Jeff Gerttsman let go from gamespot?

[quote name='yukine']Looks like it was already taken down (or he just edited it out himself.) A damn shame, I would of liked to see what he had said.[/QUOTE]

If you watch the video that he links in his post, you can pretty much decipher how he feels about the whole thing.

Also, for anyone else interested, 1up has posted a story on their front page.

Also, Xbox 360 Editor Hilary Goldstein from IGN has posted in his blog about the situation. He basically tells everyone to calm down, and that it is unlikely that Jeff was fired for this one review. I understand his point, but I don't really like his tone. Even though he says he supports and likes Jeff at the end of his post, the rest of it seems like him saying "Yeah, this should have happened awhile ago."
 
[quote name='yukine']I'm sure Hilary and the other IGN morons are drinking champagne right now.[/QUOTE]

I like most of the editors at IGN, but mostly because they're funny to listen to on the podcasts, I don't really read the reviews anymore, other than watching the video reviews they post. But they can definitely be jerks and asshats.
 
[quote name='yukine']I'm sure Hilary and the other IGN morons are drinking champagne right now.[/quote]

IGN is filled with asshats. Anyone remember Halo DS that was just some crap Goldeneye game skinned?

Gamespot > IGN anyday, but it seems that reviewers can't be trusted anymore, thank goodness for the rise of downloadable game demos!
 
http://www.gamespot.com/users/AaronThomas/show_blog_entry.php?topic_id=m-100-25234883#post_comment

I feel like I need to say something but I don't know what to say, or what I can say. This has been a difficult week. The current situation hurts GameSpot, me, you, and anyone who has ever read or written for the site. I've read the rumors, gotten your emails, browsed the forums, and visited the websites reporting the news/rumors/speculation. I can't comment on any of that. After all, I'm still a GameSpot employee and there are certain things I can't discuss as an employee. This isn't GameSpot suddenly clamping down on me or any of us here--this is how it is for anyone with a job. If you work at Wal-Mart and you have an issue with management you can't go to the media yapping about it and management can't go to the media complaining about your performance. It's what I agreed to when I signed on over a year ago.

I'm not making excuses for GameSpot. I'm just trying to explain why your questions haven't been answered directly by the GameSpot staff--we can't. Just know that your voices have been heard by the folks that bring you the news, previews, editorials, features, reviews, and video. I can't speak for anyone but myself, but it's been an incredibly difficult and emotional week. Thank you to those of you with supportive things to say. And to those of you that don't feel like there's any reason to be supportive, I understand that as well. Hopefully we all get through this. We'll see...

*Edit: I appreciate the sympathetic comments to this post, but I want to make it clear that I didn't write this because I was looking out for myself. I wrote it for you, so you would know that there are people out there that hear you and care about what you're saying.
Aaron Thomas speaks up on the situation.
 
[quote name='help1']I suppose, but really what you are saying is:

Eidos is doing what it has to do to make money.

I guess you can say that Gamespot did what it had to do to make money as well, since GameSpot/CNET also is a company.
[/quote]

True, Eidos is doing what is has to do. However, there's a rather big difference between Eidos trying to give their game a better reputation and Gamespot/CNet essentially tarnishing their company's reputation.

[quote name='porieux']You seem to be forgetting, that they should be blamed for creating such utter garbage in the first place.[/quote]

... well, yeah. :razz:
 
So Eidos wanted the links directed to the review, before even knowing what the review was going to be? Sounds like someone was a little sure that their review was going to be high.

Also, I find it hard to believe that those on the inside who knew the situation much better than we do, would also leave in protest, unless they sincerely believe it wasn't "due to his unprofessional manner" or whatnot. Albeit, we don't know that other reviewers are leaving due to this situation, but what are the chances of everything being coincidental occurances.
 
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.

Well, that explains so much. The simplified (albeit arguably improved) scale, the cartoony pictures for the "Good" and "Bad" points, the recent gusheriffic reviews, the "The Hot Spot" becoming "The Lukewarm Spot"...and so on. It also demonstrates how there really is a 'sea change' going on with the entire industry, largely as a reaction to...no, I'm not even gonna say it. 'Cause you know what I'd say.

