Post by: Djunknown on November 29, 2007, 03:54:41 PM
If this is true, then its a sad, sad day for professional gaming journalism. I know there are some people here who have written off Gamespot, or called for bloody murder for their Twilight Princess review. But the day that dollars and cents undermines your own honest opinion (Even if others disagree with it) is the day that economic censorship becomes real...
Because of this I will:
A) No longer go to Gamespot. I've stuck with them thick and thin for 10 years, from my teen years to my young adulthood. The reviewer in question is one of the original staff members, who's contributions to said site have been fundamental to their popularity (Let's Gamespot, the Gamespotting columns and On the Spot one of my personal favorites)
B) No longer go other sites that are affiliated with Cnet (which includes gamefaqs)
C) Not buy any products made from Eidos(Which isn't that hard for Nintendo systems). But if for some reason, Lara calls to me, buy it used as for them to not see my money...
I won't stand for this. I'm not going to make a rebel yell, but if you feel the same way, do what you gotta do. If you could care less, move along, nothing to see here, just some lunatic ranting about ethics...
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on November 29, 2007, 03:56:36 PM
Post by: UncleBob on November 29, 2007, 04:08:24 PM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on November 29, 2007, 04:12:58 PM
Post by: UncleBob on November 29, 2007, 04:20:13 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Djunknown
I won't stand for this. I'm not going to make a rebel yell, but if you feel the same way, do what you gotta do. If you could care less, move along, nothing to see here, just some lunatic ranting about ethics...
Does this sound like freaking out to anyone?
Post by: Crimm on November 29, 2007, 04:30:42 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: UncleBobQuote
Originally posted by: Djunknown
I won't stand for this. I'm not going to make a rebel yell, but if you feel the same way, do what you gotta do. If you could care less, move along, nothing to see here, just some lunatic ranting about ethics...
Does this sound like freaking out to anyone?
Yes.
I mean no! If its true it is a possibly bad precedent.
Post by: that Baby guy on November 29, 2007, 05:00:20 PM
Post by: Bloodworth on November 29, 2007, 05:03:06 PM
Post by: that Baby guy on November 29, 2007, 05:10:05 PM
For what it's worth, I like how GameTrailers handles things, since I can easily form an opinion based on videos that play at the same time, and I can see proof of what the reviewer is mentioning. The thing that gets me most of the time is the score, and the fact that so many people affix themselves to the score. I care more about the substance in several cases.
Post by: IceCold on November 29, 2007, 05:19:04 PM
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on November 29, 2007, 06:17:57 PM
Post by: Crimm on November 29, 2007, 06:27:10 PM
Paying off is one sad thing, but to think that the publishers might have enough sway to get people fired for doing their job is pretty horrific.
Post by: Shift Key on November 29, 2007, 06:35:27 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Crimm
It just brings back the "who are you reading and can you trust them" stuff all over again.
Exactly. Move along, nothing to see here.
Post by: KDR_11k on November 29, 2007, 08:24:27 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Crimm
I don't know why any of us should be surprised if people are being paid off. It was only a few years ago that we were hearing about DJs being bribed by record labels (again).
Yeah and because it was a repeat offense to the nth degree they were fined ONE MILLION DOLLARS! /pinkytomouth
Post by: UncleBob on November 30, 2007, 12:30:31 AM
Post by: nitsu niflheim on November 30, 2007, 01:00:28 AM
Post by: nitsu niflheim on November 30, 2007, 01:06:45 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: UncleBob
Can someone explain to me what's so wrong about a record label paying a radio station to play a song vs. McDonald's paying a radio station to play a jingle?
because usually the money paid out is not claimed and the IRS doesn't like tax evaders. And also because they make it seem like the song is popular on its own, whereas instead it's popular because it's being paid to be popular.
Post by: Nick DiMola on November 30, 2007, 01:15:50 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: GoldenPhoenix
I don't really care because I didn't like the reviewer and I don't respect Gamespot.
No need to say more.
Post by: UncleBob on November 30, 2007, 01:17:03 AM
And who cares if a song "looks" popular? Buy the music you like, not the music everyone else likes.
Post by: ShyGuy on November 30, 2007, 04:01:27 AM
Post by: Ian Sane on November 30, 2007, 04:05:13 AM
Gamespot should have the balls to tell Eidos "if we fire this guy and it gets out it will kill our credibility with readers and we'll lose traffic as a result". From a business point of view the damage caused by this I think would outweigh Eidos pulling their advertising. But it's too late. Gamespot is officially worthless as a source of reviews. Eidos and Gamespot have f*cked up and hopefully they'll pay for it.
And I had a feeling Kane & Lynch would blow. Look at the ads. They're all about the characters and story and not once does it give any indication of how the game actually plays. That's sign numero uno for a game that's all flash and no substance.
Post by: Pale on November 30, 2007, 04:42:40 AM
Post by: mantidor on November 30, 2007, 04:49:41 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Djunknown
If this is true, then its a sad, sad day for professional gaming journalism.
I hate to say this because I like the people reviewing here, but... those three words don't go well together. specially the one underscored.
