megaton: Gerstmann fired from Gamespot

[Thorlief]

..according to Penny Arcade, bloggers, anonymous insiders etc etc

http://www.penny-arcade.com/images/2007/20071129.jpg

http://blog.wired.com/games/2007/11/sources-gamespo.html

uh oh..stay tuned

[Xero Kaiser]

A) A 6.0 is being generous. My score would've been a picture of dog ----

B) Let this be a lesson to anyone who thinks review scores actually mean anything

[DaeJi]

I tend to go by reader reviews. For myself, Assassin's Creed isn't for me. I found it boring and would rate it fairly low.

[Alex]

Gamespot does realize that now, any review they put up of a game being advertised, the review can't be trusted, right?

[Genma:TheDestroyer]

And there goes some of their precious remaining credibility.

[Alex]

And there goes some of their precious remaining credibility.

In one day, they went from the guys who give great games low ratings for no reason, to the guys who will fire you for giving low ratings to bad games that make them money.
Then again, i always find it odd when Game Informer does a giant feature on a game, fills the magazine with ads for it, then gives it a crap score.

[1WEBHEAD]

In one day, they went from the guys who give great games low ratings for no reason, to the guys who will fire you for giving low ratings to bad games that make them money.
Then again, i always find it odd when Game Informer does a giant feature on a game, fills the magazine with ads for it, then gives it a crap score.

Clive's Jericho or something like that is a good example. . .

[Thorlief]

http://forums.eidosgames.com/forumdisplay.php?f=72

haha, can't imagine why

[SAMAS]

In one day, they went from the guys who give great games low ratings for no reason, to the guys who will fire you for giving low ratings to bad games that make them money.
Then again, i always find it odd when Game Informer does a giant feature on a game, fills the magazine with ads for it, then gives it a crap score.

They once mentioned it about the Blade game. They talked about how when it was first announced, they were all over it, then, as the game came closer to release, they were talking about it less and less. The review then said: "This is why" and proceeded to tear into the game.

I would guess they had a contract or something.

[Agent Helix]

Game journalists take what they're given in terms of preview material. A lot of the time, they don't even get to play the games they're previewing (they simply get to watch developers play, or videos), so they have to give their previews on potential, rather than actual implementation. Preview pieces are generally fluff to begin with, and most major games, before the final build, it's hard to tell whether they are great or terrible. So, they tend to give them the benefit of the doubt and talk up the high points, then review the game on its objective merits when it comes out. As for ads, that's what keeps magazines and websites running. They can't really be picky about it.

Seriously, would you have been happier if Game Informer gave Jericho a 10 out of 10? That game is terrible. They were right to trash it.

[nervmeister]

There are some truly horrible greedy f%$ks working at Gamespot.

[kingdom2000]

I sum up the whole thing here (http://erasend.blogspot.com/2007/11/gamespot-reviewer-fired.html) but the gist of it is Gamespot.com fired Jeff Gerstmann for a 6/10 review of Kane & Lynch which led to Edios pulling thousands of dollars in advertisements.

So, if true, this indicates that if you pay enough money, Gamespot (and one assumes other CNET sites) will give your stuff good press and if the review doesn't tow the line they will get fired.

For me, that means that gamespot.com and other cnet sites can no longer be trusted as don't know if the information has been bought or not.http://bp3.blogger.com/_G96gxvrHqrE/R1CSwA19adI/AAAAAAAABTE/Fytiyw5KbEI/s1600-R/PennyArcade113007.jpg

[Thorlief]

just a few posts down (http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?t=199814)

[Genma:TheDestroyer]

Ah, winter...sometimes it gets so cOLD.

But it'll get better, or so I'm tOLD.

Till then, go to a store where jackets are sOLD.


...Y'know, that's nowhere near as fun as the guys on Gamefaqs lead me to believe.

[Genma:TheDestroyer]

To be serious for a moment though, I question how many people actually took Gamespot seriously, anyway. This is a site that routinely finds a great game, checks out the average review score from across the board, and then seems to lower their review by a couple points just so they can score 'cred' about being hardcore.

