Jeff Gerstmann canned from Gamespot for K&L review?

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Thu Nov 29, 2007 10:59 pm

Rumor is that Gerstmann was canned because of a mediocre score and negative tone in his review for Kane & Lynch at Gamespot after Eidos spent a ton of money in advertising the game at the site:

http://n4g.com/gaming/News-89096.aspx

Extremely lame, if true. But not surprising. Reason No. 1,471 to constantly question the objectivity of reviews from major game sites (IGN, Gamespot).

It's just a shame that Gerstmann may have been canned for trying to keep editorial independent from advertising.

Take care,
PK

macsomjrr · Post by **macsomjrr** » Fri Nov 30, 2007 12:21 am

If true that is just about as lame as you can get in terms of journalistic credibility. Sure, reviewing video games isn't the world's most important job but you have to maintain some degree of integrity otherwise why would anybody listen to you? Not cool Gamespot, not cool.

Rodster · Post by **Rodster** » Fri Nov 30, 2007 12:47 am

That was my most trusted site for game reviews. Not anymore if true, shame on you Gamespot. If gaming is your hobby or passion you need independent reviewers who have journalistic credibility.

We're at the point where if you buy a game and it sucks you can't just take it back unless you have someone you know at the game store. So we need reviewers who we can trust so as not to blow our money when a game is bad. When they say a game is good or sux we want to believe them.

seanmac31 · Post by **seanmac31** » Fri Nov 30, 2007 1:19 am

Rodster wrote:That was my most trusted site for game reviews. Not anymore if true, shame on you Gamespot. If gaming is your hobby or passion you need independent reviewers who have journalistic credibility.

We're at the point where if you buy a game and it sucks you can't just take it back unless you have someone you know at the game store. So we need reviewers who we can trust so as not to blow our money when a game is bad. When they say a game is good or sux we want to believe them.

Eurogamer. Go with Eurogamer. (But I agree that Gamespot has certainly been better than IGN, so it's disheartening to hear this.)

LAking · Post by **LAking** » Fri Nov 30, 2007 1:27 am

If this is true I will most certainly boycott the site. I have been paying the yearly fee for no ads an access to all the exclusive content but not anymore. I've felt that there review quality has declined quite a lot recently. I'm not sure if it's that they are actually getting worse or I'm just more picky, but either way I just don't like the site as much as I used to.

I haven't been visiting Eurogamer much but every review I read is very well written and thorough. Time to make a bookmark.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Fri Nov 30, 2007 1:36 am

seanmac31 wrote:Eurogamer. Go with Eurogamer.

Agreed. Plus the reviewers at Eurogamer use a biting writing style that's cheeky as hell. I love it.

Take care,
PK

Rodster · Post by **Rodster** » Fri Nov 30, 2007 4:53 am

pk500 wrote:
seanmac31 wrote:Eurogamer. Go with Eurogamer.
Agreed. Plus the reviewers at Eurogamer use a biting writing style that's cheeky as hell. I love it.

Take care,
PK

Yeah Eurogamer is pretty good and I frequent their site daily. What has set Gamespot apart from Eurogamer and the rest including IGN, 1up etc. is that I usually agree spot on with Gamespot reviews 90-95% of the time.

There are certain games or genre of games that Eurogamer favors where I just don't agree with the review and they also have a tendency of handing out too many 10's. But their style of reviews and humor as PK mentioned including their humorous captions in the reviews are second to none.

Naples39 · Post by **Naples39** » Fri Nov 30, 2007 11:12 am

This is terrible if true. As others have said, gamespot often had better reviews than IGN because they were more critical, and Gerstman was one of my favorite video reviewers there.

Jimmydeicide · Post by **Jimmydeicide** » Fri Nov 30, 2007 12:55 pm

If you cant trust gamespot you cant trust Eurogamer isnt it the same principle ? Just helps the rental companys out more.

Rodster · Post by **Rodster** » Fri Nov 30, 2007 1:02 pm

Jimmydeicide wrote:If you cant trust gamespot you cant trust Eurogamer isnt it the same principle ? Just helps the rental companys out more.

Exactly !

Someone on their forums mentioned that Sega paid them for a lot of advertising for Sega Rally Revo. They gave the game a 9/10 which I have the game and I think it merits a 6.5 to 7.0 max.

So yeah I don't doubt it happens on other websites as well. But really aren't reviews just a persons opinion? That's why Jeff should not have been fired.

GB_Simo · Post by **GB_Simo** » Fri Nov 30, 2007 1:26 pm

Eurogamer? Read this, then read from page 3 of the comments:

http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=65134

Recommended reading after that review is contained within a link entitled 'A little investigation into the subject', provided on comments page 4 by veteran video game journalist Stuart Campbell.

I love reading Eurogamer, and do so daily, but I trust them as much as I trust every other review site; not at all. I get more from you lot on the forums than I do from any professional review, but the only gaming opinion I trust completely is my own. Even that lets me down from time to time, as anyone who read my review of FIFA 2004 a few years back will testify.

webdanzer · Post by **webdanzer** » Fri Nov 30, 2007 1:48 pm

Wheee.

In general, I use review scores in aggregate to guide me in whether a game for me is going to be a day one purchase or a gamefly rental. That's it. Great scores will occasionally inspire me to rent games I may not have otherwise considered, but bad scores never from deter me from at least renting a game I have some interest in. I use the scores to basically inform exactly in which way I will be checking the game out myself.

