Topic: Gamespot Editor fired for 'unfavorable' review?

[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.

[GoldenPhoenix]

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.

[Plugabugz]

Quote
Originally posted by: GoldenPhoenix

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.

But true. If i gave you £1 million ($2 million ish), and it was completely legal, would you turn it down?

[that Baby guy]

So, I've been thinking about this, and I realized that the only reason people thought this was because of Eidos is that Gerstmann was fired on a day that Kane and Lynch ads had been skinned to GameSpot.  Despite this being pure conjecture, the internet decided that this was the reason Gerstmann was fired.  All evidence points elsewhere.  Yes, the video review was pulled, but anonymous GameSpot staff have said that this was because of quality issues, namely a bad microphone, Gerstmann being late to the taping, and footage of only the first level.  The review of Kane and Lynch was indeed edited, but the edits were mostly to add in differences in the PS3 and 360 versions.  Beyond that, there's nothing otherwise to suggest that anything having to do with Kane and Lynch or Eidos had to do with Gerstmann being fired.

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.

[Djunknown]

Better late than never, but I've talked to some people who are in the local news in my area. They need the readers in order to exist, but the ads are needed to grease the wheels along, to stay afloat so to speak.

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...