Reviewer fired for 6.0 score
 

What started out as an iffy rumor proved to be true yesterday as GameSpot editor Jeff Gerstmann (who you may remember as "the guy who only gave Twilight Princess an 8.8") was fired Wednesday morning for his less-than pleasant review of Kane & Lynch: Dead Men. Eidos, who had apparently spent lots of money on promoting the game through banner and "background" ads on GameSpot's site were outraged at the score, and pressured GameSpot to reprimand Gerstmann at their expense.

Destructoid.com has the whole story:

Also, Gerstmann's video review of Kane & Lynch, the straw that broke the camel's back, has since been taken off the site, but it still available on YouTube.

There's no telling what could come of this, that's for sure. Let's hope Gerstmann gets some support from the industry.

I doubt there's a "video game reviewer" union or anything like that.

It's too bad that the advertising dollars are dictating website review scores these days, though.

On a scale from 8 to 10...

Ha. Just more proof that reviews can't really be trusted. :gonk:

From now on, any game that has purchased advertising space on a gaming website will receive a perfect review on said website. Way to completely undermine the entire concept of a review. This will serve to further turn "reviews" into just another component of the hype machine leading up to any game's release. Not that anyone has taken professional reviews seriously in the past 10+ years, but still.

Oho, it was the same guy who gave Twilight Princess less than a 9? I bet that's what got him on the chopping block in the first place. Which is a shame, because he was the only person who dared give an honest review.

Not that it's news that review sites engage in payola, but they sorta left their fly wide open this time. I'm curious to see how this affects other sites; this is going to put a hell of a lot of suspicion on any other reviewers who pour praise all over this game.

Considering the lack of official statement, I dunno if Gerstmann was fired simply for this review, or if it was a culmination of things. I'm more inclined to believe the latter, at least for the time being.

And people pretending that reviews weren't based on moneyhats already is kind of amusing. Dirty, disgusting tactics? Sure. Unexpected? Fuck no.

I absolutely HATED the guy's writing, though, and he wasn't nearly as funny or amusing as he thought he was. So I couldn't really care less personally. Not like GS was the greatest source for this shit anyway.

Still seems a little unreasonable that they fired him because of that... Whatever happened to free speech?

What does games journalism have to do with free speech?

Free speech only applies to gov't restrictions, not corporation.

This just goes to show how currupt EVERY kind of business is. Even things that you think are opinion based have strings that are being pulled that you can't see.

This is why I've hated game reviews for years, and while I could never prove my suspicions, this goes to show that not everything can be trusted.

I liked Kane & Lynch and think it deserved a score higher then a 6. But at the same time, in no way do I think the guy should have been fired for it.

He made pretty just criticisms, but alas this is the $$$ age in gaming. Might as well get the CNET board or Eidos to write the damn thing and post it on Gamespot themselves. Its pointless to be a reviwer if you can't 'review' a game. I wouldn't be surprised if he did launch a wrongful dismissal suit.

He wasn't a golden reviewer but what I did like about him was his honesty and willingness to point out that games even Halo had things wrong with them.

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

Well, maybe he can start his own gaming blog and start posting reviews there. I never did trust any of those gaming magazine reviews...

Oh no, did a video game get a bad score.

Maybe Koei should start telling off Game Informer for giving there games bad reviews. Consider Game Informer gives them scores much lower then they deserve even if you want to criticize the games and yet their magazine is filled with advertisements for the games.

GameSpot/CNet have issued an official statement:

“GameSpot takes its editorial integrity extremely seriously,” the statement reads. “For over a decade, Gamespot and the many members of its editorial team have produced thousands of unbiased reviews that have been a valuable resource for the gaming community. At CNET Networks, we stand behind the editorial content that our teams produce on a daily basis. It is CNET Networks’ policy not to comment on the status of its employees, current of former.” - CNET

Gamespot issues short comment on Gerstmann firing - Joystiq

In addition, other GameSpot employees have left as a result of the debacle:

TimT's Profile - GameSpot

And I wanted to work as a "professional" game reviewer. :(

For a second I was thinking the score was in regards to Assassin's Crap Creed. Then I remembered that reviewers were going apeshit over its mediocrity, and even after that I saw that it was Eidos who complained.

So yeah.

Either way, what a brash move by Gamespot. Did they really think that firing a reviewer because of pressure from an advertiser would allow them to keep any of their dignity?

