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

Reader Comments (91)

Posted: Dec 5th 2007 11:20AM qrack said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
You complaining about a game to friends is a whole different situation from a professional reviewer doing a review for the public's consumption.

The original review and the video were very unprofessional. If I wanted to hear some guy ranting about a game and giving me his emotional opinions about a game, I'd just ask my friends.

Jeff was paid to give a review that points out the pros and cons without all the "letter to the editor" ranting and raving...he didn't do that. Sure it gives people something to talk about and is mildly entertaining, but it's still unprofessional.
Reply

Posted: Dec 5th 2007 10:57AM creid8 said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
I think the new version is better, and isn't any less negative.

Posted: Dec 5th 2007 11:14AM blash said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Can someone please bring this to the attention of a respectable newspaper like the Washington Post/LA Times or CNN or something already? Get these s***holes out of business through popular pressure of a boycot and the like.

Journalistic bias FTL.

Posted: Dec 5th 2007 1:37PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
You don't think those news outlets don't do the same thing in their editing rooms? To soften a story and have biases of their own? Why do you think there is so much harping about the "liberal media"?

Most of those places are guilty of it themselves.
Reply

Posted: Dec 5th 2007 5:49PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Right and those newspapers and channels have absolutely no bias whatsoever
Reply

Posted: Dec 5th 2007 11:16AM hvnlysoldr said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Since this is Day of the Ninja, I want everyone to ninja stealth kill on AGH....

Posted: Dec 5th 2007 11:18AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
It seems they just rewrote the review due to his poor quality of writing. Clarifying complaints and removing childlike insults isn't 'spin', it's simply a better writeup of the review.

Having seen the awful standard of writing of the orginal review, I'm pretty glad the guy got fired.

Posted: Dec 5th 2007 11:17AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Blogs, I love 'em. People bad mouth blogs role but nothing has kept "them" (industry, leaders, media, "the man")in fear and in check as blogs have in the last few years. Keep it up Joystiq and all the others out there who make sure the truth eventually comes out.

Posted: Dec 5th 2007 11:18AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Having watched the original video review before reading these edits, I re-imagined the video with Gerstmann's voice being cut out where the edits were made, and dubbed in with the bolded edits in a happy gameshow-announcer voice. It was quite comical. In my head. Wish you coulda seen it.

Posted: Dec 5th 2007 11:37AM (Unverified) said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
Calling something "ugly" and "lazy" in a review is...well, just plain ugly and lazy. Using the word "lazy" implies things about the persons that developed the game. To me, the edits that were made do a better job of evaluating the game without going out of their way to insult the developers.

This is pure speculation on my part, but to me, the tone of the original video review has the air of a pissed-off employee letting his emotions interfere with his professional composure. It seems entirely plausible to me that Gerstmann was having some sort of interpersonal issue or strong disagreement with higher-ups and the video review comes across as an "I'll show them" sort of moment. There's just a tone to it that sounds like there is some sort of personal vendetta lying beneath the surface. In my book, letting your professionalism slip in this manner is a serious matter, since whether you are reviewing a game more or less harshly based on something other than the game -- either way, this is an abandonment of the objectivism that is so important to good reviews.

But again, this is very speculative. In the end, we don't really know what was going on behind the scenes.

Posted: Dec 5th 2007 11:40AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I didn't find the initial review that 'unprofessional'. Less coddling and a little more blunt, but I don't consider those traits unprofessional in a review environment. Whatever floats your boat, I guess.

Posted: Dec 5th 2007 6:56PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Good god. I already suspected Jeff got fired for this, but I didn't know the changes were THIS severe. It sounds like they had an excuse for almost everything wrong with the game. I rented it, and it's a horribly generic shooter. The only thing I somewhat like was Fragile Alliance, but it got old after a while.

Kudos to you Jeff for telling it like it is, and saving gamers from spending $60 for this crap.

Posted: Dec 5th 2007 2:10PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
wow, that was really worthy reading. thanks for sharing this post with us.

Eliena Andrews
http://happy-funtime.blogspot.com

Posted: Dec 5th 2007 12:27PM (Unverified) said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
using the f-word is lazy no matter how you look at it, though i agree "gratuitous" is a more articulate term.

a 6.0 is still slightly above average, better than the wording of the review made it sound, even after the edits. this sounds like a below average game to me.

Posted: Dec 5th 2007 12:47PM LaughingTarget said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
+ for the Coop pic, great show.

Anyway, gratuitous is a fancy word, but it doesn't fit the narrative. Gratuitous, in the manner they're looking for means "without reason". There was reason, but only in context of a lazy dialogue. They had a reason to say it, but constantly saying it indicates a poor grasp of quality script writing. Gratuitous f-bomb uses are better seen in Penny Arcade which use it in situations where it has no meaning, almost driving into the ground to the point where it becomes a meaningless filler word like "um".

