Jeff Gerstmann and GameSpot

[RoyalRook]

What has happened to the Editorial Director at GameSpot, Jeff Gerstmann was a disgrace to the online video game community. Please take a moment and voice your thoughts over this sad, sad situation.

GameSpot Fires Editorial Director

GameSpot response
What a group of tools. If that's how they are feeling now, why not not do something about it? Your boss and a dear friend for 11 years has been fired for god's sake. Strike or speak out the real truth, anything but this lame BS.

 

[Volrec]

it wasn't his fault the game sucked

 

[CGCGrayfox]

Strict rater but to lose your job over your opinion is redicuous. Does that mean some games are predetermined to get good scores because of pressure like this?

 

[Doggalina]

You guys realize that all of the information that supports Jeff's firing because of Kane and Lynch comes from an ANONYMOUS "Gamespot insider." For all we know, he's making it up.

I hope the real facts come out; meh, I never used GameSpot anyway.

 

[RoyalRook]

You guys realize that all of the information that supports Jeff's firing because of Kane and Lynch comes from an ANONYMOUS "Gamespot insider." For all we know, he's making it up.

I hope the real facts come out; meh, I never used GameSpot anyway.

The source is good and solid. That just what happened.

 

[Kio Iranez]

This is why...

You shouldn't trust Gamespot.

 

[shadydentist]

The source is good and solid.

Is it? The alleged gamespot insider is certainly not a reliable source, and 1up only briefly mentions 'our own sources'. Its likely that neither gamespot nor Gerstmann are legally able to discuss the terms of his termination, so its impossible for anyone to say with certainty what happened. Certainly, it appears that his review of Kane and Lynch had something to do with his firing, but its unlikely that it was the only factor.

 

[Doggalina]

The source is good and solid. That just what happened.

Since when are anonymous sources (especially over the Internet) good and solid? I'm not saying that Eidos didn't have something to do with it, but it isn't 100% true. Take everything with a grain of salt.

 

[Crimson King]

I really wish everyone would shut the **** up about this situation.

Jeff Gerstmann gave Kane and Lynch a 6/10, enough for most people to avoid the game. The advertisers pull their ads, and Gamespot loses money. Jeff gets fired 2 weeks later.

A. The advertisers had every RIGHT to pull their ads for a slanderous review of their product.
B. Gamespot had every RIGHT to fire Jeff over this because he cost them money and they need money to stay afloat.
C. Gamespot should review games before taking advertisers, like Penny Arcade.
D. It's an opinion site - Game review sites will always have some bias anyway.

I like how people get pissed off when a guy is fired by a company when he cost them money.

 

[Eor]

I have no idea whats really going on, but Eric, you're missing the entire point. People are angry because he was fired for doing his job, they don't like that journalists are fired for doing their job. I don't know why you're calling it "slanderous", if he didn't like the game he had every right to say so, you don't have to try and change this by claiming he was bull****ting it. Gamestop does have the right to fire him, but he's a journalist, it's the same as if the Times fired someone for criticizing a president when he funded them. Not that Gamestop is the same as a newspaper, I never followed their reviews because I knew it was crap, but this is more of an outrage over the game websites for sucking in general and failing at being journalists then at this specific incident.

Though if you asked me, I don't see why people care so much about this specific incident. Review sites have been known to suck for a long, long time.

 

[Crimson King]

I have no idea whats really going on, but Eric, you're missing the entire point. People are angry because he was fired for doing his job, they don't like that journalists are fired for doing their job. I don't know why you're calling it "slanderous", if he didn't like the game he had every right to say so, you don't have to try and change this by claiming he was bull****ting it. Gamestop does have the right to fire him, but he's a journalist, it's the same as if the Times fired someone for criticizing a president when he funded them. Not that Gamestop is the same as a newspaper, I never followed their reviews because I knew it was crap, but this is more of an outrage over the game websites for sucking in general and failing at being journalists then at this specific incident.

