- Nintendo 64 Forever
- →
- Everything Else!
- →
- Social Board
- →
- Gamespot Reviews
| Welcome to Nintendo 64 Forever. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Gamespot Reviews | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Nov 30 2007, 01:51 PM (666 Views) | |
| Deleted User | Nov 30 2007, 01:51 PM Post #1 |
|
Deleted User
|
Rumour has it that long-time Gamespot employee Jeff Gerstmann has been fired for refusing to give Kane and Lynch a score which would please the advertisers! Of course, we need to take this with a pinch of salt, but if true it could be a real blow for Gamespot and could really call into question their review principles. What I do know is true is that there have been a LOT of adverts for this game on gamespot recently and they all seem to have disapeared now. Of course, that doesn't prove anything but it's interesting none the less. Obviously Gamespot are censoring everyone they can just now... either to prevent further rumours or to hide their own guilt. From Penny Arcade: http://www.penny-arcade.com/ It's been a couple weeks discussing reviews and reviewers around here, but somewhere along the way I neglected to mention that their job is essentially impossible. The 7-9 scale they toil under is largely the result of an uneasy peace between the business and editorial wings of the venue. No matter what score they give it, high or low, they're reviled equally by the online chorus. Apparently, even when they do it right they're doing it wrong. Jeff Gerstmann is no stranger to controversy. In general terms, Gamespot can be relied upon to give high-profile games scores which are slightly lower than their counterparts elsewhere. It's almost as though there is an algorithm in place there to correct the heady rush associated with cracking open an anticipated new title. Gerstmann's review of Twilight Princess cemented his reputation as a criminal renegade with no law but his own, even though he gave the game an 8.9 - a nine, essentially - out of ten. I will tell you the Gerstmann Story as we heard it. Management claimed to have spoken to Jeff about his "tone" before, and no doubt it was this tone that created tensions between their editorial content, the direction of the site, and the carefully crafted relationships that allowed Gamespot to act as an engine of revenue creation. After Gerstmann's savage flogging of Kane & Lynch, a game whose marketing investment on Gamespot alone reached into the hundreds of thousands, Eidos (we are told) pulled hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of future advertising from the site. Management has another story, of course: management always has another story. But it's the firm belief internally that Jeff was sacrificed. And it had to be Jeff, at least, we believe, precisely because of his stature and longevity. It made for a dramatic public execution that left the editorial staff in disarray. Would that it were only about the 6.0 - at least then you'd know how to score something if you wanted to keep your Goddamned job. No, this was worse: the more nebulous "tone" would be the guide. I assume it was designed to terrify them. For Gabriel, this tale proves out his darkest suspicions. People believe things like this anyway, but they don't know it, and the shift from intuitive to objective knowledge is startling. I think it rarely gets to this point. The apparatus is very tight: there are layers of editorial control that can massage the score, even when the text tells a different tale. A more junior reviewer might have seen their Kane & Lynch review streamlined by this process, divested of its worrisome angles and overall troubling shape. It was Jeff Gerstmann's role high in the site's infrastructure that allowed his raw editorial content to pierce the core of the business. (CW)TB out". And the Gamespot members don't seem too happy either. Click this link quickly, it probably won't be around for long! http://uk.gamespot.com/users/dvader654/sho...=m-100-25233301 And lastly... 
|
 
|
|
| Mop it up | Nov 30 2007, 03:13 PM Post #2 |
Forum Urban Legend
|
So, does this mean C|NET is ruining GameSpot? I guess this makes GameFAQs reviews more credible... |
 |
|
| Mr.378 | Nov 30 2007, 03:18 PM Post #3 |
The Fallen Hero
|
Yeah, I've always thought Gamefaqs was better. As for the subject, this speaks for it self, really, It does. |
|
|
|
| dagoss | Nov 30 2007, 04:28 PM Post #4 |
Smarty Pants
|
I really didn't think his reviews were that good to begin with. The thing with Eidos might have been a factor, but there were likely other factors, most notably he wasn't doing the best job as senior editor. Compare his reviews to those done by former editor-in-chief Greg Kasavin and the difference in quality is obvious. To be more on the point, if Gamespot really did fire him for giving an unflattering review to a game that drew in a good deal of advertising revenue, wouldn't they be a little less obvious about it? They likely would have keep him on and fired him a month or two later for some silly reason to thwart any suspicion. I think he was fired for his performance over all and this is just bad timing. I love all the anger in gamers though. Perhaps it will now be more recognized that the notion of a commercial review industry being objective is absurd. |
|
|
|
| Rogue | Nov 30 2007, 04:49 PM Post #5 |
Meow!