Posted: Dec 5th 2007 1:22PM abhinav said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Great post. One of the best on the site.

Posted: Dec 5th 2007 1:24PM KTXL said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I listened to a bit of the hotspot broadcast last night, and I have to admit that, at the time, I indentified with the remaining editors' plights. After reading this, however, I'm pretty sure I'm back where I began. Honestly, what else are we to think?

I understand that the developers have said, essentially, that if they felt that their integrity was compromised, they would have been out the door already. Regardless of what happened to Jeff, apparently, their editorial power is intact.

So is the point that Gamespot is trying to make that this is common, and happens to every game, and therefore their editorial integrity is intact because the company has maintained the status quo?

How is that not just as bad as what the rumors say?

Posted: Dec 5th 2007 1:32PM Korova Pamplona said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I am just thoroughly disgusted with everyone involved in this story (except you, Joystiq, Jeff G and present company ...): Gamespot, Cnet, Eidos.

The longer the mystery festers, the longer this is going to poison the brand value of each of these shops, hurting some of their undoubtedly good people and good work.

I wish CNET would just fire whomever made that stupid decision to fire Jeff, hang him/her out to dry and publicly tell Eidos off. Eidos should say that they respect and welcome journalist opinions, have a policy of not pressuring media and stand by their product.

Gamespot just looks like no-one there has any backbone to stand up to corporate, which is not unlike many gamers, but its just embarrassing. I have no suggestions for them. They are beneath resentment.

Posted: Dec 5th 2007 1:39PM Bgrngod said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Well at least the review actually reads like a review for a 6.0 game instead of a 2.0 game.

It's crystal clear that the edits don't do anything to make the game look "better". This new text just makes it more accurate.

Some of the edits actually paint a clearer negative light about the game. Like pointing out the devs success with Freedom Fighters. Knowing that a company got it right once, and THEN failed misserably just makes it seem like more of a failure then having just got it wrong once.

Posted: Dec 5th 2007 1:46PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I'm slightly curious of what people think of IO Interactive, the developer of K&L. Now, they had nothing to do with it outside of writing the code and coming out with this unfinished game. Even playing it it feels a little sloppy sometimes.

Eidos is the publisher, it is their job to promote and make money on their studios. Much like EA or Blizz/Activision does. So a lot of people are screaming at Eidos, swearing them off and so on, what about the negative repercussion that it has on the developers who had nothing to do with this but be employed by a company that is owned by another that got caught up in this?

No real point to this question out of curiosity.

Posted: Dec 5th 2007 2:12PM Batzarro The worlds WOrst Detect said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
This seems to validate the whole premise of the scandal. I mean, in the end, game reviewers are ctritics(stop gasping, please) and they review games acording to their views, tastes and past experience. If I review a game in the Zelda series, I'll do it as one who has little experience in those. But if he's trying to point out characters are not likable, and you just put something ELSE entirely about the story, it's not a tone change... It's a litterary hijack.

Posted: Dec 5th 2007 2:25PM mietha said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
So how big exactly was that check from Eidos...?

Posted: Dec 5th 2007 2:26PM SoCoolCurt said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
i havent really been following this story (actually thought it was kind of annoying how much attention it's gettin) but after sitting down and actually looking at what is going on, it makes me wonder "how often does this happen in the industry as a whole?" these reviews to make a very big impact on buying games in some cases so i can understand why Eidos would be upset about a bad review. but i myself make purchasing decisions on whether to buy or rent a game based on reviews. like i rented Heavenly Sword instead of buying it since i found out the story was so short. great game, but because of the review, they lost $60 since i had it preordered and moved that money after reading the review. if this happens a couple thousand times and word of mouth catches it, that could seriously hurt the publishers bottom line.

so i have the solution to this.....DONT MAKE SHITTY GAMES. i agree that people are generally stupid but they arent that stupid. for the average consumer, $60 is alot of money to throw on a game, and having said game suck doesnt make it any better. Eidos should be mad at themselves for letting a bad game get out the door. big ups to Gerstmann for telling it like it is. gamespot is a shitty site for real.

Posted: Dec 5th 2007 3:47PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Not to add more fuel to the fire, but many of these comments appear to be astroturf (fake comments to sway public opinion). Look how many have the following:

1. Well written
2. Three paragraphs
3. All support the new revision
4. All claim the original review was poorly written
5. All have similar writing style

It appears that one person who is a very good writer is spamming the site. Seems strange to me!

