well not that i ever give reviews for stuff much attention but why should anyone now give these guys any notice when its very clear that scores reflect just how much money a company is willing to give to the site, and if somone gives an honest review they can get canned.

Id say they just commited brand suicide if i didnt know how fickle people are.

I always thought gerstmann was.. lets say, less entertaining... than other reviewers i've seen on the site. His "first hour of halo 3" segment being probably the lamest thing I've ever clicked on...


but as for his firing's possible link to.. i guess we'd call it payola or extortion... I have no opinion on that.

"Other publishers have started giving us notes involving when our reviews can go up; if a game's getting a 9 or above, it can go up early; if not, it'll have to wait until after the game is on the shelves."

I hate to say it, but I noticed this too. It makes me wonder if "gamespot"'s little blog entry at valleywag is the real deal or just a perceptive individual.

[...] So by now you’re probably heard about Jeff Gerstmann — former Gamespot reviewer. He was fired this week, and if all the other websites out there reporting on this story are correct, he was fired for giving a game a bad review. [...]

@Dave

That rules out the possibility that the man has more than one gamer tag.

Honestly. I say it sucks if it's true, but enough already. Everytime you mention Gerstmann, you're mentioning Gamspot. How does the old saying go "Any publicity is good publicity."

"And GamePolitics readers shouldn’t expect to see any more links to GameSpot."

I understand that you don't want to support CNet, but come on, Dennis. The reviewers at Gamespot aren't the ones at fault; they're hard-working, passionate people that still deserve support, especially with what they'll have to face in the coming weeks.

Reviews are simply opinions, plain and simple. You either agree with them or you don't. Different people have different tastes, but you can find someone who details what they liked or didn't like about the game then judge for yourself. If you're lucky, you might find someone who has at least similar tastes to you.

Professional reviewers are paid to do something, which makes it suspect from the beginning. For one, they're running on a deadline and don't play the game as much as they should, which then taints the game from the beginning. For two, they're under pressure to give games good reviews, a la advertising dollars, etc. A 6/10 score for Kane and Lynch is generous judging from what he said in his video review. From what I've heard friends say, it's way too high, especially for the PC version.

@shithead

It must suck to have no friends. How goes your search for ManBearPig?

Also, the review controversy about TP was completely unnecessary, and was only a problem for the Nintendrones who hadn't even PLAYED the damn game.

@GrlGmr

It isn't true that a review is pure opinion. Things like overused curse words, bad graphics, bad AI, and bad control aren't based on opinions. If your bad guys are walking into walls, that's bad AI. If you can't tell where a wall ends and a floor begins, that's bad graphics. If you can't shoot the gun in the game to save your life, and you are usually a sniping badass, that's bad control. If the word fuck is being used every fuckin' sentence, that's an overused curse, right there. (Note: all of these are exaggerations)

What kind of wacky scoring system is that anonymous employee endorsing if 6 out of 10 means "downright contemptible"? Assumably a 9.5 is "just about playable".

Exactly the reason I handled things myself during my time as a video game reviewer. Nothin' like the annoyance of PR.

"If the highly detailed rumors surrounding Jeff Gerstmann’s firing are true, then the people who run GameSpot have, by their own hand, utterly trashed a great media brand."

GameSpot a great media brand? Are you serious? I don't know Jeff Gerstmann, and I am not entirely familiar with his work but I don't recall a time where I would consider GameSpot a great or even decent media brand. It does sound like GameSpot handled the termination very poorly. But I can't exactly say I'm surprised. Regardless, this is a pretty bogus way to terminate an employee. If I was a writer, I wouldn't want to work for them.

I stopped taking reviews seriously a long time ago. Best way to find out if a game is good or not is to rent it or borrow it. I usually prefer to play a game before I start putting it down. Saying a game is bad and basing my argument on an article written about it doesn't seem like a good idea. "Oh yea it sucks because [insert media company] gave it a X out of 10 and they said it had really bad frame-rate issues yada yada yada." If I ever hear that I immediately think "bullshit!"

