Gamespot fires Gerstmann
- Thread starter PARANOiA
- Start date
PCG has never had an ounce of editorial integrity. They've proven that time and again over the years. Their recent 90% Hellgate exclusive review of a beta build is just the latest example.
Cancelled my GS subscription. I thought this might be smoke, an example of internet rumors flying amok with the aid of PA but the story's been verified by too many GS/C-Net employees now. The suits really screwed up.
Cancelled my GS subscription. I thought this might be smoke, an example of internet rumors flying amok with the aid of PA but the story's been verified by too many GS/C-Net employees now. The suits really screwed up.
All product reviews are susceptible to corruption. Movies, books, cars, toys, tech products, even diswashers. I don't see anything unique in games that lends itself to any more potential corruption than other industries so let's not single out this industry. Game reviewers are not special.
The fact that this person got fired seems to indicate that in the past, the reviewers have been allowed to editorialize. Supposedly, managers complained about his "tone". If you notice, professional reviews rarely say "this thing just completely sucks." They always give pros and cons, and an overall opinion and are usually tempered. That's for any industry. Are they all corrupt?
I think GS editors do their job well and they want to be honest about their opinions. It's the meddling managers who interfere with them that cause distrust. It would be sad if we lump the editors who appear to really like talking about games with their marketing managers, who are brought in for their MBA's.
The fact that this person got fired seems to indicate that in the past, the reviewers have been allowed to editorialize. Supposedly, managers complained about his "tone". If you notice, professional reviews rarely say "this thing just completely sucks." They always give pros and cons, and an overall opinion and are usually tempered. That's for any industry. Are they all corrupt?
I think GS editors do their job well and they want to be honest about their opinions. It's the meddling managers who interfere with them that cause distrust. It would be sad if we lump the editors who appear to really like talking about games with their marketing managers, who are brought in for their MBA's.
QFMFT. It used to drive me totally batty when people would order hardware based on cnet reviews (or for that matter, their print cohorts, wasn't it ziff-davis?). They are the definition of an over-arching review site that reviews everything corruptly.
...also, anyone giving Eidos a free pass on this one should check themselves. It's nice that thex wanted to advertise their game - but - it's a review site! If the site gives crap reviews then why should it exist? Why would we go see their ads? Eidos already has a website to shill for them - their own. Sure, they all clearly do this to a certain extent, but that doesn't make it ok. this is one of our few chances to nip it in the bud a bit!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/the1upshow/
well I guess that's nice that but what will it do? also, I wonder where gerstmann will go after this. he's the first major reviewer to get fired for a negative review.
something weird I saw on that page, "free gerstmann" merchandise. or at least plans for it.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2289/2075312070_fd964712ea.jpg?v=0
well I guess that's nice that but what will it do? also, I wonder where gerstmann will go after this. he's the first major reviewer to get fired for a negative review.
something weird I saw on that page, "free gerstmann" merchandise. or at least plans for it.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2289/2075312070_fd964712ea.jpg?v=0
theres some info on how postive reviews sell add space here:
http://kotaku.com/gaming/feature/preview-ho-gamespotgamespy-163398.php
http://kotaku.com/gaming/feature/preview-ho-gamespotgamespy-163398.php
Fu3lFr3nzy
Regular
Destructoid hasnt held back neither (check the main banner of their website)
The perception of quality isn't totally dependent of reviews. Halo3, COD4, Orange Box, Guitar Hero III, Rockband, Assassin Creed, GeOW all benefitted either coming from a well respected developer, the sequel (actual or spiritual) of a well respected franchise or both, in the media, the minds of gamers and in actual delivery of quality.
Reviews act as a confirmation but the games that tend to do well in sales for the most part have established history of quality. Of the top ten sellers on the 360 only GeOW is a new franchise. The same is true with the PS2 with the only GTA3 (if you ignore GTA1 or 2 as they weren't heavy sellers) being a new franchise.
The top franchises are expected to be quality solid titles and tend to get the most hype and the most marketing dollars.
Last edited by a moderator:
I can return most of those things. Games once opened are not returnable. That is why I depend on reviews to give me an accurate picture of what I can expect. Since Ive known that most game review sites are crap anyways, I usually wait until the game hits the bargain bin before buying it.
Well, "gumballing" a good review is one thing, paying for it is another entirely--though it's a slippery slope, for sure. I mean, a lot of a site's credibility would ride on the people they have in charge of such decisions, which is probably why this current rumor is getting so much play, aside from the usual propensity for internet drama. Non-gamer, business-oriented hires managing the editorial staff doesn't bode well, or at the very least doesn't look good.
But I can't fault something akin to selling end-cap space in a store, which is what gumballing seems akin to. I'm distinguishing between a site's front pages and its content. AnandTech, for example, has said that their advertising sales staff is completely independent of their editorial staff, no doubt prompted by the inevitable grumbling that accompanies any wild success. The opposite end of the spectrum is Penny Arcade, which says its editorial staff has control over its advertising staff--but they're a bit of a unique situation, in that their staff is tiny thanks to their product being more art than science. I think buying a gumball for a positive review (again, after the fact, of course) is common sense--why not toot your own horn, and what better way on a certain site than with its own editorial?
There's far less chance of corruption when you're not being sponsored though through advertisers. Things like the Which? magazine that is subscription based can be trusted for fair reviews as they don't lose anything by pissing off manufacturers. Likewise Top Gear can happily slag of road vehicles because they aren't paid by a car company to exist. These internet gaming sites are dependent on advertisers for revenue which means that have to keep the advertisers happy. Not only that, they need the games companies to want to send them review copies for free as well as provide content for features. Because of the close partnership, reviews are susceptible to external pressures, which is one more reason not to pay them close attention.