|
I prefer the IGN reviews... Behind my own review... of course... XD But it's interesting... I don't know... |
| |
|
|
|
| Deleted User | Nov 30 2007, 08:29 PM Post #6 |
|
Deleted User
|
There's more on this story at Kotaku: http://kotaku.com/gaming/jeff-gerstmann/cn...ersy-328623.php http://kotaku.com/gaming/rumor/alleged-gam...ywag-328797.php |
|
|
|
| dagoss | Nov 30 2007, 09:25 PM Post #7 |
|
Smarty Pants
|
That second link is interesting. I did notice that games that get sub-par reviews have their review posted some time after a game is released. The most obvious example was Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn which received a 6.0 -- the review was not posted for over a week after the game was released. It had been fairly well represented in ads on Gamespot and GameFAQs as well. I actually don't know of any sites that post decent reviews. It would be nice to go to a Magazine rack and pick up something that's as well written as Publications of the Modern Language Association, but dedicated to video games. Anyway, I think its funny that people cry foul here, like Gamespot had integrity to begin with (not that the rest are much better). |
|
|
|
| StYoung | Dec 1 2007, 11:36 AM Post #8 |
Elite
|
GameSpot reviews have been getting retarded anyway. I remember when it was a big deal if GS gave a game like a 9.5. Now every big-name game is getting a high score... |
| |
|
|
|
| Deleted User | Dec 2 2007, 07:44 PM Post #9 |
|
Deleted User
|
He's the video review of Kane and Lynch which was removed from Gamespot: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBD0cUeeEQc Jeff doesn't seem to be overly harsh on the game (although it's clear that he didn't enjoy this game), so I can't see any real reason for removing it. 
|
|
|
|
| Mr.378 | Dec 2 2007, 08:49 PM Post #10 |
|
The Fallen Hero
|
^That's Gamespiot for ya. |
|
|
|
| dagoss | Dec 4 2007, 10:17 AM Post #11 |
|
Smarty Pants
|
There are some rumors that Eidos lied about some of the reviews Kane and Lynch was getting. Not directly related, but it shows that Eidos was strangely aggressive with their marketing tactics, meaning they likely gave some people at Gamespot a good finger shaking. Gamespot recently made a public statement on the firing, and I can't imagine they will say much more than that on the subject. I like this bit:
I like how "unsubstantiated" comes first, like they're saying 'you can't prove it, therefore it is not true'. The internal reason for his "departure" very well could have been that he wasn't considering advertising matters. They say much without saying anything. Employees aren't fired without any warning without some reason. Regardless, I still don't think this will have any major repercussions for the site. People get all dramatic about the Internet sometimes. |
|
|
|
| Deleted User | Dec 5 2007, 06:46 PM Post #12 |
|
Deleted User
|
And now Eidos lie about the review scores for Kane and Lynch on the K&L website. Oh dear. You can tell this game is a real stinker. http://kotaku.com/gaming/kane-%26-lynch/ka...ores-329529.php |
|
|
|
| dagoss | Dec 5 2007, 06:54 PM Post #13 |
|
Smarty Pants
|
I already posted that. You didn't even read my post! And I had made it just for you 
|
|
|
|
| Deleted User | Dec 5 2007, 07:25 PM Post #14 |
|
Deleted User
|
^ Woah... I dunno how I missed that. Apologies to you, Mr Goss. |
|
|
|
| dagoss | Dec 14 2007, 07:34 PM Post #15 |
|
Smarty Pants
|
So has anyone played Kane & Lynch? Gametrailers gave Kain & Lynch an 8.0. Gametrailers tends to put out respectable reviews, and as far as I can remember, I never saw their site saturated with advertisements for the game like Gamespot/GameFAQs, so it sort of makes me curious about the game itself. Looks like all the people up-in-arms about the whole fiasco have pretty much forgotten about it anyways. |
|
|
|
| Deleted User | Dec 15 2007, 07:16 PM Post #16 |
|
Deleted User
|
I might try out a demo. If/when I do, I'll post my impressions. |
|
|
|
| Ragedy | Dec 16 2007, 04:20 AM Post #17 |
|
Veteran
|
You do and we'll fire your ass. 
|
|
|
|
| « Previous Topic · Social Board · Next Topic » |
| Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
 6:35 PM Jul 13
|
Hosted for free by ZetaBoards · Privacy Policy