More about GameSpot Editor Firing

Remove all ads!

GameSpot indicates that the veteran editor Jeff Gertsmann has not been fired in relation with the review that was altered favourably to the game at the same time he was fired. In case the matter hasn't caught your attention yet, Mr Gertsmann didn't share a very high opinion of Eidos's Kane & Lynch in his video review. Now, GameSpot claims the review was altered because of technical difficulties and the editor fired after an internal review with his immediate bosses. However, the review is indeed available in its original form. Here's an excerpt from an article at GamesIndustry:

As reported earlier, Gerstmann was terminated just as his video review of Eidos' Kane & Lynch game was taken down. At the same time, the text of his review of the game was altered, and the Kane & Lynch ad campaign featured prominently on the site - only to be removed shortly thereafter.
These circumstances led to rumours that Gerstmann was terminated due to pressure from Eidos over his unfavourable review.
GameSpot cited legal restrictions and corporate HR policy as reasons for not initially commenting upon Gerstmann's departure. However, the site has now published a lengthy response from its management.
The site has indicated that it cannot provide the exact reasons behind Gerstmann's dismissal due to legalities, but said that he was terminated following an internal review process by the managerial team to which he reported. GameSpot said the issues were "unrelated to any publisher or advertiser."

One might wonder if all the pieces match in this puzzle. Do you buy it or not? Do you think this was all a genuine coincidence or perhaps GameSpot intended to fire the editor quietly and is having problems now, forcing it to disclose more and more details? Do you really think the altering of the review was done to make the descriptive parts correspond with the final grade of 6.0 or was there a different reason in your opinion? We give you no answers. You discuss below.

Read the rest at GamesIndustry.

 

Well If he is fired over this, it is done with the review of such a bad game, that it is to obvious. Thats makes it unlikely it was done over this review. The game is reviewed for console's. Not for the pc.

A leading gamesmagazine, PCgameplay, rates it at 84%. This is a big difference. Is it on the pc so much better? Is it ported around, or is the violance to much. Gamespy also rates it at 60, or 3 out of 5, for the xbox360. No other reviews.

But returning to Gamespot. I recall something about a review that was altered later after the others all had higher ratings. Gamespot reviewers are more console focused In my opinion, and after a bit wrong. The user and critic scores make more sense.

 

I don't have much to add to what Tal already said. I might have bought the coincidence theory if they hadn't actually gone and edited the review. That act is far too damning. Not to mention the whole "no comment" attitude doesn't help. If the firing was due to another reason, why not say "we can't tell you the reason but it's not the review" straight away, rather than wait a couple of weeks? And besides, "not related to a publisher" could mean that Eidos didn't actually call and ask for the editor to be fired, but it doesn't mean Gamespot didn't fire him because of the review anyway, without direct pressure from Eidos (self-censorship in such a case isn't too surprising).

And to answer Tal's question: no, it's sadly not news anymore. I don't read PC Gamer, but Gamespot's reviews (both good and bad) of the past few years have me shaking my head with disbelief more often than I care to keep track. I read their review of Tribes of the East a month ago, and it was far too obvious the reviewer hadn't played more than half an hour - he got major plot details wrong, complained about lack of features that are in fact in the game, and so on.

 

For what it's worth, the text copy of the review, the video review, and the rating has been completely removed from Gamespot.

Why would they do that unless they really thought something was wrong with it?

Bunch of hypocrits.

I think Gamespot has been going downhill for the last few years, and now with Gregg Kasavin gone, it's almost entirely worthless. Gamespot is just an industry mouthpiece, and can't be trusted.

 

I didn't know he was gone. I used to follow Gamespot more a couple of years ago. They had a weekly commentary (I forget what it was called) and I always thought Kasavin was pretty insightful. Why did he leave? And did his departure have anything to do with the subsequent selling-out of Gamespot?

OK, so if Gamespot can't be counted on, any suggestions on a reliable gaming review site?

