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

Reader Comments (91)

Posted: Jan 25th 2008 8:57AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I think all you people are pretty much tools. Seriously, look at all the edited content. Is there a SINGLE edit in there that makes anything sound more positive than in the original? No, there isn't. If anything, it spins the game in a more negative manner. Read and comprehend for yourself before hopping on the bandwagon.
Reply

Posted: Dec 5th 2007 9:04AM (Unverified) said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
Wow. Talk about trying to spin it to make it sound like a better game. Very fishy, indeed.
Reply

Posted: Dec 5th 2007 10:56AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Spin indeed. I strongly doubt Jeff had anything to do with these changes, unless through bribery.

"We'll give you a shining reference if you come in here and fix these mistakes."

I hope people push this issue further, and just don't let this whole fiasco die.
Reply

Posted: Dec 5th 2007 1:26PM aristokrat said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I actually think this more grown-up tone (except for the inexplicable use of the word "bummer") makes the review sound more serious and less like a whiny kid. The edits make the review sound even more dismissive in some cases, such as saying there's not much room for the game "even taking into account the somewhat unique nature of its story." Or saying that the "multiplayer mode isn't strong enough to make you forget the game's other problems."

Personally, I think the review was made slightly more accurate and presents a better picture. Remember, not everybody thought this game was complete shit before this whole scandal happened, so the game (and its developers, who are separate from any Eidos bigwigs who would've applied such pressure) does deserve some credit.

I don't think it's bad if the CNET execs decided that some a more serious tone would be better for their reviews. As video games as a whole are struggling to achieve general cultural legitimacy, having reviews sound like they are written by gaming-playing adults (as opposed to the stereotyped teenagers) can help towards that goal. The general population reads reviews of lots of other stuff, so when they turn to game reviews they shouldn't feel like their reading the complaints of a 16-year old. Phrases like "that's just lame" have no place in journalism. If that's what you are looking for in a game review, perhaps their can be niche review sites (just as their as niche high-end tech review sources), but a major company like Gamespot should strive for broader acceptance, not fanboy speech.

I also disagree with all of the claims saying that their credibility is shot. Especially now, do you think they're going to allow any hint of external influence into their reviews? How could they, when everyone is going to be scrutinizing them so thoroughly? Just like Jack-in-the-Box now has the best cleanliness rating of any fastfood chain after their last fiasco, Gamespot will have to do whatever it takes to show that external influence is not an issue. And it's not like their writers were the ones cashing in on friendly reviews, so I think we're safe on that front.

On the bright side, if the supposed mass exodus does happen, people better be sharpening up their resumes, because there might be a great opportunity to break into bigtime journalism with CNET.
Reply

Posted: Dec 5th 2007 2:47PM Guspaz said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I'll agree with you, to a certain extent. I do agree with most of these edits, and they do make the review seem more professional. However, a few of them are quite questionable.

Reviews are opinions, plain and simple. As consumers, we're supposed to look for reviewers who share similar tastes and have similar opinions to us, so that we can rely on them for info we'll agree with. Edits to reviews to change tone are fine. Edits to reviews that change the opinion in the slightest, on the other hand, are not fine.

Most of the edits here go towards tone, without changing the opinion. Some, such as "The multiplayer mode is a really cool idea that leaves you wondering who's going to turn traitor on you, but it isn't strong enough to make you forget the game's other problems." are not valid edits. They change the opinion on points.

Edits such as replacing "lazy" with "gratuitous", or replacing "That's just lame" don't change the opinion, merely the tone. And that's OK.

So, in conclusion, gamespot *almost* got this edit right. They're so close here to not changing the opinion of the reviewer. But a few of the edits are showing a few cracks in the advertising/editing wall, or at the very least, are showing a lack of editorial integrity (by changing the opinions of editors to suit some unknown purpose).

If I were Gamespot, I would have either simply removed all Kane & Lynch review material entirely. Just pull it all off the site, and say "Look, there's a big controversy over this, and we're just going to get rid of it all and stop worrying about the controversy.", or I would have left it as-is.

While the tone of the original review was not very professional, modifying it in any way is only going to throw gasoline on the fire, which is bad for Gamespot no matter how you look at it. On the other hand, the fact that they're willing to do that shows just how much they care about the controversy and supposed boycotts (not much). They're obviously not losing much sleep or readership over this whole brouhaha.
Reply

Posted: Dec 5th 2007 8:10PM (Unverified) said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
I always thought reviews were supposed to be objective? I for one don't want to hear someone rant about a game how they dislike it but not presenting the analysis objectively.