Eidos: We'll give you lots of money to slow your already bloated with shit website down to a crawl with themed advertising!
GameSpot: It's a deal!
Eidos: Also here's the final version of our latest game, we see you've already given it blowjobs with glowing previews as usual because apparently every single game ever gets a good preview on GameSpot, time for the review!
GameSpot: We'll give it to Jeff! Jeff, make sure you give it a good review! You know how it goes, we bog down computers with horrific full screen Flash adverts, give said game a great score, life goes on.
Jeff: NO. I AM A REBEL TODAY.
GameSpot: But Jeff!
Jeff: AUUHGHUGUHAUHAUHAHUA
GameSpot: Fine we'll just give it to another reviewer.
Jeff: Not if I type up a review real quick and submit!
GameSpot: DON'T YOU DO IT JEFF.
Jeff: I'M GONNA BE A HERO ON GARBAGE FORUMS LIKE NEOGAF. IT'LL BE WORTH IT.

*GameSpot boss and Jeff both slowly waddle towards the giant red 'submit review' button on wall*

@Matt
It was the investor who pressured GameSpot to fire the guy. It wasn't GS's choice. Not that it really matters. It's still a sad joke.

It's fucking disgusting over there, isn't it? Holy SHIT.

And for the love of Christ guys, no one here knows the exact reason. It could be more than just "the Kane and Lynch review". Cool your jets, assholes, and stop making up fake proof when all the info you've heard is 15th hand, good lord.

For all you know he had it coming and this is the whole staw/camel's back thing. If it IS just because of Eidos here, than that's even dirtier than the current situation already is, but fucking come on. It's far more likely this isn't JUST related to this one isolated event.

That's true, we don't know the whole story yet. All GameSpot has told us so far is that they can't comment on their employees, which is fine, so Gerstmann himself will probably have to come forward. After all, maybe there was some internal issues at GameSpot/CNET we wouldn't know about.

What we do know, however, comes from an anonymous colleague of Gerstmann's who says this review, if not the primary reason, was definetly a catalyst for him being let go - and that's the big issue here. It's something he shouldn't have been punished for, let alone fired. To me, it's more of a morality thing than anything else, but I won't press the issue, nor will I condemn any one party until someone gives us more info. Too many names have been sullied already, and darn it, I like GameSpot - their news anyway. That busy website design I can do without.

There could be a multitude of reasons for this, you're right. And I'm going to take all news related to this with half a bag of salt. Office busybodies are not the greatest source of news ever. I can't imagine they had a small meeting where they called in all of Jeff's closest co-workers and said "HEY GUYS THIS IS WHY HE WAS FIRED". There's that whole confidentiality thing that most businesses subscribe to. They might know more if they were told, but then again they might not. I don't know. I don't PRETEND to know (like some other people in this thread [not you Nall]), and I'm certainly not going to pass judgement on SHIT until more CONCRETE details surface.

Right now I can certainly agree with the catalyst theory. It certainly seems that way from the information we're given. You're gonna have to excuse me for being skeptical about assuming it's the sole or even primary reason behind this, though.

I always liked Gerstmann's brutal honesty and he was one of the main reasons I bothered to check out GameSpot's reviews. And unlike the majority of the people there, his video reviews were actually entertaining to watch.

This here is also a very interesting link. Someone called "gamespot" posted in a comment on a blog what seems to me like a very credible account of the current internal state at GameSpot.

Wow, now that's a scary report.

Gamespot's essentially lost all credibility with the one demographic it catered to: hardcore gaming nerds. These are the people who expect honest reviews (and Gamespot always rates a little lower than IGN or Gametrailers.com, etc...) and would be pissed at this exact situation.

The last paragraph, where reviewers at GS are now scared about giving a bad review is especially important. The whole website could crumble if no fans consider it an honest source now. Already people are canceling their online subscriptions.

I remember waaaaaaaaaaaaay back like in 99/2000 when I used [video] game spot. It was pretty decent, had decent reviews, etc. Nowadays, I keep hearing about how it has gone south with quality, and so on.

The interesting thing is, given that this is an online site, this actually DOES affect things. Usually, if someone doesn't like, say, nintendo, and stops a few people from buying games/using their services, said company does really care. However, Gamespot focuses on online business concerning reviews and the like. Hence, if it is true people are cancelling their subscriptions, then this could have a serious impact on them.

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.

lol... dont know how true this is but..

Gamespot On The Spot: GameSpot May See "Mass Resignations" Over Dismissal

gamespot could be majorly fucked now

Yeah, because I'm sure they'll never find any other low-grade writers with some journalism or English degree who think reviewing games for a living would be fun, right?

Those jobs would get filled FAST. Who knows, maybe a change internally would boost the quality of their content. Maybe the average reader stands to benefit from this. One can only hope.

Hardcore Gamer Magazine (yeah, love the name too) is full of them, the magazine is quite respectable.

*is trying to major in English and possibly journalism*

THE TEARS ARE REAL, SKILLS.

Hey now, I editted out the word bullshit for a reason, friend.

I unfortunately had outsponded you. In any case, I'd love to see this "mass walkout." We'd have some actual news in this case.