| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Massively, and more

Reader Comments (39)

Posted: Dec 3rd 2007 6:40PM yankees27 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
so do I break blackout monday and listen, or just fuck it?
Reply

Posted: Dec 3rd 2007 6:41PM mr nimblewick said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Tone down internet rhetoric? NEVER!

Until I get bored. Which is soon.
Reply

Posted: Dec 3rd 2007 6:49PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Its Tom Merritt, not John.
Reply

Posted: Dec 3rd 2007 6:56PM (Unverified) said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
i'll continue my lifelong podcast boycott on blackout monday as well
Reply

Posted: Dec 3rd 2007 7:06PM (Unverified) said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
Boycotting podcasts in general? Someone doesn't like talk radio, after all that's all podcasts really are.
Reply

Posted: Dec 3rd 2007 7:07PM (Unverified) said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
I can't stand talk radio
Reply

Posted: Dec 3rd 2007 7:12PM (Unverified) said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
Kudos sir for honesty.
Reply

Posted: Dec 4th 2007 10:23AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Heh. These three podcast hosts were probably be held at gunpoint and being told what to say. The work for CNET, what incentive does any listener have that these three are being unbiased and honest. None. If they legally can't talk about fight club, then they won't. No reason to expect any new information.
Reply

Posted: Dec 3rd 2007 7:05PM chhem316 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
This whole podcast stinks, they think we are morons are something. Jumping to conclusions, of course cnet isn't issuing a statement because they are thinking of some BS excuse for this whole debacle. The K&L review may not be the whole reason to Jeff's termnination however it was the straw that brokes the camel's back. A man who dedicated about 11 years of his life to the GS name and how was he fired, by locking his office door unannounced and escorting him out the building. If that's not grounds for the backlash then I don't know what is
Reply

Posted: Dec 3rd 2007 7:01PM (Unverified) said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
Ok, Im going to comment and say EXACTLY what happened here. Mr. Gerstmann was fired due to being rude and disrepectful in his review of games. There problem was NEVER the score as people claim. But rather the style of his review. New management came in which did not like his style. He was asked on numerous occasions to tone it down or face the music. Basically it went too far this time and got him fired... This isnt to say CNET was in the right by doing this but certainly not wrong. The in your face attitude is no longer an appropriate style format for reviews at CNET sites. Thats business. Now as far as Eidos is concerned, they are certainly not at fault. They just no longer wanted to spend their own money advertising on a site which calls the very games they are advertising complete garbage and trash... Think about it, if you were Eidos would you waste your money? Eidos can take a bad review, its the being told their work is absolute garbage that makes it unprofitable on their end. CNET's response to this was OK your tone has cost us money for the last time. We warned you, now you have to go... Personally. I appreciate G's style and which it did not have to be toned down, however business is business and whether you like it or not you wouldnt want to continue ot advertise on a site which basically trashes the very game you are advertising. Numeric scores are just numbers, but a scathing review is whole different story.

Any that's really how it went down. There are plenty of other events, but its certain that if Gerstmann would need to follow managements new expectations for reviews or risk losing his job. He made his choice good for him. CNET should have given him an Ultimatium rather than a straight out lay off. They made their choice. Good for them... Eidos just didnt like being disrpected in general. His review even insinuates laziness and poor job performance on the part of the developers, he is paid to review the game and its contents not make public assumptions about the developers work ethic... I sure as heck would be paying anyone to take that kind of abuse. Good for them... Anyway, those are the facts. Deal with it. Alot of people did things in the least optimal way but none of it was neccesarily right.

