Rumor: Gamespot's editorial director fired over Kane & Lynch review
by Kyle Orland 
{ Nov 30th 2007 at 12:30AM }
Update 2:45 PM EST: Gamespot has issued a massive Q&A addressing many outstanding issues surrounding the firing.
Update: 11:50 AM EST Dec. 5, 2007: Check out Joystiq's analysis of the edits to Gerstmann's Kane & Lynch review. GameSpot editors comment on their Hot Spot podcast. Also: Tuesday and Wednesday updates from around the web.
Update 10:00 PM EST: Gamespot has posted official notice of the firing on their website. Meanwhile, some editors at CNET have commented on the controversy in a podcast.
Update - 11:20 AM EST Dec. 3, 2007: Further updates, and Gerstmann's exclusive comments to Joystiq.
Update - 11:00AM EST Dec. 2, 2007: More updates from around the web.
Update - 3:45PM EST: Ziff Davis employees rally for Gerstmann
Update - 9:00AM EST Dec. 1, 2007: The latest developments on the story.
Update - 5:45PM EST: CNET has amended their earlier statement with Joystiq.
Update - 3:20PM EST: We just noticed that Gerstmann's video review, previously accessible only through a direct link, has been removed from the site. Here's an alternate YouTube link.
Update - 2:20PM EST: We got a response from CNET, GameSpot's parent company, that totally explains the whole thing away ... you see. Actually, they don't say much.
Update - 12:52 AM EST: Penny Arcade, which helped popularize this story with their comic last night, has posted an accompanying commentary piece on the issue. The story they were told (by whom, we do not know) has Gamespot management angry at Gerstmann for long-standing problems with his reviewing "tone." The Kane & Lynch review, which allegedly caused Eidos to withdraw "hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of future advertising from the site," served as the straw that broke the camel's back. There's no named source for this information, but the piece does say that "the firm belief internally [is] that Jeff was sacrificed."
Update - 11:00 AM EST: The anonymous source/speculation train rolls on. Rock Paper Shotgun has posted a story citing an unnamed "very reliable source" as saying that "while Gerstmann wasn't the most popular man with the CNET owners, it was his Kane & Lynch review alone that saw him lose his job." Meanwhile, a poster at Forumopolis who claims to be directly involved with the Kane & Lynch ad campaign says that the whole thing is just a matter of bad timing. "I sincerely doubt that Eidos made Gamespot fire him," the poster writes. "CNET doesn't kowtow to its advertisers, and I've more than once seen the higher-ups turn away big advertising dollars for the sake of the company's integrity." Make of this what you will.
Update - 10:44 AM EST: Gamespot PR representative Leslie Van Every has responded to Joystiq's request for comment with ... a predictable 'no comment.' "It is CNET Networks' policy to never comment on individual employees--current or former--regarding their job status," Van Every told Joystiq. "This policy is in place out of respect for the individuals' privacy."
Update - 7:12 AM EST: Jeff has confirmed his firing to us via e-mail, but says he's "not really able to comment on the specifics of my termination." He added that he's "looking forward to getting back out there and figuring out what's next." We're still digging.
Update - 1:35 AM EST: The Kane and Lynch ads that blanketed Gamespot's front page are no longer being shown. Check out the picture above to see what the site looked at just an hour ago.
Original Post:
So before we get going, we should make it clear that this post is still just a rumor and many of the facts behind it are still up in the air. That being said, word around game journalism's virtual water cooler is that Gamespot Editorial Director Jeff Gerstmann has been fired because publisher Eidos was unhappy about his negative review of Kane & Lynch: Dead Men.
What seems in little dispute, going by forum chatter as well as multiple published sources (referencing conversations with multiple CNet employees), is that Gerstmann has indeed been fired after over ten years working at the site. We were not immediately able to confirm the firing with Gamespot or Gerstmann directly, but an e-mail sent to his Gamespot address did get returned with a "permanent failure" error. Seems pretty serious to us ...
What is in some dispute is the reason behind the firing. The current leading theory is that Eidos, a major Gamespot advertiser (just look at the current Kane&Lynch-ified front page shown above) was unhappy with Gerstmann's review of their game and brought pressure to bear on the site to remove the longstanding editor (Eidos representatives were not immediately available for comment). Gamespot's text review of the game is definitely very negative, and the 6/10 score rather low, but it's the video review of the game that really eviscerates it for "impossible to like" characters, a "lazy" script and excessive profanity, among other things. It does seem plausible that Eidos might not be too happy with either review, and that Gamespot might be willing to do anything to prevent losing such a large advertiser (notwithstanding the site's posted review guidelines, which state they have never "altered our verdict about any game due to advertiser pressure").
