Gamespot: Gerstmann? Yeah, good man, good man. Right up until he threatened to pipe-bomb the office! SRSLY-right after he reviewed Kane & Lynch, too...had to let him go.

Arcturian

adam_b

adam_b

Vecha

RawSteelUT

Johnny_Under

a tribute to the guy they fired for not bowing down to advertiser pressure?

riiiiighht....bbullllshiittt :)

die_die_die_die_die_die_love

eldunce

Langis

I mean, do they really believe the outraged masses will believe it's more about gerstmann than the general outrage?

Seriously, the situation is getting more pathetic by the second.

GSGomez

KillerBee

Malmer

Pulled the Video?? I saw that thing and hellllllz no it didn't have any MF problems. It was an honest review by one of their most senior guys.
Edited the text after the fact?
Did the editors not do their job the first time right.... oh no wait upper management said change the review or I'll fire your ass too!

Do What The F I say or you'll be fired.......ON THE SPOT!!!

liquidmonk

MrGutts

Gamespot PR has been totally inept in their response, but this doesn't mean its a conspiracy. They should have come out guns blazing, and said the K&L review was adjusted because it was shit, and they were embarrassed that this sloppy piece of work was getting so much attention.

It's a lot more likely that Gerstmann was fired because of more mundane reasons, it takes a heck of a lot fewer leaps of faith.

hahnchen

And, he just o-n-e guy. When was the last time you bought ANYTHING based on one source of information? Especially if it's from the internet?
So, Gerstmann don't like K&L? Very well. Duly noted.
Seldom I find that critics opinions of games, movies or books mirror exactly my own.

Whoever it was that first stirred up this shitstorm should have let it go a long time ago.

Katana_Mind

A: Jeff's supervisors and select members of the edit team felt the review's negativity did not match its "fair" 6.0 rating. The copy was adjusted several days after its publication so that it better meshed with its score, which remained unchanged.

WTF!!??... marketing adjust reviews so it adjust!??! doctored reviews!!!... ARGGGHH!!!. I want this people head!

Tei

Tei

This shitstorm had nothing to do with them. Gerstmann wasn't fired for his K&L review. Eidos have been fucked over so badly by idiots like you because of shoddy internet sensationalism, which is ironic given the whole issue is about ethics.

hahnchen

Jeff Gerstmann had quirky and extreme views.
It rendered his reviews useless.
(and I don't care to hear about the five people who had the same views, or just say they do out of principle).

Being a product of this case or not, I'm glad he's gone.

Malmer

If you dig through the trash long enough you'll find something valuable someone threw away.

exnihilo

Tribute? Why not go kicking in in the gonads???

I bet they are going to sing "For He's a Jolly Good Fellow" to a poster of him inside his old office... man... I actually feel bad about this...

VakeroRokero

Amazing-Steve

Superman

mrynthom

EnigmaNemesis

However, I do have to say that the Hotspot this week is very well done, and it is nice to hear from Jeff's fellow editors both about Jeff's departure and their apologies to the fans.

Not bad.

Benjo

Does Eidos want to go the way of Atari? Have they made any decent games lately, someone enlighten me as I can't seem to remember any. How about next time, instead of getting reviewers fired, they concentrate their efforts on making sure they don't make shitty games. Maybe management at Eidos should regret pushing this game out the door early. You don't hear the retards at EA complain every time their crappy games get panned.

Soldrak

Phazon

jerrt

AqueousBeef

robinhood1013

radink

Neither is wrong, but correcting one with the other is.

r1nce

quaver

THX5334

boopadoo

THX5334

Ace_of_Sevens

dhlt25

mcsnipe

hahnchen

splines

FunkyJ

nxp3

*ahem* No. Look up how to use apostrophes. It's used correctly here.

Regardless, Gamespot got caught with its pants down. The new suits that oversee Gamespot need to realize you can only take away our staplers so many times before we burn the building down.