This isn't true, at least for game magazines. The cost of staff, publication, advertising, and other overheard expenses are offset substantially by advertising. This is why you cannot turn more than a couple pages without being smacked in the face by advertising.
In general, I think many of the issues are being overblown. There is a thing called "taste" and divergent standards. Heck, we still have people who ignore how reviewers determine the value of scores and rant about "no game is a 10!" It is an axe to grind.
And I have no doubt the current perception of reviews by a large number of posters here relates directly to platform affiliation/devotion.
Yes, every review system has flaws. But this isn't limited to games. Yes, not every reviewer is as good as the next guy--some people are better gamers, critics, and writers. Reviewers also have the tedious job of playing a lot of crappy games--or every single game in a genre--so they are jaded and tend to identify differently (one reason I think they put a lot of weight, sometimes too much, on innovation over execution).
And ultimately, comments like "which is one more reason not to pay them close attention" miss the big picture.
With the advent of Gamerankings and Metacritic you get a broad survey of diverse tastes and standards that formulate a general consensus about a games relative quality. Sure, a handful of reviews can suck--but when the industry as a whole gives a game like Lair a 56% you can be sure that, in general, there are issues that a broad spectrum of users have had with the game. There will be exceptions, but that is a definitive trend. Further, experience tells me that some of my favorite games of all time were rated in the 80s. e.g. Battleifled 1942 averaged an 89% from Gamerankings. Two points on this: I agree with almost every flaw reviewers identified with the game. It is flawed. It is also, imo, one of the 3 best online games ever.
It is very much like movies: My favorite movie may not be in the top 10 all time, but in general will be recognized as a 3 out of 5 or better. Games tow a tougher line--they aren't quite where movies are due to the nature and evolution in the technical design/limitations of the experience. A game with a great story, acting, and settings (all core and vital to a movie) may still flop due to lack of execution on various levels on the gaming side of things. So there are more variables, as well as different points of emphasis among consumer tastes, so in that regards I think it is highly important to consider (a) the text of reviews, to weigh their relevance to your tastes and (b) get a big picture of how reviewers felt in general. These are reasons we should pay attention to reviews.
Of course now days, for console games, you can just rent games for a couple dollars and bypass this altogether. And with communities like Xbox Live and PSN there is a strong word-of-mouth element. The gaming sites, while large, don't penetrate the entire market.
You cannot buy off everyone. That is the other reason why they should be given some attention. Ok, lets say Jeff HAD been bought off. Ok, did Edios also nail IGN? Game Informer? 1UP/EGM?
You cannot buy off/coherce a number of people for a prolongued period of time without the cat getting out of the bag.
Reviews have flaws. Reviews are imperfect and sometimes have odd preferences, and at times the wrong person plays the wrong game for them. Anticipation can have a positive and negative impact on a game. And due to the variety of games, the sheer volume of titles, and the diversity in "specifics" that make a game good/bad, it very much is a work in progress.
I always say read a couple reviews from different sources--notably ones you have found that have similar tastes--and listen to user feedback from friends who like the same games you do. When in doubt, rent.
But the angle a number of users have been pining for for months now isn't going to fly. Reviewers are far less biased than many of our readers here, regardless of the number of flaws they can demonstrate. Some game just "suck" relative to the market, and others underwhelmed or had notable flaws.
Back to my example, I think Battlefield 1942 was scored fairly as an 89%--and have no problem saying a 89% game is one of the best online games ever. A fun, even great, game doesn't need to be perfect.
I said magazines that aren't 'sponsored' through advertisers. If you have advertisers, then you have to appease them, like gaming magazines. My examples were specifically review bodies that have no commercial input. So yes, gaming magazines are as 'vulnerable' as gaming websites, but they are bodies that are sponsored by my choice of terms.
The thing that these publications (web or print) need to never lose sight of is that their business is based on providing a service to their audience. All of their revenue is tied to how well they provide this service, since the size of their audience is going to be affected by it.
By sacrificing their editorial integrity for the sake of ad revenue GameSpot have effectively destroyed their own business. Even the members of their audience who don't outright boycott the site will no longer trust them to provide them with untainted reviews and will go elsewhere. And when this happens the advertisers will follow.
Hopefully, this can serve as a reality-check for the rest of the industry and beyond.
In the mean-time I fell really bad for the remaining staff at GameSpot who now have to fear for their livelihood. If their management doesn't get them their declining audience will.
By sacrificing their editorial integrity for the sake of ad revenue GameSpot have effectively destroyed their own business. Even the members of their audience who don't outright boycott the site will no longer trust them to provide them with untainted reviews and will go elsewhere. And when this happens the advertisers will follow.
Hopefully, this can serve as a reality-check for the rest of the industry and beyond.
In the mean-time I fell really bad for the remaining staff at GameSpot who now have to fear for their livelihood. If their management doesn't get them their declining audience will.
Gamespot legally can't say why Jeff was fired. But I've seen what I consider to be the most plausible theory yet -- Jeff's Xbox Live profile shows he's only got 6 achievements on Kane & Lynch, indicating he didn't come close to finishing it. Perhaps he hasn't been finishing his games, and posting the review anyway? Looking at his list, most of the games haven't been finished.
Maybe he uses a different account at work?