But there are some parts of the story that don't quite fit. For one, the review was posted on Nov. 13, yet the evidence points to Gerstmann being fired only recently. For another, it stands to reason that if Eidos was so unhappy with the review, that they would also demand it be taken down from the site, a step that has not yet been taken (though the video version doesn't seem to be actively linked on the site's Kane & Lynch videos page has now been removed from the site completely. See 3:20 pm update, above)? And while GameSpot's 6/10 score was low, it certainly wasn't out of the ordinary. Why would Gamespot be singled out, and why would such a senior and generally respected editor be demanded (and accepted by Gamespot) as sacrifice?
The ramifications of the story, if true, are huge. Readers should fairly expect there to be an inviolable firewall between advertising and editorial in journalism, and game journalism (yes, that includes "just reviews") is no different. While our industry has had its fair share of accusations of impropriety, nothing so far has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Giving a publisher the power to fire a senior editor is a line no outlet should be willing to cross.
We hope that everything is not as it seems here, and that there has simply been some sort of misunderstanding brought on by a game of telephone. The circumstantial evidence, however, is hard to ignore, and significant enough to make us seriously question what exactly is going on here. We'll of course be following this story as it inevitably develops over the next few days.
Reader Comments (Page 3 of 4)
truent @ Nov 30th 2007 3:03AM
Holeee shit....
umm....hello??? @ Nov 30th 2007 1:56AM
...the only thing useful Gamespot has left is it's game release calendar.
LunarAura @ Nov 30th 2007 1:59AM
Guy gave THPS3 a 10 ahahhahaha he shoulda been fired years ago.
Also you think reviewers play early review copies on their public main gamertags. If you believe that, you're a dope.
Gamespot sucked since Joe Fielder left and GreKasavin got off his speak n' spell. Represent
Monmin @ Nov 30th 2007 2:04AM
Hey Gamespot, how much money is Eidos gonna pay you when your reader base diminishes?
Way to think short term at the expense of your reputation. A journalist has nothing if not a good reputation.
Residentevil72501 @ Nov 30th 2007 2:05AM
Thats total bullshit they review it, its their job and they get fired cuz the game sucks? If he really is fired im with some of you guys no more Gamespot for me!
Cal @ Nov 30th 2007 2:05AM
http://www.gamespot.com/users/TimT/show_blog_entry.php?topic_id=m-100-25233420
Tim Tracy seems to have bailed as well. Something must be going on with all of the jobs being left. Greg, Carrie, Rich and now Tim and Jeff?
BananaBoat @ Nov 30th 2007 2:27AM
Did gamespot ever have any credibility to begin with?
Jason Williams @ Nov 30th 2007 2:39AM
Just to let you know, the Gamespot Xbox 360 Newsletter which is usually fronted by Jeff G., isn't. It just has a generic Gamespot logo where his face normally is.
It's a shame. Reviewers now are going to start worrying if they slam a sponsered game, and then people are going to buy that game thinking its good, and the whole worlds going to EXPLODE!
Imma telling you... it's gunna happen!
Norty @ Nov 30th 2007 2:49AM
People have freaked out and gone nuts on the Eidos forums. I mean, easily some of the worst images I've ever seen in my entire life - and being born and raised on the internet pretty much, that's saying something.
The gamespot forums are in a tizzy, as expected, but avoid Eidos fellas. No joke. It's bad.
nick @ Nov 30th 2007 2:49AM
I hope 1up hires him. He'd be a perfect 4th seat on 1up yours.
Arturo @ Nov 30th 2007 2:51AM
http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/50134
confirmed. he's gone.
joe @ Nov 30th 2007 3:02AM
If you own a Gamespot subscription, please cancel it today. It's not going to bring Jeff back, but at least they'll know what he was worth to the company when they see 10,000 people cancelling on the same day that this story gets out.
I cancelled mine 10 min ago.
Arturo @ Nov 30th 2007 3:04AM
it appears tim surret may have left too.
http://www.gamespot.com/users/TimT/show_blog_entry.php?topic_id=m-100-25233420
Worst Review Ever @ Nov 30th 2007 3:10AM
I just don't like Gamespot. They drag down the ratings on good games and beef them up for okay games. Case in point Metroid Prime 3 got an 8.5 while Halo 3 received a 9.5. I own both and the one with Halo in the title is not the superior game.
baby sea tuna @ Nov 30th 2007 8:29AM
I have both of them too and, yeah, it is.