Though if you asked me, I don't see why people care so much about this specific incident. Review sites have been known to suck for a long, long time.

He wasn't fired for hating the game. He was fired for costing Gamespot money with his review. He is not a journalist, but a game reviewer making him at best, an editorialist - people who CAN be fired for their opinions.

 

[Cashed]

The insider says that the editors at Gamespot all read the reviews before they're published on the website and edit things out if they think anything is attacking the game too much and the like. The editors found nothing wrong with the review so it was put up on the website. Eidos gets wind of the review and decides to pull their advertising, which makes the new "Marketing is above all else!" guy who's in charge of Gamespot now look into the review. He decided Jeff's tone in the review was too harsh and locked him out of his office.

All sounds believable. Nothing ridiculous is in the story, but the story itself is ridiculous. Being fired over your opinion, which is the entire point of reviews (to voice your opinion on the game), is absurd. A website shouldn't be inflating scores of a game that's being advertised on their website. That's the entire reason this is blowing up so big, it's casting doubt onto all game reviews. It's making everyone wonder which games got inflated scores just to meet the demands so said company would continue advertising on their website. It's making people wonder if those games being acclaimed "game of the year" are actually deserving of that title.

 

[RoyalRook]

Since when are anonymous sources (especially over the Internet) good and solid? I'm not saying that Eidos didn't have something to do with it, but it isn't 100% true. Take everything with a grain of salt.

STFU, do the deeper research yourself before taking up free space on my thread.

The insider says that the editors at Gamespot all read the reviews before they're published on the website and edit things out if they think anything is attacking the game too much and the like. The editors found nothing wrong with the review so it was put up on the website. Eidos gets wind of the review and decides to pull their advertising, which makes the new "Marketing is above all else!" guy who's in charge of Gamespot now look into the review. He decided Jeff's tone in the review was too harsh and locked him out of his office.

All sounds believable. Nothing ridiculous is in the story, but the story itself is ridiculous. Being fired over your opinion, which is the entire point of reviews (to voice your opinion on the game), is absurd. A website shouldn't be inflating scores of a game that's being advertised on their website. That's the entire reason this is blowing up so big, it's casting doubt onto all game reviews. It's making everyone wonder which games got inflated scores just to meet the demands so said company would continue advertising on their website. It's making people wonder if those games being acclaimed "game of the year" are actually deserving of that title.

That is so true, and let's not forget the number one defense most reviewer hide behind, whenever they were giving out a controversial score:"It was my personal view of one specific game." So now what? Should they justifiably hide behind:"It was my boss' view of one specific game?" What has became the online communities' freedom?

 

[Crimson King]

The insider says that the editors at Gamespot all read the reviews before they're published on the website and edit things out if they think anything is attacking the game too much and the like. The editors found nothing wrong with the review so it was put up on the website. Eidos gets wind of the review and decides to pull their advertising, which makes the new "Marketing is above all else!" guy who's in charge of Gamespot now look into the review. He decided Jeff's tone in the review was too harsh and locked him out of his office.

All sounds believable. Nothing ridiculous is in the story, but the story itself is ridiculous. Being fired over your opinion, which is the entire point of reviews (to voice your opinion on the game), is absurd. A website shouldn't be inflating scores of a game that's being advertised on their website. That's the entire reason this is blowing up so big, it's casting doubt onto all game reviews. It's making everyone wonder which games got inflated scores just to meet the demands so said company would continue advertising on their website. It's making people wonder if those games being acclaimed "game of the year" are actually deserving of that title.

Don Imus, Howard Stern, and Opie and Anthony - all people with shows based solely on their opinions who were fired because they went to far for advertisers and advertisers pulled the ads. If someone is working for a corporate sponsored company, they have to meet the demand of the sponsors or go out of business.