I agree that the review sound more professional now, and I've always said that I found Jeff's tone a bit hard to swallow especially given the present condition. This fiasco is damaging enough for all parties involved I think, but at least the edit seemed decent enough to warrant a more neutral viewing.
Reply

Posted: Dec 5th 2007 9:17AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Yeah, these edits just leave a bad taste in my mouth. They actually used the word "bummer" in this review. I can't respect that. Who the hell says "bummer" anyone? Some middle-aged journalist trying to get hip with all this super cool vernacular?

I much MUCH prefer Gerstmann's edited out bits, the ones that show some some honesty. I want to hear, flatout, "This game is a piece of garbage, don't bother." and not "This game is sometimes a bummer, but otherwise it's super neat!!"

Video games are a hefty investment and I don't need this wishy-washy bullshit.
Reply

Posted: Dec 5th 2007 11:10AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
i say "bummer." but yeah, super shady.
Reply

Posted: Dec 5th 2007 12:56PM Fullmetal Salchemist said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I say "bummer." But then again I'm from California, and I'm only 22. Oh, and perhaps most importantly: I'm not in journalism.
Reply

Posted: Dec 5th 2007 4:31PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I say bummer all the time. I'm 25 and hardly a dweeb. Anyone who grew up to Ninja Turtles cartoons has a license to use the word in my book.
Reply

Posted: Dec 5th 2007 9:15AM Deatharea said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
This is what I've been waiting for. It's obvious now that CNET did a little house cleaning because Eidos wasn't happy. And while some of these edits are clearly editorial clean-up, way to many of them scream of pandering to Eidos.
Reply

Posted: Dec 5th 2007 10:51AM Mike DPad said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
Spot on... I would've posted the exact same words had I read this before going to uni...

I seriously can not see how they can spin it any other way considering this new evidence. "Legal reasons" is a means of saying that we all know why he was canned, they just don't HAVE to admit it.
Reply

Posted: Dec 5th 2007 9:18AM ComicShaman said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
Nothing more amusing than a botched cover-up. Here they went to all the trouble to edit the text of the review into a more pleasing form, and how much does that really matter? I think very little.

It's the score that Eidos cares about. They could substitute the text of the review with the Gettysburg Address for all that Eidos cares -- the 6.0 was the critical thing. But Gamespot knew they couldn't get away with changing that and still pretend they weren't bending to pressure, so instead they try this weasely little scrub job and hope it's enough.

Ha very much ha.
Reply

Posted: Dec 5th 2007 9:21AM (Unverified) said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
In this post-modern culture and world, I'm surprised that people believe in such a thing as truth and untruth.

It is encouraging that people recognize there is such a thing as right and wrong, and that truth is not simply relative!

You posters are going against the grain of culture by declaring an act unjust, then simply believing that everyone can make up their own right and wrong. Congrats.

Reply

Posted: Dec 5th 2007 9:45AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
???

Oh no! The world doesn't have truth in it anymore? Our modern civilization has been bastardized so much to the point we can't tell right from wrong?!? God is dead!

???

(oh, by the way - WTF are you talking about?)
(and seriously, like this 'post-modern' world [culturally speaking] is any different from 50 or even a hundred years ago...)
Reply

Posted: Dec 5th 2007 10:06AM Kaemon said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
What are you, stupid? Of course there is a thing such as right and wrong, truth and lies. My goodness. If I tell you I'm gonna give you a piece of pie but instead shoot you when you come in the room, thats definitely a lie, and shooting you was definitely wrong.
If thats how the world is supposed to work these days, boy, I'm glad most the world doesn't work that way still.
Reply

Posted: Dec 5th 2007 10:13AM Captain Obvious said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I know ck and Kaemon already said it, but I have to add my ???? to this post also. Seriously, ???????.
Reply

Posted: Dec 5th 2007 10:44AM Zoesch said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I think our friend Bonafide is channeling Derrida, Quin and Foucault to tell us that truth is a construction that no longer holds true in a world where ontological relativity has made prior knowledge obsolete and paradigms shifting under the oppression of language.

PS: I googled this so I could sound smart!
Reply

Posted: Dec 5th 2007 10:51AM (Unverified) said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
Close Z :-) You understand the concept...personally, I think relative truth is hogwash.
Reply

Posted: Dec 5th 2007 3:02PM (Unverified) said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
Somehow, I doubt that game journalism has reached the point where it's as provocative as, say, a movie review and not simply a consumers guide.