And the fire looks pretty good from here.

Frakin' a man. Frakin' a.

Zelyre

No, wait...
I didn´t had one.
Oops.

Wyld

ChaoticLimbs

I still don't get this whole "objective review" thing. Aren't reviews subjective by nature, i.e., they're someone's opinion?

Gordon_Shumway

Marlor

The tags for the podcast. Check it out.

"Apologists"

"Excuses lie"

"Truth"

DeLoRtEd1

Psychotext

balgeary

Never cared much for Gamespot anyway.. or Eidos for that matter... Still, something is dirty..

Fujoshi

It is a bit weird, but i suspect it is because clicking on the author's name brings you to his blog where Tor is giving details (with less BS) on how/why he wrote the Q&A.

_Surreal_

Absolutely not. Wait... um, actually I do, I really really do.

Namtillaku

crazycatguy

Worst.doublepost.ever... I's is soo solly.

metal_dawn

From the Desk of: ********* ******
To Staff of: ********
Re: Reviewing Recommended Best Practices

Dear editorial staff and reviewers,

In an effort to standardize our "team's" review structure, we've put together this basic set of completely reasonable and ethically responsible guidelines that you can use to consistently provide the most professional and commercially sound content on the web. By standardizing our procedures we ensure that our readers have a solid foundation from which to make their buying decisions, while providing our advertisers with the comfortable knowledge that they will be treated with the respect and honor they deserve. Our editorial standards are as high as ever as we enter this new paradigm of critical analysis, and our partners are excited by our dynamic, pro-active approach to providing industry leading reviews. By using this template you will be ensuring the best possible treatment of our readers and our industry associates.

Together with our advertising partners, our executive staff and our parent company, we've reduced your workload and simplified the process of writing reviews while meeting the expectations of our reader demographic. It is important to realize that our entire team should work together to provide a complete publication, which is why we are now encouraging our editorial staff to collaborate closely with parent company management, human resources and advertising to create a finely tuned machine that works to the same goals rather than at odds. Together we can build commercially responsible and journalistically acceptable content!

Guidelines:

(editor's note: please vet copies of review through editorial as well advertising office for final approval and scheduling before posting! Remember your scoring mnemonic in the editorial standards memo dated September 6, 2006 - nine you're fine, six you're nixed!)

- Part 1 Intro - a great time to feature the positives of a game. Avoiding an unprofessionally negative review should be a goal, such as:

Game X is the outstanding new title from (advertiser's company here), and it offers genre busting challenges and emergent gameplay features. An evolutionary step forward in (game genre here) games, Game X provides hours of fun, and is a step up from (enter competitor games here *CHECK With Ad Dept. for acceptable list of negatively comparative games). From the moment you begin playing Game X, it becomes clear that the developers have been working on this title for years, and have matched the excellent standards already established by (advertising publisher).

- Part 2 Plot & Features - Briefly describe game here along with notable gameplay features. Feature lists will be provided by the publisher in a timely fashion. In fact, many publishers will have crafted fine synopses for their games, and you are encouraged to borrow from this literature to ensure accurate portrayal of games assets. For example:

Game X's hero is Joe Smith, a dashing ne'er-do-well turned hero in a last ditch effort to save Earth from alien invasion. Along with Jane Doe, the buxom secret agent [note: recognize the primarily male dominated demographic of gaming. While including artwork for publication be sure and highlight attractive female characters. Our readers will be grateful!] with a past and Kyle Johnson, a tech-savvy and sarcastic computer genius who guides Joe by way of a cerebral-autosponder ™, Joe must travel through dozens of dynamically generated levels to do battle with crime lords, foreign nationals and ultimately the greatest threat humanity has ever known. Featuring customizable characters, a unique good and evil morality system, open-ended play and tons of multiplayer options including deathmatch and CTF, Game X is a fully featured value for even jaded gamers.