I wonder if legalities are the primary thing keeping Jeff silent. Normally, I'd say we'll never know the whole story, but I think more than enough people care to where within weeks, all the pertinent pieces of the puzzle will fall into place for public consumption.

Anyone wanna speculate about who's next on The Industry's 'hit list'? It is with a very heavy heart that I submit the prediction of one Shawn Elliott? Why? Because he's funny. Because we* enjoy him. Because he's sparked "GFW Radio", made it a premiere podcast, and, 'worst' of all, stimulated us enough to, you know, think. Oh, and because he gave Crysis an 8.0. "Why so low?"

This shit is another sterling example of why the rest of the world derisively snorts at the gaming industry. It really is that laughable compared to its older, more worldly entertainment counterparts. Jade Raymond, Jeff Gerstmann...where else do you see this level of idiocy and completely transparent corruption?

*--Well, if you don't, that's your problem. Maybe the "Ralphie" voice hits a little too close??
 
1up/ziff would NEVER get rid of Shawn and have always been very clear about the importance of keeping editorial/advertising separate. In fact, almost all of the 1up people on any podcast has spoken out about the 7-10 review scale and how they use the whole scale, not just the top end.

GFW was great this week, by the way, when they were making fun of holiday buyers guides, Game Informer's in particular. That magazine is the worst of them all. Reading their articles just makes my head hurt.
 
The HotSpot has been pretty crappy lately, I wonder how terrible it will get without Jeff.

I guess I only have the CAGcast to listent o now.
 
1up/ziff would NEVER get rid of Shawn

I hope you're right, but these days, I've just become conditioned to expect a startling and disheartening depature about every six months or so in the gaming media world. He's just the one person I enjoy listening to the most now (and yes, that includes the CAGcast...sorry, it's true), so therefore I wait for the general corporate bullshit that is obviously rampant in this industry to bully him out, one way or another, and probably over something equally stupid. I also await the uber-fanfuck backlash to hit, as clearly the humor in his anecdotes and voices is based on some very real, very irredeemably sad cases out there.

Granted, that's not rational thinking, but again, I'm just waiting for the next bit of bad news. (Who knows...maybe Wombat will get a "real job" that forces him to quit, or maybe an industry job that creates a 'conflict of interests'.) Can one totally blame me on this one?

P.S. All bets are immediately off if/when the 1up network gets sold. And while they now 'default' to Most Scrupulous Major Site, I'm not willing to accept that the Z-D closets are 100% skeleton-free.
 
[quote name='A Happy Panda']I like it. I still wish he was around at GS.[/quote]

I know... it seems like things got progressively worse when he left.
 
well this blows, i've been a fan of gamespot and jeff's reviews for many years now. this pretty much destroys their credibility for me.
 
While the score of the review has not changed, the text of the review certainly has.

Original Review Text:
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.




And heres the newer, 'nicer' review text:

Io Interactive is best known for its stealth-focused Hitman series, but there's nothing quiet and sneaky about its latest release, Kane & Lynch: Dead Men. This time around, the developer put together a crime-themed shooter that starts out with a couple of simple, heist-like objectives and then rapidly spins out of control until, without much warning, you're gunning down soldiers in the middle of a foreign revolution. While the journey sounds interesting at first, and has a few bright points, it's weighed down by bad storytelling, a real lack of character development, and a host of gameplay-related issues. The end result is a game that squanders much of its potential and just doesn't come together as well as it probably should have.



Kane and Lynch don't get along--not in an especially interesting way either.


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'll probably be tough for you to find anyone to latch onto and care about, even if you typically go for this sort of crime drama on TV or in movies. 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 disappointment, especially when you consider how well this same sort of stuff worked in the developer's previous squad-based game, Freedom Fighters.

There's only one multiplayer mode in Kane & Lynch, and it's a great idea. Unfortunately, the idea doesn't translate into a great or long-lasting experience. 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 bummer that the multiplayer is 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 weak 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.


