November 30, 2007 -
The online gaming community is buzzing today over reports that longtime GameSpot editor Jeff Gerstmann was fired for tagging Eidos' crime game Kane & Lynch with a mediocre review. From Gerstmann's write-up:While [Kane & Lynch] sounds interesting at first, and has a few bright points, it's weighed down by bad storytelling, a real lack of character development, and a host of gameplay-related issues. The end result is a game that squanders much of its potential and just doesn't come together as well as it probably should have.
Joystiq reports that the GameSpot Forums are bubbling over with posts on the topic, with one thread attracting more than four thousand entries.
GP: If this story is as it now seems - a journalist fired over advertiser pressure - then it won't be taken lightly. Game companies simply can't be allowed to push writers around.
UPDATE: Perhaps there is more to the story. Over at Wired, Susan Arendt has this from an anonymous "insider":
The [Kane & Lynch] ads went up and the Eidos brouhaha was settled over two weeks ago. Jeff got fired yesterday. Furthermore, I'd heard a few people tell that he'd already been skating on thin ice for "unprofessional reviews and review practices." I don't know much about that, though, so I can't say one way or the other.
My gut tells me that he got canned for larger reasons. Maybe the Eidos debacle was part of it -- I don't know. But I sincerely doubt that Eidos made Gamespot fire him. CNET doesn't kowtow to its advertisers, and I've more than once seen the higher-ups turn away big advertising dollars for the sake of the company's integrity. I think the whole thing is likely a combination of factors, the biggest being poor timing
UPDATE 2: Joystiq is reporting that Cnet, which owns GameSpot, has issued a statement on the matter:
GameSpot takes its editorial integrity extremely seriously. 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.
[As to Gerstmann,] it is CNET Networks' policy not to comment on the status of its employees, current of former.
UPDATE 3: My buddy Duke Ferris over at GameRevolution writes that pressure from Eidos did indeed prove Gerstmann's undoing:
As some of you may have heard, Gamespot has terminated their long-time reviewer Jeff Gerstmann, ostensibly over his Kane & Lynch review, and Eidos subsequently pulling their advertising dollars.
It's impossible for a company as large as C-Net (Gamespot's corporate overlords) to keep such a thing completely quiet, and I have sources that confirm that this is in fact true.
Comments
Chances are Jeff Gerstmann had accumulated a number of issues that finally resulted in his termination.
As far as journalistic integrity goes in this industry ... I laugh. All reviews are biased, even the ones where the reviewer actually takes the time to play the game (you think the ESRB are the only ones not playing the games they review?).
Innocent until proven guilty, remember?
Don't misunderstand me, all I'm trying to say is that the evidence is largely circumstancial (sp?).
Now that I've been devil's advocate, I will admit that if Gamespot doesn't come up with something one heck of allot more convincing then that press release, they WILL be removed from my bookmarks. It's not that I care so much about reviews, come on, you cannot play games for any real length of time and not learn that reviews cannot be taken at face value. I've been applying grains of salt to the ones I read for decades.
HOWEVER, if this in any way true, I'm not particularly interested in supporting a business that would be that spineless.
There are a number of possible explanations for this, some which would exonerate the man and others which raise serious issues. Still, I thought I'd put this out here.
Yeah....Mort is a bit right though about that "Media" part....this game at least to me was released quietly...there was no outrage....and you are right about the whole Take-Two and Rockstar.
I find it funny if you guys say this is a game where you kill good cops....and yet no one makes a peep.....it's more proof that Rockstar is just the whipping boy of the industry.
It supposedly comes from the art designer of the ad that as of yesterday was blanketing gamespots front page. The person at wired didn't get any special information, they ripped right off a message board. I wouldn't quote it, as nobody actually knows if this person really works at gamespot.
As I stated above, I'm from that forum. I've known the "source" in question for several years. He doesn't work at Gamespot, and has never claimed to actually work for them. That was made up by Wired, presumably to make it seem like their source was more knowledgable than he is. If anything, it's well-informed hearsay.