If you want a real scandal, check of GameTap. They are losing around of their entire catalog, including everything from EA and a host of other companies. Ironically you will not see ANYTHING of this on their site as EIDOS is a MAJOR supporting and right now the only thing that is holding them afloat so they truely cannot afford to lose Eidos at all.
Reply

Posted: Dec 3rd 2007 7:03PM (Unverified) said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
lol what
Reply

Posted: Dec 3rd 2007 7:15PM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
That's how it really happened? I'm sorry I didn't realize your were Jeff Gerstmann or his editor!
Reply

Posted: Dec 3rd 2007 7:33PM Eugimon said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
So, who are you and how do you *know* that's how it went down?
Reply

Posted: Dec 3rd 2007 7:40PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Man, I wish MORE reviewers were surly and scathing when a game sucks. And that's basically what it came down to, that Kane and Lynch sucked, and he said it sucked. And it wasn't even that it sucked that bad, he gave it a 6, a "fair" by Gamespot, but his tone denoted that it wasn't worth the admission price, and this is an appropriate tone.

Basically if the management of a video game journalism site thinks their reviewer is too curt, too brusque, then those managers probably suck, because there's honestly way too much coddling and sugarcoating going on in the industry.

I wonder if there is an unaltered, original copy of the review floating around somewhere, because I'd like to see exactly how "rude" it is.
Reply

Posted: Dec 3rd 2007 7:01PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I assumed they would approach this with a company line perspective, but I appreciate their candor. Once C|Net and Gerstmann actually let us know what happens and they assure us it'll never happen again I might just stop boycotting their sites.
Reply

Posted: Dec 3rd 2007 7:03PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Tone it down? Is this some kind of attempt to win us back? Until I hear official word from CNet Networks about this, I will keep all CNet and Gamespot podcasts unsubscribed. All this hush hush crap is just plain stupid and needs to end.
Reply

Posted: Dec 3rd 2007 7:04PM MisterSmith said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I'm celebrating this Blackout Monday (or whatever the hell it's called) by visiting every CNet site. Especially the ones that I would have never viewed prior to today.

...Oops...

Anyway, I find it somewhat amusing that despite all the people who gave K&L a bunch of 1.0's, it seems that the game hadn't boosted much in terms of overall game rankings on their site. You'd think that taking the game from something of a 7-ish to a 2.6 in user-ratings (with a 75%+ of "abysmal" ratings) would spike it a little bit.
Reply

Posted: Dec 3rd 2007 7:04PM zuburi said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I'm conflicted about this whole thing. On the one hand, Gertsmann is a douche. On the other hand, freedom of press and all that rot. On the third hand (!), it's not like game journalism is something that requires talent to get into. A few years ago, I was taking a journalism class at a community college to get some transfer credits for my university, and there was an EGM writer there with me. He was constantly pestering me to make copies of my notes for him, and ended up flunking out of the class (and it was journalism 101 at a freaking COMMUNITY COLLEGE).
Reply

Posted: Dec 3rd 2007 7:05PM (Unverified) said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
sorry just want to correct some things, I wouldnt pay for that kind of abuse, lol and Gametap is losing about 10% of their games...

http://www.gametap.com/forums/thread.jspa?threadID=10602&tstart=0
Reply

Posted: Dec 3rd 2007 7:08PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
for further clarification is support Gerstmann's to call a game crap and wish he could call a spade a spade without subcoming to corporate and business politics, but remember we live in real life with real people and real business practices...
Reply

Posted: Dec 3rd 2007 7:09PM Friend said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Sigh... This whole situation DOES suck. I think the key thing to remember is that there are SO MANY reviews out there on every product. You don't have to worry about only seeing paid ones. There's no way Eidos could bind IGN, 1UP, Gamespot, and the 1000 blogs that review games, out there, so you're bound to find something unbiased if you do your research. If you're only willing to check one, and skim it, then it doesn't matter if you buy the product and hate it cause you didn't do the research. I believe some reviews CAN be biased by things like cash and I'm fine with that. Because for every "Thi$ game ha$ great control$ and *bling bling* it's fun to play *chaching*!" there'll be 10 other reviews that say "this game is horrible." I use reviews as a guideline for what to buy, but when it's on something as subjective as entertainment, I don't put a lot of stock into anything, cause with anything, my tastes may be different.
Reply