While it might seem like a basic heist game, Kane & Lynch does a good job of moving the action around, and you'll see a variety of different environments and situations, ranging from banks, to prison breaks, to full-scale conflicts in the middle of illicit poppy fields. It also 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 in-game, 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 multiplayer mode is a really cool idea that leaves you wondering who's going to turn traitor on you, but it isn't strong enough to make you forget the game's other problems.



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 gratuitous 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!" Things like that just make the game feel purposely abrasive, and not in a "gritty" or "cool" sort of way.

The game is available on the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 as of this writing, and the differences between the two versions are minimal. Both games have occasional frame rate issues and the control issues with finding cover and hitting targets are noticeable in both. The only real difference is that the PlayStation 3 version doesn't seem to have voice chat support. The multiplayer mode only really clicks when you can talk things out with other players and try to convince them that you're not going to turn traitor--only to turn traitor on them and then laugh about it. Without that, the whole experience feels a little dry. The Xbox 360 version also has the standard set of 1,000 achievement points, a few of which reward you for specific moments in co-op, like having the player controlling Lynch put a few cops out of their misery, rather than leaving them to writhe on the ground.

Kane & Lynch: Dead Men is a premise with promise, and if you've been waiting patiently for a game to really dive into the whole "crew-based heist tale" concept, you might be able to look past some of the story flaws. But when you consider the nearly ridiculous number of extremely high-quality shooters available recently, there's not much room for something like Kane & Lynch, even taking into account the somewhat unique nature of its story. That said, the multiplayer is a smart idea that's worth seeing, even if playing it makes you wish that it was used in another, better game.


Below the new text is this Lie erm... disclaimer:

Editor's Note: This review has been updated to include differences between the Xbox 360 and PS3 versions and a clarification on the game's multiplayer mode.

Gerstmann is still credited as authoring the review even tho it has been clearly changed enough where anyone can see that those are no longer his words, or feelings about the game.
 
They just keep digging the grave deeper, don't they? Sadly, though, most of 'the kids' will have forgotten about this by Monday...or the next big review they're waiting to get indignant over.

I have never seen anything quite like this, though, regardless of whether it has a lasting effect, or is some minor turbulence for the corrupt equation that is 'gaming journalism'. At this point, why don't they just get an Eidos 'suit' to redo the Video Review?

Coming very soon: GameSpot finally gets its eye-candy, hardware-licking hussie! All will be forgiven!
 
After reading both of those reviews I personally feel the second one is better written and criticizes the game for its faults yet still sounds respectful.
 
THIS:

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.


BECAME THIS:

While the journey sounds interesting at first, and has a few bright points, it's weighed down by bad storytelling, a real lack of character development, and a host of gameplay-related issues. The end result is a game that squanders much of its potential and just doesn't come together as well as it probably should have.




THIS:

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.

BECAME THIS:

So whether you're doing the shooting yourself or hanging back and letting your men do the dirty work, the game is a real disappointment, especially when you consider how well this same sort of stuff worked in the developer's previous squad-based game, Freedom Fighters.



THIS:

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.

BECAME THIS:

While it might seem like a basic heist game, Kane & Lynch does a good job of moving the action around, and you'll see a variety of different environments and situations, ranging from banks, to prison breaks, to full-scale conflicts in the middle of illicit poppy fields. It also 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 in-game, 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.



And Again this:

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.

Became this:

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!" Things like that just make the game feel purposely abrasive, and not in a "gritty" or "cool" sort of way.


And finally, the summary:

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.


And now:

Kane & Lynch: Dead Men is a premise with promise, and if you've been waiting patiently for a game to really dive into the whole "crew-based heist tale" concept, you might be able to look past some of the story flaws. But when you consider the nearly ridiculous number of extremely high-quality shooters available recently, there's not much room for something like Kane & Lynch, even taking into account the somewhat unique nature of its story. That said, the multiplayer is a smart idea that's worth seeing, even if playing it makes you wish that it was used in another, better game.
 