 

[freeman123]

You guys are all stupid. When have you ever seen anybody on any site get away with giving a game a review like that? That was like an AVGN review without all of the profanity. It had nothing to do with the score he gave them, it had to do with the review. The way he talked about the game you'd think he was giving it a 1.0, but he gave it a 6.0.

It's obvious why he got fired. The real question is why does gamespot allow things like that to go up on their site without checking them first?

 

[Tryptomine]

Don Imus, Howard Stern, and Opie and Anthony - all people with shows based solely on their opinions who were fired because they went to far for advertisers and advertisers pulled the ads. If someone is working for a corporate sponsored company, they have to meet the demand of the sponsors or go out of business.

But they also have to meet the demands of their audience, or else they lose their support. People expect "fair" reviews (whether or not that is a realitic expectation), and get pissed when they catch the reviewers not providing that.

 

[RoyalRook]

Don Imus, Howard Stern, and Opie and Anthony - all people with shows based solely on their opinions who were fired because they went to far for advertisers and advertisers pulled the ads. If someone is working for a corporate sponsored company, they have to meet the demand of the sponsors or go out of business.

But that's exactly why all those people were celebrated and popular in the first place. They weren't tools. Otherwise, they are just another number or IP address.

 

[Crimson King]

But that's exactly why all those people were celebrated and popular in the first place. They weren't tools. Otherwise, they are just another number or IP address.

Popularity has nothing to do with a business. The richest men in the world aren't popular, just smart with money.

 

[Zink]

Popularity has nothing to do with a business. The richest men in the world aren't popular, just smart with money.

they're also lucky.
I can't say I always agreed with Gerstmann on his reviews, but regardless of that, he shoudn't have been fired, especially being a ten year editor. This just goes to show how unimportant reviews are, as if we needed a reminder.

 

[shadydentist]

Popularity has nothing to do with a business. The richest men in the world aren't popular, just smart with money.

Wrong. Popularity has everything to do with a business if your source of income (read: advertisements) directly correspond to your popularity.

 

[RoyalRook]

Popularity has nothing to do with a business. The richest men in the world aren't popular, just smart with money.

What planet are you from? Popularity is everything, if you are in the advertisement business or entertaining business in general. Even in the labs you have to be gregarious to move your projects forward.

 

[Kirby King]

CK seems to be arguing that Gamespot had the right to fire the editor; the issue here, though, isn't whether or not they were allowed to, but whether or not a reputable gaming site would have. I think, assuming this was done at an advertiser's behest, the answer is pretty clearly "no," because otherwise there's an expectation that reviews will be positive when they otherwise might not have been for a particular game. If you read a game review site, you're certainly subject to the bias of the author, but that's known when you read the review--if the guy hates Mario games, you know he'll give a good Mario game a lower score than it deserves. But if the same guy is paid off (or threatened by advertisers) to give a Mario game a higher score, then now you can't trust his review--it's not his bias, anymore, but it's the pull of the advertiser (presumably Nintendo, in this hypothetical example) that's just made the review more positive.

The point is not that Gamespot doesn't have the right to fire him (they may very well), it's that a reputable and reasonably objective (or at least consistently biased) review site (which Gamespot had better be, if they want gamers to read and trust their reviews) should not, even if it means advertisers will be willing to leave. You won't see the New York Times back away from a solid story just because it might offend an advertiser--then you've got a conflict of interest, and that threatens their integrity. The question that remains is "does integrity matter?" and I don't think that should really be in dispute.

 

[Wiseguy]

Gamespot lost something more valuable than advertising dollars in this fiasco: credibility. How many eyeballs will stop visiting the site now that people believe that one of their game reviewers was fired for giving his honest opinion?

This isn't just a sleazy move, Crimson King. It's a bad bussiness decision.

EDIT: ...which Kirby King summed up more elequently in his post while I was typing mine.

 

[Cashed]

It's obvious why he got fired. The real question is why does gamespot allow things like that to go up on their site without checking them first?