Pandralisk -

Metacritic.com

I like it because it compiles reviews from most online sources and averages their score; based on a 100 point scale. I've made purchasing decisions based on the meta-score for a game and I've yet to be let down.

This is why I tend to only look at reviews for the screenshots.

I'm one of those guys that doesn't read the articles...

unless its something I'd be interested in. There are a lot of games out there that I'd buy if I just followed the reviews, but the games themselves have to interest me. Kane and Lynch, I was going to buy solely for its multiplayer aspect. Fragile Alliance sounds like an amazing idea for a multiplayer game.

I've always thought personally that Gerstmann was unprofessional in his reviews and came across as an arrogant smartass and long wondered why he hadn't been fired before this. His in-your-face style didn't seem to fit in with the generally more professional reviews over at Gamespot.

If this indeed was the case for his firing and the K&L review was the straw that broke the camel's back, then I say goodbye and good riddance. However, if the review was the ONLY reason for his firing (and I suspect that it wasn't based on everything I've been reading), then it is indeed inexcusable.

I have long liked Gamespot. It's on my Favorites list and they're also the site I go to for downloading new patches, demos and the like. But if these allegations are borne out beyond the shadow of a doubt, I'll remove them, only going to them if I need to download files (and even then I just might cancel and subscribe to FilePlanet instead).

Personally I've never thought of Gamestop's reviews as necessarily "better" than any other sites, although they do seem more professional as I said earlier. What I tend to do is look at reviews from a variety of sources that include not only Gamestop, but IGN and Gamespy, magazines like PC Gamer and Computer Gaming World and even shows like X-Play. And I form my own decisions based on the consensus.

Personally I'm curious about Kane & Lynch, and if other reviews are generally more positive I might want to check it out. But if the reviews are mostly mediocre and negative, then I'll give it a pass.

Again, after it was proven by server logs that a Gamespot reviewer played Savage: The Battle for Newerth for less than two hours before writing his review, I stopped taking Gamespot seriously as a review outlet.

Before, I thought the game was The Savage Lands, but the game was called Savage: The Battle for Newerth.

Zerodash raised an interesting point as to the nature of this problem, where the contract falls on this matter, because that can give gerstmann legal ammunition to fight back, and he'll have the internet behind him if more evidence doesnt come to light.

If they did have a clause int he contract as zerodash suggested, that the advertisers cannot discriminate for bad reviews, than gamespot could have sued eidos over this to protect their employees, but no, this clearly paints hwere their priorities lie, with the payroll, not their people or their journalistic integrity.

makes me sick.

@GoodRobotUs

The problem with fidning "concrete" infromation is that the only ones who could provide such infromation is gonna be an employee of gamespot, CNET, or Eidios... And if this is indeed true, then those insiders are very likely to get fired like Jeff for leaking out the truth; hence the need to remain unknown... unfortunatly this leads to the problem that anyone can pose as an "unknown"

The only other source would probably be Jeff... though it's uncertain how he would aproach talking about this if it were true. Afterall what he says could harm his chances at getting another job.

I'd love to say that we can wait for concrete evidence to surface prior to condemning anyone, but as the article says, the Gamespot higher-ups may be circling the wagons until this blows over to keep any such evidence from getting out.
The problem with this strategy is that, in the courtroom of public perception, the illusion of impropriety can be almost as damning as impropriety itself. We can't PROVE that Gerstmann was fired due to pressure from advertisers, but it is a possibility and the available evidence makes it an entirely plausible possibility. Of course Gamespot will say it's not possible, and of course we won't take them at their word because they wouldn't say it was possible even if it was what happened.
It also means that apparently the other Gamespot staffers are living in fear. They also can't prove that Gerstmann was fired for the wrong reasons, but the possibility is enough that maybe some people would alter their review to prevent the same fate. That, coupled with the general public backlash, means Gamestop's lost almost all credibility in the eyes of many. If Gerstmann was fired for the wrong reasons - then they deserve to lose credibility. If he wasn't - then Gamestop is still guilty of not managing things well at all and allowing the illusion of impropriety, which is harsh enough.