_11761796591712.jpg


"That's right...we're now going to keep revising the reviews to the liking of the Ministry until they...sink in...understood? Or would you like to follow Mr. Gerstmann out the door?"
 
Regardless if the review was respectful or even on target this still scares the pants off me. I don't like reviewers or any website to feel threatened by any game corp. It opens doors we don't want to go down, are they paying for reviews are they pushing for scores, can they actually cut funding and have reviewers fold or be fired, and this is a dangerous precedent. Especially considering how fragile the gaming industry is and especially how fragile many review sites and reviewers are (not well paid, fledgling industry, professional status questionable). For example, if motor trend rips on a toyota and toyota then threatens to pull its sponsorship, motor trend would simply laugh and tell them to fuck off and simply replace them with someone else who is dying to get into their pages. They are well establsihed magazine, with well established writers, something many video game sites cannot afford.
 
I've always felt that having a lot of marketing for a particular game on a site that reviews games was always a bad idea. It's such a conflict of interest, they should stick to advertisments for movies, music, food, television and all that other crap.
 
I think that GS was blackballing companies to use them for advertisements in exchange for better reviews which automatically mean better revenue for said game. I think that GS promised a decent review for K&L and this guy wanted to protect the integrity of the site. [the little it had left] Eidos didn't have to put pressure on GS to fire Gerttsman... not imo, the pressure was steming from within GS, to ensure that K&L review was good, because of their blackball promisory dealings with Eidos... so that they could get that advertising "deal" Everyone knows Eidos has been on the ropes for a long time, they need a hit game under their belt.
 
[quote name='yukine']I've always felt that having a lot of marketing for a particular game on a site that reviews games was always a bad idea. It's such a conflict of interest, they should stick to advertisments for movies, music, food, television and all that other crap.[/QUOTE]



good point... and when you said that it made me realize that CAG would be a good site for reviews.. because most of the advertisements from CAG are going to come from retailers.
 
For example, if motor trend rips on a toyota and toyota then threatens to pull its sponsorship, motor trend would simply laugh and tell them to off and simply replace them with someone else who is dying to get into their pages. They are well establsihed magazine, with well established writers, something many video game sites cannot afford.

The trick is to get gaming media, print and online, to this point. Based on everything I've read and heard in the last couple years, even though gaming is supposedly finally all 'mainstream' 'n' shit, it's proving exceedingly difficult. Maybe even impossible on its current trajectory. No one wants to let it happen, from the publishers, to its ever-bickering, petty media, to the literal and figurative children that are the loudest voices in its 'community' (cue dry-heave sound effect). Let's not even bring in the constant assaults politicians and You-Know-Who are making, keeping the stigmatization of the recreation fully in place.

No, we're at least a good decade away from a gaming site playing by the same rules as an automobile or even movie/music site. Right now, I'd say that gaming is still in the same credibility ghetto as the comic book industry. Until the majority of gaming sites and mags* take a stand against these practices, and until gaming can find a way to make kid-unfriendly sites/publications** profitable, no change is coming.

If more 'mainstream' people were paying attention to this, gaming would be more of a laughingstock than ever.

*--And let's face it...the jobs obviously don't pay that well, and most of the staffers are major-league geeks who are inherently easily distracted by 'perks' and feeling important for a change.

**--If there even are gaming magazines around in five years, I suspect they will be geared more than ever towards those at or past the tail end of the coveted 18-34 male demographic. Kids simply won't want to touch print if they absolutely don't have to.
 
That game actually sounds like absolutely pathetic garbage, regardless of this issue.

EIDOS should be ashamed of themselves for putting out such cynical negative tripe.
Are they the Fox News of gaming or WTF?
 
Its too late at this point, doesn't matter if Gerttsman is in or out at GS... the reviews are going to be biased. Gerttsman in some ways was harsh about the game. I stopped liking GS after how they did Ratchet and Clank (ps3). Review hardcore favorites high - to protect the sites integrity (status) as a lead review site, and low review scores for those who don't indulge in GS services.
 