- Part 3 Technology - We all know that gamers make their purchasing decisions based on bleeding-edge technology. If a picture is worth a thousand words, then it's also good enough to earn some latitude in other arenas as well. Conveying the specifics of the game's intended technology is serving the best interests of our readers, and reviewers are encouraged to detail any impressive technology. For example:

Game X brings the most amazing, innovative, space-age technology to the table, including a graphic engine capable of producing photo-realistic character and environments with (insert tech-savvy graphical specifics here. See submitted feature sheet for suggestions). Additionally the game displays human-like AI that is capable of complex procedures such as ducking, providing suppressing fire and when backed against the wall will challenge the player with full-on frontal assaults!

While it is clearly necessary to describe any serious problems with visual fidelity or consistency in a responsible review, after discussing this section with our industry partners, we've been made aware that reviewers commonly attribute problems to development that have more to do with incorrect usage. If you experience problems that seem technical in nature, we strongly recommend that reviewers research directly with the publisher to ensure that this is a problem for everyone. If there is no clear indication that any technical concerns are not repeatable on all configurations, we do not recommend mentioning any problems that may be the nature of an incorrectly configured system.

- Part 4: Gameplay - We are committed to providing copy of the highest journalistic integrity, which is why we are dedicated toward providing entirely objective opinions on today's popular video games. There is a clear trend of cynicism infecting the less level-headed outlets in today's entertainment media, and we believe this is a result of lack of ethical journalistic practices by unprofessional and biased writers, particularly those of a so-called independent nature. To combat this, we expect our reviewers to display unbiased arguments by countering any and all negative comments with an equal and opposite positive. We do not want to be seen as a negative establishment, and our partners are excited at the opportunity to work with a media outlet that recognizes the years of work that go into modern video games.

It is important to set aside personal preference, and be able to specifically and adequately demonstrate in an objective and quantifiable manner when a game is not fun. Do not be snide, sarcastic or unprofessional in your arguments, and remember to highlight what is fun about a game first. This is what readers want to know, and they will respect what isn't said more than a caustic and unfair analysis. For example:

Game X is terrific fun to play from start to finish. It is an action packed, third person adventure through the gritty underbelly of the modern crime world as well as a nail-biting sci-fi shooter. The controls may take some getting used to, but once it becomes clear what the designers intended by using the function keys as the primary form of movement, you'll wish every game used the scheme. While aiming in Game X can be difficult for those who aren't very good at shooters, the method does a good job of recreating a real-world response to an alien shootout.

- Part 5: Conclusion and Score - It is the job of the reviewer to present the goals of the developer in the main body of the review, and then save a more informal opinion for the very end. It would be impossible to fairly judge today's titles without clearly describing what the developers were aiming for, and we recommend that if you have questions or concerns on this comment, then you contact the publishing PR directly so they can explain and address criticisms you might have. Being able to have a developer walk you through what seem at the time like points of criticism can make the ideal experience much clearer! Our goal is to ensure that developers are part of the critical process, rather than excluding them. This allows our readers to have a complete picture of a Game.

Finally, our scoring guidelines are as follows:

*10 thumbs up* A game that is candidate for game of the year. This is not a perfect game, but rather among the best games currently available.
*9 thumbs up* A very good game. Better than average.
*8 thumbs up* A game that is average. Perhaps with some technical or gameplay imperfections, but can be very fun at enough points to justify purchase.
*7 thumbs up* A game with notable problems. (Please advise Advertising Dept before scoring 7 or below to ensure a smooth transition from promotional phase to the critical phase. Requires Editorial Review for scoring accuracy)
*6 thumbs up* Not a very good game. Fails in significant ways. (Requires Editorial Review for scoring accuracy)
*5 thumbs up or less* Saved for the very worst of the worst. We have been very careful in our strategic partnering throughout the industry, so it would be extraordinarily unlikely that our partners will release a game requiring this score. (Requires Executive Management oversight for scoring accuracy)

We at ******** respect the journalistic process and look forward to doing our part in realigning the gaming entertainment media to a proper standard for publication. As a friend to the industry and a respected provider of content to our readers, we must be diligent in recognizing that we are ourselves an entertainment outlet, and neither our readers or partners want to be part of a negative force in entertainment journalism. Our process may be limiting, but that's the nature of being journalistically responsible. Even in our opinions, we must be faithful to both sides of the process.