This sucks in principle (I say principle, because I disliked smarmy Jeff), but only lowers my respect a little bit more than it already was.

[Gilda Dent]

I used to read PCGamer, and on a couple of occasions they got a similar question regarding advertising a game heavily and poor reviews. Their response was that the ad sales department and editorial, which reviews games, are entirely separate departments with little to no contact. The critics don't know which games are going to be advertised in the magazine when they write the reviews.

[Thorlief]

^that's pretty much what I thought., It is obvious there's a strong contrast between scores and ads, there must be two diff departments: in short, administration and journalists. Just like in a newspaper

Gerstmann sucked at reviews; he had no style, and some of his votes were intentionally low. It still sucks because a man got fired, but I'm pretty sure he will find another chair soon

[Gilda Dent]

^that's pretty much what I thought., It is obvious there's a strong contrast between scores and ads, there must be two diff departments: in short, administration and journalists. Just like in a newspaper

Gerstmann sucked at reviews; he had no style, and some of his votes were intentionally low. It still sucks because a man got fired, but I'm pretty sure he will find another chair soon

Yeah. It's actually unethical to do it any other way.

[Serik]

Gamespot does realize that now, any review they put up of a game being advertised, the review can't be trusted, right?

Yeah, and as this news spreads Gamespot's hit count will drop significantly. I wonder who'll fire the CNET execs once Gamespot's ad revenue starts tanking over the next few months? Then again, corporate shrills aren't exactly known for their long-term strategy.

If you bill yourself as a serious publication, you better act like one. Whether or not Gamespot was ever a serious publication, however, is up for debate...

[Serik]

To be serious for a moment though, I question how many people actually took Gamespot seriously, anyway.

I totally gave up on Gamespot once it started awarding games XBL-type "achievements" for things like "terrific voice acting" and "shallow." It seems like they're trying to appeal to a rad new generation of gamers who're incapable of actually reading. There's only so much a cutesy icon of a foot in shallow water can tell the reader about the game.

If nothing else, the fantastic reviews at Zero Punctuation show that the scoring system isn't necessary for effective game reviews. Let the review speak for itself...there's a concept.

[StreetFighterRyu]

Hilarious. His main problems are basically crappy A.I. (which is pretty much everywhere) graphics (which looks fine to me) inaccurancy (again, that's everywhere) no online co-op (ok I would complain about that too) and how ugly they look (um, you expect two serial killers to be handsome?)

6/10. He had the nerve to say that you can check it out but might not be worth purchasing. Funny thing is my friend has it and he said it's good. So, *flips the birdy at Jeff*

I wonder what his thoughts are about Hitman.

[Serik]

Hilarious. His main problems are basically crappy A.I. (which is pretty much everywhere) graphics (which looks fine to me) inaccurancy (again, that's everywhere) no online co-op (ok I would complain about that too) and how ugly they look (um, you expect two serial killers to be handsome?).

And that's why you shouldn't review videogames...or anything for that matter.

"Oh this car model? Yeah, it breaks down a lot. But so do all these other models, so you shouldn't worry about it!" Crappy AI code is inexcusable, game ruining, and lazy, regardless of how many games do it.

And your friend's review is just as valid as his (probably moreso because he's not being paid off by publishers :D ). Anecdotal evidence is just that.

[StreetFighterRyu]

And that's why you shouldn't review videogames...or anything for that matter.

Reviewing has, at least one purpose: Know what the game is about, what settings it has, and how the gameplay is. Sure some might be biased, but reviewers are one of the sources there to get some info about the game, regardless how stupid it may sound. Again, just a source. Nothing concrete unless you try it out yourself.

"Oh this car model? Yeah, it breaks down a lot. But so do all these other models, so you shouldn't worry about it!" Crappy AI code is inexcusable, game ruining, and lazy, regardless of how many games do it.

Oh yeah. I forgot about the "laziness". Oh the dialogues are so lazy because most of the time is **** you. I like to hear his thoughts about GTA and Saints Row. Hopefully I'll see him tripping over his own words.

And your friend's review is just as valid as his (probably moreso because he's not being paid off by publishers :D ). Anecdotal evidence is just that.