Ryan Davis has updated his blog with a really great entry:

http://www.gamespot.com/users/ryan

Also apparently Brian Eckberg had originally posted something, but then editted out the content completely and replaced it with "NM." Some neogaf users stated that the blog talked about how he might have to leave to, but that is a gigantic rumor so don't even try bother believing it.
 
This goes to prove that all of Wombats fear mongering over the state of games journalisim was justified. The mucketymucks at Cnet and gamespot have to be incredibly stupid to think this would not create an epic backlash. I know many forum trolls (especially nintendo fanboys) have no love for Jeff, but you have to understand this is the elusive proof we all have been waiting for.

I remember when Dan Shu wrote his infamous editorial about pay for review coverstories three years ago and the interwebs were abuzz about just who he was referring to. The general gaming public never recieved any conformation but those who dug deep enough heard second and third hand stories mostly about Gameinformer and IGN but there was never any comfirmation. He wrote another editorial this summer and once agian there was an even larger rumor mill spinning but still no proof arose. Friday morning we finally received the proof. Those creeping doubts we had in the back of our minds were given legitamacy.

So who do we trust now. I long ago learned to take game reviews with a grain of salt. The emergence of podcast let me to trust the voices more then the written word. But the last bastion of truth in game reviews and product reviews in general come from the user. I read 1up user reviews and use the opinion of forum users and independent podcasters in addition to demos when it comes to making game purchases. I just feel sorry for those who are left behind at gamespot who still have ethics and were just told to check those at the door when they come in for work.
 
The industry is getting bigger, and worth more money... so "reviews for money" are just some of the benefits of being mainstream unfortunately.
 
That was an awesome gesture. I imagine some soulless upper management dipshit that authorized the dropping of the ax on Jeff looking at a PC monitor with exploding forums, then swiveling to looking out the window horrified, all 'Saruman watching the Ents destroy Isengard'-style.

God, what an incomprehensibly nerdy way to put it.
 
Wow, they've lost Greg Kasavin, Rich Gallup, and now they are getting rid of Jeff Gerstman? GameSpot was the only place that I actually went to to see all the news and reviews besides CAG, and I listened to their podcast every week, even after they lost the host Rich Gallup since Jeff was doing such a great job filling in as the leader of the show.

Now, I might just give up on major gaming websites like this completely. I have loved GameSpot ever since I got really into games a few years ago, but this is complete crap. I hope the story is just misunderstood and that there is a realistic reason for this.
 
[quote name='sj41']I hope the story is just misunderstood and that there is a realistic reason for this.[/QUOTE]

I had this opinion a few days ago when the story first broke. However,

- Gerstmann's firing
- the other folk(s?) quitting
- multiple ambiguous blogs from gs employees/folks in the know
- "solidarity" activity from other gaming sites (such as the 1up, erm, "protest" linked above)
- the kane and lynch ads on gamespot

it's tough to say that it's all coincidence and that everyone close to the circumstances is overreacting and misinformed. Thinking it's a case of bad timing was hard enough, even without the last two points that really send this into believing the Eido/CNet conspiracy:

- taking down Gerstmann's video review
- the revisions to the text of his review, and what they substantively altered in his comments about the game.
 
hindsight on this is 20/20. Gamespots reviews had been going down the toilet for a while now, and the recent lowballing of most big name games really had their integrity in question. And with their other reviewers leaving the company as well, did no one else see this coming?

Alternatively, I want to say that how Jeff was fired was not right, in the sense that Eidos gave Gamespot an ultimatum the same way Sony blackballed Kotaku last year. It's just not right. BUT Jeff's reviews had been over the years "questionable" along with the rest of gamespot's reviews. IMO the guy's bias's where getting in the way with his work (for example, he's been extremely harsh on almost all SEGA games years ago when sega was still around. why?).

While IMHO I personally believe that the only reason gamespot has been lowballing games recently is for a poor attempt to pull views to their failing site. It's just this time, it was the straw that broke the camels back and Eidos wasn't going to put up with gamespot's shit. Needless to say, I hate to see someone in the video game industry lose their job, because I ultimately want to end up there someday, but in all sincerity, Jeff Gerstmann will not be missed.
 
