Gamespot fires jeff gerstman on eidos' orders

[logicalnoise]

http://kotaku.com/gaming/rumor/gamespot-editor-fired-over-kane--lynch-review-328244.php

Gabe from penny arcade says this is 100% true and has made a quick comic to commemorate the end of gamespot's trustworthy reviews. I personally am boycotting all cnet sites because of this.

[Atsumi]

I read that and thought it was terrible.

Poor guy. Just because he gave a game they're advertising a bad review.

[Eman311]

You would think they'd give him a break, considering the game got universally canned by major reviewers.

[sickdaddy]

Lame. I give Kane and Lynch a 2. The game sucked.

[Rock_Starman]

There was a topic on the forums there a while ago,I'll try to find it...

Not saying this is true or false just saying there may be more to it:

"I'm sure some of you are aware Jeff Gertsmann, now the face of GameSpot is responsible for the review. It should come as no surprise he played this game on an Xbox 360 for the review and like most people with a 360 he has a GamerTag attached to his account(GameSpotting for those who wish to check). The achievement, the most popular and controversial feature of the Xbox 360, all games have them. The achievement has served another purpose today, other than showing of your skill in Halo 3.

After reading the review, as with most of Jeff's reviews, I hopped over to Xbox.com to check about how many achievements I would rake up as I played through. Funny thing this time however, I wasn't greeted by the typical "beat the game on the hardest difficulty" achievement you would expect from a thorough reviewer, I wasn't even greeted with a typical you beat the game achievement. In fact as I gazed upon his weak gamescore I found only two achievements had been unlocked. One for beating the first mission and one for trying the co-op.

Now I know he may have played through the game on two separate systems or accounts, but why would somebody who hates a game so much bother playing through the opening twice. Perhaps the most damning evidence lay within the review itself. At no point is anything beyond the first mission or common knowledge of the game mentioned, nothing that couldn't have been easily stolen from another review and the biggest piece to the puzzle is in the video review. Watch it yourself, clip after clip, not once in the video review is a clip shown of the game past the opening mission."

http://www.gamespot.com/xbox360/action/kanelynchdeadmen/show_msgs.php?topic_id=m-1-39530902&pid=934403

I dunno about you people but if I ran a site and IF a reviewer only played one level of a game then threw a 6 on it I'd can his ass too.

[capnhowdy69]

I dunno about you people but if I ran a site and IF a reviewer only played one level of a game then threw a 6 on it I'd can his ass too.

Beautifully said. I read his review of the game awhile back and yeah... I got the impression from it that he hadn't really played the game. I do kinda feel sorry for the guy that he got canned for writing a mediocre review for a game he obviously didn't like enough to play more than 1 mission. At the same though, it's his damn job to play that packaged turd. It's insulting to the rest of us who WISH we got paid to sit around and praise/slam the games we play.

[DethBoxx]

There could be lots of reasons why he might start on one gamertag (system) and then start over on another. It's foolish to assume otherwise.

[Joigga]

Omg! first ( the best host in history) Rich Gallup quits now gertsman is fired! now there is basically no reason to watch OTS or listen to the hotspot!

[logicalnoise]

a mod on teh gamespot forums commented that it was CNET's marketing who was responisble not Gamespot and to stop spaming their servers. ALso another reviewer(Tim) has quit over the whole matter. and many reviewers can leave stuff out of reviews for teh sake of spoilerage. I can't think of more than a couple halo 3 reviews that actually discussed anything after the first level(even though they played through the whole game at bungie).

[FallenAce]

GameSpot just has way too much invested to let their own people say less-than stellar things about it. I have to go with the idea that they fired him for the wrong reasons; otherwise, I doubt it would have been an on-the-spot firing.

Think about it, and then think about Driver 3. Sound familiar?

[Eastwood]

It's funny because sites that are covered in KAne and Lynch ads give it "possible game of the year status."

I haven't played it, but it doesn't look like a game I would be interested in anyway.

[logicalnoise]

the ad guys at eidos are saying the conflict with eidos was setlled a couple weeks ago and thet jeff has been on thin ice for a while. They could be right and it's just bad timing or they could just be spinning it.

[sickdaddy]

There was a topic on the forums there a while ago,I'll try to find it...

Not saying this is true or false just saying there may be more to it:

"I'm sure some of you are aware Jeff Gertsmann, now the face of GameSpot is responsible for the review. It should come as no surprise he played this game on an Xbox 360 for the review and like most people with a 360 he has a GamerTag attached to his account(GameSpotting for those who wish to check). The achievement, the most popular and controversial feature of the Xbox 360, all games have them. The achievement has served another purpose today, other than showing of your skill in Halo 3.