We are confident that you will all be excited to conform to our reasonable guidelines.

metal_dawn

do they REALLY think this will make everything better?

god they must be LOT more idiotic than i ever imagined...

icepick314

From the Desk of: ********* ******
To Staff of: ********
Re: Reviewing Recommended Best Practices

Dear editorial staff and reviewers,

In an effort to standardize our "team's" review structure, we've put together this basic set of completely reasonable and ethically responsible guidelines that you can use to consistently provide the most professional and commercially sound content on the web. By standardizing our procedures we ensure that our readers have a solid foundation from which to make their buying decisions, while providing our advertisers with the comfortable knowledge that they will be treated with the respect and honor they deserve. Our editorial standards are as high as ever as we enter this new paradigm of critical analysis, and our partners are excited by our dynamic, pro-active approach to providing industry leading reviews. By using this template you will be ensuring the best possible treatment of our readers and our industry associates.

Together with our advertising partners, our executive staff and our parent company, we've reduced your workload and simplified the process of writing reviews while meeting the expectations of our reader demographic. It is important to realize that our entire team should work together to provide a complete publication, which is why we are now encouraging our editorial staff to collaborate closely with parent company management, human resources and advertising to create a finely tuned machine that works to the same goals rather than at odds. Together we can build commercially responsible and journalistically acceptable content!

Guidelines:

(editor's note: please vet copies of review through editorial as well advertising office for final approval and scheduling before posting! Remember your scoring mnemonic in the editorial standards memo dated September 6, 2006 - nine you're fine, six you're nixed!)

- Part 1 Intro - a great time to feature the positives of a game. Avoiding an unprofessionally negative review should be a goal, such as:

Game X is the outstanding new title from (advertiser's company here), and it offers genre busting challenges and emergent gameplay features. An evolutionary step forward in (game genre here) games, Game X provides hours of fun, and is a step up from (enter competitor games here *CHECK With Ad Dept. for acceptable list of negatively comparative games). From the moment you begin playing Game X, it becomes clear that the developers have been working on this title for years, and have matched the excellent standards already established by (advertising publisher).

- Part 2 Plot & Features - Briefly describe game here along with notable gameplay features. Feature lists will be provided by the publisher in a timely fashion. In fact, many publishers will have crafted fine synopses for their games, and you are encouraged to borrow from this literature to ensure accurate portrayal of games assets. For example:

Game X's hero is Joe Smith, a dashing ne'er-do-well turned hero in a last ditch effort to save Earth from alien invasion. Along with Jane Doe, the buxom secret agent [note: recognize the primarily male dominated demographic of gaming. While including artwork for publication be sure and highlight attractive female characters. Our readers will be grateful!] with a past and Kyle Johnson, a tech-savvy and sarcastic computer genius who guides Joe by way of a cerebral-autosponder ™, Joe must travel through dozens of dynamically generated levels to do battle with crime lords, foreign nationals and ultimately the greatest threat humanity has ever known. Featuring customizable characters, a unique good and evil morality system, open-ended play and tons of multiplayer options including deathmatch and CTF, Game X is a fully featured value for even jaded gamers.

