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

[schild]

Guys, I think it's just as wrong to fellate websites to get good previews also.

The world of previews needs changing more than actual reviews IMO.

[Yegolev]

The other thing that stands out is how Gamespot would fire someone for giving a bad review for a paid sponsor.  Eidos can be assumed to want to promote their game but Gamespot should be assumed to have a bit of integrity.  I don't assume that, I'm just talking about ideal situations here.

[Khaldun]

Guys, I think it's just as wrong to fellate websites to get good previews also.

The world of previews needs changing more than actual reviews IMO.

Yeah, I completely agree, but that's a hopeless cause. It's clear that the understanding in game journalism is, "We let you see a bit of the game, you cocksuck it, you get content, we get publicity, we pay you off with an ad". It's not that far away from the understanding in all cultural journalism: access is understood to get you a blowjob or at least a handjob, this gives the journalistic outlet some content to fill up its pages, and maybe some ad revenue too. Then if the movie/TV show/whatever actually sucks, you dump on it then. But I think gamers are actually way more wrathful when a well-previewed game turns out to completely bite the big one because of the way that the demand cycle works in gaming. You have a lot longer to anticipate a game with potential, and a game with potential is a much bigger part of your entertainment time than a single movie or book or even ongoing TV show. Plus a game purchase is a big chunk of money up front: when you get deceived by preview-hype and the narratives it creates in your own mind, you feel a lot more wrathful than when you blow $7 on a bad movie.

I'm seeing this especially with kids--my daughter really really loved Rayman Raving Rabbids 1, so she reeeeeeeelly wanted the second one. The previews all looked fun, the trailers were clever. But the sequel is really weaksauce--a couple of great minigames wrapped up in some suck that took the programmers about a half-hour to knock out. It's far worse than the first one. The reviews all agree on that, but the previews were uniformly very very positive. Basically, the journalists were allowed to play the three or four minigames that were good. Well, now my daughter is a smarter consumer, I guess. But the big gaming sites have got to do a better job at contextualizing what they're allowed to see. At least with movies and TV shows, there is actually a bit of prerelease buzz/investigation that tends to push back on big hype machines somewhat, some critics writing about the industry put stuff in perspective. (For example, while every reviewer went nuts about Pushing Daisies' pilot, they all did warn readers about the question of whether the show had a sustainable premise.) Gaming journalists don't even have that limited amount of skepticism in their preview work.

[HaemishM]

Gaming... journalism... LULZ.

I'm sure if the guy gave the game a 6, it was likely a 3 in his mind. Editors and advertisers don't want honesty unless it's positive honesty. This guy gets shitcanned, maybe over the review, maybe not. But really, anyone stupid enough to read more than 3 mainstream gaming articles and still think the industry has one shred of human dignity is DELUDED.

We're all part of the hype machine, whether we want to admit it or not. You play nice with the hype machine, you get a paid gig somewhere. You don't... well, you've seen my blog.

[DarkSign]

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.

Exactly.

So when do we start? 

[taolurker]

It may just be me, but I think that the firing actually happened less because of the "review" and ad revenues than for him dropping an f-bomb in the video review.

I could be wrong though.

[Yegolev]

I'm sure that didn't help.

[CharlieMopps]

It doesnt matter. These reviews are bought and paid for. The truth doesn't matter. Perception is reality. The review sites are so unrealistic in their reviews now that people believe the first payola scandal that pops up.

[Khaldun]

There is one kind of tough thing about gaming discussions and sites that's also true in popular culture. When I was writing about TV, I called it the "My Mother the Car Effect", meaning there isn't anything that is  SO FUCKING BAD that it doesn't have some rabidly dedicated fans who hate and suspect anyone who criticizes their precious. It's what can sometimes make it hard to sort out the shills in the forums at gaming sites from the genuine retards. At the same time, though, conventional wisdom works the same among gamers as it does in any other cultural genre, meaning that sometimes it takes a while before a genuinely smart, original, interesting game is appreciated as such. So sometimes you need to dig into forums and discussion sites to find the hidden shiny. It's only at both ends of the critical bell curve that you can be pretty sure that critical assessment and actual quality are completely in tandem (e.g., there are a few games where everybody but everybody agrees it's a must-play masterpiece, and a very very few where everyone agrees it's a unambiguous turd). Actually I'm having a hard time thinking of a game so utterly shitastic that there wasn't somebody somewhere who thought it was the best thing ever. Considering how rapturous some people got over  Dawn and its fetapults, it might be that nothing qualifies.

