Gamespot editor fired over negative review?

[Xero]

We've heard an unsettling rumor today from an anonymous tipster that longtime game reviewer Jeff Gerstmann from Gamespot has been let go. That wouldn't necessarily be newsworthy, but the conditions under which he was allegedly dismissed were. According to the source, Gerstmann was fired "on the spot" due to advertiser pressure for his review of Eidos' Kane & Lynch: Dead Men. A visit to Gamespot shows that the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 game has taken over the site very prominently, with backgrounds and multiple banner ads all pitching Kane & Lynch. Allegedly, publisher Eidos "took issue with the review and threatened to pull its ad campaign."

Jeff's review was certainly less than glowing. He assigned the game a 6.0, otherwise known as "Fair" on the Gamespot scale. The game is currently enjoying a Metacritic score in the 65 to 69 range, which the site describes as "mixed or average reviews." According to our tipster, it wasn't necessarily the score that was reason for Gerstmann's rumored axing, but the "tone" of the review.

Gerstmann has been no stranger to controversial reviews, as his scores of 10 for Tony Hawk's Pro Skater and 8.8 for The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess had sensitive internet users up in arms. It's now possible that many bitter fanboys may have had their wishes for his firing granted.

As our tipster points out, if the rumor is true, it could point to a distressing precedent at Gamespot and parent company CNet. "As writers of what is supposed to be objective content, this is our worst nightmare coming to life," wrote the tipster.

Our efforts to confirm the story with Gamespot hasn't proved successful. Our current requests with PR, Gerstmann and other CNet contacts have either gone unanswered or yielded a "no comment."

From http://kotaku.com/gaming/rumor/gamespot-editor-fired-over-kane--lynch-review-328244.php

If that's true that's pretty much bullshit.

[Blitz]

http://www.penny-arcade.com/images/2007/20071129.jpg

[Funky Fly]

I trust Gamespot's reviews because more often than not, they coincide with my own opinions. There is a flaw in the system, though: only 1 reviewer contributes to the score a game gets. I like EGM's 3 man team review system, because you get to hear about the game from more than one perspective (especially when the reviews are mixed). At least Gamespot also has a general critic's score and a user score as well, so you can see how much reviewer bias is happening.

Nevertheless, allowing your reviewers to be pushed around by publishers is gay as hell. Another reason I am all over EGM's nuts: they never back down on their reviews.

[Fignuts]

Damn fucking straight. This is complete utter horseshit. If they want the reveiws for their games to be great then they should stop making average games, the stupid nazi fuckwits.

[Fignuts]

I am really pissed off about this.

I've never even heard of the guy or anything. Just that it's so fucking wrong.

[Fignuts]

Cocksucking faggots.

[KingofOldSchool]

Personal opinions mean jack when there is money to be had, even in video games.

[Funky Fly]

Personal opinions mean jack when there is money to be had, even in video games.

Yeah, it's why I don't read Nintendo Power and Game Informer. EGM 4 lyf

[Dave Youell]

This is total bullshit

I mean 8.8 for Twilight Princess?

WTF!

He obvioulsy knew nothing and it's good he's gone
























Seriously though, this is out of order (the firing, not the Zelda rating)

[Silent]

Sucks for him if it's true, hopefully he can find work elsewhere. I don't use Gamespot, so I can't say much about how I feel about their reviews, but I do use some of their sister sites like Mp3.com and TV.com, and Kane and Lynch is definitely not the first poorly reviewed title (whether it be a game, tv show, album, etc.) to be featured prominently on a CNET site. Sounds like Eidos is a little overly sensitive about their new game.

Kane and Lynch: Dead Men really disappointed me, by the way. I had high hopes after reading some preview buzz a few months ago, but it's a pretty mediocre game.

[Funky Fly]

For all the decent games Eidos puts out, they've got a lot more mediocre games as well.

Sounds like they just can't face the music... especially since it seems like they were hoping it would be a huge hit.

[Fignuts]

This is such a petty and childish move. My 5 year old nephew shows more maturity than this.

[Kane Knight]

Nevertheless, allowing your reviewers to be pushed around by publishers is gay as hell. Another reason I am all over EGM's nuts: they never back down on their reviews.


That would mean more if they ever had a review that was even remotely controversial.

[Fignuts]

Pretty sure egm also gave Kane and lynch 6's and a 7. They gave the orange box game of the month over halo 3. That was controversial to legions of people. Not me, because I agree, but still.