While IMHO I personally believe that the only reason gamespot has been lowballing games recently is for a poor attempt to pull views to their failing site.

While I disagree about the "recently" part (hasn't that been their reputation for years now?), it's funny how it seems like they chose the 'path of most resistance' (from above and below) to get the hits, while most other sites of consequence seem to err on the side of, um, diplomacy. Obviously, if everyone were "GameSpot" with reviews, no one would be "Gamespot".

I think 1up is the closest to getting it right. Their reviews are the right length, and the fact that people can't deal with them using the entire 1-10 scale is just indicative of how compressed other sites' scales have effectively become and how immature a large chunk of their user bases is.

Jeff Gerttsman will not be missed

It's Gerstmann and "says you!" And I hold out hope we haven't heard the last from him yet. I think 1up would be the no-brainer fit, but they've already got their token fat guy. (Who is actually the person I find the most abrasive on that site, actually, what with his indie-poser chic and "Whoa, dude" cadence.) So he'll probably end up in limbo for quite awhile, or maybe displacing Wombat at UGO when the next month is up. (God, how fucked up would that be??)
 
Oh yeah... they have been giving established franchises games lower scores for years (if it really deserved it) that is why I always trusted their reviews. When a game got a 8.0 or higher you know that game has to be pretty fantastic (not all the time, mind you, but most the time.)

I don't really know where to go now, I guess 1up? I refuse to go to IGN I hate those fuckers. This is rather troublesome for me, as I've been going to Gamespot for so long and its become a habit that when a game I'm interested in is about to come out I go there to check for the review. I still support the editors that are left, but knowing who is running the show behind the scenes makes me not want to give them any hits.
 
[quote name='yukine']Oh yeah... they have been giving established franchises games lower scores for years (if it really deserved it) that is why I always trusted their reviews. When a game got a 8.0 or higher you know that game has to be pretty fantastic (not all the time, mind you, but most the time.)

I don't really know where to go now, I guess 1up? I refuse to go to IGN, I hate those fuckers.[/quote]

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.
 
On a semi-related note, did anybody happen to watch part of X-Play's fantastic Ratchet & Clank Future special?

Jiminy Christmas! That was frickin SHILL-FEST 2007!

I tuned in to the show about half way through, and I literally could not finish watching it. I used to like X-Play, before it started going downhill. The Emperor Gets a Job, and the Bob & Steve sketches were awesome. But for the past year or so, the show has just been subpar. I still like Adam Sessler and Morgan Webb, and Sessler's Soapbox is surprisingly refreshing.

However, I guess there really is nothing worth watching on G4 anymore.

Edit: I actually remember this one preview Adam did a while back on a JRPG sequel that was rather obviously going to be quite lame. He did a traditional overview of the game, but he also made comments like "the prequel sucked, let's face it: this one is going to suck as well." The joke was that at the end of the preview, his boss was informing him that if he didn't say something positive about the game, he was going to be fired. Obviously, that was a joke. I understand why editors can't bash a game they're reviewing: nobody is going to send games to them for review if they always tear the games apart. Yet, I wonder now if that sketch was ripped from the G4 office gossip, Law and Order style.
 
[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]
I can't say if R&C deserved a 7.5... I never played it.

But about Twilight Princess and Bioshock, those were spot on in my opinion. 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.)
 
[quote name='Halo05']The graphics are pretty ugly. I guess it gets the job done but in a post-Bioshock/Halo 3/CoD4 era, you can't put something like this out and expect it to get good scores. From what I've read and now seen, I'll happily skip this one.[/quote]

I think that is exactly right, you follow 3 of the better if not best games of the year and expect a medicore story driven game to get as good reviews as them is just dumb. I think the game definitely had potental but they just didn't do what was needed to make it a great game; maybe they were pushed to get it out before the holiday season.

It was definitely not anything that he should have lost his job over, there has to be something was building up or stuff we just don't know about.
 
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.)
 
bread's done
Back
Top