Ryan @ Nov 30th 2007 3:24AM
Direct from Gabe on the PA forums:
"Jeff G. got canned. Tycho will talk about it more tomorrow. We have a couple sources inside that gave us the whole scoop. I'm not sure if the news sites even know yet."
Wow. Just wow.
GrimReaper @ Nov 30th 2007 3:27AM
The day gamespot assimilated errrrrrrr took over gamefaqs which someone has a quote from cjayc saying the site would never ever be sold out or sold to someone else, was the day they lost the last bit of their credibility, nto to mention their buying out of tvtome.com.
1up, IGN and these other flakes of a site dont know how to review shit even if it was in their toilet telling them how to review the crap.
this just reminds you of the jade raymond comic where u post a chic sucking cock for a shittastic game you will not get thes internets interviewz with jade or any ubisoft promotion marketing. shame still that the hacks at penny arcade never made a comment about the jade raymond comic i guess those two fuckwads are happy to take the money in the pockets from any site since they are really nothing but hacks.
Konrad @ Nov 30th 2007 3:27AM
I'm a moderator on Gamespot's forum and... this just infuriates me.
If it's true, I'm done at gamespot.
Deprincer @ Nov 30th 2007 3:29AM
Gamespot did give Gears of War a 9.6... which is a damn honest review in my book. :D
Andrew @ Nov 30th 2007 2:42PM
Sorry, Gears of War is one of the most overrated games in history.
It's INFURIATING difficulty (can't recall any FPS that was more difficult on "normal" difficulty), totally useless chainsaw (pretty much never starts up - I hear it's because it stops if a bullet hits you - what good is that?) and impossibility to deal with up-close enemies due to camera angles should make it no more than 8.5. I play pretty much every FPS (including low rated ones) and this one game, at least when played solo, is not worthy of such high marks.
Vexorg @ Nov 30th 2007 3:38AM
It's the coverup that gets you...
Raedien @ Nov 30th 2007 3:48AM
Well, this is a guaranteed section of my senior project true or not...
Jeremy White @ Nov 30th 2007 3:49AM
I can see this backfiring horribly for all the people involved if it's true. That Penny Arcade comic is hilarious though.
the_insider @ Nov 30th 2007 4:07AM
http://www.dailymotion.com/country:us/video/x3mhgg_gamespot-kane-lynch-video-review_videogames
for those who didnt get to see it... ;)
snowD @ Nov 30th 2007 4:22AM
Online reviews are becoming a joke . If this is true and the story about Ubisoft pulling all its ads from Eurogamer due to it telling the uncomfortable truth about Ass Creed its a very bad situation. Review sites have to be able to tell the truth about games or they will all become worthless. We have seen the deceptive practices of false reviews escalate this year. We have a situation where these sites depend on the multinational games corporations ad money and are decieving the public in order to not upset their pay masters with poor games such as Ass creed recieving 9/10 and apparently threatening withdrawel of ad money because they dont like the truth that their buggy game is not only buggy but also repetative and intensely boring and almost completely lacking any core gameplay when you look beyond the graphics.The whole review score and integrity of reviews is utterly broken and deceptive and is deliberately conning the game buyers to ensure their advertising revenue. We need sites to stand up against this and to readjust the review scores out of bad game gets a 7, good game gets a 10 routine we need the 1-10 scale back and put games like Ass Creed and K&L in the 4-5 range where they belong. Both these games have been a let down and a huge disappointment, with bugs flaws and weaknesses that given time the developers could have fixed but the suits at their multinationals have forced out at a low level of quality. Both these titles could have been great with an extra 6 months work but have obviosly been forced out the door for the christmas rush. In the case of PS3 Ass Creed the game is buggy and broken and disgusting. Ubisoft...what happened to you.......
The only way to discern the truth about a game is wait for all the reviews , see which sites have been moneyhatted go on forums and try to get the truth from actual gamers whilst avoiding fanboy BS. The truth always comes out. Ass Creeds word of mouth will see sales plummet.I dont blame the develpoers its the suits in charge forcing games like thisa out to early that are to blame.There should be laws and codes of conduct regarding companies like Ubisoft and eidos throwing their weight around and issuing threats to gamesites that tell the truth about their sub standard games.
Poisoned Al @ Nov 30th 2007 4:32AM
Even if this is true or not, I lost faith in games reviews years ago:
http://churchof.poisonedminds.com/d/20071121.html
baby sea tuna @ Nov 30th 2007 8:34AM
...or a week ago if you go by the posting date in the URL.
Poisoned Al @ Nov 30th 2007 10:20AM
lol, yeah. Nice timing huh? :p I lost trust years ago, but recently it's become far more blatant. I've lost count of how many games have got 10 out of 10 scores. They aren't even pretending to be honest any more.