[Kane Knight]

That's the closest they come to controversy?

It would have been "controversial" if they had picked Halo over Orange Box, or given them both the award.

Also, last time, you have the example of Lair, which EGM ranked at exactly the average of overall reviews. This time, you're giving an example of Kane and Lynch, a game which is averaging 7.

(In fact, EGM gave K&L a slightly above average review...Stick it to the establishment)

So...The extent of their radical divergence from the pack seems to be that they give slightly off-average reviews of a couple of games, or....

Because from the view of someone without their lips all over EGM's junk, they look like a weathervane, blowing in the same direction as every other mag out there.

[G]

Who the fuck cares. Reviews are all bullshit anyways. You can't trust anything because of the fact that there might be stings being pulled behind it, tampering a review. Companies do whatever needs to be done to get the $$$.

[Nark Order]

That's the closest they come to controversy?

It would have been "controversial" if they had picked Halo over Orange Box, or given them both the award.

Also, last time, you have the example of Lair, which EGM ranked at exactly the average of overall reviews. This time, you're giving an example of Kane and Lynch, a game which is averaging 7.

(In fact, EGM gave K&L a slightly above average review...Stick it to the establishment)

So...The extent of their radical divergence from the pack seems to be that they give slightly off-average reviews of a couple of games, or....

Because from the view of someone without their lips all over EGM's junk, they look like a weathervane, blowing in the same direction as every other mag out there.

Should the goal be to be controversial or to give a fair unbiased review?

[Funky Fly]

That would mean more if they ever had a review that was even remotely controversial.

I didn't say their reviews were controversial (in fact they are quite fair), just that EGM doesn't buckle when advertisers who want their games to receive better scores threaten to pull ads.

[Funky Fly]

Should the goal be to be controversial or to give a fair unbiased review?

Confrontation. Good way to debate an issue. :y::roll:

[Nark Order]

Wasn't trying to start a confrontation really. Me and KK have had enough of those that usually go unresolved. Just wondering what the appeal of issueing a controversial review is.

[Funky Fly]

Wasn't trying to start a confrontation really. Me and KK have had enough of those that usually go unresolved. Just wondering what the appeal of issueing a controversial review is.

I berieve the point he's making is that EGM's reviews aren't exactly controversial (they're not, really), so what I said about not backing down from advertisers isn't all that meaningful.

[Nark Order]

I'm wondering why this game was so different that Eidos got so angry. Must've been a 'last straw' type of thing.

[Funky Fly]

I'd say from the way they've been pimping it online and on TV that they expected it to be up there with the stream of FPS awesome that's been coming out as of late.

[Kane Knight]

I didn't say their reviews were controversial (in fact they are quite fair), just that EGM doesn't buckle when advertisers who want their games to receive better scores threaten to pull ads.

I wager a lot of advertisers threaten to pull their ads from a magazine which gives the same scores as pretty much every other mag.

That just makes so much sense.

[Boomer]

This isn't the first time this has ever happened. The Penny Arcade guys got so much shit for bad-mouthing the second (new) Prince of Persia game on the site because they were licensed to draw ads for the game itself. They have a pretty good discussion about it posted recently when Assassin's Creed started getting some crummy ratings.

[darkpower]

I know not many people would like Gamepro, but for them, it's even more interesting, because they give games that end up getting less than perfect scores the cover features (then and now), and by some of their more popular reviewers have had the byline on the reviews (they have said there are more than one reviewer in their opinions, but only one person actually writes the review). And I don't remember anyone getting fired like this.

To be fair to Gamespot, too, this hasn't been the first controversy with this guy they have had, and the story did say that it wasn't just the score, but the language that it was written. However, the actual review (http://www.gamespot.com/xbox360/action/kanelynchdeadmen/review.html) doesn't really have anything in it that strikes me as controversial, unless the reviewer was lying about things that never happened in the game or had an agenda against the game.

Sounds like Eidos is a company full of egotistical pricks, and GS is caving in to pressure.

[Disturbed316]

Nooooo not Jeff :'(

[Gerard]

Speaking of negative ratings, did anyone see the smackdown 2008 review for the wi on gamespot? 4.5

http://uk.gamespot.com/wii/action/smackdownvsraw2008/review.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=gssummary&tag=summary;review

Can't really say im suprised, i never thought that the wii controls would work well for a wrestling game.

