Mr "8.8 for Twilight Princess" gives Kane and Lynch a 6.0, gets fired for it. *

[Fabricated]

*Reportedly. This IS coming from the hacks at Kotaku.

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

Mmmm, journalistic integrity.

I don't know if I care or not.

[schild]

All it does is confirm everything we know about the gaming press.

I want people to keep telling me I'm wrong though.

And they wonder why I hole myself up in this corner of the web.

[stray]

Anyone who gives TWP an 8.8 seems slightly OK in my book.

[Fabricated]

Anyone who gives TWP an 8.8 seems slightly OK in my book.

8.0 felt right to me. It wasn't technically deficient, there was no triforce piece collecting, but it just didn't grab me.

I like how everyone across GameFAQs/Gamespot wanted to rape him to death for daring to give a mediocre Zelda title anything less than a 10, but now they're freaking out because he got fired for not doling out a payola review.

[stray]

I would have given it a 7 personally, but what I mean is.... 8.8 seems like he was fighting just to keep it under 9. I bet his real, honest to God score would have been lower, but at least he tried.

[schild]

This industry disgusts me.

[Velorath]

*Reportedly. This IS coming from the hacks at Kotaku.

Gabe from Penny Arcade apparently heard the same thing.  In fact, they've already got a comic up about it.

[rk47]

Yeah I lol'ed a bit when I read reviews that slammed games for being bad but still hosts the game ads on site.
It's a conflict of interests and sacking him is a bit harsh I feel.

Is this why we don't have game ads on this site, schild?

[schild]

Is this why we don't have game ads on this site, schild?

Part of it. Other part is I'm just too lazy since the ad readout never reads like actual traffic since roughly 80% of the people block ads.

[rk47]

i'm pissed cause no reviewer ever gets it for posting over-inflated scores and suddenly this guy did it the other way and he gets sacked.  Way to go Gamespot!

Ad Revenue 1
Gamers Interest 0

Oh wait Gamers just equalized. They are swarming the Eidos forum at the moment. What a reaction. This could be a come back! 

[geldonyetich2]

I actually pay real money (c) to GameSpot specifically to help them establish their self-sufficiency.

If this turns out that they fired a long-established reviewer for doing his job correctly because it conflicts with their sponsors then clearly I have been paying them money in error.

Looking at the average review, 7.0ish seems pretty common for Kane and Lynch, a 6.0 isn't big enough of a gap for me to find it problematic.

[rk47]

I think this may spell doom to Deus Ex 3 that is being developed by Eidos Montreal. Awesome domino effect. They waited few years to let the shit from DX2 to cool off now they're back in hot shit territory.

[Margalis]

8.8 for TWP sounds fine for me. It's in no way a bad score. Given that 9.5 is pretty much the highest grade given out to most games 9.0 is probably a bit too high. "Mediocre" is too harsh, it's still one of the best games of that genre, but it was missing a certain je ne sais quois. I preferred WindWaker in many ways, graphics included.

Kane and Lynch is getting panned a lot and all the reviews call out the same problems - frankly it doesn't sound fun at all. I'm on the Gamespot site right now and all the K&L graphics are gone. They were there a few hours ago...the entire site looked like a K&L fansite.

I remember when the old "Die Hard Game Fan" gave a Final Fantasy a 7 out of 10 or something...good times.

[geldonyetich2]

GameSpot users are taking it well.

[rk47]

i'd link to that leave britney alone or something

[geldonyetich2]

I almost posted the barrel roll, but you know, I'm all about appropriate context. 

[IainC]

From the Eidos Forums

We are currently making a change to the forums. They will be up shortly. Please check back later.

Orly?

[Azazel]

There seems to be a few guns backfiring off in people's faces at the moment.

[Sutro]

Lots of places are picking this up. Wired's picked it up and posted it, and cites LOTS of anon sources direct to them.

Scary times. If Congress can get involved in payola in radio, they sure as shit will get into GJ if this blows up.

[Trippy]

Not the same thing.

[Sutro]

No, but comparable. Payola at its basic level is a company paying a media channel for advertising of its product in a channel that is supposed to be advertising-free. This case fits that right down the money.

[geldonyetich2]

I don't think this would go that far.  Would be nice, but I get the feeling what happens is CNET ignores the internet, Jeff swings in the breeze, and I cancel my GameSpot subscription.

[Trippy]

No, but comparable. Payola at its basic level is a company paying a media channel for advertising of its product in a channel that is supposed to be advertising-free. This case fits that right down the money.

No it's not comparable. Parts of the EM spectrum including radio are regulated by the government here in the US as a "public good" so there are rules for using it. Gaming publications are not regulated by the government. Also neither public radio nor gaming publications are mandated as being advertising-free.

[DarkSign]

I would absolutely LOVE it if this is the straw that broke the GJ camel's back.
Since the videogame public cant be arsed to make a stand in some meaningful way, perhaps journalism can police itself.
BAHAHAhahahahAHAHAHA!!