You didn't read what the "Gamespot Insider" said, did you? He says that all the editors read the review before it's put up on the website, and this review was no exception. They all read it, found nothing wrong with it and it was put up.

And Kiki, good job.

 

[Crimson King]

CK seems to be arguing that Gamespot had the right to fire the editor; the issue here, though, isn't whether or not they were allowed to, but whether or not a reputable gaming site would have. I think, assuming this was done at an advertiser's behest, the answer is pretty clearly "no," because otherwise there's an expectation that reviews will be positive when they otherwise might not have been for a particular game. If you read a game review site, you're certainly subject to the bias of the author, but that's known when you read the review--if the guy hates Mario games, you know he'll give a good Mario game a lower score than it deserves. But if the same guy is paid off (or threatened by advertisers) to give a Mario game a higher score, then now you can't trust his review--it's not his bias, anymore, but it's the pull of the advertiser (presumably Nintendo, in this hypothetical example) that's just made the review more positive.

The point is not that Gamespot doesn't have the right to fire him (they may very well), it's that a reputable and reasonably objective (or at least consistently biased) review site (which Gamespot had better be, if they want gamers to read and trust their reviews) should not, even if it means advertisers will be willing to leave. You won't see the New York Times back away from a solid story just because it might offend an advertiser--then you've got a conflict of interest, and that threatens their integrity. The question that remains is "does integrity matter?" and I don't think that should really be in dispute.

It was never a question that review sites are influenced by advertisers. I always thought it was common knowledge. Why else would sites pick up a game that hasn't even been released, review it, it gets great reviews, and continues to advertise for the game.

Honestly, if you want them to be completely unbiased, then you'll have to foot the bill or they can do like Penny Arcade does and only allow advertisers who give them a hard copy of the game, they review it, then take the advertiser.

 

[AltF4]

So... Gamespot is essentially telling the online community:

"Developers can buy a good score from us."

Not a good idea when a large part of your customer base goes to your website to read reviews. I know that I'll never care what Gamespot gives for scores ever again. And it makes you wonder about other places too.


Reviews do matter. People base their purchasing decisions off of them. Whether you think they "shouldn't" or not, a very large amount of people look up the rating scores to games before they purchase them, and don't do so if they get enough negative reviews. It's all about money. A developer can make a half-way decent game, pay for the advertising on Gamespot, and be assured that the game won't get a negative review. Thus people will buy the game, regardless of it's actual quality.

 

[Mike87]

So much for "journalistic integrity" Then again thats been shot to **** for a loooooooong time.

 

[Weed]

I guess money overrides what a good game is, these days.

pft

 

[Crimson King]

You guys shouldn't worry about the integrity of reviewers. Go to Kotaku.com. Eidos has lied about the reviews and comments off of 3 websites - Gameinformer, Gamespy, and Kotaku. The Kotaku comments were delivered at E3 for the first hands-on of the game. The other two reviews were never made. Go figure.

 

[BigRick]

lol I stopped trusting GameSpot a loooooong time ago

 

[AltF4]

Yea, CK. I regular Kotaku, and that was just plain funny. Did Eidos think they wouldn't notice?! They just completely made that stuff up.

I try not to follow reviews too closely, but I have a few people that have opinions I trust. Mat Cassamassina on IGN is pretty reliable most of the time, I think. And Kotaku in general. At first, I found Kotaku to be really cynical, but really they're just honest. Sometimes they come off as rather anti-Nintendo, but I feel like I can trust their opinions as being their own, and reporting flaws in games as they see them.

I think too many people go looking for reviews, and get angry with the reviewer if their score doesn't coincide with what they want. When really, everyone should try to find a reviewer or two that has significantly different opinions on games, people they feel they trust to report honestly. Because if you're interested in a game, you're probably already aware of the positive aspects of it. You need a reviewer to actually play through and tell you what's wrong.