@ jds

Metacritic is owned by CNet... so take that into consideration as you endorse another site. Same company as what's caused this fiasco.

As a long-time very active GS member (5 years) I can say I'm disgusted with what happened with Jeff. The advertiser - editorial barrier has been breached there and the money grab for ad dollars is on. It's obvious that upper GS management (the suits, not the editorial staff) had a problem with Jeff as he was known for being a tough reviewer. Yes, his tone was what I've seen one poster describe as "snarky" but personally I thought he was funny (most of the time). Some of these games deserve the potshots he takes at them.

And Jeff wasn't the only one on that staff with that tone... and I can understand why the ad guys would find that a problem, but that's just tough. Don't like it? Go shill for another company then. You can't do what you just did. If you cruised around the members section of GS yesterday you'd notice how many members canceled their memberships, or just up and left the site. All those years that those guys built that site and community... in one day the ad guys laid it to waste. It's hard to sell advertising when you don't have readers left.

that's a god damn shame.

@ Ace of Sevens

Again, all here-say, rumors, speculation, and guesses. Give me something I can touch and examine. Until then I will ask for more, expect none, and not pass judgment.

As far as the "issue a public statement" bit, that is not SOP. I work in the development field in a large IS dept with over 100 programmers. Recently we had a project manager leave, the same day we got an "effective immediately this person does not work here." Legally they can't tell us why he left, was fired, or anything else. Just as Mr. 8.8 can't say why, nor can Gamespot legally. We will never get the full story on this so it will all be guesses, rumors, and speculation.

Give me facts and stop spreading rumors that only lead to more flaming idiot fanbois creating more rumors causing it to spiral out of control.

By the way, did you hear that Gamespot forces all their reviewers to sleep in tubes in a special room so they never have to leave and can review all day every day without being exposed to the outside?

Check out www.gamerevolution.com if you are interested in reviews that tell it like it is. I have been faithfully reading their reviews for the past 10 years, and have generally agreed with reviews of any games I have played myself.

If you liked Jeff Gerstmann's "snarky" review style, GR should be a good fit. This is a site (rating on a A-F letter grade scale) that is not afraid to give D- and F reviews. It might be a bit of a shock if you are used to looking at the scores coming off of mainstream sites, but give them a try and see what you think.

Also keep in mind that GR is a much smaller site, so reviews usually take a few days to break, but that also means that they are not tied up in enormous advertising campaigns that have the potential to compromise their journalistic integrity.

SH1SNO, your blatant advert would be sickening if it wasn't so poorly executed!

I signed up for Gamespot, made one post and found out, when I returned to that post, that I had been banned. No warning, no notice I had been banned, and, when I emailed looking for an explanation - the post had no cursing, no ad hominem attacks, nothing offered for sale - I got no response. Weirded me out. This doesn't surprise I'm sorry to say.

@chris

If they did have a clause int he contract as zerodash suggested, that the advertisers cannot discriminate for bad reviews, than gamespot could have sued eidos over this to protect their employees, but no, this clearly paints hwere their priorities lie, with the payroll, not their people or their journalistic integrity.

If the contract is worded as such, then Eidos need not have leaned on Gamespot over current advertising contracts, but instead leaned on C|Net over future advertising contracts. Basically given C|Net the nudge they needed to fire someone they seem to have been partially inclined to let go anyway.

The timing stinks, and there's no way Gamespot or C|Net can BS their way out of this. If it truly has nothing to do with the review, then their timing is terrible.

@Jabrwock

Not to come off as a semantics arguing dick or anything, but the phrase is actually "The proof of the pudding is in the eating." Just saying. Otherwise, good points.

There's some interesting user reviews for Kane and Lynch up on Gamespot...

I just checked the 1up.com site. This is their top news story. http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3164656 Now 1up is the web version of Ziff-Davis Publishings Video Game magazines. They publish EGM, I remember a year or two ago reading an editorial for EGM where Dan Hsu was complaining about advertisers thinking that their money would earn them a good review. He flat out stated that that was not going to happen in EGM. I can tell everyone for a fact that I routinely see reviews of 1.0 and 4.0 out of a 10.0 scale on this site.