In that respect, truth and untruth are pretty much moot points. People read game reviews to help themselves make their mind about spending money, not to know the finer artistic points of the medium seen through the eyes of an expert.
Reply

Posted: Dec 5th 2007 9:22AM Alexisonfire said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
Talk about adding fuel to the fire...
Reply

Posted: Dec 5th 2007 9:22AM Lamppost said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The edited review is obviously written with "weasel words" in mind. It seems to emphasize the multiplayer modes to give readers a reason-ANY reason-to buy the game.
This makes me trust Gamespot even less. I didn't know that was possible.
Reply

Posted: Dec 5th 2007 9:55AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Well it definitely reads better.
Reply

Posted: Dec 5th 2007 9:34AM ClarkyCat said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The original was worded worse than an average fan review. I know it's a terrible game, but there are surely some kind of professional standards that need to be upheld.
Reply

Posted: Dec 5th 2007 9:59AM (Unverified) said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
I saw the same thing. The original review seemed unprofessional in comparison.
Reply

Posted: Dec 5th 2007 11:48AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Agreed. Here's the original review for those who haven't seen it yet: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBD0cUeeEQc
Reply

Posted: Dec 5th 2007 2:15PM hotpuck6 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
i think it depends on the context.
as a video review, that is pretty much par for the course in the industry.
but as a written review, it left a bit to be desired.
Reply

Posted: Dec 5th 2007 9:39AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Some of the edits make a little more sense and help the flow of the entire review. On a few points Gerstmann was a bit too elusive about how he felt, with such short and incomplete thoughts and observations. I'd just call it lazy though.

Some of the edited content goes on to repeat itself, the inflection and flow of the text is a bit jarring in a couple lines. And some of the edits actually make it worse.

But overall I think the edit makes for a more informative read of the review. I belive I would understand more about the game's plot and playstyle after reading that than with Gerstmann's original. Afterall, the game isn't horrible...it's just flawed.
Reply

Posted: Dec 5th 2007 9:40AM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
I have been done with Gamespot for anything except guides, and now this sickens me more. I am done with them entirely.
Reply

Posted: Dec 5th 2007 9:44AM mikesanto said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Jesus. Don't they know we're writing this stuff down?

Yeah, the original isn't the best written thing in the world, but the edited version spins much more favorably for the game. Still not positive, but better. This isn't the kind of thing they need to be doing if they don't want us to believe Jeff was fired for scoring the game poorly.
Reply

Posted: Dec 5th 2007 9:48AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Honestly, I think Gerstmann's original review for Kane & Lynch was quite poorly written in parts. I think the edit does make the game sound a little better but it also makes the review sound quite a bit more professional.

Obviously we don't want publishers, developers, and advertising dollars driving review scores. However, any company that collects advertising revenue, reviews free copies of games, or picks up any other form of "swag" has had their integrity comprimised.

But hey, that's the world we live in. Nothing's free and money will get you a lot of things. Just remember that any review score, honest or not, is a subjective measure of a game's appeal and technical merit. In the end, it's your job as a consumer to play the game and form your own opinions.

As for Gerstmann's firing, I think there are probably a number of reasons for his dismissal. Given his original poorly written review, I wouldn't be surprised if he was let go for simply "phoning it in". If anything, a reviewer should be passionate about games and I didn't get that sense from Gerstmann's review.
Reply

Posted: Dec 5th 2007 9:50AM (Unverified) said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
You know, I kinda wish Yahtzee would review K&L. If he slammed it and called it a steaming pile, no one would object and most of us would laugh.
Reply

Posted: Dec 5th 2007 9:56AM (Unverified) said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
I call shenanigans
Reply

Posted: Dec 5th 2007 9:58AM Vegnagun said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I see nothing wrong with changing an unbiased review to a bunch of fluff and happiness.

Hell, the news does it everyday.
Reply

Posted: Dec 5th 2007 10:03AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The changes they made in my opinion make the review more pleasant and enjoyable. I saw the original video and felt like it was done lazily, and almost as if he had a personal vendetta against the game's publisher.

Did he need to be fired over the video? Probably not. But his video review certainly wasn't very professional. It's possibly he's already been warned and the company just got fed up with him, using this as an excuse to let him go.

Regardless, I do respect Jeff for giving an honest review according to his standards. Shows the man has balls.
Reply

Posted: Dec 5th 2007 10:04AM bigsofty said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
This is disgusting and IT SHOWS THAT THERE REVIEWS ARE NOW BIASED AND NOT TO BE TRUSTED...!