That said, I usually pay more attention to the content (not score) of reviews from folks or sites that I have found myself agreeing with more often than not. If someone were to ask me which sites those were before today, I would have said Eurogamer and (a bit behind) Gamespot.

Very disappointing.

I also work in publishing (though not directly in editorial or ad sales) and 'maintaining the firewall' is about the single most important principle to which we adhere. Shame on them.

EDIT: And like Simo, though, I trust forum comments from certain sites (here, for instance) far more than commercial sites anyway.

Macca00 · Post by **Macca00** » Fri Nov 30, 2007 9:19 pm

I'm glad Simo posted the link to that Sensible Soccer review. I don't think Eurogamer is any better than the rest of the big, commercial sites.

Feanor · Post by **Feanor** » Fri Nov 30, 2007 9:30 pm

GB_Simo wrote:Eurogamer? Read this, then read from page 3 of the comments:

http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=65134

I made the third to last post on page 4.

btmmayor · Post by **btmmayor** » Fri Nov 30, 2007 10:00 pm

Macca00 wrote:I don't think Eurogamer is any better than the rest of the big, commercial sites.

I couldn't disagree more. Eurogamer is a fantastic site in my opinion, miles above any other gaming review site. I cannot stand IGN, Gamespot, Gamespy, etc.

GB_Simo · Post by **GB_Simo** » Fri Nov 30, 2007 10:16 pm

btmmayor wrote:I couldn't disagree more. Eurogamer is a fantastic site in my opinion, miles above any other gaming review site. I cannot stand IGN, Gamespot, Gamespy, etc.

A better read, certainly, and I don't think anyone here would argue that, but that's not what we're debating. Already in this thread there are examples of their reviews being swayed by commercial demands in the same way that those of Gamespot and IGN are - a crooked review is a crooked review regardless of how enjoyable it is.

Edit: I should probably add that a review is little more than an opinion, and that a reviewer scoring a game highly while his readership slates it isn't necessarily crooked, but...well, I was unfortunate enough to pay full price for Sensible Soccer 2006, a decision I made based on the Eurogamer review. The game is broken - I don't mean to say it's bad, I mean to say it's fundamentally bust, full of terrible coding and silly little bugs and glitches - and their 9/10 review mentions none of those. Their 9/10 review also has pride of place on the front of the Sensi 2006 box.

While I'm editing my atrocious late night spelling, I'll throw in the link that illustrates my point on Eurogamer, for those lacking the inclination to hunt for it in the review comments - http://worldofstuart.excellentcontent.c ... /swiz2.htm

greggsand · Post by **greggsand** » Sat Dec 01, 2007 3:22 am

So, has this dude actually come out and make a comment yet?

Bill_Abner · Post by **Bill_Abner** » Sat Dec 01, 2007 2:49 pm

It is not surprising that EIDOS would do this (from personal experience) but it is surprising that GSpot would.

RobVarak · Post by **RobVarak** » Sat Dec 01, 2007 4:30 pm

greggsand wrote:So, has this dude actually come out and make a comment yet?

No. And presuming that he's properly represented, he won't. Or at least he won't say anything substantive.

JRod · Post by **JRod** » Sat Dec 01, 2007 4:51 pm

RobVarak wrote:
greggsand wrote:So, has this dude actually come out and make a comment yet?
No. And presuming that he's properly represented, he won't. Or at least he won't say anything substantive.

Lawyers ruin all the fun.

AcemanPR · Post by **AcemanPR** » Sun Dec 02, 2007 1:40 am

Typical of the media/liberals.

They pay to get their way. But if someone breaks the "rules" it is time to get rid of them. I wish the American public would wake up and realize the brainwashing that is done. Tis a shame that a majority of people cannot think for themselves anymore.

Macca00 · Post by **Macca00** » Sun Dec 02, 2007 11:32 am

AcemanPR wrote:Typical of the media/liberals.

Yeah, bloody liberals...wot?

Btm, I totally agree that Eurogamer is much better written than IGN, 1up, etc and far more entertaining to read, its just that I (personally) don't trust their reviews any more than most other sites - that Sensible Soccer review is a perfect example. Like someone else said I find looking at aggregate scores at something like Gamerankings is more important, and of course I find opions and impressions at this forum far more useful than any review - case in point is COD4 - I never played the beta, never played a previous COD game but after reading Teal's thread I picked the game up without reading a 'professional' review.

Naples39 · Post by **Naples39** » Sun Dec 02, 2007 11:34 am

AcemanPR wrote:Typical of the media/liberals.

Rodster · Post by **Rodster** » Sun Dec 02, 2007 11:53 am

I don't think the liberal/media press has anything to do with what just took place at Gamespot and i'm no liberal. As others have said there may be a bit more to the story other than Jeff pissing off Eidos with his review and Gamespot firing him because of it.

I'm glad this finally happened as i've scratched my head many times trying to figure how a game was scored so high when it shouldn't. As much as I enjoy reading Eurogamers reviews I now will keep a weary eye if I suspect something is foul.

There's a website I just stumbled upon. It's some of the cats who started and ran Operationsports. Shawn Drotar, Mark Fossen, and Chris "Sully" Sullivan. They have no advertising, no arbitrary review scores. Just straight up reviews, industry news, and opinions.

For those who are now suspicious since the Gamespot fiasco here's their new website.

http://www.5w-g.com

XXXIV · Post by **XXXIV** » Sun Dec 02, 2007 12:29 pm

Naples39 wrote:
AcemanPR wrote:Typical of the media/liberals.

I dont get it either