Gamespot is notorious for giving certain games a lower score then they deserve, they gave mediocore reviews for zelda, resistance, a metroid prime game and ratchet and clank (and others I'm probably forgetting). A lot of people think they have a microsoft bias. Although kane and lynch is multiplatform, so I don't know what to think of this.

@ Mort: As I said, that is a very different situation. Journalists are accountable to their readers. If Jeff were fired for something not directly related to his journalism (swiping projectors or something), that woudl eb one thing, but they wouldn't need to alter or hide his work. When you fire someone who is accountable to the public rahter than just his or her employers for betraying the public trust, which pretty much anything involving his reviews would be, then you most certainly do make a public statement. As I said, look at any recent journalistic ethics cases. To me, this seems pretty clear. He was fired at least partially for his review. Otherwise, why mess with it? Since the review was his business with the public, ethics demand that the public be given an explanation. I am not making this up. This is how every other case like this I've ever seen has been dealt with. See any scandal involving an athlete being fired for cheating, an author being fired for plagiarism, a journalistic making stuff up, etc.

To put it another way, it is the media's job to demonstrate they are trustworthy, not the public's job to assume they are trustworthy until proven otherwise. All the circumstancial evidence points to the rumor being true, some of it rather damning. If GameSpot wants to be trusted, they need transparency on how they prevent conflicts of interest. The ball is now in their court.

@Dais:

He probably nabbed the version floating around that was already censored. I've seen both versions on various sites. My guess is that he cut it from a strip posted elsewhere that was already censored.

Former Gamespot staffer Bob Colayco and Adam Buchen clarify that just because Gerstmann was fired doesn't mean Gamespot staffers routinely get paid off for good reviews. Buchen also cancels his Gamespot account and urges others to do the same.

I beg to differ. Just ask Kotaku.

@Pharoah

It's unlike GP censored the PA comic. Rather there's a censored version floating around on various sites where it would be censored, and it's likely Dennis just cut the panel from that one rather than the original.

I don't want to read reviews from a nice guy who's always going to forgive all of a game's flaws. I want a smartass jerk who's going to keep me from spending $50 on a mediocre game. If some polite but splineless reviewer at Gamespot would have reviewed Kane & Lynch, I might have bought it, and I definately would have regreted it if I did. Thanks to Jeff, I'm going to wait and spend $20 to $30 on a mediocre game, which I have no problem with.

I sure hope someone else hires Gerstmann soon. Whoever does will earn instant credibility for their reviews in my eyes. I will still watch Gamespot reviews until that happens, as they do make pretty well produced video reviews. It's hard for me to blame Gamespot very much for this, since it's hard to stay in exsistance if you make a habit of losing hundreds of thousands of dollars in ad money.

What gets to me is why is Jeff on the hush hush about this?

What on earth happened to have him be quiet about his termination?

If I was in his shoes and got canned unjustly like that? I'd be making hell...

Something else must be happening here or it's just rumors at best dispite clues and such to being true. No way he'd sit there and button his lip unless he has a good reason too.

GP: Good question. A couple of things could be at play. First, he may have been given severance money conditioned on not discussing his termination; also, the game journalism biz is a fairly small universe. Lashing out doesn't look good to your next potential employer and, believe me, the entire biz is watching this case. Jeff looks like a martyr and victim here. That's to his advantge.

Dave, Kotaku explained this: reviewers generally play pre-release copies that don't give gamerscore. Innocent until proven guilty makes no sense. This isn't a criminal trial and right now, the preponderance of evidence is clearly against GameSpot. When someone is selling a product, it is their responsibility to show that the product is worth buying.

Now that more money is coming into game review sites they are becoming more like the mainstream media instead of the enthusiast sites they are supposed to be.

Also, while the subject is up on potential alternatives to Gamespot in light of their new management trying to make their reviews for sa... I mean more professional, I might as well toss up this one:

http://www.gamersinfo.net/

They're small, and don't use a number scale to rate the games they review, but they might be to some of ya'lls liking.