 

Yeah, I liked Kasavin too. He's definitely missed. Gamespot has really become console oriented.

I think IGN.com is better than Gamespot. They seem a little more even, but there's still a lot of game advertising on it, and they do hype some stuff.

1UP.com can be a bit harsh, and their writing style can be pretty awful, but their reviews seem more honest. They consistently rate games lower than many other sites. But they seem to focus more on gameplay, rather than the latest graphics advancements.

The RPGCODEX.com can be very harsh, but they seem completely honest, and devoid of advertiser influence. Their forums are always good for laugh.

 

After giving up PCPowerplay (a monthly Australian games publication) around 6th months ago I've been scouring the web for a decent substitute, and I must say the literary competence of the web is generally far worse than the printed media. Here is an overly opinionated rundown of some of the sites I frequented for a while. Most of my opinions are based on reviews of at least skate, assassins creed and bioshock prior to having played them for a few hours as well as a few feature articles.

1UP has atrocious writing imho, I can't stand the site - I'm only basing this off four or so reviews (crysis, assasains creed, bioshock and cod4), but they were shockers.

The writing on ign is better, but the whole interface feels clunky imho; most articles/reviews are spread over 3 pages with comments interspersed between them (this might not sound too bad, but it really gives no indication to the reader about how long it is). I can't say I like their video reviews too much, of the half dozen or so I've watch, I havn't felt any gave a particually good 'feel' for the gameplay (ie to much of an emphasis on cinematic, humorous interjection and little actual gameplay).

Gamespot always felt too console oriented in the first place, the Kane and Lynch debacle has really made me question the integrity of it.

Game trailers - the users are probably the worst of any site I've been to - stay away from the forum and comments section at all costs. Their video reviews are pretty good; their true value lies in their ability to convey to the viewer an idea of how the game plays and 'feels'. I now use this fairly regularly.

computerandvideogames.com - I've always felt their reviews are a bit soft, however it is kind of relative, with better games getting better scores an all. Although the features and hardware news are a bit light I've always felt that they've been quite well written. Their reviews of bioshock and skate were better written than most of what pcpowerplay (my old gaming magazine) put out, and miles ahead of most of the other gaming sites.

I've never really given the escapist a shot - I view the zero punctuation review religiously every week, but have never really gotten into the rest of the site.

Metacritic - not really the same as the others, but it is nice to be able to track the first reviews as they're published from the one place. Also helps give a pretty good overview of the critical reception of a game, and a brief rational of the scores, at a glance.

n4g.com - not really a site, just a whole lot of links to other sites as they become available. The quality of the links is somewhat dubious (which is somewhat forgivable given the sheer number) but it does tend to save a lot of time rather than scouring multiple sites (which may or may not have updated since your last visit) for the latest news. Fortunately you can sort by popularity and there's a "go to source" button below every blue link that will take you directly to the quoted article.

 

I like Gamebanshee. Gamespy is not bad either.

 

Another good site that compiles reviews from other sites is gamerankings.com. Similar to metacritic, but more exhaustive.

 

While I do visit RPG Codex regularly I wouldn't really consider it a good review site. It's very good if you're looking for something to balance the mediocrity of Gamespot et al, but their reviews are not exactly "fair and balanced". Then again they've never claimed to be, and always have overtly said they go too far into the other extreme to balance the ridiculous "TEH BEST GAME EVA!!!!!!!" reviews you find elsewhere. If you keep that in mind and don't take some of their posts too seriously they can be quite fun to read.

As for getting a "reliable" review site I'd say none of them are anymore. The best way to get an accurate idea of a game is to read user reviews. It's pretty easy to guess which ones were written by people who have actually played the game (one liners like "this game sux" speak for themselves). I tend to stick to well-written reviews and read a couple of ones that loved the game and anoter couple that hated it. That's usually enough to give me an idea if I'll like it or not.