Post by: vudu on November 30, 2007, 06:38:36 AM
Also, as Evan or Jonny (I can't remember which) pointed out in the latest podcast, NWR isn't comprised of professional journalists. No one on staff (except Karl) gets paid.
Post by: ShyGuy on November 30, 2007, 06:52:59 AM
Post by: KDR_11k on November 30, 2007, 07:43:09 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
I'll admit having a poor review score when your game is plastered all over the site in ads is rather embarassing for Eidos. But then maybe they should make better games. Videogame companies always act like their games are perfect. Eidos should be firing those involved with the game itself since they're truly at fault for this. If they made a better game this wouldn't have happened.
My money is on management being at fault even though they'd fire the grunts.
Post by: mantidor on November 30, 2007, 07:59:26 AM
Post by: UncleBob on November 30, 2007, 08:10:33 AM
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on November 30, 2007, 08:17:38 AM
Post by: Shift Key on November 30, 2007, 10:07:39 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: UncleBob
It's not about the reviewer, it's about the precedence it sets.
Methinks that the precedence will be short-lived. As Penny Arcade demonstrated, some people in the industry can actually say "suck my left nut" when a publisher tries a stunt like this.
Post by: Mario on November 30, 2007, 10:35:45 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: UncleBob
It's not about the reviewer, it's about the precedence it sets.
It sets a damn friggin good one. Overweight lazy nerds looking for attention dont deserve a voice that loud.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on November 30, 2007, 10:42:08 AM
Post by: Karl Castaneda #2 on November 30, 2007, 12:12:38 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: ShyGuy
NWR pays Karl?
Damn straight.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on November 30, 2007, 12:17:37 PM
Post by: Shift Key on November 30, 2007, 01:59:07 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: ViewtifulGamerQuote
Originally posted by: ShyGuy
NWR pays Karl?
Damn straight.
Sandwiches are not payment.
Post by: Djunknown on November 30, 2007, 02:28:03 PM
Quote
Gamespot should have the balls to tell Eidos "if we fire this guy and it gets out it will kill our credibility with readers and we'll lose traffic as a result".
Some are expressing their dissapointment.
Nearly 24 hours later, I'm not fuming/foaming at the mouth, but still have a bad taste in said mouth.
I remember a few years back that some Driver title was given some mass hype at GS with some weekly trailers/montages. The title came out, it got trashed, and life went on. No jobs were lost, the publisher didn't throw a fit, and that was that.
Just because you sell ads and give some exclusive access doesn't mean the reviewer have to kowtow to what they want. In the end, if the final product doesn't hold up according to the reviewer, than maybe they should have considered better budgeting in the title aside from marketing and advertising...
Quote
I hate to say this because I like the people reviewing here, but... those three words don't go well together
Here's to what I have to say about that, since its more appropriate here.
Post by: Kairon on November 30, 2007, 02:38:08 PM
Quote
A commenter on sister site Valleywag, who claims to be a current Gamespot employee, wrote anonymously about the current situation surrounding rumors of former editorial director Jeff Gerstmann's termination. The new user, known as "gamespot", who does a fairly solid impression of a bitter employee of CNet, if nothing else, provides possible insight into the emotional state at Gamespot's editorial staff.
Drama, oooh boy.
Apparently, they fired him after all the big games came out for reviews because now no one's writing any reviews in portest, and the writing team vets every signle piece that they put out, so for Gerstmann alone to be fired when they all vetted the review is very shocking and suggests that editorial policy was ultimately sound since the other writers approved his reviews...
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on November 30, 2007, 02:41:00 PM
Post by: Nephilim on November 30, 2007, 03:45:33 PM
I think its just a troll story, baised after penny-arcades pathetic attack on IGN.
Post by: ShyGuy on November 30, 2007, 07:51:51 PM
I like to draw analogies between Jeff Gerstmann and Neo Nazi Skinheads. I don't like his reviews, but I defend his right to publish them.
Post by: KDR_11k on November 30, 2007, 11:59:16 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: ShyGuy
I like to draw analogies between Jeff Gerstmann and Neo Nazi Skinheads. I don't like his reviews, but I defend his right to publish them.
However, do you think he has a right to get paid while doing so? Looking at that video review I wouldn't be sure I'd want to pay that guy money either, it seemed very superficial and you could probably recycle 70-80% of it to apply to another game you want panned.
Post by: nitsu niflheim on December 01, 2007, 02:37:34 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Shift KeyQuote
Originally posted by: ViewtifulGamerQuote
Originally posted by: ShyGuy
NWR pays Karl?
Damn straight.
Sandwiches are not payment.
they are if you're hungry.
Post by: Kairon on December 01, 2007, 06:27:53 AM
More swirling speculation report by Joystiq, like the rumors that another Gamespot Staff, Tim Tracy, is also no longer with the company...
Post by: Kairon on December 01, 2007, 06:28:56 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11kQuote
Originally posted by: ShyGuy
I like to draw analogies between Jeff Gerstmann and Neo Nazi Skinheads. I don't like his reviews, but I defend his right to publish them.