People keep talking about Gamespot losing credibility, but how about Eidos? Wont people assume that whenever one of their games gets a good score, it's probably just a piece of shit and the reviewer was fearful for his job?

It doesn't matter what Eidos did or didn't do, just what people think. And if the masses think Gamespot caved under pressure, there's a good chance they'll think Eidos is willing to give bribes for better scores.

@monte

Not to mention the fact that if he indeed was fired for unproffesional work overall and not just kane and lynch he would probably say he was fired for only kane and lynch to increase his odds of finding work elsewell (or it could be revenge). So even he's not the most reliable.

[...] I may be a little late to the party with this one, but Gamespot recently fired a reviewer and the word on the “street” is that it was due to a negative review of one of their advertiser’s biggest games.  Gamepolitics has a good chunk of the story and the rest can be found,  if you’re really interested, by following the links in the Gamepolitics article.  It’s also worthwhile to check out the Penny Arcade post on the issue because the comic is funny. [...]

"And GamePolitics readers shouldn’t expect to see any more links to GameSpot.

UPDATE: Check out this compilation of Gerstmann news by GameSpot reader Subrosian. http://www.gamespot.com/users/subrosian"

;D

*sigh* if this is true, it's really is a sad day for editors and reviewers. I mean, the guy was a harsh critic for sure, but outside company pressure should never, I repeat, NEVER get involved in the reviewing process or company dealings. This is just shameful at best.

@Mauler

Yeah, Ace of Sevens is being slightly more specific than I was. Here, I'll elaborate even more.

The current employees and the terminated employees wouldn't be able to say anything legally. The current employees it would be grounds for termination, and for Jeff it'd be grounds for a lawsuit.

Here take a look at this link:

http://www.virtualfools.com/games/jeff-gerstmann/

it holds a round up of various Gamespot employee and former employee's reactions. The former employees speak out in support of Jeff. The current employees express a general state of shock. With the except of one Tim Tracy, whose response suggests that he too will be leaving the company:http://www.gamespot.com/users/TimT/show_blog_entry.php?topic_id=m-100-25233420

In short plenty of people are defending Jeff using their names. None are defending or attacking Cnet using their names.

So despite what you claim Mauler, there's more than just baseless rumors floating around. Cnet fired Jeff. The manner in which they did so has shaken the staff that is friends with him. That certainly lends creditability to the reports of the ground being questionable. Not to mention they did entirely remove his video review of the game. I'd call that a fundamentally altered review, wouldn't you?

Somebody better come up with the amount of money Eidos payed GameSpot/C-net. I don't know how much adds cost, but I really doubt that it was enough for C-net to reach over Gamespot's heads and fire someone who is doing a perfectly good job.
The money part of all of this is a real sticking point for me. Video game adds tend to quote numbers at me that I don't find impressive (such as an 80/100). If such an unremarkable number is supposed to compel me to purchase a game, I doubt that a low rating can be seen as such a large detriment.
I saw a lot less Jericho adds after it got a 6.5. Although it didn't have quite as extensive adds, GameSpot wasn't making that money any more. Kevin VanOrd's review was pretty similar to K&L's, but he still has a job... Is the money Edios spent really that much more?

Fuckin CNET.

Somehow I don't believe that Penny Arcade has any inside dope or even need it to make a comic strip about it. The link uses this comic strip as a self-confirming source. It's circular.

The fact that the editor in chief stepped down and didn't say that he did it because of pressure from Eidos or Gamestop and whatnot but because of someone hitting "a disaster button." It's clear that he didn't want him fired but that doesn't confirm the reasons behind it. If the EIC didn't see anything wrong with the editorial and he was fired for "tone" then clearly there is a disconnect between the EIC and management. Again, stepping down for that reason, and utter silence about the rumor, gives a much more likely picture than this grand conspiracy theory.