Posted: Dec 3rd 2007 7:32PM kev670 said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
I'm going to repeat 1 word SPIN. whether they were doing it or not expect CNet in general to SPIN.
The facts are Jeff got Fired the video review got pulled and eidos pulled their GameSpot advertising...
Reply

Posted: Dec 3rd 2007 7:32PM IannCannon said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
We can jump to whatever conclusions we want. We are the consumers and they are "selling" us a service... it is up to them to convince us that we want to stay there. If they don't want to bother, that's fine... We'll go elsewhere.
Reply

Posted: Dec 3rd 2007 7:43PM quickshade said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
His "in your face reviews" made him the best reviewer at gamespot. Thats the way reviews should be posted. Not the "they tried and it was ok and it deserves a 6 because it's not awesome" If the game flat out sucks (which most people say it does) then he has every right to say it. In fact if thats what we post in the comments here and on the forums on various other websites whats the difference from him posting it in a review.

I say the same thing about football. The bears tried and they made some good plays....but they still lost.
Reply

Posted: Dec 3rd 2007 7:54PM Fox318 said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
Wow, a story I submitted made the front page.

Anyway was I thr only one who felt fishy about this show. A couple of mouths ago the were RIPPING into the PCWorld Mac List event. There were a few things I didn't enjoy.

1. The podcast was 2 hours late. Now for any other podcast this wouldn't be suspicious but for a show that releases EVERY TIME ON TIME its hard to believe there was a problem.
2.Tom seems to blow off the issue.
3.They kept on saying that Jeff deserved to be fired or simply implied that he was on the way out. Now I find that hard to believe when he has been with the company for more then 1 decade and has a resume that ranks him as one of the top critics in the world(whether you like him or not).
4.Gamespot has been a mess for years and this was simply the last straw(site layout, paying for poor features).
5. The fact that the man in charge is a marketer not an editor should speak for the company's intentions itself.
6. Another editor left because of the situation
7. These aren't just mere rumors. Most of them have been confirmed.

In order for gamespot to continue to be around they need to turn into videogames.com and fire a ton of the higher ups.
Reply

Posted: Dec 3rd 2007 7:56PM (Unverified) said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
Let give you an example. Say car and track reviews a car and says the new Volkswagen sucks, the designers were obviously lazy and need to go back to engineering school. Guess who wont be wasting their advertising dollars on a magazine which dumps all over their product? The difference is YOU dont get PAID for your opinion and if they remain the short-sighted quality which youre displaying I hope you never get paid to express it. Business is business. Ive said it before and i'll say it again. I wish we could be completely honest and in your face with all reviews but you cant. ITS A BUSINESS! No other industry except maybe film would find this type of review acceptable and even then they tend to take either a more professional or clever tone overall in expressing it. Again Im fully in support of him expressing his opinion but I also understand that you deal with cliente in a business and while you dont have to cater to them outright disrespect is unacceptable in ANY profession.
Reply

Posted: Dec 3rd 2007 9:06PM (Unverified) said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
it's the magazine's job to uphold their standards and write accurate reviews

it's the car manufacturer's job to make a car that isn't shitty (and *deserves* good reviews)
Reply

Posted: Dec 3rd 2007 8:11PM (Unverified) said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
This seems to be a fair response from Buzz Out Loud crew. Even if it's still all rumors at this point I support Blackout Monday and will listen to the podcast tomorrow. I just think that the PR people from CNet and Gamespot were on vacation at the time, because a clean and honest answer would always be appreciated. So does TRANSPARENCY.
Reply

Posted: Dec 3rd 2007 8:25PM (Unverified) said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
BANDIT,

You don't seem to understand that normally there is a divide between the advertising department and the editorial department. Neither can tell the other what to do.

Is Eidos in their right to pull advertising from a site which slams its product? Yes.

But you're crossing a very definite ethical line if you're firing someone for doing their job.

While I believe that this pulling out of Eidos might be the camel's back-breaking straw after Jeff's record of in-your-face reviews, it doesn't make it OK.