However, do you think he has a right to get paid while doing so? Looking at that video review I wouldn't be sure I'd want to pay that guy money either, it seemed very superficial and you could probably recycle 70-80% of it to apply to another game you want panned.
In my opinion, ALL viedo reviews seem superficial. The IGN Lair one was almost as shoddy as the game, in my opinion.
Post by: UncleBob on December 01, 2007, 07:23:16 AM
GameSpot is the crappy website that shrills games.
Post by: Bloodworth on December 01, 2007, 08:24:09 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
In my opinion, ALL viedo reviews seem superficial.
ouch
Have you ever watched any of mine?
Post by: ShyGuy on December 01, 2007, 08:31:39 AM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on December 01, 2007, 10:18:29 AM
Post by: AzureNightmare on December 01, 2007, 09:00:15 PM
Post by: Kairon on December 02, 2007, 07:23:57 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: BloodworthQuote
Originally posted by: Kairon
In my opinion, ALL viedo reviews seem superficial.
ouch
Have you ever watched any of mine?
Hmm... come to think of it the Gametrailer ones actually seem pretty well done.... link me a good one wouldja?
Post by: Kairon on December 02, 2007, 08:49:00 AM
Post by: Djunknown on December 02, 2007, 01:33:02 PM
Good on 1up for taking a stand. or just getting some publicity Solidarity is not one of the gaming presses strong points, so to have this happen is one of those lunar/solar eclipse-type events.
I love the "Is this good for the Company?" banner. Nothing like an Office Space reference...
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on December 02, 2007, 02:58:24 PM
Post by: Enner on December 02, 2007, 07:18:01 PM
Thank goodness for GameTrailer's efforts in actually editing the video clips and having a great narration that fits.
Oh, as for the Gamespot staff member I wasn't aware of the situation. Now that I am, I don't really care even though I hit up Gamespot for news, reviews, and previews (along with IGN, GameTrailers, and NWR). This sounds like an upper managment call at worst since the written review hasn't been changed as far as I know. I don't think it's fair to damn Gamespot and CNet just yet. At least until there is a suspicious rise in average scores from GameSpot. Perhaps that's me being naive and thinking this is just a bad, isolated incident.
Also, why the keep-away from GameFAQs? Most of the things that matter on it are user made anyway.
Post by: Crimm on December 02, 2007, 07:24:00 PM
Post by: Enner on December 03, 2007, 12:15:45 PM
Oh well, YOU'RE WINNER
Post by: Smash_Brother on December 03, 2007, 01:53:09 PM
As for the whole debacle, I watched some of Jeff's reviews and he's a pretty straight shooter. If I had a review site, I'd hire him.
Post by: NWR_pap64 on December 03, 2007, 02:12:18 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother
I like the Gametrailers reviews. They seem pretty straightforward.
I like 'em as well. No extra razzmatazz, no lame attempts at cheesy humor, no sarcastic wit or anything special. Just you, the game and the reviewer. They also seem pretty fair in their reviews. They mentioned what worked and what didn't work and wrap things nicely. Maybe its just me, but I've gotten tired of "gimmick" reviews in which they are a comedy act first and a review second. The only exception has been Yahtzee's zero punctuation reviews because even if he puts a lot of sarcastic wit into he is fair and mentions the game's flaws and good qualities.
Post by: Djunknown on December 03, 2007, 03:13:57 PM
Quote
Also, why the keep-away from GameFAQs? Most of the things that matter on it are user made anyway.
Because GameFAQs is under the umbrella of Cnet, who in turn own Gamespot, MP3.Com, Filmspot, Download.com, Gamerankings to name a few. I personally am avoiding Cnet's sites as to not give them traffic. It even says when you see the title screen, a gamespot logo is over GameFAQs.
That being said, I'm in the market for a new site to get user-created walk-through, cheats and strategies. Or does GameFAQs corner the market on this one?
Destructoid joins in on the fun. That banner is indeed priceless!
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on December 03, 2007, 03:20:38 PM
Post by: Enner on December 03, 2007, 03:56:43 PM
I guess I just think its a bit harsh to start with the avoiding now until we're absolutely sure. Then again, things like this probably won't ever be shown in full light until it's too late. Hmm... this is tough.
Oh, and GameSpot rolls out the fire control article that says everything is hunky-dory other than a guy being let go. Yay.
Most FAQ writers submit through multiple sites, though GameFAQs tend to get most due to popularity. You might be missing out on some by the lazier submitters. I'm sure you'll find a suitable alternative that is basically the same content. Maybe try IGN?
And, LOL at Destructoid.
Post by: Crimm on December 03, 2007, 06:14:54 PM
Lying about scores that are readily available online? I mean, come on! All I have to do is do a few seconds of Google searches...
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on December 03, 2007, 07:02:30 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Crimm
More lulz from Eidos!
Lying about scores that are readily available online? I mean, come on! All I have to do is do a few seconds of Google searches...
Hate to break it to you, but that stuff happens all the time whether it be a movie or game. I fail to see how this has ANYTHING to do with issue going on.