The EIC stepping down has absolutely no reason not to speak up about it. He wasn't fired nor does he have a lawsuit. He has every reason to make it public which is what most journalists do when they step down under such circumstances. They make it public. Nothing of the sort is going down.

Using rumors and comic strips of the rumor doesn't make them anything more than rumors. Again, I can find much better sources parroting the game violence theories of Grossman but that doesn't make them true.

If they fired him to improve the review then why has the review remained essentially the same?

Nobody is confirming the rumor. Everyone is reacting too it. There is a difference in the two. One makes it true and the other really means nothing.

If I may, from my reply to BobC:

I could see if certain "action-centered" achievements weren't in with the review copy, and I could also see it if there hadn't been any at all. But to tell us that there was only that one achievement for progress when the game was reviewed defies any sort of logic. Frankly, we're less like Nancy Drew than you are the masked man at the end of every Scooby Doo episode complaining about "meddling kids".

And with respect to the "multiple Gamertags" thing, why would Jeff, having played the game once and given it a thoroughly middling score and an ultimately poor review, have come back and played it again?

It's great to see so many people fired-up about interference with editorial integrity. It's a shame this same fervor doesn't apply to other areas of journalism. Look at the world around us, most media outlets are controlled by major corporations in bed with the advertisers and governments.

I am a subscriber to Gamespot, have been for around 6 years. And am a fan of Jeff's, and his reviews.

Revews are the opinion of one person, mind you a person you've come to trust, and a person who plays more, and knows more about video games than any regular person could. So there is a responsibility, and respect that is earned.

Jeff has earned my respect, even though I didn't always agree with his reviews.

Bottom line, without Jeff, or a real honest reason for his firing. I will be canceling my Gamespot membership, and accounts with any CNet owned website.

How ironic that the _first_ link after the words "And GamePolitics readers shouldn’t expect to see any more links to GameSpot." is a link to page on the domain of, ahem, GameSpot.

Seems to be noone gave a fuck about this dude until now. Everyone ragged his balls off on the Twilight Princess review. Now, he's some kind o' martyr. The whole goddamn thing has been bought and sold and all these whore's are a big form of indirect advertising. Game may be shit, but the collective hissy fit with the user reviews has show that all these fuckers get what they deserve. T'ain't no man behind a curtain, just a bunch o' damn fools feigning outrage. God damn all a yew fucking twats and the whore ye rode in on. Fuck you. Fuck you. Eat a big ol' polished ball of my shit. Fuckers.

From what I'm seeing it was a case of the straw that broke the camel's back. I'll just run through what I know.
1. There isn't any rebuttal from CNet as of now.
2. Jeff's "tone" did tow the line, judging from the other posters and from what I saw.
3. Jeff panned Kane & Lynch.
4. Eidos threatened withdrawel of future advertisement money.
5. The Kane & Lynch review was edited, the video review taken off, and the review hidden within the site.
6. Jeff was locked out of his office when he was fired.
7. Many high profile sites are calling foul.
8. The other editors express shock, while ex-editors express support for Jeff.

All of this strikes me as "we didn't like his tone, but it wasn't bad enough to get him fired until he panned Kane & Lynch".

In addition, though it is a bit late, I want to say a few things in response to the other posters.

@Pandralisk
I prefer GameInformer, and their reviews are free and online on their site, gameinformer.com. I have yet to disagree with one of their reviews.

@Damning

Development takes skill, teaching takes patience, and reviewing takes balls. Not everyone can do any one of the three, and none of the three could do any of the other jobs. A single reviewer takes more shit than any single developer does, and a lapse in their reviewer's integrity can cost them their career and the trust of those who subscribe to them. Any idiot can post a "review", but that doesn't mean it is a good review nor does it mean anyone will listen to it. A good reviewer must put aside their own morals, beliefs, and biases. They must also ignore those who would influence their descisions, including readers, advertisers, the others on the staff, and the hype for the game. They have to write in a way that can be understood and appreciated, and are obligated to play all of the games features to their fullest extent to the best of their abilities. If a developer's game gets panned, it is usually the developer's fault, not the reviewer.