- Part 3 Technology - We all know that gamers make their purchasing decisions based on bleeding-edge technology. If a picture is worth a thousand words, then it's also good enough to earn some latitude in other arenas as well. Conveying the specifics of the game's intended technology is serving the best interests of our readers, and reviewers are encouraged to detail any impressive technology. For example:

Game X brings the most amazing, innovative, space-age technology to the table, including a graphic engine capable of producing photo-realistic character and environments with (insert tech-savvy graphical specifics here. See submitted feature sheet for suggestions). Additionally the game displays human-like AI that is capable of complex procedures such as ducking, providing suppressing fire and when backed against the wall will challenge the player with full-on frontal assaults!

While it is clearly necessary to describe any serious problems with visual fidelity or consistency in a responsible review, after discussing this section with our industry partners, we've been made aware that reviewers commonly attribute problems to development that have more to do with incorrect usage. If you experience problems that seem technical in nature, we strongly recommend that reviewers research directly with the publisher to ensure that this is a problem for everyone. If there is no clear indication that any technical concerns are not repeatable on all configurations, we do not recommend mentioning any problems that may be the nature of an incorrectly configured system.

- Part 4: Gameplay - We are committed to providing copy of the highest journalistic integrity, which is why we are dedicated toward providing entirely objective opinions on today's popular video games. There is a clear trend of cynicism infecting the less level-headed outlets in today's entertainment media, and we believe this is a result of lack of ethical journalistic practices by unprofessional and biased writers, particularly those of a so-called independent nature. To combat this, we expect our reviewers to display unbiased arguments by countering any and all negative comments with an equal and opposite positive. We do not want to be seen as a negative establishment, and our partners are excited at the opportunity to work with a media outlet that recognizes the years of work that go into modern video games.

It is important to set aside personal preference, and be able to specifically and adequately demonstrate in an objective and quantifiable manner when a game is not fun. Do not be snide, sarcastic or unprofessional in your arguments, and remember to highlight what is fun about a game first. This is what readers want to know, and they will respect what isn't said more than a caustic and unfair analysis. For example:

Game X is terrific fun to play from start to finish. It is an action packed, third person adventure through the gritty underbelly of the modern crime world as well as a nail-biting sci-fi shooter. The controls may take some getting used to, but once it becomes clear what the designers intended by using the function keys as the primary form of movement, you'll wish every game used the scheme. While aiming in Game X can be difficult for those who aren't very good at shooters, the method does a good job of recreating a real-world response to an alien shootout.

- Part 5: Conclusion and Score - It is the job of the reviewer to present the goals of the developer in the main body of the review, and then save a more informal opinion for the very end. It would be impossible to fairly judge today's titles without clearly describing what the developers were aiming for, and we recommend that if you have questions or concerns on this comment, then you contact the publishing PR directly so they can explain and address criticisms you might have. Being able to have a developer walk you through what seem at the time like points of criticism can make the ideal experience much clearer! Our goal is to ensure that developers are part of the critical process, rather than excluding them. This allows our readers to have a complete picture of a Game.

Finally, our scoring guidelines are as follows:

*10 thumbs up* A game that is candidate for game of the year. This is not a perfect game, but rather among the best games currently available.
*9 thumbs up* A very good game. Better than average.
*8 thumbs up* A game that is average. Perhaps with some technical or gameplay imperfections, but can be very fun at enough points to justify purchase.
*7 thumbs up* A game with notable problems. (Please advise Advertising Dept before scoring 7 or below to ensure a smooth transition from promotional phase to the critical phase. Requires Editorial Review for scoring accuracy)
*6 thumbs up* Not a very good game. Fails in significant ways. (Requires Editorial Review for scoring accuracy)
*5 thumbs up or less* Saved for the very worst of the worst. We have been very careful in our strategic partnering throughout the industry, so it would be extraordinarily unlikely that our partners will release a game requiring this score. (Requires Executive Management oversight for scoring accuracy)

We at ******** respect the journalistic process and look forward to doing our part in realigning the gaming entertainment media to a proper standard for publication. As a friend to the industry and a respected provider of content to our readers, we must be diligent in recognizing that we are ourselves an entertainment outlet, and neither our readers or partners want to be part of a negative force in entertainment journalism. Our process may be limiting, but that's the nature of being journalistically responsible. Even in our opinions, we must be faithful to both sides of the process.