[NiX]

I'm sure that didn't help.

Clearly it was edited, so where could there be a problem? They had their chance to remove it, but they just bleeped it. I have no idea how your labour laws work in the states, but up here firing over that wouldn't fly, not in the least.

[IainC]

Actually I'm having a hard time thinking of a game so utterly shitastic that there wasn't somebody somewhere who thought it was the best thing ever. Considering how rapturous some people got over  Dawn and its fetapults, it might be that nothing qualifies.

Even Pool of Radiance: Ruins of Myth Drannor (the 2001 version not the old Gold Box classic) had rabid fans on their forums shouting that it WAS TEH BETS GAEM EVAR!! even though anyone with a frontal lobe was calling it an unplayable turd that suffered from some crack fuelled design decisions.

[Jain Zar]

Actually I'm having a hard time thinking of a game so utterly shitastic that there wasn't somebody somewhere who thought it was the best thing ever. Considering how rapturous some people got over  Dawn and its fetapults, it might be that nothing qualifies.

Even Pool of Radiance: Ruins of Myth Drannor (the 2001 version not the old Gold Box classic) had rabid fans on their forums shouting that it WAS TEH BETS GAEM EVAR!! even though anyone with a frontal lobe was calling it an unplayable turd that suffered from some crack fuelled design decisions.

Game fanboyism is almost as bad as the corporate assholes like Eidos.

Hell, look at the Zelda review.  8.8 means FUCKING AWESOME, but mouthbreathing morons consider it an insult to all that is holy and good.
That lady who does a bunch of hentai reviews got freaked out on for giving the Wii Fire Emblem a 5 out of 10 while fully admitting she does not like the genre and was trying to give it a chance.  While I am nearly at the end of the game and generally like it, almost every one of her complaints with the game are either dead on the money, or are things other reviews have said.

Its like the Fox News effect.  People ONLY want things that agree with them and any deviation from that viewpoint is utter heresy or some fuckass shit.

At least Eidos' reasoning is plain old shitty corporate GREED.

The game warriors' of the Internet's reason?  Not as understandable or obvious.

[DarkSign]

I'm sure that didn't help.

Clearly it was edited, so where could there be a problem? They had their chance to remove it, but they just bleeped it. I have no idea how your labour laws work in the states, but up here firing over that wouldn't fly, not in the least.

Some (in fact many) of states in the U.S are "employment-at-will" states - i.e. an employer can fire you whenever they want to. This of course is kept in check by our Constitution that defends protected classes (race, religion, penis size...er the last one not so much). Not only that, but further state statutes, contract principles, and good-faith restrictions exist.

Trust me, the little guy can stick it to the man if he's been wronged.

[Margalis]

My personal favorite is the "top 10 games of next year" which are similar to the college pre-season rankings - totally meaningless.

It seems like the unstated goal of gaming sights is to put forward so much hype in advance that the actual reviews become irrelevant.

[Lum]

http://valleywag.com/tech/jeff-gerstmann/gamespot-editor-on-fired-writer-328775.php

[Margalis]

Ha ha. God I love this sort of stuff.

It's like Joe Klein at Time, everything he says just digs his hole deeper. GameSpot's credibility just keeps sinking lower and lower. Publishers tell them when they can run reviews? Oy.

[Fabricated]

http://valleywag.com/tech/jeff-gerstmann/gamespot-editor-on-fired-writer-328775.php

Nice.

[schild]

Valleywag? Now he's a celebrity?

[geldonyetich2]

According to that article, I've another reason to hate the mythical "casual gamer".

[Tebonas]

I would see that more as a reason to hate marketing drones. On the other hand, there are reason aplenty already.

[Jain Zar]

Its nice watching Gamespot and Eidos getting massively bad press over all this.
Its everywhere and like all forms of corporate damage control (see Jade Raymond comic), it is only MAKING THINGS WORSE.
Which is what they deserve.  (What can I say?  I would like to see most large corporations go the way of Enron.)