Post by: KDR_11k on December 03, 2007, 09:03:04 PM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on December 03, 2007, 09:08:57 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
Well, it says that Eidos is pretty desperate. I wonder if the misrepresented websites could sue Eidos.
Yeah, because it never happens. Seriously EVERY entertainment based company does this to some degree, it is taking things out of context especially for things with mixed reviews. It is flat out silly now to be singling out Eidos like they are the only one that does this.
Post by: NWR_insanolord on December 03, 2007, 10:36:17 PM
Post by: Shift Key on December 03, 2007, 10:57:42 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: insanolord
Taking things out of context is one thing, giving fake review scores is something completely different.
They're both lies - the only difference is you're happy to swallow one of them because its a "little" lie.
Post by: NWR_insanolord on December 03, 2007, 11:33:59 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Shift KeyQuote
Originally posted by: insanolord
Taking things out of context is one thing, giving fake review scores is something completely different.
They're both lies - the only difference is you're happy to swallow one of them because its a "little" lie.
I'm not "happy to swallow" anything. I hate that game publishers and movie studios publicize taken-out-of-context quotes but I know it happens and so does everyone else. Giving fake review scores is much more blatant and stupid and it's something that's (I think) much less common. You took my statement out of context there, I was arguing against GP's defense of Eidos for something she said was common.
Post by: oohhboy on December 03, 2007, 11:49:18 PM
Post by: UncleBob on December 04, 2007, 01:11:45 AM
It's a whole different thing to accept a lie after having the facts shown to you.
It's about the difference between suspecting your spouse of having an affair and walking in on your spouse having sex with the neighbor.
Post by: bustin98 on December 04, 2007, 02:55:40 AM
Either way, I just looked at the site and the stars are no longer present. Looks like some one is scouring the Internet for bad news and cleaning things up as quickly as possible.
I don't know if companies should go down for this fiasco, but there should be management whose heads should roll. I'll be happy if there was an announcement stating that so-n-so was let go due to unethical practices from both CNet and Eidos.
Post by: Crimm on December 04, 2007, 04:15:26 AM
Post by: KDR_11k on December 04, 2007, 04:16:02 AM
About the Eidos advertisments and quotes from previews, couldn't it be argued that the stars are just part of the design and not meant to be taken as review scores?
If it's sufficiently close that you cannot tell the difference it's false information.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on December 04, 2007, 05:18:00 AM
Quote
As this holiday season fills to capacity with excellent games, we are pleased to see Kane & Lynch: Dead Men clawing its way to the top of the pile. With so many triple-A games rushing to release, Kane & Lynch provides a cool, anti-hero angle that few other games are going to be able to match.
Post by: UncleBob on December 04, 2007, 12:20:01 PM
If Edios is allowed to fly buy the gaming community with this, who knows what publishers will try next.
Post by: Djunknown on December 04, 2007, 05:05:57 PM
Gamespot employee sheds some light.
EDIT: Added 2nd link.
Post by: Nephilim on December 05, 2007, 12:51:02 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: UncleBob
But Edios should be taken to task because they've been *caught*. I can look at five gang members and I can "know" they've all broken laws, but I can't do crap about it until I catch them.
If Edios is allowed to fly buy the gaming community with this, who knows what publishers will try next.
maybe they will use stars to call us homosexual? oh wait
Post by: Enner on December 05, 2007, 06:21:00 AM
Anyway, another article on Gerstmann fire control on GameSpot if anyone is interested. It doesn't make things significantly better. Apparently, the review was withdrawn and reedited after publication because they thought it was too negative given the "Fair" score. The video was alledgedly pulled due to quality issues with the audio. I think such things should've been caught earlier and before publication though it is the 4th Quarter rush.
Post by: Kairon on December 05, 2007, 08:54:28 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Enner
ooo, is that a bit of Godwin there?
Anyway, another article on Gerstmann fire control on GameSpot if anyone is interested. It doesn't make things significantly better. Apparently, the review was withdrawn and reedited after publication because they thought it was too negative given the "Fair" score. The video was alledgedly pulled due to quality issues with the audio. I think such things should've been caught earlier and before publication though it is the 4th Quarter rush.
Either way, if that's true then it would have been internal reasons for Gerstmann's firing, and it would clear Eidos from involvement.
For example, take a look at Kotaku talking to an unnamed Gamespot employee in DJUnknown's second link:
Quote
The source also indicated that Larson's paraphrased assertion that "AAA titles deserve more attention" was not necessarily a hint that Gamespot's reviewers be more lenient to those titles. Instead, in light of some rather controversial review scores—for example, the 7.5 for Insomniac Games' Ratchet & Clank Future: Tools of Destruction—the editorial team needed to be more conscious of accuracy and impact of its scores.
As for the now-pulled video of review, it appears the reasons for it's removal are less nefarious than assumed. "Jeff showed up late. It was thrown together quickly, the sound sucked, there was only footage from the first level of the game—it was a mess," our source said. We were told that the redacting of the clip was based on a producer's decision and not a demand from upper
Also, the unnamed employee went on to confirm valleywag's previous anonymous "Gamestop" poster:
Quote
What was accurate, according to the Gamespot staffer, was the account of user "gamespot" at sister site Valleywag. The anonymous blow-by-blow "could have been written by a stenographer", indicating that it perfectly captured the sequence of events and emotional landscape at the company—one of confusion, fear and anger.
