Jeff Gerstmann's Firing + Destructoid's new banner

[Shin-Ra]

'Net Explodes Over Jeff Gerstmann's Firing

A lukewarm November 13 review of Eidos’ Kane & Lynch: Dead Men and an accompanying video review that tore up the game are rumored to be the factors that ultimately led to Gerstmann’s firing (and we stress that the circumstances are rumor). With Kane & Lynch advertising having been plastered all over GameSpot’s front page, there would appear to be a fine recipe for conflict.

The sad thing is that was probably one of his more acurate reviews. I'll never forgive him for giving Grabbed by the Ghoulies a 6.5 though.

[phranctoast]

they should fire the ass who gave ratchet and clank FTOD a 7.5. lol

[Shin-Ra]

And Uncharted an 8.0.

Gamespot started going downhill after Greg Kasavin left IMO. They lost their innovative edge in bringing interesting new features to the site (which I believe he was largely responsible for) and he's the only reviewer I've ever really respected in game journalism.

[Blu-Ray Buckeye]

Originally Posted by Shin-Ra

And Uncharted an 8.0.

Gamespot started going downhill after Greg Kasavin left IMO. They lost their innovative edge in bringing interesting new features to the site (which I believe he was largely responsible for) and he's the only reviewer I've ever really respected in game journalism.

I know. How biased do you have to be to say that is no better than an 8.0?

[emilsjr]

Originally Posted by Shin-Ra

And Uncharted an 8.0.

Gamespot started going downhill after Greg Kasavin left IMO. They lost their innovative edge in bringing interesting new features to the site (which I believe he was largely responsible for) and he's the only reviewer I've ever really respected in game journalism.

While I agree with you on the features part, anyone who gave PERFECT DARK ZERO a 9.0 loses a ton of credibility as a reviewer, in my book.

As to Jeff, shame on Eidos and Cnet if the rumors are true.

[Razzy]

Looks like someone's sending a message. Check out the spinning review score in the banner.

http://www.destructoid.com/

Maybe it will be soon discovered the M$ was also sending the reviewers there some cash to keep the PS3 exclusive games scores low.

Uncharted, R&C:Future & Resistance deserved at least a 9 imo and they give that 360 launch game Perfect Dark:Zero an undeserving 9? Something is definitely up over at Gamespot.

[MrBogey]

The Kane & Lynch review controversy caused by Gamespot will cause a lot of people to notice the descrepencies.

It was always kind of obvious how Heavenly Sword got ganked for it's linear combat and lack of MP while Bioshock, which was just as linear and repetitive with no multiplayer, got perfect scores.

I was thinking of picking up K&L but this has turned me off of them.

[blubullet]

What was the Kane and Lynch review controversy?

[darkpoet25]

It's obvious that both Gamespot and G4tv are heavily M$ biased. They shoot down everything Sony related and hype up everything that M$ puts. Hmm....and people say that Sony are an evil giant company. Yeah right, these people have their heads so far up Micro$oft's ass it isn't even funny.

[Shin-Ra]

Originally Posted by blubullet

What was the Kane and Lynch review controversy?

Merged threads, see the first post.

[Weez_Dawg]

I am boycotting GAMESPOT.COM but not game developers and publishers. My reason is because GAMESPOT.COM should have a major buffer in place between the advertisers and reviewers. This is not the case and that is why reviews over the past 12 months or so have not made a lick of sense to me. I do not blame game developers or publishers for trying to push there money around for better reviews just like I am not mad at gangsters for paying off cops. I am mad the the cops for accepting the bribes if that makes any sense to you.

[WickyWoo]

Honestly, the impression I get of him, which may be erroneous, is that he's more than a bit ofa pompous ass, something which would have been magnified by becoming senior editor after Greg Kasarvin left

So if I were to guess, I'd say things went more like this:

Publisher put a huge amount of advertising into GS on the game, including paying for it to be the final round of the Editor-only Gamespotting season finale

Gamespot's senior guy slams the game hard, which results in him getting a nasty phonecall from said publisher

Said guy, who was probably on thin ice to begin with says many things he shouldn't have and pisses off said powerful influential publisher and advertiser

Gerstman canned for telling them graphically where to shove it, rather than the bad review (as the straw that broke the camel's back, not the direct cause).