Otis Whitaker @ Nov 30th 2007 4:38AM
The thing with Jeff.. is that he seemed a little one sided.
I mean, yeah, I agree that TP is about a 8.8 too. Maybe lower, even!
But if that's a 8.8, then Halo 3 sure as hell isn't a 9.5, Tony Hawk 3 sure as hell isn't a 10, and Gears of War sure as hell isn't a 9.6.
He seems to have pre-existing biases and favored genres, and such.
Like, he'll condemn one game for lack of innovation, and other stuff, and score it for such.
Then he'll see another game, say it lacks innovation, but then say "But it's so fun! HURR HURR" and not let that factor into the score... AT ALL.
Christian @ Nov 30th 2007 7:17AM
Scoring games is a purely subjective exercise. There is no objective way of doing it and every writer has a bias towards certain genres and gametypes. The only way to read reviews is to figure out which reviewers tend to agree with your own bias.
So arguing about if TP got the correct score compared to Skate or Halo is meaningless as there is no objective 'correct' score for any game. So unless the reviewer get bribed you just have to accept that the reviewers subjective scoring is correct in the eyes of the reviewer and then decide if the reviewers subjectiveness is aligned with yours or not.
ssuk @ Nov 30th 2007 4:40AM
GameSpot, you've sold yourself out and with it, you've lost my trust and many others. How can I believe your reviews if you're basically selling good reviews for advertising money? Hell, I now trust Penny Arcade's verdict more than yours and that IS saying something.
Sam406 @ Nov 30th 2007 6:30AM
The hell is that supposed to mean?
To remind you, Penny Arcade got in trouble because they said in their blog that Prince of Percia 2 sucked and Ubisoft happened to be promoting that same game on the Penny Arcade site and they got threatened that if they didn't take down or change that review the ads would go bye-bye
And what do you think happened? Do you think Tycho fired Gabe?
No
THey told Ubisoft that they were sorry, but they wouldn't lie to their readers and they were welcome to terminate the contract for the ads.
Yeah, I think Tycho and Gbe have bigger balls that the entire Gamespot team.
kingdom2000 @ Nov 30th 2007 5:18AM
I hope this gets clarified and soon because if this is true then I am done with Gamespot and any site owned by CNet (who owns gamespot and such a decision would have to come from the corporate parent) as it makes clear that advertising dollars take precedent over journalistic integrity.
How are we supposed to trust their news and reviews if we know its so easily bought off and they have no problem firing people that don't comply with corporate policy.
Wow, its a sad day when internet websites act like big media. Even NBC, CNN, and Fox News at least attempt to give a better illusion of integrity then that.
Again, IF. I really hope its not because for CNet to have fallen so far would be a sad day indeed.
Micheal82 @ Nov 30th 2007 5:27AM
Did you say Fox News and intergrity in the same sentence? If this was true gamespot would still have more integrity than Fos News, and that's not saying much. After watching the vid review and playing the game I'll have to agree with what he said.
Mort @ Nov 30th 2007 10:25AM
@Micheal82
He said "illusion of integrity". So while yes, Fox and integrity in the same sentence, that "illusion of" is the kicker.
thedueceninja @ Nov 30th 2007 5:22AM
I heard from a reliable source that this is in fact the truth. He was fired for the tone of his Kane and Lynch review as well as "other" infractions. Despite the fact some of you disliked his reviews, or him as a person, this is still a horrible indicator of the nature of the industry. I'm sure Jeff won't have trouble finding work elsewhere, but this is just bad form for both Gamespot and Eidos. You are both dead to me.
Parasite Evil @ Nov 30th 2007 5:26AM
I never heard of this "Jeff" guy before and I after this fiasco I wish is still didn't. Eidos may suck, Gamespot may be a shitty site, and Kayne and Lynch may be a bad game but that doesn't excuse this "Jeff" for writing a review that can only be describe as a sin against English. The guy writes like he's in fifth grade trying to sound cool. It feels like he's trying to be like Yahtzee. Only this "Jeff" guy can't speak adult English and doesn't have a bad ass hat like Yahtzee. I'm glad he's fired. If any of this "Jeff" guy's other reviews are written in a similar fashion than good riddance.
Just to make sure: Eidos is a shitty publisher with crap games. Never played Kayne and Lynch but the trailers and previews aren't going to make me want too. And Gamespot.com well, I think Samuel L. Jackson says it best: "Yeah They Deserved to Die, And I Hope They Burn in Hell!"
kingdom2000 @ Nov 30th 2007 5:37AM
I said "illusion of integrity", didn't say they actually had it.
kingdom2000 @ Nov 30th 2007 5:43AM
One last thought...do not forget that Gamespot is owned by CNET. To seperate the two would be doing everyone a dis-service and not present the entire story.