[Mike the Metal Ed]

Speaking of negative ratings, did anyone see the smackdown 2008 review for the wi on gamespot? 4.5

http://uk.gamespot.com/wii/action/smackdownvsraw2008/review.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=gssummary&tag=summary;review

Can't really say im suprised, i never thought that the wii controls would work well for a wrestling game.
Could also be due to the fact that they gutted half the game out of the other versions before they stuck it on Wii.

[Kane Knight]

Could also be due to the fact that they gutted half the game out of the other versions before they stuck it on Wii.

Naw, gotta be the controls.

To be honest, I wish they'd just do Day of Reckoning 3 or something, though. We need another platform for SVR like we need to be humbled by JBL.

[Funky Fly]

DoR 3 with branching stories and the moves from the SvR series added to it would be spectacular.

[Kane Knight]

And layers in CaW, and not limiting story mode to created wrestlers.

[Indifferent Clox]

I'm boycotting Kane and Lynch

[DS]

That'll show em.

[Kane Knight]

I'm boycotting Kane and Lynch

That'll show em.:rofl::rofl::rofl:

[Mike the Metal Ed]

I was already boycotting Eidos since they haven't published a game I want since Championship Manager 03/04, so I guess that doesn't really count.

For those who are interested (i.e. Nicksturbed), Gamespot video guy Tim Tracy has quit, possibly relating to this, and Alex Navarro posted the following on his GameSpot blog:

Bad Analogy Time (http://uk.gamespot.com/users/AlexN/show_blog_entry.php?topic_id=m-100-25234567)

Remember SimCity? Remember what a joy it was to build up a fully functioning, living, breathing city, full of life and wonderment? Then, at some point down the road, after you've built up your city to the peak of its productiveness, you'd start mashing the disaster button and a wide variety of tornadoes, earthquakes, and fake Godzillas would come tromping through, laying firey waste to every bit of what you'd worked so painstakingly to create?
Yeah. It's a little bit like that. Except someone hit the disaster button for me.


Posted by AlexN (http://uk.gamespot.com/users/AlexN/), Nov 30, 2007 4:06 pm GMT 175 Comments (http://uk.gamespot.com/users/AlexN/show_blog_entry.php?topic_id=m-100-25234567&page=3#signup)

[Mike the Metal Ed]

Also:

http://kotaku.com/gaming/rumor/alleged-gamespot-employee-spills-guts-on-valleywag-328797.php

[Kane Knight]

Interesting.

[Funky Fly]

Over the last year there has been an increasing amount of pressure to allow the advertising teams to have more of a say in the editorial process; we've started having to give our sales team heads-ups when a game is getting a low score, for instance, so that they can let the advertisers know that before a review goes up. 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.

If true, that would explain why lately the reviews have been coming out slower. I remember a couple of years back when reviews would come out 4 or 5 days before the game was out.

[Mike the Metal Ed]

They definitely withheld their Spider-Man 3 review (6.6 score) until after release date, when they'd had expansive SM3 advertising on the site.

[Kane Knight]

9 or above is a pretty sick watershed.

Then again, in this day and age, if you don't blow the product, literally or figuratively, you're "too negative."

Anyway, there's always going to be an issue with reviews and finance, because you don't bite the hand that feeds.

GameFAQs, also, is pulling reviews they deem too negative on "AAA" titles. One guy got his SMG review pulled even though the gist of his review was "Pretty good, but don't expect much more than SM64." I disagree, because the world design is so...Borderline epic. But that's not the point. There's a squeeze on reviews these days.

[Funky Fly]

I know what you mean, man.

Problem is, for crumbums like me with not a lot of cash to throw around, I can't afford to pick a game and find out that it's a total piece of crap. Especially when it comes to handhelds (specifically the DS and GBA titles for me), since most video stores don't rent them out. Honest, detailed reviews which point out both the technical and fun factor aspects of the game are crucial to me.

When I went and picked up Super Robot Taisen: OG for the GBA for example, I knew exactly what I was getting into because the reviews I looked at were so accurate about everything. I knew that it was a mecha version of a slightly watered-down Fire Emblem with an over-abundance of "cutscenes" (pictures and text). But I also knew that it was a pretty satisfying game with 2 character paths, a fair bit of hidden stuff and over 20 unique mechs available to you. Usually, I'm rather annoyed at paying over $30 for handheld titles, but I happily plopped $35 for it. Worth every penny to me.

Got off on a tangent there... WTF was I talking about?

[Kane Knight]

Yeah, but you canget in depth reviews without the current trend of dropping trou to the fanboys and the corporates.