Where does it say that it comes from the art designer of the ad? That's not true, and he's never claimed that. PA's newspost falsely indicated he was part of management, which is equally confusing. The amount of internet rumor-mongering going on about that quote is astounding, and I'm hoping it doesn't get twisted so far out of context that it costs him his job. It's certainly a sign of flaws with the blogosphere, and why any news story you see should be taken with a grain of salt.
GAMES PAYOLA! We're back to the corrupted style of the music industry.
But.. the thing that really strikes me as being odd is the fact that CNet issues a statement saying "At CNET Networks, we stand behind the editorial content that our teams produce on a daily basis." while at the same time they pull Jeff Gerstmann's video review of K&L.
Am I the only one who thinks this is contradictory and smelling of a cover-up?
http://www.gamespot.com/users/TimT/show_blog_entry.php?topic_id=m-100-25...
He won't actually tell us why he quit (the link just has a picture of him with lots of boxes packed up), but I think we can all put two and two together. Co-workers don't just resign if there's nothing underhanded going on.
I'd have to also agree with that number.. maybe a little too favorable to the game though. LoZ:TP was great, fun and beutiful, but way too easy. Maybe its like the new stuff.
No one would be familiar with a letter based system, because its odd and consfusing. I mean those letters could stand for other things like A could be awful, B could be bad, C is crap, and D is dumb and F is fantastic.
I mean really what could possibly allow us to know really what those funny little letters mean?
Now it's up to Alex, Ryan and others. They are also fine game review authors, but that won't bring back their most prominent staffers. There used to be video game reviews without techno music in them. There used to be game reviews that were lengthy and showed off a great deal of the games, like for example - the one for Divine Divinity. Heck, Jeff's video reviews of the Grand Theft Auto games are some of the greatest on the site.
These times are all but gone, and I have to sadly admit that they have lost my subscription for good.
If they aren't on the front page of the gaming news-zines, come monday; they're just done. Even if they struggle along for a while, they'll be rebuilding cred for YEARS.l
Because you can OBVIOUSLY tell someone's sexual orientation based on the game reviews they write.
On the other hand, I can definitely tell someone is an idiot based on what they wrote.
Why are you happy that someone you don't like lost his job because of Eidos pressuring Gamespot and CNET?
@the article
I don't care how anyone spins the story, this is a piss-poor way of handling a bad review. Gamespot, CNET, and Eidos should be ashamed of themselves. Sony's reaction to the Lair reviews thinks that this is jacked-up (if you listen to Jim Rome's radio show or watch his TV show, you will understand what I meant in the last scentence).
I will NEVER read Gamespot again, I will never go to any CNET site again, and I will NEVER play any Eidos game again.
If he generaly all around fails at doing his job and his fireing shines a light on coc*gets censored* bribe takeing reviewers
Hells ya!
1UP is one of the more credible games journalism outlets. I would never lump them in with the likes of IGN, or now, apparently, Gamespot.
The developers of said took issue with this and did a little digging into their server logs. They found out that the reviewer played the game for less than two hours before writing the review. After this got out, they pulled his review and replaced it with another that was more favorable.
And remember when Atari was caught paying people for high review scores of Driv3r?
Gamestop has gone down hill since Kasavin (think that's how you spell his name) left anyway. I used to expect quality when reading a Gamespot review or watching their weekly show. Now IGN, 1up and Gamespy are superior in every way. I don't know what happened. Still not as un-objective as Game Informer (owned by Gamestop) though.
Second, and most importantly, I'd encourage everyone to READ their Constitution once in awhile.
First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Note that it prohibits Congress (which has been interpreted as the governing bodies) from abridging the freedom of speech. This does not apply to private parties.
If I go to my local 7-11 and start shouting curses, they have every right to make me leave, just as I have the right to kick out a drunk friend who's over at my place and making lewd passes at my girlfriend.
First Amendment is not the issue here, but certainly integrity is. There's no law that says GameSpot can't take money for scores, but it definitely would hurt their credibility, which would decrease their readership and thus be very bad overall.
Also, GameSpot may have received the video review, but the written (aka, the one that actually matters) review remains on the site.
Even if he was on thin Ice it still should not have been part of the reason to get fired, because it's still saying that the advertisements have more power than anything. This still sticks up to high heaven and the more I read about it the more I feel like something just isn't right...
Just like the papers... they're not for the news but for the advertisements.