Penny Arcade tells it like this:

will tell you the Gerstmann Story as we heard it. Management claimed to have spoken to Jeff about his "tone" before, and no doubt it was this tone that created tensions between their editorial content, the direction of the site, and the carefully crafted relationships that allowed Gamespot to act as an engine of revenue creation. After Gerstmann's savage flogging of Kane & Lynch, a game whose marketing investment on Gamespot alone reached into the hundreds of thousands, Eidos (we are told) pulled hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of future advertising from the site.

Management has another story, of course: management always has another story. But it's the firm belief internally that Jeff was sacrificed. And it had to be Jeff, at least, we believe, precisely because of his stature and longevity. It made for a dramatic public execution that left the editorial staff in disarray. Would that it were only about the 6.0 - at least then you'd know how to score something if you wanted to keep your Goddamned job. No, this was worse: the more nebulous "tone" would be the guide. I assume it was designed to terrify them.

They're pretty plugged in, so this is likely mostly true. I wouldn't be suprised if the full story was a mix of mine and theirs. If I were in their shoes I would edit out those nitty gritty details as well. It is true though that when you have a gajillion dollars in advertising on the site for a game, that even if it blows you tell it to the readers more gently than he did

[Weez_Dawg]

Originally Posted by WickyWoo

Honestly, the impression I get of him, which may be erroneous, is that he's more than a bit ofa pompous ass, something which would have been magnified by becoming senior editor after Greg Kasarvin left

Yes, I agree the guy kind of acts like a pompous ass, but I am a little more inclined to listen to pompous ass that tells it like it is than go to a site or buy a magazine populated with review padding paid off editors. I no longer pick up OXM for this reason and PC Gamer is about to be boycotted by me for this reason too. It is hard to pick up a PC Gamer nowadays without reading "The X-Box 360 is soooooooo great"....this is a PC GAME MAGAZINE FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!!!

[Razzy]

The BS 8.0 review of Uncharted was the last straw for me at GS. I'd go back now & again even after the piss poor review of Ratchet & Clank but enough was finally enough when I saw the Uncharted review. I haven't been back since.

[ps3andlovinit]

Originally Posted by Razzy

The BS 8.0 review of Uncharted was the last straw for me at GS. I'd go back now & again even after the piss poor review of Ratchet & Clank but enough was finally enough when I saw the Uncharted review. I haven't been back since.

Said it before this happened and I'll say it again..the reviews can't be trusted due to payola in the background. Publishing sites connected with larger media conglomerates are particularly suspect as to the legitimacy of their reviews .. and then there is a separate issue of individual reviewers taking payola on the outside.

[soniqstylz]

metacritic FTW!

I mean, the score given to K&L wasn't too far out of whack (metacritic score of 67), so I agree that it had to be the aforementioned "tone".

Love the banner.

[phranctoast]

Yeah. Metacritic is pretty good for that. Although I still find myself checking ign and gamespot, out of habit.

[WickyWoo]

Yes, I agree the guy kind of acts like a pompous ass, but I am a little more inclined to listen to pompous ass that tells it like it is than go to a site or buy a magazine populated with review padding paid off editors.

I'm not saying the substance of his reviews were wrong, trying to analyze why he was canned that's all. It's the difference between

"The AI is absolute ass, I could close my eyes and still hit the bad guys"

and

"On more than one occasion, I found it a little too easy to beat the enemies as they popped up, perhaps there could have been some more work done in that department"

[BLUpassion]

Originally Posted by darkpoet25

It's obvious that both Gamespot and G4tv are heavily M$ biased. They shoot down everything Sony related and hype up everything that M$ puts. Hmm....and people say that Sony are an evil giant company. Yeah right, these people have their heads so far up Micro$oft's ass it isn't even funny.

Theres also that Gameplay HD channel in my area thats totally M$ biased. All i see is the Launch of Forza2 on all the time and PC games galore. Never any PS3 stuff, no Wii mentions....there was one show that one reviewer went totally out of his way to bash the PS3.....i was pretty POed at that.

[Luis_A51]

I find that Gamespot reviews PS3 exclusives very harshly and that the only games that get high scores (oblivion 9.5, Ninja Gaiden* 9.0, Assassins Creed 9.0, Call of Duty 4 9.0, Rock Band 9.4) are multiplatform!

Ratchet n Clank 7.5(9.2), Uncharted 8.0(9.1), Folklore 7.5(9.0) all got far lower scores on gamespot than IGN(brackets) and the whole Heavenly Sword/Bioshock thing adds further to the argument.

PS: Have they edited the original review? I just read it on cnet, it said it was edited on the 19th. Didnt seem overly brutal to me.