After all, how good can reviews be if you have to be nice all the time?
Reply

Posted: Dec 3rd 2007 8:54PM rsmith4321 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I'm certainly not unsubscribing from Buzz out Loud, I believe that they would tell the truth on the matter, as far as Gamespot, I can't imagine how they could do their podcast anymore without Jeff, and I wouldn't want to listen to it anyway.
Reply

Posted: Dec 3rd 2007 9:01PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
What im saying is that there are ways to review and critique products without blatantly showing disrespect for its creators. As I said before NO OTHER INDUSTRY with the exception of maybe the film industry reviews their content with this much disregard for the creators of the product. YOU seem to fail to understand how actual reviews and business are conducted. Respectable editorials such as NYT, WP, Newsweek, etc. Would NEVER allow such a review based solely on professionalism and an effort to maintain a certain caliber of quality in their content. CNET/Gamespot attempted to increase the caliber of writing and tone down the unprofessional parts of these reviews. Meaning his reviews were not of the caliber the new management was looking to reach. No matter how you slice it. No respectable publication would accept these times of reviews on consistent basis. The day I see a similar review in the Washington post on ANY product by a profiler reviewer on their payroll is the day I'll eat my hat with Ketchup!

Again sorry but you dont seem to understand the business, of Public and corporate relations...
Reply

Posted: Dec 3rd 2007 9:49PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
At least they are advocating what most of the Internet lacks Common Sense.
Reply

Posted: Dec 4th 2007 12:16AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Thank you at least someone else noticed how some of the reviews goes beyond professional critism to right out insulting the games.
Reply

Posted: Dec 3rd 2007 9:56PM (Unverified) said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
No bandit, you're the one who doesn't understand the business of public and corporate relations. Gamespot have, through their own actions, caused irrepairable damage to their reputation. Regardless of the reason behind the firing of Gerstmann, they should have known what conclusions their readers and the wider industry and community would jump to.

Don't forget - while Gamespot's revenue comes from advertising, they still need readers to look at those advertisments, otherwise they become worthless. Anything that makes them look like they have modified or removed a review based on pressure from advertisers, regardless of whether that is a fact or just rumour, damages their core business.
Reply

Posted: Dec 4th 2007 1:11AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I disagree totally with the statement that other industries don't have negative reviews that attack the creators.

You brought up the car industry, have you ever seen Top Gear? full of the same sort of attacks on the engineers/companies, you imply 'never happen'. Thats a TV show with a viewership of around 350 million world wide.

Guess what? the car companies still loan them the car to have in the studio on the day of filming. (the review itself having been shot weeks before)

Ok, the show is funded by the BBC, (and this sort of thing is a good argument for the UK having such an organisation) so is free of direct advertiser pressure, but they also do a commercial ad reliant magazine, and ultimately rely on being sent demo cars.

But thats not the point, in your eyes they're 'unprofessional' anyway, because they didn't take into account 'someone with a family' might be a bit upset!, or adhere to your rather conservative views on how writers should self censor themselves.

Professional is being used here as a sort of code for bland, middle of the road, toe the line psuedo-PR, where every negative statement has to be qualified with a positive.

In the context of a writer, being 'professional' means creating interesting and informative writing. the writers relationship is with the reader, not the product creator or advertiser.

Being entertaining and interesting sometimes means developing a personal style that not everyone will like, but that some will really love.

There's no such thing as a 'purely objective' review. If you were to write such a thing, it would be little more than a list of features, and not at all captivating to read.

What you're thinking of, is a 'copy-writer', someone who writes what he is told for money, usually for ads or PR material, without his/her name attached to that text.

You put your name to something, it should be what you think unless you are the proverbial sell out.

OK, business is business you say, as rob has already pointed out on here, ultimately a game review sites business, is selling advertising to companies based on the readership. A readership that only goes there if there if they feel it's worthwhile.

You're going to have less and less people come to read your site if they think it's 'sold out', then who are you going to advertise to? Not a very good business model in the long run is it?
Reply

Posted: Dec 4th 2007 3:14AM SergeantSalad said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
wow, people unsubscribing to BOL because of this? NEVER!
Reply

Posted: Dec 4th 2007 8:45AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
CNET review policy to all reviewers:
To stay more in line with our advertisers we are asking all reviewers to apply a "professional" filter to all their reviews.