[geldonyetich2]

Another good one on the same site:
http://valleywag.com/tech/jeff-gerstmann/gamespot-editor-says-cnet-firing-a-disaster-328827.php

[UnSub]

My personal favorite is the "top 10 games of next year" which are similar to the college pre-season rankings - totally meaningless.

It seems like the unstated goal of gaming sights is to put forward so much hype in advance that the actual reviews become irrelevant.

The entire video games genre is focused on The Next Big Thing. Once a game is actually out and you can play it, it's old news. Which is why previews are so gloriously positive - to get players wound up over playing the game so that they buy it at launch without ever reading a review from someone who played it.

[HAMMER FRENZY]

This whole thing is stupid. I try hard to not ever care what rating a game gets, but I have to admit I like to see a game I like a lot receive good reviews. Ultimately though, many games I really enjoy get mediocre reviews most of the time, which makes me think I either have great taste or just terrible taste in games.

[MrHat]

Best thing for all the GSpot reviewers to do now would be to give massive 9.8-10.0 reviews to shitty shitty games.

[Bunk]

I miss PC Gamer magazine reviews when they would give games 14%.

[Mortriden]

I miss PC Gamer magazine reviews when they would give games 14%.

My favorite...  Swamp buggy Racin'!

[Murgos]

I miss PC Gamer magazine reviews when they would give games 14%.

Even then I felt like they would fellate some marginal game that bought ads and then rip something no one ever heard of to maintain their street cred.  The Outpost 93% debacle comes to mind.

[Azazel]

This thread needs a rejigging of the Jade Raymond comic. With Gamespot as Jade, and Eidos, etc as the fanbois.

I'd do it, maybe. But I have to go to work.

[Wolf]

Gaming... journalism... LULZ.

I like 1up's stance on the issue. They call themselves "Professional Enthusiasts".

[HaemishM]

Gaming... journalism... LULZ.

I like 1up's stance on the issue. They call themselves "Professional Enthusiasts".

That's a much more honest and accurate statement than "Gaming Journalist."

[Fabricated]

Whee, the "lie to sell our pile of shit game" parade continues.

http://www.gamebump.com/go/official_kane_and_lynch_website_lies_about_its_scores

I'm honestly wondering why I was even a bit surprised by this. I mean, the console makers themselves aren't honest. Sony and their fun rootkit/thisisliving/etc. bullshit, Microsoft is uh Microsoft, and Nintendo's myriad of illegal business practices no one gives a shit about because it's Nintendo.

[schild]

Companies have been lying to sell pile of shit games for a long, long time. There's like nothing new with this story.

That's the depressing part. The gaming consumer sector is like O WAIT, THIS TIN FOIL HAT SHIT IS REAL? WHOA.

[Fabricated]

I'm not surprised that people are nudged and given swag/previews to give positive reviews, but rather by the fact that someone was obviously fired for NOT giving one.

[IainC]

Ok to those of you who didn't know that the editorial stance for games journalists was dictated by advertising budgets, welcome to the publishing industry. Oh and by the way, Santa isn't real either.

Pop quiz time!
Why do you think gaming sites and magazines were so eager to gush over WoW when it launched? Was it:

A) Because WoW was a genuinely revolutionary game that broke new ground in games design.
Or
B) Because Blizzard had a metric crapload of advertising spend to throw at anyone who didn't have a gag reflex.

So. Assuming it's true and he was fired for writing a sub-par Kane and Lynch review (not saying it is but actual internet detectives claim it is so who am I to argue?), what this actually says is that Gamespot failed to have a suit in charge of editorial outpt who was down with what the beancounters were saying. That's not Gerstmann's fault that's C|Net/Gamespot having zero accountability amongst management.

For people who are in the internets business they managed to entirely mishandle the whole thing. I thought that Ubisoft sending a cease and desist letter to Something Awful over the Jade Raymond comic was the dumbest thing anyone was likely to do this year, but right at the close C|Net surged right past to take the tape.

What should have happened is that they parachute some humourless suit in to doublecheck everything that goes up before it gets posted, move Gerstmann to a side office reviewing Pokemon games for the next 6 months then announce a restructuring that didn't include his name on the payroll. Everyone at GS would know why and would take the hint, everyone outside would have no clue and would continue in their happy fantasy land where games journalists on sites that are heavily supported by advertising say what they think.