Decisions and policies such as this are driven from corporate. If Gamespot is run this way, its not stretch to assume so are all the other CNET operated sites which would also make their information and reviews highly suspect.
This story has the potential of being bigger then a simple firing because of CNET corporates potential involvement.
kingdom2000 @ Nov 30th 2007 5:43AM
One last thought...do not forget that Gamespot is owned by CNET. To seperate the two would be doing everyone a dis-service and not present the entire story.
Decisions and policies such as this are driven from corporate. If Gamespot is run this way, its not stretch to assume so are all the other CNET operated sites which would also make their information and reviews highly suspect.
This story has the potential of being bigger then a simple firing because of CNET corporates potential involvement.
NeuroMan42 @ Nov 30th 2007 6:08AM
Another reason that gaming review sites are UNTRUSTWORTHY. Most are paid to review a majority of games a certain way. I prefer friends word of mouth or Indie sites. The big boys are all PAID for there glorious reviews of titles.
FaintDeftone @ Nov 30th 2007 1:04PM
I like Jeff G. I always enjoyed him on the HotSpot podcast. If this is true, GameSpot can officially go to hell.
George R. @ Nov 30th 2007 6:28AM
This is very upsetting, but I think I'm going to reserve any real judgement until this becomes official. Usually I agree with Jeff, and he's a very likable guy. Hope things turn out better for him.
MosquitoControl @ Nov 30th 2007 6:54AM
TP would get an 8.0 from me, too.
It was Windwaker with muddier, uglier graphics. Same sound effects. Same controls. Hell, plenty of the visual effects were identical.
Not enough was changed for me to rate it higher. Windwaker ended up killing me with too much sailing. I loved it, but I ultimately ended up frustrated. TP, rather than fixing the problem, just kept reminding me of how tired of the previous Zelda I'd become.
As opposed to Mario Galaxy, which was changed enough from Sunshine to make me sit there with a massive smile on my face like a little kid.
Hart704 @ Nov 30th 2007 7:37AM
If CNET doesn't reverse their lame ass decision, then they can kiss my buns of steel! I can guarantee that every review score from this site from now on will be a lot higher just because they won't want to get fired. They shouldn't have to do that.
RavenBlade @ Nov 30th 2007 2:38PM
I used to love Gamespot back when Kasavin was tops, JG was cutting down the hype, and Navarro was still reviewing shitty games.
Now, I will never visit their site again until they can offer up a good explanation (one that doesn't involve "our advertisers didn't like his review") or reinstate him (which will never happen because his pride is such that he would never return even if offered the opportunity.
No journalist should ever have to censor his opinion due to overhead. The fact that Eidos pushed and Gamespot let them is, quite frankly, enough for me to boycott both companies.
I will not buy another Eidos game again (even Deus Ex 3). In fact, I will actually steal Kane & Lynch now just for the satisfaction of sticking it to them and will do so for their titles from now on. One might call that unethical, and two wrongs don't make a right... but they sure do fucking make me feel better.
Bonafide247 @ Nov 30th 2007 7:40AM
You dummies. The story hasn't been confirmed yet. Get out of your mom's basement and get some sunlight, or talk to some females.
Hart704 @ Nov 30th 2007 7:42AM
Read the latest update.
Shockgamer @ Nov 30th 2007 12:12PM
CNet,is that you?
AryzonaBay @ Nov 30th 2007 7:47AM
Seemingly, we'll never know all the facts about this. If it is true, then one would applaud Gerstmann for being unbiased in this scenario. Or maybe he didn't receieve any PAYOLA for that particular review and that's why he was honest about the review.
I stopped reading Gamespot quite a while ago, but I read enough of Gerstmann's reviews to be able to tell he was biased. Trashing one game for lack of innovation but turning around and saying another game with that same lack of innovation was good because its "fun" (when "fun" to one person can be totally different to the next). Something was wrong there.
Thing is, all game reviews/opinions on the major gaming sites are biased. Either biased from fanboyism (see Kotaku, Crecente and his Sony fanboyism is unmatched), or biased from PAYOLA (see Gamespot, there are games that you KNOW did not deserve anything higher than a 5 yet got a 7 or higher average). It would be wonderful if "we the gamers" just went on word-of-mouth from now on, unfortunately a lot of people rely on these biased reviews to make purchasing decisions and will continue to do so.
I suspect CNET wanted Gerstmann to change his review to a 7 and he refused. Just a guess.