It may be that this was an internal management conflict over Gerstmann's performance, and that a convergence of factors may have made it seem more nefarious than it really was. Gerstman himself proffers that no editorial at Gamespot has been tainted in the ways we speculate in a talk with MTV's Stephen Totilo:
Quote
I don’t think there are any reviews you need to look at. Given all the rumors that have been flying around, I understand why people would wonder. But that edit team is an honest one and I’m 100 percent proud to be able to say I worked with that group.
Post by: that Baby guy on December 05, 2007, 10:04:10 AM
GameSpot whores itself out on a semi-daily basis to any publisher out there with enough cash. This, we've always known, and most big video game sites/magazines are pretty similar.
There are games out there that have a much higher production value and advertising budget.
GameSpot wants to cash in on this by attracting more casual readers by covering the games people have advertised some on TV and things like that. Makes sense, right? It's like a magazine giving cover time to a game that's advertised well. The people who have seen the advertisement are more likely to pick up the magazine than those who have. It's just good business sense.
So, GS presses their editors to cover these games to a larger extent than no name games, perhaps like Phoenix Wright, Katamari Damacy, any Atlus game out there, etc. because coverage of the larger games brings more readers to the site than coverage of games like Phoenix Wright, at least, initially.
GS editors, in this particular case, Gerstmann has been getting fed up with what's gone on, and became tired of covering mostly bad games with high advertisement budgets. His quality and zest for work declines, and he begins submitting things late, poorly written, poorly represented, and just overall, his production decreases. We can proof at least some of this: Gerstmann's video review of Kane and Lynch. Gerstmann showed up late, recorded with a messed up microphone, and never did anything to fix it. The video contained basic, level-one-type footage of the game, and the review was a verbalization of his written review. That sounds pretty shoddy to me. Also, his written review was altered to "Better fit the score." The score wasn't changed, but the written part was. While I have not read the review, neither before or after the changes, personally, I conclude that there were likely some poorly written parts, or the score would have changed.
As far as the timing goes, Gerstmann was fired because the Kane and Lynch review exemplifies the problems with his work. It's been in the decline. They needed him through the busy part of the release season, they didn't have enough staff, but once they made it through that congested patch, he was out of there. You can't just demote someone who's a face, though. People would wonder what happened. Now, by firing him, they are, by law, not allowed to talk about things. For all the public is supposed to know, he could have been taking bribes, stealing, or worse. However, because of the Kane and Lynch review and skins, the public construed their own ideas. The result? Gerstmann and Gamespot have to keep quiet on the reason and can't quell the rumors well. GameSpot can't do anything to prove why he was fired, and Gerstmann, bittered for being wrongfully fired w/o notice, seemingly out of nowhere, won't do anything to help GameSpot out of their predicament.
The employees don't know why he was fired, they aren't allowed to, so as far as they know, it was for no reason at all, so they're pissed off, clearly, so they won't really help out, because they want answers too.
Thus, we have the mess we're in now.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on December 05, 2007, 10:11:26 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: thatguy
To me, it's pretty clear on what happened:
GameSpot whores itself out on a semi-daily basis to any publisher out there with enough cash. This, we've always known, and most big video game sites/magazines are pretty similar.
There are games out there that have a much higher production value and advertising budget.
GameSpot wants to cash in on this by attracting more casual readers by covering the games people have advertised some on TV and things like that. Makes sense, right? It's like a magazine giving cover time to a game that's advertised well. The people who have seen the advertisement are more likely to pick up the magazine than those who have. It's just good business sense.
So, GS presses their editors to cover these games to a larger extent than no name games, perhaps like Phoenix Wright, Katamari Damacy, any Atlus game out there, etc. because coverage of the larger games brings more readers to the site than coverage of games like Phoenix Wright, at least, initially.
GS editors, in this particular case, Gerstmann has been getting fed up with what's gone on, and became tired of covering mostly bad games with high advertisement budgets. His quality and zest for work declines, and he begins submitting things late, poorly written, poorly represented, and just overall, his production decreases. We can proof at least some of this: Gerstmann's video review of Kane and Lynch. Gerstmann showed up late, recorded with a messed up microphone, and never did anything to fix it. The video contained basic, level-one-type footage of the game, and the review was a verbalization of his written review. That sounds pretty shoddy to me. Also, his written review was altered to "Better fit the score." The score wasn't changed, but the written part was. While I have not read the review, neither before or after the changes, personally, I conclude that there were likely some poorly written parts, or the score would have changed.
As far as the timing goes, Gerstmann was fired because the Kane and Lynch review exemplifies the problems with his work. It's been in the decline. They needed him through the busy part of the release season, they didn't have enough staff, but once they made it through that congested patch, he was out of there. You can't just demote someone who's a face, though. People would wonder what happened. Now, by firing him, they are, by law, not allowed to talk about things. For all the public is supposed to know, he could have been taking bribes, stealing, or worse. However, because of the Kane and Lynch review and skins, the public construed their own ideas. The result? Gerstmann and Gamespot have to keep quiet on the reason and can't quell the rumors well. GameSpot can't do anything to prove why he was fired, and Gerstmann, bittered for being wrongfully fired w/o notice, seemingly out of nowhere, won't do anything to help GameSpot out of their predicament.