I personlly liked kane and lynch. I found that jeff said stupid shit like the story sucked. It did not suck it was based on several good movies. than he says you don't like any of the charicters, NO SHIT SHERLOCK edios said that about 50 times and if I remeber you loved this game at e3 jeff you cocksucker.

I hate him but he should not have been fired.

As I see the facts laid here, QJ, Gaming Today and the user as to which Dennis linked, I don't really think GameSpot did the right thing for Jeff. You can't blame Eidos either way for pulling out their ads on their site. They pay for their advertisement and they get a "Kane and Lynch is an ugly, ugly game" as Jeff's opening statement. Put the blame on GameSpot if all of these are true. Not only did they not protect their journalist for his opinions, they also yielded to their advertisers' immediate action. Credibility is down to 50% if all of these are true.

Again, the problem lies in the belief that gamespot wanted to change the tone of the review to appease Eidos. While I've not seen the un-edited article, and the only thing that was changed was the multiplayer portion according to unrefuted claims by Gamespot, the piece still seems highly critical of the game and is still very negative on the game. Not much of an appeasement.

As for the EIC confusion, I misread something about a previous EIC who had left for a better gig. Of course he was used as a source, depite being out of the loop for a time, as the events so I wasn't alone in my confusion.

I have yet to see anyone fired for questionable reasons, especially in journalism, where the wronged party isn't speaking out about it as much as humanly possible. There is nothing to be lost here by saying "they fired me because I gave a bad review" if it is the truth. If it isn't the truth, well, then there is a reason to remain quiet. That being that Gamespot would have to reveal the real reason. If he keeps quiet then Gamespot has to keep quiet. It's the rules of the game.

I never said he wasn't fired. I did say that there is a difference between casting a critical eye and jumping into a conclusion and then acting on that conclusion because you want it to be real. There is alot unknown about this and for people to be taking action on something that is just a rumor, such as saying "And GamePolitics readers shouldn’t expect to see any more links to GameSpot" before it is even closed to being confirmed is just silly to say the least. Especially coming after enough "may have" and 'if" and other words of the waffle. If someone had used as many "ifs" and "mays" to claim truth in the connection between games and violence, what would have been the reaction?

This is all based on a rumor. A rumor that Gerstmann hasn't confirmed and that everyone else has gone out of their way to deny. Nobody has quit in protest and confirmed these rumors, as you would expect in any journalistic endeavor. Nobody. They are doing what you would expect when the rumor of this nature isn't true and they don't know what is going on. They are keeping quiet about the details while supporting a friend.

There are no unusual cirmcumstances here. If they are going to fire an editor for "tone" they are going to do it after an editorial. There is no way around it. They might wait to make it easier on them to find a replacement or after a busy period, as is the claim, but none of these are unusual. Coincidental, certainly. But correlation is not causation. One can find a correlation between the size of a shoe worn by a gradeschool kid and their math ability after all.

You want to connect the dots because you find comfort in having those dots connected. But nothing here supports the connection other than coincidence. And if that is all you need then you might want to change your views on game violence which have exactly the same connectability, or more.

@ Dark Sovereign

I've not seen any confirmed source for #4. Alot of conjecture but nothing confirmed. In fact, Iv'e seen Eidos deny that they were using the advertising dollar as a weapon. #5 is off too on the last part because the review is right where it always was. The problem is that this cunning plan took 2 weeks to accomplish, rather than right when it happened, and the review had already faded into the past. For people trying to supress a bad review they are certainly doing a fine job of pointing out the problem.

This is key to it as well. Public executions are a poor way to send a message quietly. You "give him a chance to step down" while spreading the rumor in the office that he was fired and let the watercooler do the rest. Something this public just strikes a tone of the last straw as you pointed out. They finished the review season and decided that he no longer fit in with the corporate image they wanted to project. So they let him go. Firing a critic that likes to be negative is likely to happen after a bad review on chance alone. That this is some grand conspiracy requires more than timing.