Example: The "driving thing" for Mass Effect. The driving operates the same way as Battlefield 2 so I didn't have a problem with it. I guess he didn't like it.

But he knows my taste in games. He'll say he didn't like "this game" or "this other game" but knows I might be into it. So while his reviews are just as valid as others, he knows me well enough (about 90% of the time) and let's me have keep whatever games he don't like.

[Alex]

Seriously, would you have been happier if Game Informer gave Jericho a 10 out of 10? That game is terrible. They were right to trash it.

Didn't say they should do that, just said i find it odd that the companies keep spending money on ads at the risk of it being wasted.
Seeing 2 page ad, and then on the next page finding a review of 4 for said game, kinda undoes the ad.

[Cyke]

Hilarious. His main problems are basically crappy A.I. (which is pretty much everywhere) graphics (which looks fine to me) inaccurancy (again, that's everywhere) no online co-op (ok I would complain about that too) and how ugly they look (um, you expect two serial killers to be handsome?)

6/10. He had the nerve to say that you can check it out but might not be worth purchasing. Funny thing is my friend has it and he said it's good. So, *flips the birdy at Jeff*

I wonder what his thoughts are about Hitman.

Regardless of his reasoning, though, he's still entitled to his opinion. The fact that he gave his honest opinion at a JOB that requires him to give his honest opinion, and then get fired for it, is what reeks.

It's like Roger Ebert giving a Spielberg movie one star (which he has before), and then major newspapers dumping Ebert because he didn't like that one particular movie. People pay money to see what he thinks, they don't pay money to read flashy ads.

[Donald M.]

Hilarious. His main problems are basically crappy A.I. (which is pretty much everywhere) graphics (which looks fine to me) inaccurancy (again, that's everywhere) no online co-op (ok I would complain about that too) and how ugly they look (um, you expect two serial killers to be handsome?)

6/10. He had the nerve to say that you can check it out but might not be worth purchasing. Funny thing is my friend has it and he said it's good. So, *flips the birdy at Jeff*

I wonder what his thoughts are about Hitman.

Wow, mature.

Also, he didn't mean physically ugly, he meant ugly as in cruel, violent and completely unlikable. Which not everyone has a problem with I'm sure, but it's his opinion and he's entitled to it.

[Perry Holley]

*does the thread-merge dance*

[Genma:TheDestroyer]

Didn't say they should do that, just said i find it odd that the companies keep spending money on ads at the risk of it being wasted.
Seeing 2 page ad, and then on the next page finding a review of 4 for said game, kinda undoes the ad.

If it happens in EGM, half the time I think the bad placement is on purpose.

They had a preview saying that 'No More Heroes' was unique for the Wii, because it wasn't a compilation of mini-games, or a crappy port of a last-gen game that does nothing but tack on motion controls.


The ad on the page next to that featured Driver: Parallel Lines for the Wii, looking exactly as it did on the previous consoles, only with this new description:

"Replicate real gun movements as you steal and smash your way through NYC's underworld."


C'mon, that had to have been the result of some form of plan.

[Thorlief]

see, my opinion is..Cnet execs are a bunch of idiots. They coul've waited a bit longer to fire him, just to avoid 2+2=4 legitimate doubts.
I also slightly disagree with the fact a reviewer should give his own opinion and stuff. Sure, all right, but he should also try to be a little objective and analyze every aspect of a game with all the necessary effort. Gerstmann has been a crappy reviewer in some cases not because I disagree with his ratings-even though some of 'em are ridiculous-, but because he lacked such skills (and style, and objectiveness)

*does the thread-merge dance*

can you do the title checking dance as well, please? :D it was megaton not megatopn :D (I'm getting you a Wii)

[Paul McEnery]

It's like Roger Ebert giving a Spielberg movie one star (which he has before), and then major newspapers dumping Ebert because he didn't like that one particular movie. People pay money to see what he thinks, they don't pay money to read flashy ads.

Wow, mature.

Also, he didn't mean physically ugly, he meant ugly as in cruel, violent and completely unlikable. Which not everyone has a problem with I'm sure, but it's his opinion and he's entitled to it.

Fassssscinating.

