player.

The only thing I need opinions on [in regards to reviews] are graphics, gameplay, etc... just the basics. And a synopsis in regards to what options the game has, multiplayer, 2, 3, 4, or 5 players.. just the basics. I don't mind if a reviewer gives their opinion of the story and other things about the game, because there are somethings that are just a matter of opinion.
 
[quote name='Thomas96']the issue with the R&C review is that it lost points for not having multiplayer.[/quote]
It's a legitimate complaint given that the last two games had a substantial multiplayer component. Gamespot wasn't the only site to dock points for that reason.
 
[quote name='triforcer']haven't played R&C i wont comment on that. but when did a 9/10 become a low score? same for twilight princess, a 8.8 is a fucking good score. for some reason people only have a rating scale of 8-10 when it comes to hyped games and anything on the low end of that scale isn't worth your time.[/QUOTE]
If games weren't $60 a pop people wouldn't have such high demands.

If I'm going to be paying sixty fucking dollars for a single fucking game, I better be getting something that's fucking perfect.
 
Oh, where to start...for the sake of this topic, I'll just say that they've always come across as a site that doesn't have a "Jeff Gerttsman" [sic] to be disobedient when it comes to accomodating the needs of their...providers. Actually, there was that controversy from, what, this summer, where it got out that former IGNer Douglass C. Perry went to a reviewer asking if his score for a game he had played or at least finished would be at least a 9.0, so that they could get the exclusive. Then they apparently realized how wrong the whole situation was, and passed on the deal.

They're just a big fucking infomercial for so many different products, a Maxim magazine with its priorities reversed, where it's all about games and geek culture with the token babe there to distract you from their lack of credibility. I hardly even skim their homepage anymore.
 
Yeah, not only is IGN the greatest perpetrator of the 7-10 scale in online reviews, their shit is written so poorly. Bloated 4 page epics about every facet of the game are not necessary even when you don't have to pay for pages. Keep it snappy and tell me what you think I really need to know about this game and why it's also a 7 out of 10 along with 60% of the games released this year.
 
[quote name='jer7583']Yeah, not only is IGN the greatest perpetrator of the 7-10 scale in online reviews, their shit is written so poorly. Bloated 4 page epics about every facet of the game are not necessary even when you don't have to pay for pages. Keep it snappy and tell me what you think I really need to know about this game and why it's also a 7 out of 10 along with 60% of the games released this year.[/quote]
Agreed. Their long reviews are too overwhelming at first glance. I'd maybe only read it for a game I'm really interested in, otherwise I'm interested in reading a page or two at most.
 
I am always skipped to the "Closing Comments" section. If the four pages were well-written, I might invest the time, but that's never really been a dilemma there.

They don't seem to cater to the most mature or devoted gaming base, so...who wants those tomes, anyway??
 
Yeah, just take a look at Bozon's reviews and you'll see why IGN has no credibility. I can't believe they pay that guy money to write reviews. He reads like an elementary schooler.
 
Hmmm, thing is Gerttsmann couldn't write a review to save himself. Look at his last one- it's so trite. While I generally abhor IGN, they do make some attempt at a little thing known as "details".

I have [] sympathy for reviewers, and even less respect.
 
Anyone listen to the Playerone Podcast? I've listened to the last 3 or so episodes, and gave them a chance. But their new one where they talk about the Gerstmann issue? HORRIBLE.

#1. None of they know how to be humorous at all. Seriously. They have no personality.

#2. My god. When they were going over what they've been playing, that was the longest, most boring "What You've Been Playing" segment of any podcast I've ever listened to.

#3. They are pretty uninformed. None of them read or watched the Gerstmann review of Kane and Lynch, but felt they could comment on the content of it? One of them solely focused on Gerstmann saying how either of the characters are likeable, and are down right dispicable. He goes on to say like "I don't see how he can take the moral high ground being so late in the game." He seems to think that Gerstmann gave the game a 6.0 just because of it's "ugly" content. He even said "I suspect that there are other reasons, such as gameplay, blah blah." WTF. You SUSPECT? The guy mentioned how he watched the fucking video review on youtube, but obviously didn't get past the first 40 seconds. RETARD.

Bunch of morons. Do yourself a favor and don't listen to the Playerone podcast. IDK how Cheapy and Wombat listen to it. Pure garbage.
 