Posted: Dec 5th 2007 3:20PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I love how GS has said they weren't pressured by Eidos, then you look at this thing. Not only does the writing not fit well with Gerstmann's style but you'd expect after reading this review to find a 7.5 or an 8.0 score instead of the 6.0 it got.

I'm glad the industry has hit a point where when a developer makes a game it can whine and pressure a reviewer enough to make them suck up. Great job.

Posted: Dec 5th 2007 4:24PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I don't about everyone else, but the two articles say the same thing to me: K&L is a horrible game. The first edit is more colloquial or more mainstream than the edited version. I can honestly say that I did not feel that the edits were part of a cover-up.

Maybe if I was editing Jeff's review, I will probably change the same things.

Posted: Dec 5th 2007 8:09PM refinedsugar said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Score another point for see-thru counter spin.

Posted: Dec 5th 2007 8:34PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
If Joystiq was as influencial as Gamespot used to be, the video game industry would be what everyone wants it to be: fresh, fun and smart.

You've done such a great job with this story. I've been waiting for Gamespot to fall for years.

Gamespot has controlled gamers' taste in games for years. I'm happy that people are beginning to realize this now.

Posted: Dec 5th 2007 9:01PM RogueJedi86 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Even if the original review was a bit hateful(which it was), all the edits made to the review go above and beyond their "Editor's Note: This review has been updated to include differences between the Xbox 360 and PS3 versions and a clarification on the game's multiplayer mode." claim. They did a lot of editing, and only one paragraph had anything to do with the 360/PS3 differences. The vast bulk of the edits was fluff to make the game and Eidos sound better.

Posted: Dec 5th 2007 9:49PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
This, to me, substantiates my long standing belief that the whole industry (meaning the game journalism industry--i.e. Gamespot, IGN, etc.) is as crooked as a question mark. No matter how much "damage control" they attempt at this stage, the cat's out of the bag. Unfortunately, as many have pointed out, this proves nothing. They're still only guilty of looking suspicious, and there's nothing illegal and unethical about that (though I can dream...)

Posted: Dec 6th 2007 1:30AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
yeah and they got a 10-year-experience reviewer fired for 1 review. And you really can't say the game is good compared to it's massive tv, movie teather, radio and magazine advertising campaign, not to mention a movie in the works.
Reply

Posted: Dec 6th 2007 12:03AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I can agree a lot of these edits are more tone based then spins, but even 1 spin is going to put more fire onto this whole issue.

I personally would have fired him anyways, using the sentance "Thats just lame" is beyond not only LAZY it self in writing, but makes the reviewer look unable to use a thesaurus. Most of the edits are a ok in my book.
Meh who cares, ill goto Gamespot as much as i goto IGN. I trust Kotaku and Joystiq way more then ANY commercial game site.

Posted: Dec 6th 2007 1:23AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
That review makes the game look better, they can't change what already has been said about the same, but softing it up works for the people than might not know all damage this game has done to gaming industry...

Posted: Dec 6th 2007 4:15AM JRMG said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I wouldn't be surprised if Gerstmann chose the words he did to spite Gamespot. If the rumours are true that there has been ongoing pressure by marketing to be more "publisher friendly", then you could take Gerstmann's tone as his way of resisting that trend. Also, if you believe what Kevin Van Ord says that Gerstmann was there "shielding" other editors, it may be the case that Gerstmann (the senior editor) was close to snapping from all the pressure from the ads, and it was reflecting in his work.

It's likely that Gamespot/CNET would want to fire him before the pressure burst, but it burst anyways I guess...

Posted: Dec 6th 2007 10:59AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
A lot of the edits seem to have come from the video review, so the new review here is sort of a cross between the two. There are some wholly original phrases in there it seems, though.

But for the most part I think they are essentially Gerstmann's words.

Posted: Dec 6th 2007 11:47AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
This sound like a sugar-coat, to me. A bad game -- is still a bad game, even coated in chocolate.

Posted: Dec 6th 2007 2:04PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The dude has been writing reviews for over 11 years, there's no way that the editors would need to go back and make anything better. So the only other conlusion is that somewhere in the chain of command, someone wanted it altered.

Posted: Dec 6th 2007 5:54PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The original review, in my eyes, was more engaging. I think both versions really need a run through an editor, but the first paragraph in the new version is the sort of thing that could put me to sleep.

Posted: Jan 5th 2008 8:22AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Actually if watch the video review.
It is Jeff Gertsman talking about how the game is ugly and has unlikeable characters.

Posted: Jan 15th 2008 3:57PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Damn they edited the hell out of that thing! They made it sound like a bad yet still good game

Featured Stories

Engadget

Engadget

TUAW

TUAW

Massively

Massively

WoW

WoW