There was a movie reviewer for the SF Chronicle who gave The Matrix no stars. He no longer works there. Can we all see why?

The reviewer is, of course, entitled to his opinion. As the bricklayer is entitled to his opinion of how to assemble bricks. The idiot bricklayer gets to take his opinion to unemployment. Ditto the reviewer.

Then again, video game reviews, don't know how much you should trust them, really. Ever occur to you how many reviews a week a reviewer has to write to make a living?

[Mike Pothier]

Hmmm. If this is true (and its still in the rumor phase) then it does suck the big one. Obviously, firing an employee who's paid to give his opinions for giving an unpopular opinion is so unethical, it drips from the situation like grease.

However, we don't know all the facts, and probably won't ever know all of them. For all we know, there were some internal politics going on, Gerstmann was butting heads with management for quite a while, and they just chose a really sucky time to let him go.

[Xevious]

A) A 6.0 is being generous. My score would've been a picture of dog ----


Is that a reference to GFW?

[Cyke]

Fassssscinating.

There was a movie reviewer for the SF Chronicle who gave The Matrix no stars. He no longer works there. Can we all see why?

The reviewer is, of course, entitled to his opinion. As the bricklayer is entitled to his opinion of how to assemble bricks. The idiot bricklayer gets to take his opinion to unemployment. Ditto the reviewer.

Then again, video game reviews, don't know how much you should trust them, really. Ever occur to you how many reviews a week a reviewer has to write to make a living?

At the core of genuine criticism that the writer isn't paid to advertise a product, he's paid to be something of a guide. No, no one has to agree with him, but he was hired there in the first place for the exact purpose of giving his opinion. I mean, God help us all if every movie critic out there has to support "Daddy Day Care" because their newspapers said so.

Heck, there were writers out there who slammed Citizen Kane. Sure, they're not remembered, but they were still writing well after history disagreed with them.

[Thorlief]

Perry I love you.

[IQ!]

It only gets more wild.

Latest Developments (http://www.joystiq.com/2007/11/30/rumor-gamespots-editorial-director-fired-over-kane-and-lynch-rev/)

[StreetFighterRyu]

Wow, mature.

Sorry for loosing it.

Also, he didn't mean physically ugly, he meant ugly as in cruel, violent and completely unlikable. Which not everyone has a problem with I'm sure, but it's his opinion and he's entitled to it.

Even so, it's supposed to be ugly. Know what I mean? I should still check it out see if it's worse than Manhunt. That game should've never come out. I like the game but it's too much.

[Sanagi]

I particularly like how C-Net's comment on the story is essentially "Blah blah blah blah blah what were we talking about? Oh well, probably wasn't important."

Whether or not something sleazy is going on, C-Net could end this whole thing by actually saying something.

[Alex]

Even so, it's supposed to be ugly. Know what I mean? I should still check it out see if it's worse than Manhunt. That game should've never come out. I like the game but it's too much.

Theres a way to do it well though.
The Punisher is a murderer and psycho, he's still somehow likable.
Wrex, in Mass Effect, generaly wants to just kill people, and he's likable.

[Genma:TheDestroyer]

Theres a way to do it well though.
The Punisher is a murderer and psycho, he's still somehow likable.
Wrex, in Mass Effect, generaly wants to just kill people, and he's likable.

HK-47 can't go a conversation without talking about killing folks, usually in a number of different ways.

And he's one of the most popular characters produced by the KOTOR series.

[Paul McEnery]

Hmmm. If this is true (and its still in the rumor phase) then it does suck the big one. Obviously, firing an employee who's paid to give his opinions for giving an unpopular opinion is so unethical, it drips from the situation like grease.

However, we don't know all the facts, and probably won't ever know all of them. For all we know, there were some internal politics going on, Gerstmann was butting heads with management for quite a while, and they just chose a really sucky time to let him go.

The reviewer is not paid to give his opinion. Thank God. The reviewer is paid to appraise the product. If he does a bad job of that, he ought to be fired.

Don't know if that's the case here, but in all my dealings with Gamespot -- and any other reviewing company -- they've never gotten on my case for slating the product, advertiser or no.