We are confident that you will all be excited to conform to our reasonable guidelines.

metal_dawn

----

I really don't hope the gaming community is anywhere near inidicative of the general populace, the reaction to this has been a total farce. The way they lept on GameSpot and viewed all rumours as gospel truth is fucking atrocious, how easy it is to Swift Boat someone in the gaming press. The way internet media has swooned over Digg-baiting tabloid headlines has been horrible.

If you've read through responses from all parties involved, including the semi-credible leaks, then you'll conclude that Jeff was fired for more mundane reasons such as incompetence, attitude, work ethic etc.

Valleywag looked at this rumour very early in a restrained methodical way, coming up with very valid points. Points that have been totally ignored by the fact averse blood crying public.

But the community seems to want assumptions placed everywhere so it can satisfy their conspiratory worldview. Occam's Razor is your friend.

----

That being said, GameSpot's PR department have been fucking deficient, and wholly incompetent. It has taken them so long to put out any meaningful statement, leaving time for unfounded rumours and leaks to grasp the public imagination. Gamespot have been around the internet since forever, and yet they still seem to have no clue as to how it works.

Following the initial rumours, Jeff's K&L reviews grabbed a lot of views. Jeff's K&L reviews were rubbish pieces. His statement on the characters being "impossible to like" were stated as fact, his impossibly subjective views on the f-bomb had no place in a review, and it was overly long detailing trivial control issues. Given this light shone onto a poor piece, Gamespot would understandably want to improve this. Yet their lack of commitment is appalling. Instead of altering the tone to more closely match the score, it should have attacked the shoddy piece for what it was.

hahnchen

I still don't trust the spin they're trying to pull on this. He got fired by a trigger-happy suit that was worried about the money, and the sooner they admit it the better.

splines

CapnSpank

lc204

No, the possessive form of Eidos is Eidos'. You don't add 's if the word ends in an s.

LaserJudas

Bokusatsu_Tenshi

kw4k

@KaneRobot: And I guess you take the word of anonymous posters on internet discussion forums?

@Tull: I don't see why any of the big sites would benefit from this, because we all know everybody's reviews are bought and sold. The only issue is whether Gamespot just finally copped to it or not by firing somebody over it. My feeling is they didn't. But whether or not they did, the fact is those other sites all do the same thing and we all know it.

@arashi: They were probably quiet for a long time for the same reason they won't say any more than they already have: liability. Nobody wants to say something that's going to get the company sued, so everybody shuts up until the lawyers can look at it and get some sort of official response tailored that has absolutely no chance of landing everybody in court.

People, don't be so naive. Stuff doesn't just happen and then everybody talks about it freely in the corporate world. There is a lot of money riding on stuff like this, so nobody's going to talk that doesn't have to. And a bunch of Kotaku readers whining in the comment section doesn't constitute "have to".

badasscat

MrZ33

DrFresh

photoboy

ErinIsADrunk

Even if Gamespot is innocent (which I don't think is the case) sometimes hanging one to discourage the others is necessary to keep companies honest.
If Gamespot dies due to this, other companies will be MUCH more reluctant to risk a payola scandal themselves.

If gamespot lives, companies will think that there is no harm in risking it, things will come back to normal. This is why I think Gamespot needs to be the fall guy in all of this.

arstal

Older

Hagame

ara

Q: Why was Jeff fired?

A: Legally, the exact reasons behind his dismissal cannot be revealed. However, they stemmed from issues unrelated to any publisher or advertiser; his departure was due purely for internal reasons.

StupidDufus

Yamster

Sing it with me now:

This is not the greatest apology in the world, no/
This is just a tribute/
Couldn't re-hire the greatest editor in GameSpot, no/
This is a trib-u-ute

MisterSleep

How do the editors feel? Are they satisfied? Will they write freely? Because they know the scoop better than any of us!

fuchikoma

xD

1up/IGN FTW!