After reading the review, as with most of Jeff's reviews, I hopped over to Xbox.com to check about how many achievements I would rake up as I played through. Funny thing this time however, I wasn't greeted by the typical "beat the game on the hardest difficulty" achievement you would expect from a thorough reviewer, I wasn't even greeted with a typical you beat the game achievement. In fact as I gazed upon his weak gamescore I found only two achievements had been unlocked. One for beating the first mission and one for trying the co-op.

Now I know he may have played through the game on two separate systems or accounts, but why would somebody who hates a game so much bother playing through the opening twice. Perhaps the most damning evidence lay within the review itself. At no point is anything beyond the first mission or common knowledge of the game mentioned, nothing that couldn't have been easily stolen from another review and the biggest piece to the puzzle is in the video review. Watch it yourself, clip after clip, not once in the video review is a clip shown of the game past the opening mission."

http://www.gamespot.com/xbox360/action/kanelynchdeadmen/show_msgs.php?topic_id=m-1-39530902&pid=934403

I dunno about you people but if I ran a site and IF a reviewer only played one level of a game then threw a 6 on it I'd can his ass too.

You don't think he might perhaps play on a work profile, do you?

You don't also think they might shove so many games in front of their reviewers that they don't have the time to play through all the games?

I hate reviews that aren't from someone who played the game either, but take into account this is one of the busiest times in the history of games as far as number of games coming out. With deadlines and several games per reviewer, the mediocre games get left behind.

I agreed with his review, although I only played the first level and tried co op, but I could tell these things right away...

The game didn't have anything to hold my attention

The game suffered from gameplay issues

There are way too many good titles to play to waste my time on a mediocre shooter amidst COD4, Half Life 2, Halo 3, and hell, even Timeshift was funner than what I played of K and L.

I don't blame Eidos for threatening to pull their ad campaign over the review. I do blame Gamespot for not having the integrity to tell them to go ahead and pull it, we stand behind our review and our employee, who has been with us for a long time.

[Rock_Starman]

Well I didn't write that,it mentions it could've been played on a different profile and I clearly said IF that was the case. Only playing one level of a game then reviewing it is unacceptable ad campaign or not.

I do however doubt they give them too many games because it would make sense to just get more reviewers. Reading a post later in that topic he apprently had time to play Assassin's Creed wich he wasn't the reviewer for. Seems like he might've been offended by the cursing though in wich case he should be working for http://www.ccgr.org/ instead.

[cutmaclass]

This is a disgrace to the journalism community.

Makes you really question popular critical review outlets.

[Tragic_H3R0]

This is a travesty. I posted one last F U to eidos, cnet, and gamespot. Then I canceled my paid sub. I hope there will be others that follow suit.

[brianwcu]

I don't think those at Cnet who were behind this really expected the public backlash they would see from this. I might not agree 100% with all his views on games, but thats the point, to provide a perspective. If he was on thin ice, it was really poor timing on the powers that be to fire him right after the game was reviewed and at the same time having the game he reviewed heavily advertised on their site. That to me is just as bad, and thus they should also get axed.

video game ads have no place on a site dedicated to journalistic integrity in providing customers with information that will factor into their spending their hard earned money.

Personally I am boycotting Cnet and their sites, as well as Eidos. Its a crappy game, and they spent to much money advertising on it and it bit them in arse.

[battle_axe_of_doom]

he's the fat guy right?? oh well gamespot/review sites can blow me.

[sushi111]

Ill miss Jeff on TheHotSpot. Hes actually a really really funny guy. Plus hes been with the site for what? 12 years?

[espher]

With regards to the Achievements, there's a different network that devs/reviewers used to play games. Jeff has apparently *****ed about having to replay games to get achievements after reviewing them because he's a huge achievement whore, so take that for what it's worth.

[Rock_Starman]

Well don't look for a PS3 UT3 review from Gamespot since they've apprently in protest stopped writing reviews (complete rumor as it can't be confirmed these people are who they say they are): http://kotaku.com/gaming/rumor/alleged-gamespot-employee-spills-guts-on-valleywag-328797.php

IF all that is true sounds like he got it for the R&C review too and some other things. I wonder if there'll be any actual comment from CNET.