Absolutely pathetic. I am never buying a Eidos game ever. What the hell are they thinking? Don't they know this is false advertising? And you can get sued for that? Idiots.
 
Do yourself a favor and don't listen to the Playerone podcast.

Don't worry, I didn't even know they existed until I read your post. Most gaming podcasts are just flat-out terrible. It's the Z-D podcasts* and "CAGcast" for me these days. Funny thing is, I was getting ready to give up on "The Hot Spot" even before this debacle, as it had become excruciatingly unfunny and tedious. Hindsight revealing the writing on the, um, site?

*--Even the occasional "Retronauts", as much as Jeremy Parish sounds like the captain of the 'evil' debate team in a bad 'rowdy college underdogs' comedy.
 
Yeah seriously, Eidos just lost a ton of credibility to me as a company. If anything about the Gerstmann thing is true compounded with the fact that they outright lie about scores and praise on the official website, they need to do something, fire whoever oked all this shit. Do they really give that much of a damn about their game to pull all kinds of stunts like these?

Maybe someone was thinking all this press would sell more Kane and Lynch games, but I for one don't think its working. I was actually going to try this game out before all this, but now I won't even so much as download a demo of it.

Eidos and GameSpot took a huge PR and financial hit from this, people are leaving in droves from subscriptions, and others refuse to purchase Eidos products. Hell, one man lost his job (allegedly) over this. All because Eidos doesn't have the balls to man up and realize this game is not the new Gears of War.

This is really upsetting because not only is a corporation shitting all over its customers with lies, they managed to make a poor guy lose his job. Just goes to show you the immense power money has over people. What also angers me is that this will probably get very little attention outside of the videogame industry.
 
[quote name='jollydwarf']Do yourself a favor and don't listen to the Playerone podcast.

Don't worry, I didn't even know they existed until I read your post. Most gaming podcasts are just flat-out terrible. It's the Z-D podcasts* and "CAGcast" for me these days. Funny thing is, I was getting ready to give up on "The Hot Spot" even before this debacle, as it had become excruciatingly unfunny and tedious. Hindsight revealing the writing on the, um, site?

*--Even the occasional "Retronauts", as much as Jeremy Parish sounds like the captain of the 'evil' debate team in a bad 'rowdy college underdogs' comedy.[/QUOTE]

That's what I thought too, but I've given them most a chance, and have come away liking them. Most of the 1up podcasts I like, name 1up yours, EGM Live, and GFW. The Sports Anomaly, Legendary Thread and Retronauts pretty much suck. I only like Retronauts when they play a game that's on the NES and past. Also, I despite Jenn Frank and the way she talks.

I also now listen to all of the IGN podcasts, excluding the Wiik in Review, hosted by Matt Cassamasina and Bozon. WOW. Talk about fanboyism. But Three Red Lights, Beyond, AFK, and Scoop are all funny to listen to.
 
[quote name='A Happy Panda']That's what I thought too, but I've given them most a chance, and have come away liking them. Most of the 1up podcasts I like, name 1up yours, EGM Live, and GFW. The Sports Anomaly, Legendary Thread and Retronauts pretty much suck. I only like Retronauts when they play a game that's on the NES and past. Also, I despite Jenn Frank and the way she talks.

I also now listen to all of the IGN podcasts, excluding the Wiik in Review, hosted by Matt Cassamasina and Bozon. WOW. Talk about fanboyism. But Three Red Lights, Beyond, AFK, and Scoop are all funny to listen to.[/quote]
I actually enjoy the Wiik in Review a bit. Half the time they've been making fun of the shovelware and who they're going to pass on that crap to for review because they sure don't want to do it. The current one on No More Heroes is pretty informative and interesting.
 
[quote name='H.Cornerstone']Absolutely pathetic. I am never buying a Eidos game ever. What the hell are they thinking? Don't they know this is false advertising? And you can get sued for that? Idiots.[/QUOTE]

Its not false advertising. Both companies made those statements. Eidos doesn't say Gamespy sez "Five stars. Its the best emulation of being bleh blah" They just present the quote and opted (for obvious reasons) not to clarify. In the marketing team eyes, its not their fault you misunderstood the five stars as a review.

Ubisoft does it pretty regularly too.

http://www.joystiq.com/2006/04/17/splinter-cell-ad-giving-fabricated-praise/

If we made decisions what not to play based on their marketing teams, we'd have nothing to play.
 