If we are advertising a game you are reviewing, you must not score the game below an '8.5'. Here are some guidelines to follow:

If you find the game is excellent, please mention the publisher and developer at least 10 times in the review. Mention how much you enjoy playing other games from that company and how much you look forward to upcoming titles from them. A nod to how great their city is last time you "visited" can go a long way towards future advertising contracts (and maybe something extra in your paycheck). Please use this formula for review score:

score = real score * 1.5


If you found the game middle of the road, accentuate only the positives. If you must point out a negative, make sure it is something trivial like the hero's biceps were just a bit too chiseled. If you come across an obvious glitch for instance a framerate slowdown, explain how it was a much needed slowdown so you could keep up with the high intense, fast action. Please use this formula for review score:

score = real score * 2

If you found the game subpar, well you have your work cut out for you. Most peer sites would probably have similar scores so your high score must appear legitimate. Point out that you found "secret" areas in the game that most reviewers probably missed. These areas had outstanding content and gameplay that surpassed even the high standards already in this game. If questioned on how to find these areas either don't respond or claim you forgot but it seemed pretty obvious at the time. It is acceptable to attack the integrity of the other reviewers to appear as if they are unable and inept at reviewing. It is NEVER acceptable to attack the developer or publisher of game. Even if this was a rushed game with the intent of making a holiday buck, it was paid advertisement on our site and it shall be treated as such. Please use this formula for review score:

score = real score * 4

If the new score exceeds our perfect score of 10, please assign the game a score of 10 and explain how if you could you would have given that score. for example:

3(score) * 4(adjustment) = 12 (adjusted score).

"This game was truly a marvelous wonder. If it was possible I would have given this game not an 11 but a 12. Considering we can't score that high, I leave it with just a lowly 10 and highly, highly, highly recommend you purchase this game and possibly 2 or 3 others from this publisher."



Reply

Posted: Dec 4th 2007 10:03AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Bandit I agree with you 100%. At first I reacted like all of you, I diss Gamespot and Eidos and I was very angry at this. Afterwards I gave it a little thought, watch the questionable review, and I have to say that there is a difference between being honest and completely trashing their game in a really bad manner. I mean I would have been really pissed if I where a Manager at Eidos and looked at the video review. I also think the problem is not the score, but the way he does the review. There are a million ways you can look at the game faults and I think he chose the worst way possible, It has nothing to do with honesty or pressure from Eidos, it has to do with bussiness like Bandit says. Also if I were CNET and because the way someone tackles reviews made me lose money, c'mon, dont be hypocrytical, I would be all over this guy, not that he inflates the score but the way he refers to the game is way too much. People dont take a stand without viewing this from all sides, besides there are still a lot of good people at CNet and at Gamespot, are you going to turn your back on them because of a bussiness decision, really think about it
Reply

Posted: Dec 4th 2007 10:15AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
As long as you advertise and promote a game that you are supposed to be objectively reviewing, there is always going to be doubt as to the authenticity of the review.

Even if he was fired for tone and poor content, Gamespot management should have know the backlash that would have come from abruptly firing someone when a poor review surfaces on a heavily advertised game. They should have handled it better and possibly waited to fire him when the timing was more appropriate. Now there is irreparable damage done to Gamespot and really all similar gaming sites that are high end enough to warrant big name advertising.

What can Gamespot do? Abolish advertising of games that they are critiquing. Find an alternative source for advertisement. If that is not possible or lucrative enough to pay the bills, their integrity will always come into question.
Reply
Sorry, you must be logged in to leave a comment.

Featured Stories

Rhythm Heaven Fever review: Crazy into you

Posted on Feb 9th 2012 12:00PM

Remedy not done with Alan Wake

Posted on Feb 9th 2012 10:30AM

Engadget

TUAW

Massively

WoW