Axel

Only on the Internet, people >_>

So I guess you take Gamespot's word at face value then. Only on the internet, indeed.

KaneRobot

I completely agree. Gamespot CONFIRMS in their own statement that pressure from higher ups was the reason for the change in the review.

From the article:

Q: Why was the Kane & Lynch review text altered?

A: Jeff's supervisors and select members of the edit team felt the review's negativity did not match its "fair" 6.0 rating. The copy was adjusted several days after its publication so that it better meshed with its score, which remained unchanged.

aka Bitter

axiomatic

Vexorg

tehFluffz

Kotaku mentioned that around E3-time, that it makes it harder to trash a game once you met all the nice people who made it.

Billkwando

AdaAstra

Bad News: No one believes that Edios had nothing to do with this.

I'm with those people.

blackadvent

BlackDove

Unrelated: I've always thought that locking someone out of the building was one of the most callous and cowardly ways to fire someone. If they were fired because they were menacing other employees or they were breaking the law, then I can understand it. But otherwise, have a little bit of freaking humanity. The only reason it comes to mind is because they locked Gerstmann out of his office and then told him "Surprise! You're fired!".

@Lant: Because the fired editor could probably sue them into the ground. Badmouthing former employees is looked on pretty dimly unless the former employee's title was one of the great 3 letter ones (CIO, CFO, CTO, etc). I guess it's ok for those folks since they get a moneyhat on the way out the door.

NateN

4dSwissCheese

I've been a manager and have worked on the firing side of things so I can understand where Gamespot managers are going through, but I also know that they also have certain loopholes and ways to get around enough of the state laws regarding employee termination to at least show the public that there's no cover-up involved and no shenanigans going on behind the scenes.

What they're doing now is pretty much trying to put the genie back in the bottle after the bottle's already shattered. Gamespot will continue as a site, but they will probably lose some of its older members and subscribers if they haven't already. It's rivals at 1Up and IGN are probbably dancing a jig right about now since those two sites will definitely benefit from all this in terms of new subcribers.

Tull

Rebochan

It's funny - bad reviews beside
a paid advertisement is one of the
ways I tell if the publication/website
is legitimate as a source.

I was reading a game magazine the other
day, and I saw that dumb VR goggles thing
with a full-page ad right beside
a scathing review of it that gave
it a 4. It was awesome!

Sullyville

*Insert snarky comment about WalletMan's English skills here

DaiMacculate

[www.gamespot.com]

_Surreal_

No, of course not. You want to hurt them? Stop acting like you care, and most importantly, stop going to their website. Anything else is not that big of a deal.

mva5580

[www.gamespot.com]

_Surreal_

Gordon_Shumway

Mr.Waffleton

ZelseXx

But because they did it so soon, I think we have these rumors that could or could not hold true. GameSpot has always been the runt of the bunch to some people- and I'm sure that this just added fuel to the hate.

The higher ups in this industry really need to get their act together. I'm just waiting for a big company to bust and lose everything because of fraud and what not. Atari- we're watching you...

JGab

Gordon_Shumway

Strangelove

Konchu

Did Eidos do anything wrong in this I will say its possible but I dont have the full story. It has been stated that they did in fact call and state there disappointment in the review. Now this could be said as a matter of fact or as a demand. If I had placed an order for advertisement on a site for a game and that site loathed the game it probably would not make sense to advertise that game further on that site cut the losses. But if they threw there weight around trying to get a re score or just pulled other adds regardless if they were other games out of spite that is bad, they can not expect there ad revenue to affect the score.

I hope this is a example for Game PR departments around the globe dont try to buy reviews it can bite you in the rear. And a lesson for Review sites your integrity is you most valuable asset.