[Paul McEnery]

I particularly like how C-Net's comment on the story is essentially "Blah blah blah blah blah what were we talking about? Oh well, probably wasn't important."

Whether or not something sleazy is going on, C-Net could end this whole thing by actually saying something.

Or wait until Paris Hilton shows her rude bits and everyone starts blathering about that instead.

[Paul McEnery]

At the core of genuine criticism that the writer isn't paid to advertise a product, he's paid to be something of a guide. No, no one has to agree with him, but he was hired there in the first place for the exact purpose of giving his opinion. I mean, God help us all if every movie critic out there has to support "Daddy Day Care" because their newspapers said so.

Heck, there were writers out there who slammed Citizen Kane. Sure, they're not remembered, but they were still writing well after history disagreed with them.

Hell, I'll do it myself. It's not that great of a movie. Pretty as hell. Great proof of concept on various innovative techniques. But those techniques are all there to conceal a mediocre story that would work just as well as a radio play, on the whole.

Now by Touch of Evil and The Trial, he'd finally gotten the hang of movies, and married the content and the style so they got the best out of each other. But Kane's a (brilliant) rookie movie, not a great one.

[Astonishing X-Fan]

The reviewer is not paid to give his opinion. Thank God. The reviewer is paid to appraise the product.

Semantics.

The reviewer is paid to play the game, and then give his opinion on the quality of said game based on how he believes it matches up to certain criteria.

The whole reason why this is an outrage is that he was honest and reviewed the game without bias, and was fired for it.

He was clearly not fired for doing a bad job on the review. He was fired because he gave a bad game a bad score instead of being dishonest and praising it just because the site was getting ad revenue from it.

It's disgusting and shows that Gamespot has absolutely no respect for journalistic integrity.

[Mike Pothier]

The reviewer is not paid to give his opinion. Thank God. The reviewer is paid to appraise the product. If he does a bad job of that, he ought to be fired.

Don't know if that's the case here, but in all my dealings with Gamespot -- and any other reviewing company -- they've never gotten on my case for slating the product, advertiser or no.

What is an appraisal but an educated opinion? A game reviewer is paid to play the game, estimate its worth, and yes, give his opinion as to whether the game is worth the gamer's time.

[Bored at 3:00AM]

It sounds like a lot of the various conspiracy theories are getting shot down one by one. We'll probably never know the real reason he was fired, but his Kane & Lynch review clearly wasn't it.

Unless you think everybody at Gamespot is lying about it, which I'm sure the tinfoil hat brigade will continue to assert.

[Mike Pothier]

Whatever the reason, the fact that they pulled his video review is highly suspect.

[Serik]

Yeah, and the Kane & Lynch website also used misleading and completely out of context quotes to pitch the game.

http://www.bluesnews.com/cgi-bin/board.pl?action=viewthread&threadid=83165

According to Metacritic, the game's not that good anyway. Reminds me of this article from TheOnion:

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/perfectly_marketed_tv_show_somehow

[Bored at 3:00AM]

Whatever the reason, the fact that they pulled his video review is highly suspect.

Jeff Gerstmann's friend Ryan MacDonald already admitted that he was the one that pulled the video review off the site prior to even knowing about the firing because he thought it wasn't up to snuff technically due to crappy audio and the fact that it only shows video from the first level. He already put it back up and provided a link to Youtube to prove it hadn't been altered in any way shape or form.

Again, if people want to call Gerstmann's own friends liars, don't let me stop you. Clearly, there's more to this than the Kane & Lynch review.

[jesse_custer]

Hell, I'll do it myself. It's not that great of a movie. Pretty as hell. Great proof of concept on various innovative techniques. But those techniques are all there to conceal a mediocre story that would work just as well as a radio play, on the whole.

Welles wasn't trying to "conceal a mediocre story." He had to fight tooth and nail to get that film made and tell the story. William Randolph Hearst nearly shut him down.

"Citizen Kane" is truly an innovative picture from a technical standpoint. It is also a beautiful example of an artist who struggled against the powers that be to tell the story that needed to be told.

[Laughing Mask]

good thing they didn't have a deal with the people who made the charlies angles game................