The state of the entire game press has pretty much gone down the tubes in recent years due to PR-related issues (essentially, withholding information, requesting information be removed or altered, etc.), and then with monetary deals like this.

The funny thing is, the way the game press works in Japan is near identical to what happened with this GameSpot incident. Review scores are "purchased," so to speak, dependent on the amount of ad-space purchased (mainly, in magazines, such as Famitsu).

Not even independant sites can be trusted either. I'm in frequent contact with several of the guys from NintendoWorldReport and they've told me how advertisers have been extremely aggressive regarding review scores. For example, why would they review a game of as little importance as Shrek 2 on GCN twice? Because Activision protested the fact Jeff Shirley gave the game a score a few standard deviations below teh Gamerankigns average, that's why. You may notice that Shrek games between them and the third movie were simply NOT reviewed by the site. NWR refusing or Activision just not supplying them with games anymore?

But Gamespot is the worst offender. Does anyone remember the Donka Konga 2 debacle? How about the Spiderman 3 review being held until after the release date when the ENTIRE SITE was transformed into your fucking Spiderman 3 launch centre.

DRIV3R and 1up and european Playstation magazines.
Lair and Play Magazine.

The crime is insidious and the entire games journalism industry is a complete joke.

Some gamespot editor on the story oops already posted

Yeah, this is pretty much a confirmation that GS is in the publishers' pockets.

According to Wired, a member of the CNET advertising team who worked on the Kane & Lynch ads posted a message on Forumopolis that has since been deleted:

It's still hard to say exactly what the primary reason for Gerstmann's departure was - we're getting a lot of conflicting stories - but apparently GameSpot had a problem with, among other things, his tone when writing reviews. It may not be so much a matter of what score he gave Kane & Lynch, but how he reviewed it - or it may have been something larger that both GS and Gerstmann feel we have no business knowing about. There are still a lot of unanswered questions, like why would a senior editor with ten years under his belt suddenly be thrown out for "unprofessional reviews"? Why now? Why not five years ago?

Tycho at Penny Arcade has this to say:

Still nothing conclusive, but let's keep our hopes up that it isn't all foul play.

As I recall hearing once, the appearance of impropriety is often as bad as the actual existence thereof. Surely the people who decided that Mr. Gerstmann's services were no longer required are not so intellectually challenged as to not be able to realize that most observers will look at the equation of 'scathing review for game X + heavy advertising of said game + dismissial of said reviewer' and conclude 'maker of game X bought the dismissal', are they? Especially when the explanation they offer is... lacking.

The important thing to know is X-Play will give this game.....


A 5....out of 5....



So all is right in the world.

Fuck those shitty game developers. If they don't want a bad review, make a proper game godammit. Then there wouldn't be a problem in the first place. This is what I hate with gaming industry nowadays. It's only about spewing out shit for money, but even that is not enough, now it seems they'd even pay for it to make us believe it's really good.

ARGH! :argh:

1up reported that it was also likely because Gerstmann allowed a 7.5 review of Ratchet and Clark PS3 to fly, and GS then came under fire by Sony.

GameSpot Fires Editorial Director news from 1UP.com

I never liked gamespot, largely because they were so damn slow in getting ANYTHING new up that wasn't an XBox/360/PC game. IGN is at the top of it's game with stuff like Brawl and such, and I picked up the majority of my Sonic and the Secret Rings there as well. Gamespot? Not so much.

GameSpot on ANY game is behind the times. Even their video reviews are like a week after the initial review at times. Even so, they just miss a lot of games.

I agree that IGN is kind of on a blitz of not screwing up lately. You can argue their Assassin's Creed review and such, but in an industry that's run by opinions, they're doing pretty good. Even if you don't like their reviews, their coverage is definately on top of the curve it seems.

Kane & Lynch: Dead Men for Xbox 360 Review - Xbox 360 Kane & Lynch: Dead Men Review

Apparently users want revenge for Jeff. The user rating is 2.6 right now :tpg:

Well I certainly does confirm that game reviewers are under the pay of game publishers and studios. Although honestly, if anyone is basing whether or not to purchase a game solely on the numbers at the end of a game's review then I think they're doing something wrong. Reviews are nice and all because they sometimes point out little things in the game you might have otherwise not been aware of, but nothing to base your game purchases on.

Though if anything I'll be even more inclined to ignore GS' reviews and even more so with games that are blatantly advertised on their site. Shame to see the people who give out honest scores are also the ones getting the axe.

EDIT: Taking a quick look at Mush's link, on that same page under Critic Scores we actually see that Jeff was actually more or less in line with everyone else as far as their numerical scores are concerned.