Sucks what happened to Jeff; around Christmas to top it off. I miss Rich for that matter. Its really going to make it hard to watch/listen/read anything that site puts out now. I was a regular podcast downloader over there.

I guess they will at least still be useful for previews.
 
[quote name='zerowing']Yeah seriously, Eidos just lost a ton of credibility to me as a company. If anything about the Gerstmann thing is true compounded with the fact that they outright lie about scores and praise on the official website, they need to do something, fire whoever oked all this shit. Do they really give that much of a damn about their game to pull all kinds of stunts like these?

Maybe someone was thinking all this press would sell more Kane and Lynch games, but I for one don't think its working. I was actually going to try this game out before all this, but now I won't even so much as download a demo of it.

Eidos and GameSpot took a huge PR and financial hit from this, people are leaving in droves from subscriptions, and others refuse to purchase Eidos products. Hell, one man lost his job (allegedly) over this. All because Eidos doesn't have the balls to man up and realize this game is not the new Gears of War.

This is really upsetting because not only is a corporation shitting all over its customers with lies, they managed to make a poor guy lose his job. Just goes to show you the immense power money has over people. What also angers me is that this will probably get very little attention outside of the videogame industry.[/quote]
Yup, I can't wait to see the sells figures for Kane & Lynch... it's going to be hi-larious!
 
What also angers me is that this will probably get very little attention outside of the videogame industry.

Probably. Although if this happened to Jessica Chobot or even Jennifer Tsao, I'll bet the story would find it's way into the mainstream, well, stream. No bitterness there, just demonstrating how disdainful the 'rest of the world' treats this industry (which, as demonstrated here, continues to do its damnedest to stay in the 'credibility ghetto'), and how figuratively and literally 'unsexy' it is to them.

I will never understand the timing of this. My belief is that he's been on 'thin ice' for quite some time there, (EDIT: Note the palpable lack of chemistry on "The Hot Spot" in recent weeks leading up to this) and he defiantly went against marching orders on this review, and they whacked him right "on the spot" (rimshot). What incredible myopia. What incredible hubris. They should've gnashed their teeth, promised Eidos he'd be gone first thing in 2008, and then as soon as he showed up five minutes late in January, axed him. Thankfully for us (but not Jeff), powertripping asshole suits scorned have no restraint, and this all plays out in front of us, with virtually absolute transparency.

Hopefully, Jeff gains martyrdom status, but gets an equally good or superior gig sooner than later. And hopefully, we're reading about Eidos and/or GameSpot going under by next holiday season.
 
[quote name='terribledeli']Its not false advertising. Both companies made those statements. Eidos doesn't say Gamespy sez "Five stars. Its the best emulation of being bleh blah" They just present the quote and opted (for obvious reasons) not to clarify. In the marketing team eyes, its not their fault you misunderstood the five stars as a review.

Ubisoft does it pretty regularly too.

http://www.joystiq.com/2006/04/17/splinter-cell-ad-giving-fabricated-praise/

If we made decisions what not to play based on their marketing teams, we'd have nothing to play.[/QUOTE]
Ubisoft didn't do anything like that. The link you sent shows Ubisoft correctly quoting a GameSpy preview, there is no implied review score.

Granted, H.Cornerstone is wrong about this being "false advertising" or that EIDOS could be "sued for it", but the fact is what Ubisoft did in that ad is really nothing like what EIDOS has done in an attempt to fabricate good review scores.

Unethical marketing practices are not so common as you would have people believe. This is a fine thing to get upset about. There's nothing wrong with someone choosing not to support EIDOS over this, it would be like not supporting Sony after the David Manning and planted-movie-goers debacle (which I would fully endorse). There's no reason to give your money to a vicious unethical purely self-serving company with no regard for decency or honesty.
 
[quote name='PyroGamer']Granted, H.Cornerstone is wrong about this being "false advertising" or that EIDOS could be "sued for it", but the fact is what Ubisoft did in that ad is really nothing like what EIDOS has done in an attempt to fabricate good review scores.[/quote]

Eidos could be sued for slander. You can't just go putting words or ratings in someones mouth, especially when there's a paper trail proving otherwise.
 