The employees don't know why he was fired, they aren't allowed to, so as far as they know, it was for no reason at all, so they're pissed off, clearly, so they won't really help out, because they want answers too.
Thus, we have the mess we're in now.
I have trouble letting off Gerstmann off the hook if he was lazy. This crap about blaming Gamespot first is stupid, Gerstmann had a job there is no excuse to be slacking off like he did, I could care less about his justifications. If I didn't do my job, regardless of my reasons, I'd deserve to be fired as well and I'd have no one to blame but myself.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on December 05, 2007, 11:52:17 AM
Post by: ShyGuy on December 05, 2007, 12:04:52 PM
Post by: Kairon on December 05, 2007, 02:28:08 PM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on December 05, 2007, 04:42:47 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
Yeah, I have a hard time feeling sympathetic for Gamespot's editorial review team after they did the things you mention Pro and Shyguy. Maybe I'm holding a grudge, but I never had much sympathy to begin with...
True, so true. I think it would be hilarious though if it does turn out he was being lazy and not doing his job instead of some grandiose conspiracy by Edios and Cnet to get him fired for a review. A lot of people will have mud in their face if that is what happens, especially those boycotting (Gonintendo comes to mind) over rumors.
Post by: Djunknown on December 05, 2007, 05:30:18 PM
Quote
If you’re covering a game that you have a vested interest in, that should be disclosed.
In Gamespot's review system, they always have a tilt, which measures their preference of the title, as part of their criteria. So if their tilt is a 2, you know they weren't really looking foward to this game. They also assigned someone who is familiar with genre. Alex Navarro for example, is the token wrestling fan (And has a record of being stuck with reviewing very bad games) and he get the wrestling games.
Quote
Even if you have nothing to do with those products (and I’d guess that you don’t), it doesn’t take much for your audience to speculate that your takes on those fine products might be tainted. If you start there and work outwards, suddenly people realize that your take on the “Guitar Hero” series, which is in fairly direct competition with MTV’s “Rock Band,” may also be risky. At some point, someone remembers that MTV is part of Viacom and starts thinking about Viacom properties that have become games.
The question here is: Did the editor pressure the reviewer to take such a stance?
N'Gai Croal puts his analysis here
Some clips:
Quote
And we must stipulate that there is still much that has yet to be revealed, and it's rare that a single incident results in the firing of a beloved employee. So if and when all shoes drop, we're fairly certain that all sides will be sporting a certain amount of mud.
Again with the mud...
Quote
The reality is this: publishers generally hold the enthusiast press in utter contempt, and they have for a long time. This disdain began as scorn for the enthusiast media's roots in videogame fandom, rather than traditional journalism from "respectable" publications, but it has since metastasized into a veiled but nonetheless seething anger over the advent of the Internet and with it the rise of fan sites, forums and blogs over which publishers can exert little pressure, let alone control.
Ars Technica ladies and gentlemen...
Quote
"Do not patronize me by telling me the reader is the customer—your real customer is the one that pays you your revenue," 3DO president Trip Hawkins said in an e-mail to GamePro after one of his games was panned. "And it is game industry advertisers."
A very old quote for sure, but it rings so relevantly now. Back then we wouldn't have noticed, and a good chunk of the audience was to young to care. The internet is here, we're older and more tech savvy, and some do care.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on December 05, 2007, 05:46:53 PM
Post by: Djunknown on December 05, 2007, 06:04:29 PM
Post by: that Baby guy on December 05, 2007, 06:05:50 PM
It has been shown that Gerstmann's reviews of Kane and Lynch were shoddy work, has it not? It's been hinted at that "tone" had something to do with his tenure's end, right? Tone that is observable in several of his video reviews, correct? I believe Kairon pointed out a Zelda review earlier where his tone was certainly unprofessional, do you agree?
Gerstmann was doing a bad job. We've got evidence that shows this, don't we? You quote Trip Hawkins--"...your real customer is the one that pays your revenue..." Well, he was mistaken. In this case, the true customer is the one that let's you earn revenue. Without circulation, advertisements in a magazine mean nothing. Without page hits, a website's ads are worth pennies or less. Gerstmann was doing a bad job, and he was driving away page hits with his work. I stopped reading GS reviews a long time ago because of the shoddy, biased, and yes "toned" work. Couldn't this be the problem GS had with him? Every time I don't visit GameSpot that I might have three or four years ago is really lost money for them. That's because I am the customer. Every issue of Game Informer I don't buy or look at is lost money for GameStop (who has partnership or owns that magazine), because I don't view the adds. The bottom line is that you and I are the customers of these magazines and that you and I are the customers of these games. In order to look at the former, we have to have trust in them. In order to buy the latter we need a trustworthy source to learn about the games.