Konchu

My only regret with Eidos is that they haven't milked the Tomb Raider franchise enough yet ... if only they could, I dunno, maybe port the original over to the Wii and tack on some motion controls and get it out the door for Christmas?

That would be a present full of win, just like Eidos, the gift that keeps on giving.

rbininger

bluesquareapple

Puppy knows what you did!

kman2686

TitillatedOcelot

otarumx

Nitemare1

-EDGE-

it's their own fault.

balls187

KosherInfidel

Then Gertsmann reviewed the game and clearly hated most of it and gave it a 6 that probably was the minimum suggested score by management, given that he couldn't score lower he expressed his hate of the game in the review.

Now here is where I think Gamespot blew up, the review was so hateful that Gamespot's "journalistic integrity" demanded that Gertsmann be fired by not adhering to the rule of scoring for Gamespot.

As I see it Eidos didn't have much to do with the firing given that they did express concern over the review but I really doubt they demanded Gertsmann's head on a platter. Gamespot on the other side are fully responsible for everything and in trying to cover their asses fumbled once and again until Cnet started an investigation of their practices. Now, if Cnet is really investigating and not playing cover up I expect a lot more firings at gamespot but now from sales and maybe even higher ups.

otarumx

Laughable, just laughable. Credibility not in shatters? So, now you will trust every review coming out of Gamespot? This didn't just tarnish Gamespot, it brought to light so many issues surrounding the ENTIRE game review process and journalism in general, that a whole new set of people are going to wake up to these little facts:

1)Reviewers get games early from the companies themselves! These games are a goodwill jesture; a gift, if you will. With this privelege comes a trust bond between the reviewer and the company that made the game...leading to many many many 7.0 average scores.

2)These same companies pay for the advertising that keeps many of these profit-driven sites alive to see another review. This fact is what makes it hard to trust news publications to deliver you the straight facts on those new sleeping pills, or that government vaccination program.

3) Special company tours are given to hype a game and have the reviewer come into personal contact with the HUMAN BEINGS that make the game. This leads to reviewers thinking of the well being of the company workers, practically making them company members themselves! In this process, the good nature of humanity benefits the faceless corporation that is putting out that terrible game, and that rarely benefits the workers....unless you call being able to keep your job a little longer a benefit now.

--------

This shouldn't be a shock to anyone these days. The good thing about this is someone at Gamespot forgot that people aren't morons, and let slip actual PROOF that the complete entity that is mainstream journalism is in utter shambles.

This story may be more important than you think.

Groovy_Guy

xaosoax

Version135b

bobdabolina

Idealy the score should be reflected in the text without any editing.

Agies

ethic

Apartment living is torture.

BigManZam

It'll then fade to black, and show "GameSpot x Gerstmann ~ 1996 - 2007"

*sheds a tear*

Heliophage

Flanders's

BigManZam

Weren't we told relatively recently that Reviews are only posted after being vetted by the entire editing team and that they all must agree on the review content and subsequent score?

SigmaHyperion

Mii

Korey

CapnSpank

SigmaHyperion

Enigma_20XX

AgainstOne

"JEFF'S SUPERVISORS and select members of the edit team felt the review's negativity did not match its 'fair' 6.0 rating."

If you think this Q&A changes anything, think again.

Korey

altgod

smitty1123

Gamespot could've handled this better, whatever the reason for the firing is. Their lack of a denial until now has just fueled the fire. Sure, a lot of people would, like now, claim bullshit, but some of the people who were on the fence might have dropped onto the side of the frenzied blog mob when no denial came out of them for a while, and that made for more rumors. Likewise, their "tribute" to the guy they just fired smacks of (poor) damage control at best, and admission of guilt at worst.

I don't care much, never having been a regular visitor to Gamespot, but, until I hear something clear one way or another from someone named and reliable, I'm not judging either Eidos or Gamespot.

MrPerson

Langis

Putting up fake 5 star reviews... gotta call bullshit

Cuban__B