IGN's my favorite game site on the net, for the most part. The reason why they're so quick to update and always on top of the latest happenings is thanks to them having dedicated teams strictly only work on Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo going-ons. For example, IGN LA = exclusively Nintendo Wii and DS coverage.

The only caveat with having your site run with a setup like that, is the possibility of bias coming into the equation.

Relying solely on game reviews is foolish, it's always a balance you should seek... err, more to the point. We're not going to know the full story from every side of the parties involved. It'd be safe to assume that for any reason, Gertsmann is being sacrificed. I don't really rely on most reviews online anyway, I try to trust people I know as well as what I know I like to play when it comes to my purchasing decisions. Gaming journalism these days is pretty skewed and it's quite easy to be misled by trailers and interviews and all the flashing pretty stuff most companies do to push numbers, as pretty much stated earlier.

This just isn't really a shocking surprise. I can't even say it's sad either.

Frankly, I've found magazine and most large-scale professional gaming site reviews largely bogus since the end of the 32/64 bit generation and only pick up a magazine if I want the cover stories or the pretty pictures (one of the benefits of a free Game Informer subscription). I don't really care about the guy who got fired, but I see this as a good thing because I feel the industry has been this way for awhile and it's good to get the dirty laundry out in the open a little bit.

This really hurts those who are working to try and have decent credibility. It's no fairy tale that there are at least some reviewers who are trying to put in an honest day's work. Even with what is required to be a reviewer. Most informed players know about the different things to watch out for as far as acquiring information is concerned, so I don't think this is much of a major blow at all. It's the equivalent of something about Paris Hilton or OJ Simpson in the news.

The nature of the beast is only hurt when the beast flinches, even though it's ever so slightly in this case.

Man that kinda blows if true..


Fire the guy at IGN for the 7.5 KH 2 review then :P (yes i liked the game)

Fixed that for you. Kingdom Hearts 2 was crap, unless you happened to be part of the 12-15 demograph that the game was razor focused on. Squeenix's market research team is damn good at what they do, but that still doesn't make the game any good, the way the gameplay took a backseat to the emo punk saturation.

This post is totally useless, but it's the best thing I've read all weekend. Thank you. 7.5 sounds a little high though...

@ Rotorblade: I think this IS pretty significant, especially if people lose (even more) credibility in a major gaming site like Gamespot. I think we're in a spot right now where we see what kind of fallout ensues and/or if other companies try the same kind of pressure tactics. Losing 2 editors in a short span before the holidays is already a blow (although I think this December is actually slow for a change) And we already know the guys behind Lair certainly weren't shy about trying to influence reviewers after the fact it became known they made a crap game.

Why? Especially since I question how this is a blow when most people who follow games laugh at most reviews in the first place. It isn't journalism. It's PR. I'd say a topic is in order on who we get news from. Not "my friends and such." Actual magazines, websites, reviewers, blogs. If we're just going to say "Yeah this is significant" and then go on about our business... then I feel my point stands.

I'd say this is just a slight embarrassment to the industry and they're already thinking of 20 ways to cover their asses for future reference.

So Gamespot finally decided to say something: Article Here

And it's confirmed he wasn't let off due to advertiser pressure. More of less, it was the review itself.

i actually liked the guy, especially since he pretty much hates nintendo and gave zelda tp an 8.8. i think it'll ultimately cost cnet a lot of cheese.

And i'm sure that Eidos is gonna have one hell of a day when their offices open...

Kane and Lynch Site Fibbing about Review Scores.

Oh, and that the people who actually like the game on the Eidos Message Board are all stupid dipshits. Even the mods and admins are skeptical.

Roffles all around.

Ooohhh, this conduct... from Game Informer? Oh man. I never thought of these guys as conglomerate whores, but to give a "glowing game" review to a shitty, shitty game just to placate the publisher, is despicable.

I didn't think they were about that, AT ALL. (for fucking shame)

In regards to this reviewer, I like how when a person becomes honest, they get raped. It's unfortunate that publishers often decide the 'quality of the reviews' and rating they shall receive... doesn't that kind of seem besides the point of having a critique?

Anyways, I watched the review. Given the game looked fairly broken in regards to the control scheme, I was not surprised that the reviewer responded to the mechanics of the game as he did.
The reviewer mentioned attributes of the game that were both appalling (such as storyline) and absence of interesting characters (and dialogue that accompanies general interaction). Still, the reviewer also mentions aspects of the game (such as multiplayer mode) which were decent and worth checking out, in his own words. And he gets fired.

Do the publishers of this game actually think this 'reactive' demeanor is going to help them to sell this shit?

The guys review was more than fair. He got shit upon for being honest.