It's likely that he will get picked up by some game review company somewhere. It's likely that Eidos will be advertising with that company since it's going to have the readers they want. Those that believe that he got fired because Eidos would have pulled the advertising money will just ignore this because it doesn't fit what they have already decided is true.

I read everything on the Virtual Fools site and it was all based in the same rumor. Repeating a rumor or reacting to a rumor isn't evidence that the rumor is true. If it were then we were invaded by Martians in 1938. There was no basis in fact for the invasion. It was a hoax. It was rumor. But people reacted seriously. So I put to you " Do you seriously believe that all of these people, all of these radio listeners, would be getting upset over nothing? That they would just react off baseless fiction?"

The answer to that question, by the way, is yes. And if you want we can discuss any number of baseless theories (9/11 inside job if you want something fairly recent) where it's all cojecture that people want to believe to be true.

"there very well may be a clause" isn't the same as there actually being a clause. You can't use his silence on the issue as evidence that it exists. It's circular reasoning. It's more speculation and isn't confirmed. And again, he was fired so the need for him to sign a contract to get fired seems a bit far fetched to say the least.

And why would he take such a clause in the first place? How much money do you think they would have to pay him to sell out his integrity? Which is what he would have to do to take such hush money. How could someone with the integrity to not change his review of a game be bought into silence about something far more personal?

The editor who quit did so because the firing was done without his approval. From what I can tell, the editor was above Gerstmann and did not want him fired. He quit because of that, which is actually not all that uncommon. Of course you can "very well may be" your way into another contract that keeps him from confirming the rumor as well but at some point you have to stretch this past the breaking point.

Did GameSpot Commit Brand Suicide with Jeff Gerstmann Firing?...

[...]I don?t know Jeff Gerstmann, although I met him once or twice at various E3 shows. But any working journalist can summon righteous indignation over what appears to have happened here. Fired because an advertiser didn?t like your review of their cr...

I'll go with tone. I saw the video of the review and he seemed to be making a fair number of pot shots at the artists rather than the art. It was also fairly uncompelling as a review goes. The written one is much better as a review but the video one, the one they actaully pulled, went beyond the game. At one point he called the writers lazy. There are other ways that can be done. As such:

The review by Gerstmann was an ugly, ugly, review. The writing repeated the same adjectives rather than finding new, new ones. This is just lazy, lazy writing.

Or:

The review by Gerstmann fell far from short of being a review on the game. His constant repitition of simple adjectives did more to distract the viewer than inform him. There are ways to write a compelling review about an uncompelling game but this wasn't one of them.

In the first I'm commenting on him as a person. The second it's about the review. The difference is, in some form, tone. Which is exactly the reason they said they fired him.

Since when has GameSpot been relevent? They aren't any more relevant than IGN. If you guys put any stock in their reviews, then you are only setting yourself up for disappointment.

Gamespot is dead to me now. I've grown to love all the editors that work there but this is too much for me to ignore. What CNET has done has made me so angry to the point that I'll be avoiding any CNET owned sites, to include Gamespot. I can't promise I'll never go to Gamespot since they still have a library of good reviews but I'll always think twice before clicking on my Gamespot bookmark.

Okay, I've not read this entire page of comments (so my apologies if this point has been made), but I've worked extensively with all of the major gaming magazines and sites, and with their respective parent companies, and advertising and editorial are not just hand-in-hand, but in full coitus mode at all times. Simply put, these magazines don't sell well because people expect this kind of content for free. So any possible revenue sources are made ABSOLUTE priorities, and if that means tailoring the reviews, so be it. No one should look to any free commercial site for objective reviews -- it's a business model that cannot be sustained.

I do read reviews -- my job requires it, as does my raging gaming habit -- but I only use them for basic information on the game and not on whether some 'name' liked it or not.

Gamespot had gone downhill ever since Greg Kasavin left anyway. I couldn't stand Gerstmann or his reviews, but this is pathetic if it is true.

ok, screw this. I went ahead an removed the gamespot link which was on my quick little shortcut bar and just replaced the html with IGN, gamespot is dead too me. corporate whores.

Its about time this sham sunk.