[Funky Fly]

Yeah, but it seems less and less to be that way now that the market has exploded and growth is higher than ever. It seems like the trend these days in just about all aspects of commerce: maximize profit by watering down product. It's retarded in theory, but people are making money shilling crap. [Eric Cartman]And it's wrong. IT'S WRONG[/Eric Cartman]

[DS]

1UP went protesting in front of the Gamespot offices now. Apparently Kane & Lynch is now at a 2.0 rating on User Rankings.

Yippie!

[Funky Fly]

lol @ backlash.

Too bad it's probably really only like 3% of the gaming world that's going to give a crap.

[Kane Knight]

1UP went protesting in front of the Gamespot offices now. Apparently Kane & Lynch is now at a 2.0 rating on User Rankings.

Yippie!

Gamespot has disabled user reviews.

Which I think is probably fair, given the massive spazz out, but considering what started it....

[Dorkchop]

Provided this is all true, I wonder if this will have any effect on Gamespot's message boards. I've been reading them quite a bit lately and I'd hate to have negative comments about a big budget games/sponsors/money-givers be removed. There's good and bad on the message boards, but it's a good way to get some more info on a game than just the review.... though the delete posts that are a couple of months old, which is kind of annoying, but not a huge deal.

[Kane Knight]

Honestly, I do think this is setting them up to lose credibility.

Maybe not with everyone, but really.

[Funky Fly]

Honestly, I do think this is setting them up to lose credibility.

And how.

[Kane Knight]

Especially if this keeps getting drummed up.

[Kane Knight]

Final portion of something I posted elsewhere.

"Corporate issues are nothing new in the media, from entertainment to actual news. How long did we dwell under a press which refused to actually condemn cigarettes because the Marlboro Man was on a full-page glossy advert on the next page? The corporate pablum is played ad nauseum on the radio because the sponsors want to push that. The War in Iraq? Oh yeah. People lost sponsors for not being Patriotic, or for being too controversial. Corporate media decided people who spoke out against their interests had to be let go. A fair share of my own friends and associates lost jobs to that little bit of attrition.

I guess I'm saying it's no surprise that there is now a level of corporate politics inherent to game reviews, but it's disheartening that even something as simple as toys (Yes, video games are toys) have been whipped up with the rest of it. It's the Marlboro Man all over again."

[Disturbed316]

For anyone interested, this was posted on Gamespot:


Spot On: GameSpot on Gerstmann
SPECIAL REPORT: Following days of controversy and the first post-Jeff podcast, GameSpot answers burning questions about the most controversial staff change in its history.
By Staff, GameSpot
Posted Dec 5, 2007 10:25 am PT

For the past week, controversy has rocked the game news media--a controversy that originated here at GameSpot. The affair began last Wednesday when near-11-year veteran reviewer Jeff Gerstmann's tenure as editorial director ended. In keeping with the human-resources procedures of GameSpot parent company CNET Networks and in accordance with California State Law, no public comment was initially made about his departure.


HotSpot on Gerstmann GameSpot editors speak candidly about their take on Jeff Gerstmann's departure.
Watch | Download
In the void of information that followed, numerous conspiracy theories sprang up. First and foremost was that, as a result of pressure from publisher Eidos Interactive, GameSpot terminated Gerstmann because of his review of the multiplatform game Kane & Lynch: Dead Men. The game was released on November 13, 2007 for the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3. (The PC version of the game was released on November 20, but has not yet been reviewed.)

Hundreds of reports pointed to the fact that the Kane & Lynch video review was pulled and the text review's copy was altered as evidence substantiating this hypothesis. In many readers' eyes, the fact that the entire GameSpot site was "skinned" with advertisements promoting Kane & Lynch all but confirmed the theory behind his firing. In the gaming press, the subsequent furor has been dubbed "Gerstmanngate."

Due to legal restrictions and corporate HR policy, GameSpot could not initially comment on Gerstmann's departure. Though the site officially addressed the issue on Monday, the full story behind his exit could not be told--until now.

In the spirit of full disclosure to our readership, GameSpot News has been provided the following answers by management to the questions below regarding the circumstances surrounding Gerstmann's exit. Further questions can be submitted to newstips@gamespot.com for review; those questions that merit posting will be addressed. (Please, no hate e-mail.)

Q: Was Jeff fired?

A: Jeff was terminated on November 28, 2007, following an internal review process by the managerial team to which he reported.

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.