We are the customers, and don't let anyone fool you into thinking otherwise.
Post by: AzureNightmare on December 07, 2007, 05:57:33 PM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on December 07, 2007, 08:02:06 PM
Gamespot said what it was NOT for, which is what these rumors are centered around, what more do you expect? If they are innocent they will be guilty if they go against company policy to please, a bunch of bloggers and whiners. I'm sorry but that is what I think I hate accusing others of lacking credibility based on rumors. In fact if this is indeed CNET's policy, then I think the ethical thing is to stick by it regardless of the pressure or consequences. Remember, who stirred this pot in the first place? It wasn't CNET, it was the so called gaming press that did that, taking extremes like censoring Gamespot links or promoting bans, along with fueling the rabid sheep called gamers. They created their own hell hole based on rumors and running full speed with it, now they need to get themselves out of it. I have ZERO sympathy for the gaming press, they created their own monster, now they have to put it down. The ones that move on and continue to serve the community will survive, the poor me, boo hoo, gaming press will not. Sorry, guys but you dug your own grave, now you need to lay in it.
Let me put it this way, the gaming press better dang well hope this turns out to be a big company cover up, because if it is the opposite, they deserve to be punished in credibility for trying to ruin the credibility of another organization without facts. That's life, if you are going to accuse someone of something, you better hope it is true because you deserve what comes back at you if it isn't. It would be nice too if these people would stop blaming others and actually admit that maybe they share responsibility instead of pointing fingers. But as I've discovered, it is much easier to blame someone else to get it off your shoulders.
Post by: Spak-Spang on December 08, 2007, 08:04:53 AM
There may be legal issues preventing them from making a press statement outlining the reasons he was fired. Or, more likely, because of the potential difficulty with legal issues, they just make it a public policy NOT to give reasons for firing.
The problem I believe is the lack of professionalism from the other Game Spot journalists and possibly Gerstmann himself. This was a private issue with the company of CNET and specifically the Game Spot division. He it was handled internally without reviews blabbing to the public about how it was unfair and they didn't have any clue why Gerstmann was fired and what kind of threat could mean...then perhaps everything could have calmed down. The firing was a shock, and the management should of had a meeting and internally help stop the fire, before it occured, but it failed to do that unfortunately. That single failure, and unity of the Game Spot writing staff is what has been fueling and creating a bigger issue than this firing should be.
Nobody except for the management directly involved with the firing decision will know absolutely the reason why Gerstmann was fired. Could it have been a firing from pressure from publishers possibly...but I don't it would be from a single source. Perhaps, he was getting flak from several of his reviews from several publishers. Perhaps he was getting complaints from several readers as well, and perhaps his management actually looked at several of his reviews and disagreed with the tone and how he went about reviewing the games.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on December 08, 2007, 10:16:54 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Spak-Spang
Actually, GoldenPhoenix has a good point. When people are looking for references and prior job experience, you past boss LEGALLY can not say why you were fired. It has been deemed slander, because it could prevent you from getting a job. All they can say is whether you were a "good employee" and whether they would hire you back.
There may be legal issues preventing them from making a press statement outlining the reasons he was fired. Or, more likely, because of the potential difficulty with legal issues, they just make it a public policy NOT to give reasons for firing.
The problem I believe is the lack of professionalism from the other Game Spot journalists and possibly Gerstmann himself. This was a private issue with the company of CNET and specifically the Game Spot division. He it was handled internally without reviews blabbing to the public about how it was unfair and they didn't have any clue why Gerstmann was fired and what kind of threat could mean...then perhaps everything could have calmed down. The firing was a shock, and the management should of had a meeting and internally help stop the fire, before it occured, but it failed to do that unfortunately. That single failure, and unity of the Game Spot writing staff is what has been fueling and creating a bigger issue than this firing should be.
Nobody except for the management directly involved with the firing decision will know absolutely the reason why Gerstmann was fired. Could it have been a firing from pressure from publishers possibly...but I don't it would be from a single source. Perhaps, he was getting flak from several of his reviews from several publishers. Perhaps he was getting complaints from several readers as well, and perhaps his management actually looked at several of his reviews and disagreed with the tone and how he went about reviewing the games.
That is one thing I do agree with, they should have handled it better with the staff.
Post by: Kairon on December 08, 2007, 07:28:33 PM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on December 08, 2007, 07:44:07 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
So... is it time to blame Penny - Arcade?
I would rather blame YOU.
Post by: Enner on December 08, 2007, 08:14:45 PM
Personally, I'm a kind of guy that trys to put the adage of "innocent until proven guilty" in to work in all walks of my life. Looking out for blood (which is what I see a full disclosure from CNet would be) just seems a bit too blood thirsty.
Gamespot has said and what they officially can. It's up to the us whether to trust them or not. Seeing as how I do not have evidence to suggest for or against their statements, I'd think I'd rather trust then think of them as liars. A cautious trust, if I might add.
Post by: Kairon on December 08, 2007, 08:32:41 PM
Post by: Crimm on December 08, 2007, 08:37:42 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: thatguy
The employees don't know why he was fired, they aren't allowed to, so as far as they know, it was for no reason at all, so they're pissed off, clearly, so they won't really help out, because they want answers too.