[espher]

http://www.joystiq.com/2007/12/01/ziff-davis-staff-holds-impromptu-gamespot-rally/

[Rock_Starman]

So I looked up his gamercard. Based on the 51k gamerscore and the games that are finished can see he actually played through skate.,Mass Effect and Area 51,I'd say that other network is for preview copies and believe that IS his actual gamercard and if you'd look under Kane & Lynch you'd see:

Have Gun, Will Travel Part I

Travel into the Rising Sun.

20
Acquired 11/27/2007

So he didn't even get to Chapter 5 out of 16. He does have multiplayer achivements so it looks like maybe he spent all his review time there. On top of that the review was later edited to include a PS3 comparison so it looks like he didn't even play it on both systems before reviewing. I think he just got caught.

[sickdaddy]

so, you think he reviewed the game on 11/27?

Or do you think he played it on the dev kit, knew the easy achievements, and got those by taking the copy home from work.

I have no doubt in my mind that he didn't review that game on 11.27., as the review has been out for two weeks.

[Rock_Starman]

No I was pointing out he didn't get that achivement untill 11/27 and reviewed the game on 11/13. The Tokyo chapters are 5 through 10. IF that is his only gamertag or even just the one he uses to review games on,because as I said there's plenty of other games finished on that tag he's reviewed,he only played through 4 out of 16 chapters + the multiplayer before reviewing it.

He's only got 90 achivement points for the game compared to others where he has the achivements for completing the game and the such. The only thing going against this is that he doesn't have the achivement for finishing CoD 4.

Either way not like this is anything new. Been tons of times where it was suspected sites were paid off or a reviewer didn't play through a full game,just never gets into the public.

[sickdaddy]

I agree this isn't the first time it's been done, but there has never been a more highly profiled firing due to it that I know about.

Did you make that gamertag for your ps3 profile?

[espher]

He's only got 90 achivement points for the game compared to others where he has the achivements for completing the game and the such. The only thing going against this is that he doesn't have the achivement for finishing CoD 4.

I know for a fact that there is a network that they don't use personal gamer tags on to play games pre-release and that they have to replay the game to pick up achievements.

Knowing that, and knowing he's an achievement whore (based on previous comments he's made), my assumption would be that he played it for the easy achievement points (i.e. early game & multiplayer).

I know if I finish a game for a review and give it a positive review and actually enjoyed it, I'm probably going to play through it at home. *shrug*

[battle_axe_of_doom]

yeah its not really a surprise that the guy wouldn't play through the whole game if he supposedly hated it so much

[DethBoxx]

I already addressed this on the first page. It's foolish to assume anything based on his achievements on one gamertag, so don't bother.

[BubbaC]

this really surprises anyone?!

this is how our world works. you say something the people with money don't like. and you disappear.

FACT.

[Zookey]

Well I didn't write that,it mentions it could've been played on a different profile and I clearly said IF that was the case. Only playing one level of a game then reviewing it is unacceptable ad campaign or not.

I do however doubt they give them too many games because it would make sense to just get more reviewers. Reading a post later in that topic he apprently had time to play Assassin's Creed wich he wasn't the reviewer for. Seems like he might've been offended by the cursing though in wich case he should be working for http://www.ccgr.org/ instead.

Hehe I know the person who runs CCGR.org!!!!! She built a PC for me once before I converted to Mac hehe!!!!!

No matter how you slice it (unless there is MAJOR facts being withheld) Jeff G got screwed and probably has a good case against GameSpot and Eidos for wrongful termination/harrassment ---I hope he goes for it integrity outweighs money any day---and, if you don't do the integrity thing in favor of money, the likelyhood is that you will get hit with something that will make you lose way more money than if you jsut did the right thing in the first place!

[logicalnoise]

Hehe I know the person who runs CCGR.org!!!!! She built a PC for me once before I converted to Mac hehe!!!!!

No matter how you slice it (unless there is MAJOR facts being withheld) Jeff G got screwed and probably has a good case against GameSpot and Eidos for wrongful termination/harrassment ---I hope he goes for it integrity outweighs money any day---and, if you don't do the integrity thing in favor of money, the likelyhood is that you will get hit with something that will make you lose way more money than if you jsut did the right thing in the first place!

He signed a NDA which is basically an agreeement to not ever do or say about his termination in return He likely got a really nice severance package.

[Zookey]

man heeh---I don't know if I would call that a good or bad move.....I guess it depends on how much he could objectively prove...

[NoDoubtFan87]

And Gamespot and Cnet are losing costumers over this, and many people are boycotting not just Gamespot but other Cnet sites as well. I think it sucks because it is not just Jeff is gone I'm sad(while that is partly the case) :(, it is that he was fired for(at least if what people think the reason was is true, which seems pretty likely to me) a very bad reason, or at least what I think is a bad reason that can shatter the credability of not only Gamespot's reviews but any video game reviews.