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. The achievements and demerits it received were also left unaltered. Additionally, clarifications were made concerning the game's multiplayer mode and to include differences between the Xbox 360 and PS3 versions of the game.


Kane & Lynch The original, unaltered video review.
Watch | Download
Q: Why was the Kane & Lynch video review taken down?

A: Both the text and video reviews of Kane & Lynch went up on Tuesday, November 13. The morning of Wednesday, November 14, the video was taken down due to concerns of quality. Specifically, its audio was deemed inferior due to a faulty microphone. There were also concerns about the limited amount of footage, which was unrepresentative of the game in the review.

Q: Why wasn't the video immediately reposted?

A: Due to the crush of high-profile games being released the following week, there were insufficient resources to reshoot and re-edit the video review.

Q: Why hasn't the video review been reposted since the "Gerstmanngate" controversy broke?

A: A determination was made by GameSpot Live, GameSpot's multimedia division, that reposting it would seem reactive and might exacerbate an inflamed situation. However, in the spirit of full disclosure, it has since been reposted, and is viewable on the site in its original form (See above). For those who want to be sure that it has not been altered after the fact, the video review is also available on YouTube for comparison purposes.

Q: Was Eidos Interactive upset by the game's review?

A: It has been confirmed that Eidos representatives expressed their displeasure to their appropriate contacts at GameSpot, but not to editorial directly. It was not the first time a publisher has voiced disappointment with a game review, and it won't be the last. However, it is strict GameSpot policy never to let any such feelings result in a review score to be altered or a video review to be pulled.

Q: Did Eidos' disappointment cause Jeff to be terminated?

A: Absolutely not.

Q: Did Eidos' disappointment cause the alteration of the review text?

A: Absolutely not.

Q: Did Eidos' disappointment lead to the video review being pulled down?

A: Absolutely not.

Q: Why was GameSpot "skinned" with Kane & Lynch ads when Jeff was terminated?

A: Due to design and development considerations, media buys on GameSpot are made weeks in advance. The timing of said ads was extremely unfortunate but was purely coincidental and determined solely by the game's release date of November 13, 2007.

Q: Why did the Kane & Lynch ads disappear from GameSpot right as the "Gerstmanngate" controversy began to heat up?

A: Advertising sales on GameSpot are sold by the day. The end of the Kane & Lynch "skin" promotion had been predetermined long beforehand. Internal documentation filed before the review appeared shows that the site skin was scheduled to run from November 17 to 29, 2007. Site-wide ad campaigns automatically change at midnight, hence the "skin" being removed after hours.

Q: Was Jeff's termination somehow tied to the departure of former GameSpot Live managing producer Tim Tracy?

A: No. Tim and Jeff are childhood friends and had been colleagues until Tim transferred over to other CNET Networks Entertainment properties. His exit was completely unrelated.

Q: Why didn't GameSpot write about Jeff's departure sooner?

A: Due to HR procedures and legal considerations, unauthorized CNET Networks and GameSpot employees are forbidden from commenting on the employment status of current and former employees. This practice has been in effect for years, and the CNET public-relations department stuck to that in the days following Jeff's termination. However, the company is now making an exception due to the widespread misinformation that has spread since Jeff's departure.

Q: When will the PC version of Kane & Lynch be reviewed?

A: We haven't decided when that will happen.

Q: GameSpot's credibility has been called into question as a result of this incident. What is being done to repair and rebuild it?

A: This article is one of the first steps toward restoring users' faith in GameSpot, and an internal review of the incident and controversy is under way. However, at no point in its history has GameSpot ever deviated from its review guidelines, which are publicly listed on the site. Great pains are taken to keep sales and editorial separated to prevent any impression of impropriety.

For years, GameSpot has been known for maintaining the highest ethical standards and having the most reliable and informative game reviews, previews, and news on the Web. The colleagues and friends that Jeff leaves behind here at GameSpot intend to keep it that way.

For a special report on Jeff Gerstmann's dismissal and a tribute to his legacy, tune in tomorrow to GameSpot's weekly live webcast, On the Spot. For a personal look at Gerstmann's exit, listen to the latest HotSpot podcast in which host Vincent Caravella discusses the controversial event with longtime Gerstmann colleagues Ricardo Torres, Ryan MacDonald, Alex Navarro, and Ryan Davis.

[Kane Knight]

Well, that's settled. :roll:

[Fignuts]

It's a work.

Gertsmann is the number 30 entrant in the royal rumble.

Callin it.

[darkpower]

So...when will Jeff be hired at IGN?