I was with you to here. Anyone who works in an office knows that this isn't how it goes down. If someone is fired eventually everyone working there knows why.
Post by: Djunknown on December 10, 2007, 05:43:29 PM
I'm sure that not all circulations get their bulk of revenue from subscription. In some cases, that just covers the cost of printing and distributing your magazine. Advertising is what gives the payouts. Otherwise, why run ads in the first place? I'll look into it some more with some concrete examples. and get back to you...
Quote
Every time I don't visit GameSpot that I might have three or four years ago is really lost money for them.
But if 4-5 users took your place and visited GS as frequently as your did, it becomes moot. A better example would be if Kairon took my place in visiting GS 5 days a week from the hours of 9-10 PM, then my 'embargo' would be as moot. So why 'embargo' in the first place if it doesn't make a definitive impact? Out of principle and so I can rest easy at night...
I saw the gamespot tribute via Kotaku. Ryan Mcdonald at the begginning is clearly choked up, you'd think someone died. Alex Navarro is holding back some tears. Having watched these people in previous videos, they're bad actors. In other words, that was from the heart. The staff is begging and pleading with the people at large, that at least the staff didn't want him gone.
Nice retrospective. If nothing else, Gerstmann can do some Nerdcore...
To me there's too many coincidences(Tim Tracy coincidently leaves GS soon after), too many cases of bad timing, delayed damage control, to just take it at all at face value. Had GS had their way, Gerstmann would have been 'let go' with barely a whisper. Their delayed damaged control is a clear sign they didn't expect such a backlash.
They will always have that shroud over them until both sides come clean. I won't hold my breath, since this isn't the first time we the public haven't gotten the whole story (or never will...)
Post by: that Baby guy on December 10, 2007, 05:56:52 PM
As for your second statement, if someone stops visiting GS daily, it's still lost opportunity, which, in an ad-related business, is a loss of money that could have been. While my embargo makes no significant impact, if I embargo, my roommate embargoes, my friends embargo, and my internet friends embargo, that's an insignificant impact x about 20. Now, imagine if all of their people embargo. It increases exponentially, doesn't it? While this is my ideal thought, obviously, it isn't happening, but it seems more and more, more people are saying that they don't visit GS because they're not a decent service. And as stated before, each piece of opportunity is lost, plain and simple, when this happens.
Not only that, but that opportunity can shift elsewhere, and that elsewhere can sometimes become bigger than the original place, and leech away the new 4-5 pieces of opportunity from the old place that originally took my place.
Post by: KDR_11k on December 10, 2007, 07:59:01 PM
Why run ads in a 60-70 dollar videogame? Because ads mean additional money and in capitalism there is no point where you're ever making enough money.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on December 10, 2007, 08:05:57 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
Otherwise, why run ads in the first place?
Why run ads in a 60-70 dollar videogame? Because ads mean additional money and in capitalism there is no point where you're ever making enough money.
How horrible.
Post by: Plugabugz on December 10, 2007, 10:35:04 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: GoldenPhoenixQuote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
Otherwise, why run ads in the first place?
Why run ads in a 60-70 dollar videogame? Because ads mean additional money and in capitalism there is no point where you're ever making enough money.
How horrible.
But true. If i gave you £1 million ($2 million ish), and it was completely legal, would you turn it down?
Post by: that Baby guy on December 14, 2007, 08:15:52 PM
There's evidence the other way, though. We've got GS's staff's opinions that the video he was in was low quality, partly due to lack of punctuality. We've got that his review didn't contain information GameSpot deemed was necessary. We've got that he was fired a long time after the review was written, relatively, and that the deal for the website skins was made a very long time in advance, as well. We've also got that GameSpot's employees think he was fired after the holiday rush of games, and consequently, not because the website was skinned at the time he got fired. That's several pieces of evidence that suggest he wasn't fired because of the Kane and Lynch ads, compared to a few poorly drawn conclusions and conjecture that says otherwise.
I'll take my evidence and pass on the hysteria.
Post by: Djunknown on December 18, 2007, 05:56:31 PM
Quote
he review of Kane and Lynch was indeed edited, but the edits were mostly to add in differences in the PS3 and 360 versions.
With the magic of Google caching, Joystiq has made a comparison of the original review with the edited one. Have a look.
To summarize, it was originally a one-two punch assault, whereas the edited version is more forgiving. Sounds like the 'tone' issue that's been thrown around. The question is, did Gerstmann approve of these edits? If so, was he pressured to do so? Did he have a change of conscience? Or did someone else add them in? Since time immemorial, once reviews are written and are put up for the public to see, that's it, barring any last minute issues. Imagine if NWR's own unfavorable review was retracted and then softened. Granted, it wasn't what a lot of people wanted to hear, but it still stands.
Game Daily posted their top 5 people in the biz, with number 5 being the subject in question. The rest are on the other side of the industry (Number one is a pleasant surprise).
Its definitely a fascinating case study that could make for an interesting trial. Call Phoenix Wright! Hell, Harvey Birdman will do...