[Zookey]

And Gamespot and Cnet are losing costumers over this, and many people are boycotting not just Gamespot but other Cnet sites as well. I think it sucks because it is not just Jeff is gone I'm sad(while that is partly the case) :(, it is that he was fired for(at least if what people think the reason was is true, which seems pretty likely to me) a very bad reason, or at least what I think is a bad reason that can shatter the credability of not only Gamespot's reviews but any video game reviews.

I think this affects more than the game industry though...... it is sad though--Eidos and GameSpot certainly have a flame storm to deal with.....

[NoDoubtFan87]

I think this affects more than the game industry though...... it is sad though--Eidos and GameSpot certainly have a flame storm to deal with.....

It reminds me of things people have said about network news. In that sometimes a news outlet will want to do a story on a major coperation but it turns out that that coperation owns the channel that that news show is on. So, they will not let them run that story(or heavily edit it). How can people keep journalistic intagrity when these things are a business?

[Zookey]

It reminds me of things people have said about network news. In that sometimes a news outlet will want to do a story on a major coperation but it turns out that that coperation owns the channel that that news show is on. So, they will not let them run that story(or heavily edit it). How can people keep journalistic intagrity when these things are a business?

LOL hehe

I was a High School journalist back in the day----a scandal thing happened with our school's cheerleadign squad over uniforms----we wanted to run a story but couldn't because one of the cheerleader's mother was the assistant principal and she pulled the story

The difference there is tho that, by Supreme Court decision (called the Hazelwood decision), high school journalists are NOT entitled to First Amendment Rights---so, no matter how hard we fought, they (administration) could pull articles any time they wanted without consulting us---sucked royal......

[NoDoubtFan87]

LOL hehe

I was a High School journalist back in the day----a scandal thing happened with our school's cheerleadign squad over uniforms----we wanted to run a story but couldn't because one of the cheerleader's mother was the assistant principal and she pulled the story

The difference there is tho that, by Supreme Court decision (called the Hazelwood decision), high school journalists are NOT entitled to First Amendment Rights---so, no matter how hard we fought, they (administration) could pull articles any time they wanted without consulting us---sucked royal......

Another case of the man trying to keep you down. LOL.:D That does suck though.

[Rock_Starman]

Did you make that gamertag for your ps3 profile?

Nope. www.tripletags.com

As for the main topic I'm sure there are major details being withheld. No matter what I'm sure 1up will hire him.

[jdr7650]

Gerstman played through Kane and Lynch and got both endings. He was commented on that fact today. If you believe him or the alleged folks that fired the editor that had been with the company longer than anyone currently there it is the question. It isn't as if you can check the partner net account and prove he did or didn't anyway though. As for Gamespot's staff the have already had another writer quit in protest to the matter and for internal people to quit their jobs in protest, that to me speaks volumes.

[Caviarsteel]

Gerstman was a pathetic form of life that does not even deserve being called a human. I hope you die.

[Varsps]

Gerstman was a pathetic form of life that does not even deserve being called a human. I hope you die.

either very sarcastic, or attention seeker, either way a minion

i think also that despite gamespot's editorial reputation being in the gutter and eidos and cnet having a PR disaster, i did watch the video review for the first time yesterday. I think that there is some merit in saying that this did not reflect a 6.0 score. 6.0 is just above average. the review did nothing except state the game was basically pants. and the final comment was dont buy this game. Whilst i can see why eidos would be annoyed, at the same time, to fire someone over it is completely wrong, and i wouldnt be surprised if he claims against them, or if he didnt get a severence package to comnplensate for that fact.

either give it 2.0 out of 10 or give it a reasoned review. here i think that went a bit wring to say the least

[espher]

In the modern review world, a 6/10 is a 2/10.

[Varsps]

In the modern review world, a 6/10 is a 2/10.

thats so ridiculous, so 10 is actually 20? 5 is average, 6 just better than average, 9 outstanding, 10 is a game a year, imho

[espher]

thats so ridiculous, so 10 is actually 20? 5 is average, 6 just better than average, 9 outstanding, 10 is a game a year, imho

Yeah, except <5 is poor, 5 is meh, 6 is meh/rent if you like the genre, 7 is a rental, 7.5-8 is average, 9 is great go and buy it if you like this stuff, 10 is omgbuyitnow.