Remove these sites from your bookmarks and remember why you should not visit these sites guys... ever!
Reply

Posted: Dec 5th 2007 10:11AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
And stop reading the news paper or any other review site while you are at it. They have editors that do this very same thing to any article that is submitted to make it more appealing to the masses.
Reply

Posted: Dec 5th 2007 10:23AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
No one has given any official statement. All we have is heresay and assumptions.

Thank God for innocent until proven guilty.
Reply

Posted: Dec 5th 2007 10:05AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Well I think most of the changes clean up some poor word choice, but the rest is still pretty suspect.
Reply

Posted: Dec 5th 2007 10:10AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@CK

People do it all the time. They rationalize lying, stealing, killing with their own excuses. Gamespot/CNET (if they are guilty) can rationalize that G's firing was a necessary thing for the sake of their profits/corporate relationships/etc. Who is to say that they are wrong for making that decision? (i say this as an example)
Reply

Posted: Dec 5th 2007 10:10AM Captain Obvious said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
What I want to know is, why this game? It seems like there are so many other games out there that get poor (read: 6.0) reviews, and they seem to have more redeeming qualities. I had forgot about Jeff's comments about the constant cursing. Really, this is the game that Eidos would want to draw attention to, really??? The lazy use of profanity doesn't do well for the media, just as beating up hookers doesn't either.
Reply

Posted: Dec 5th 2007 10:17AM (Unverified) said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
What it looks like to me is the original version never saw an editor. That thing was very poorly written.

Coming from someone who agrees with Gerstmann's ratings in general, those edits improve the review and ADD more criticism. I seriously doubt this was a result of advertiser pressure. More like quality control and belated copy-editing.

Perhaps its possible that the cache is of a published-before-it-was-finished version. Gamespot edited it for quality right away (but after it was cached) and consider that the initial 'print' version. They THEN did an edit to add the PS3 v. 360 thing, and made a note of it.
Reply

Posted: Dec 5th 2007 10:21AM ZeroCorpse said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Doesn't every video game review have a legal obligation to include the phrase "it's a mixed bag" somewhere in the text?

Or is it just that video game reviewers are hacks who recycle each others' writing?
Reply

Posted: Dec 5th 2007 10:23AM Obienator said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
ATTICA!
Reply

Posted: Dec 6th 2007 3:01AM seishino said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The initial review could have been better written in general. Some of the edits definitely improve wording choice, and should have happened anyway.

But this edit goes far beyond platform differences and multiplayer. The tone of the article went from "it's extremely unlikable" to "you probably won't like this, but maybe you can overlook that." That huge tone change is definitely suspect.

Reply

Posted: Dec 5th 2007 10:48AM (Unverified) said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
Whoever wrote the review seems to lack basic English knowledge - how can something be "somewhat unique"? Either it's unique or it's not. Not that Gamespot is exactly the place to go for good writing.
Reply

Posted: Dec 5th 2007 4:31PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
It has unique elements, but as a whole, is not unique. "The car is somewhat unique," could mean the body styling is different, it has some gadgetry different than other cars, and seats you in the center of the car rather than either side. However, only somewhat, because it still has 3 mirrors, 4 wheels, a trunk, a combustion engine, etc. It's a vague description giving a lead-in to further detail.
Reply

Posted: Dec 5th 2007 10:40AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
After seeing these edits, it's obvious that Gerstmann's original review was unprofessional and completely half-assed. It's no wonder the review was changed. They could've done without the little rhetorical handjobs obviously aimed at Eidos, though.
Reply

Posted: Dec 5th 2007 10:40AM Mecandes said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
Is this a game review, or a Wikipedia entry? Whatever else you think about this scandal, you will definitely have to add this evidence to the arguments saying that GameSpot is "unprofessional."
Reply

Posted: Dec 5th 2007 10:43AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
After watching the video review, I don't think his tone was bad at all. It was honest. It's not just the graphics that are "ugly" but the concept and tone of the game. Characters you don't like, excessive swearing (which may be realistic but plenty of us don't need to hear f-bombs littered through our entertainment), etc. If it's ugly, why can't he say so? If the AI sucks, why not say so? It's ridiculous. Sometimes you just feel so strongly about something that the only honest way to review it is to be emotional, because that's the kind of response it produced. I felt the same way about Two Worlds, and everyone on my friends list was treated to hours of bitching about it. =)
Reply
Sorry, you must be logged in to leave a comment.

Featured Stories

Portabliss: Time Ducks (iOS)

Posted on Feb 7th 2012 9:00PM

Portabliss: Sticky Bees (iOS)

Posted on Feb 6th 2012 9:00PM

Engadget

TUAW

Massively

WoW