[Khaldun]

As always, the problem is, what are the consequences? Anybody who didn't already know that GS and other sites have a payola element to their reviews--not consistently, but sometimes--now knows. Anybody who didn't know that already is a bit on the stupid side. GS probably figures, heck, wait it out, people will forget, and besides, our revenue stream doesn't depend much on paying subscribers anyway. They're probably right about that, though the odd thing about pressuring sites for reviews is that the value of the reviews to sell product depends somewhat on the nebulous perception of integrity. A site that's widely perceived to totally lack integrity doesn't push much product when it fellates some mediocre piece of crap. So maybe there are consequences: reputation capital = real money. At least sometimes. But of course the paradox is that the gaming companies are less eager to throw real money at a site with too much integrity. Reviews make a difference only for: 1) small or indie publishers or niche games that might not otherwise sell strong and 2) mediocre product from major publishers that isn't guaranteed to sell by virtue of association with a really strong franchise. In case 1), they help. In case 2), they hurt. But it's case 2) that has the ad money that might flow to a well-trusted site.

[Riggswolfe]

8.8 for TWP sounds fine for me. It's in no way a bad score. Given that 9.5 is pretty much the highest grade given out to most games 9.0 is probably a bit too high. "Mediocre" is too harsh, it's still one of the best games of that genre, but it was missing a certain je ne sais quois. I preferred WindWaker in many ways, graphics included.

See, I got bored with Windwaker and never finished it. I considered it very over-rated. OTOH I enjoyed the hell out of Twilight Princess.

[RUiN 427]

this is just the exposure this problem needed... we should do what we can to keep the preasure on

[Litigator]

No, but comparable. Payola at its basic level is a company paying a media channel for advertising of its product in a channel that is supposed to be advertising-free. This case fits that right down the money.

Radio is broadcast over the public airwaves. The licenses to use them are doled out by the agency and that is why the agency has regulatory power over the radio.
Journalism of any kind is almost entirely unregulated because the First Amendment largely prohibits it. 

The only way I can see any regulation put on gamespot is if they tried to classify the whole site as advertising (which has reduced speech protection). But that would almost certainly be a loser argument.

[Khaldun]

Well, the Gamespot users have found a pretty interesting way to retaliate against the site and Eidos as well. Kane and Lynch now has a boatload of new player reviews, ranking the game a 1.0. Certainly this is going to make any online gaming journalism site think twice about being this obvious in bullying reviewers, and any publisher is going to think twice about being obvious in bringing pressure. But that doesn't mean they won't do it--they'll just be less amateurish about it. Want to lean on your reviewers? When one of them screws up a well-planned advertising campaign, don't fire him right away. Wait about six months, can him then, so the reviewer can't easily claim it's retaliation. Do some vague horse-heads at the foot of the bed rumor-campaigning within your staff so everyone understands the cause-and-effect of the firing, though. That way you've got protective cover and you can figure that everyone gets the message for the next time there's big money involved.

Of course the smarter thing to do would be to work hard to keep your site independent, because that's both good ethics and good business. No matter how sneaky you are about enforcing discipline on reviewers, a site that whores itself out too freely is going to be obvious and it will eventually be less valuable to advertisers as a result. Most games still depend on good reviews AND word-of-mouth to sell well.

[DarkSign]

If you wanted to be really mercencary you'd start up a new game review site/mag capitalizing on the hype and internet meme of how bad journalism is. Get a reputation for being really critical, independent and fair.

Then, after some time had passed...inform the game companies through back channels that only one game per year would get their gilted, shill, "hardcore" treatment where you basically suck their balls and kiss their ass...all while pointing back to your "honest journalism" reputation.

 

[IainC]

Eidos forums are back up and there's a blue response to the obvious question.

It is a rumour. That is all we here know.

And there will be no further discussion.


[Edit] To show how wrong reporting sometimes gets it, the site you linked to stated:

Originally Posted by www.joystiq.com
"Eidos has taken a different approach, locking down all threads on their site after apparently purging derogatory posts from thousands of angry gamers reacting to the rumor yesterday night."

We deleted all the ugly SPAM which for the most part consisted only of the worst sort of horrific visual assaults that can be found by those who want to find such perverse pictures on the internet, there has only been one locked thread, this one, and there was only about 100 new accounts made for this attack, most of which were obvious repeat registrations.
[/Edit]

[Khaldun]

Right. And then what you'd do is basically have a silent auction, with the winner getting the ball-sucking review. So publishers would have to decide which game they wanted to advertise and hype like mad because it wasn't obviously shit but they knew it was actually shit, and then chase the ball-sucking review for that one. The honest-except-for-one-night-sweetheart game review site would then make out like a bandit, because all the publishers would advertise heavily for their secretly-shitty game just in case they ended up having the high bid in the ball-suck auction. And then the site could still come out looking honest-Abe because they'd call the wrath of God down on all the secret-shit games but one.

[Nija]

6.0 is rather high for Kane and Lynch, if you ask me.

It's close to a 4 than a 6, I think.

[Yegolev]

If you wanted to be really mercencary you'd start up a new game review site/mag capitalizing on the hype and internet meme of how bad journalism is. Get a reputation for being really critical, independent and fair.

I have had that approach from Day One in regards to my association with f13.net, but I guess I just come off as crazy.

[Khaldun]

Yeah, what makes this an especially dumb thing for Eidos to lean on Gamespot about is that they're getting roughly the same negative reviews from other sites, and from game-related sites like Ctrl + Alt + Del that were otherwise fairly primed to like the game based on the previews. It would be one thing if the Gamespot reviewer had given the game a harsh review when everyone else was fellating it, but when Eidos says, "Hey, motherfuckers, why do you think we paid for a KANE AND LYNCH SKIN to your shit site if we weren't going to get at least one blowjob for our asstastic game" it stands out pretty badly.