[quote name='PyroGamer']Unethical marketing practices are not so common as you would have people believe. This is a fine thing to get upset about. There's nothing wrong with someone choosing not to support EIDOS over this, it would be like not supporting Sony after the David Manning and planted-movie-goers debacle (which I would fully endorse). There's no reason to give your money to a vicious unethical purely self-serving company with no regard for decency or honesty.[/quote]

That and the game looks like a pile of arse.
 
GameInformer already filed a complaint and I Am sure Kotaku will as well. Either way, this is ridiculous and pathetic, and the review scores are implied.
 
[quote name='camoor']Eidos could be sued for slander. You can't just go putting words or ratings in someones mouth, especially when there's a paper trail proving otherwise.[/quote]

Those words were said in previews for the game. Its never specified wether the quotes are from a review or not. And they will claim that the stars across the top are a design choice, and not indicitive of an actual review score.

Yes its shady as hell, but they've covered their asses enough here that they cant be sued by anyone.
 
This has to be the worst case of two companies messing themselves publically since Enron's Accounting firm defended them AFTER they were indicted, and then promptly went out of business. Eidos is making it worse by asking people (the two or three who would pubiically admit it) to repost their reviews from their own site on amazon, as there are lots of bad reviews there. Gamespot is making it worse by not admitting their mistake.

Their employees need to stop damage control, and look for work elsewhere. it is clear their company doesn't understand the internet, ethics, or consequences of their actions upon their employees, who all can be replaced below the executive level. (the only good thing is they have not removed the 1600 brutal comments from their story. they did stop allowing additional comments, which i am sure will pacify people.):roll:

Eventually people will simply stop believing gamespot, and not even know the reason why, just that they cannot be trusted. The really amazing thing is that there is a PR company responsible for Kane and Lynch, and they are being PAID to do this to Eidos BY Eidos. At least the gamespot debacle can be blamed in internal executive idiots. These idiot decisions are not being outsouced, for goodness sake.

Simply jaw droppingly idiotic. How stupid have they been (Lets fire him)...how stupid are their continuing actions (we got 5 stars, but they are just a design decision)... It is almost awe inspiring. And remember folks, these are marketing professionals who did this to their client, and got PAID for it.
 
[quote name='Puffa469']Those words were said in previews for the game. Its never specified wether the quotes are from a review or not. And they will claim that the stars across the top are a design choice, and not indicitive of an actual review score.

Yes its shady as hell, but they've covered their asses enough here that they cant be sued by anyone.[/quote]

I'm not convinced.

Eidos might get a pass on their use of the preview quotation.

But the 5 stars - come on! Give me 100 rational game-playing adults, and I'm willing to bet every single one will interpret the 5 stars as a rating (they're right-aligned for goodness sakes!)

I doubt they'll be sued but the possibility exists.

I think we can all agree that it was an incredibly risky and stupid move for a corporation to make, whatever the legality.
 
I think this whole edios advertising thing is a bit of a red herring, the real reason why big companies do anything is economics. To me it is clear that cnet didn't like the direction Gamespot was taking under Jeff's management. There is an expectation that reviews on major websites will enthusiastically endorse any triple A title that comes out decent. Reviews under Jeff I have noticed have been more nitpicky and tend to be lower than what GS would have reviewed them as under Kasavin


I'll admit I don't enjoy reading or watching reviews for games like Bioshock or Mass Effect that tell my all the negatives instead of saying GO BUY, I'm already getting it so I don't want GS to rain on my parade. If this persisted the majority of videogame fans would ignore the reviews of GS especially since they also put up their reviews a few days after most. I think Cnet looked at it and said this approach is not good for business; anger from advertisers would just be the icing on the cake.


Their gambit seems to have failed, but maybe in the long run things will be better off from a business standpoint. GS wasn't getting any exclusive reviews because, from what I heard about IGN and Prey, companies only let you review games early if they get a high score. Cnet fired Jeff for his approach to the website, I think the GS audience isn't mature enough to realize Twilight Princess was an 8.8 game and still be excited to play it. Jeff can't run a mainstream website because he doesn't have a mainstream attitude. I enjoyed him thoroughly on the podcast but his lack of enthusiasm and hard to please attitude rubbed me the wrong way.

I'll be interested to see what cheapy and wombat think about all this, they tend to have a unique viewpoint.
I just think this isn't about Kane and Lych.[/font]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top