By John Walker on November 30th, 2007 at 12:29 pm.
Gamespot may have fired their veteran writer, Jeff Gerstmann, over his Kane & Lynch review.
EDIT: See below the cut for more details, and the pulled Gamespot video.
Many sources have posted the rumour that Gerstmann was fired from Gamespot in response to his 6/10 review of Kane & Lynch, which coindicided with some big-budget advertising from publishers Eidos.
We have a reliable source who tells us that while Gerstmann wasn’t the most popular man with the CNET owners, it was his Kane & Lynch review alone that allegedly saw him lose his job. We’d like to stress for reasons of balance, clarity, and fear, that this may be completely wrong. Certainly neither Gamespot nor Gerstmann have said either way, while Gerstmann has confirmed to Joystiq that the firing did happen. Eidos had secured massive advertising across the site, skinning the entire front page with K&L commercials, along with running gimmick adverts allowing readers to cut their own K&L trailers. This can make a below-average review a little awkward.
While the latter advert remains, the front page skinning has disappeared, along with Gerstmann, but not his (accurate) review, which can be read here. Gerstmann, meanwhile, can probably be found staring blankly at his computer screen in bemused confusion.
The story is spreading fast, with Penny Arcade even posting a special extra cartoon about it last night. (Sadly they forgot to include a joke, but there we go).
Any gaming magazine or website is going to carry gaming advertising. And that’s always likely to lead to conflicts. Fortunately, most of the time this ends with publications acting with integrity, taking a hit in the advertising budget, and standing by their man. Who knows what happened here.
Gerstmann’s review is for some reason only applied to the 360 and PS3 versions, but we can assure you that the same applies for the PC.
Here’s the closing paragraph of Gerstmann’s review:
“Kane & Lynch: Dead Men is a premise with promise, and if you’ve been waiting patiently for a game to really dive into the whole “crew-based heist tale” concept, you might be able to look past some of the story flaws. But when you consider the nearly ridiculous number of extremely high-quality shooters available recently, there’s not much room for something like Kane & Lynch, even taking into account the somewhat unique nature of its story. That said, the multiplayer is a smart idea that’s worth seeing, even if playing it makes you wish that it was used in another, better game.”
EDIT: We are hearing rumours that what might have gotten Gerstmann in trouble was not so much his text review, but the video review now missing from Gamespot. So here it is below:
Also, the Eidos forums just happen to be shut today, presenting the message “We are currently making a change to the forums. They will be up shortly. Please check back later.” Reportedly that’s a result of them being visited by a crowd of angry internet gentlemen, though that’s unconfirmed. MORE EDIT: They’re back up now.
We’ve edited down the above post for reasons of common sense. And because, discussed amongst ourselves, we can’t see a logic for why firing him over this would ever have seemed a good idea to anyone. There must be more to it. Or indeed, it must be to do with something else. It’s an interesting muddle. Whatever’s the case, the throngs of the internet seemed to have picked a side. If CNET or Gamespot comment, perhaps it will be to explain. At this point we certainly don’t know the full story.
30/11/2007 at 12:35 Del Boy says:
I despair.
30/11/2007 at 12:40 AbyssUK says:
Yay for free speech!
30/11/2007 at 12:40 Scotty 3vil says:
Classic,the fact that review scores mean nothing has never been so true as this.His honesty has caused him srtrife,and annoyed the corporation.
Truth means nothing in a Capitalistic games world, with large budgets spent on advertising this sort of nonsense, realistic reviews do not bode well,i bet site owners recieve alot of squeezing from CEOs of UBi Eidos Ea etc to make sure reviews are false and inaccuratley scored high.
This is the very reason i play demos and read user forums for real opinions on games and there quality.
Look at Halo3,the box (UK) has recommendations from the Sun newspaper. Says it all really.
30/11/2007 at 12:41 Phil says:
Another site I’m never visiting again…
30/11/2007 at 12:42 Alan Dexter says:
Shocking if indeed true.
Have a video review while you’re at it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBD0cUeeEQc
30/11/2007 at 12:44 vasagi says:
penny arcade did a comic on it
30/11/2007 at 12:45 Evo says:
Wow….really is a crap move by both EA and GameSpot on this =/
Seems being honest gets you nowhere in this world
30/11/2007 at 12:45 vasagi says:
ignore my post
really should read before commenting
30/11/2007 at 12:48 John Walker says:
Evo: We should probably point out that for once, EA aren’t the focus of the ire.
30/11/2007 at 12:55 fluffy bunny says:
“Wow….really is a crap move by both EA and GameSpot on this =/”
EA? Though fair enough, I know for a fact that EA have done exactly the same thing at least once.
30/11/2007 at 12:56 AbyssUK says:
Destructoid also says that Tim Tracy (editor) has left too ?? Might just be a rumour though..
30/11/2007 at 13:02 kuddles says:
No, Tim Tracy leaving is true. Came out of the blue yesterday, too, so it’s hard to believe the two are not interlinked.
30/11/2007 at 13:05 Evo says:
John – lol yeh, meant to put in Eidos, guess I get so used to this kinda stuff from them at times it becomes natural!
The video review seems pretty fair really, but to get fired for reviewing something honestly just shows that publishers are too insecure to accept criticism
30/11/2007 at 13:09 kuddles says:
The review does come off as much harsher. It’s also less polished than the other ones, including the fact that his mic isn’t on or something? I might just be over-analyzing at this point though.
Also, they defintely shut down the forums due to angry internet gentlemen, here’s what it looked like late last night before it was shut down.
http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a263/kevlarcardhouse/eidos.jpg
30/11/2007 at 13:13 Feet says:
Behold! The wrath of the internet!
30/11/2007 at 13:13 kuddles says:
Whoops! That picture is way too small. Here’s the original forum post I got it from:
http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=2699063&pagenumber=3#post336487733
Sorry about that, wish I could edit my posts on this thing.
30/11/2007 at 13:17 LaKriz says:
WOW! What were the EIDOS guys thinking what this will get them?
This is not only a blow against the free speech and journalism in general but also against their potential customers.
Delivering a bad game and then so obviously trying to deceive their customers is not only cheap but dump.
I will never again buy a game from this publisher and hope other people will avoid EIDOS in the future too.
30/11/2007 at 13:24 Alec Meer says:
Have to say I’m not convinced Penny-Arcade are the right people to be weighing in on this matter, given their ungoing unpleasantness towards reviewers who don’t think Assassin’s Creed is as good as they say it is.
30/11/2007 at 13:25 Jonathan Burroughs says:
To be fair, LaKriz, when was the last time Eidos released a truly highly acclaimed title (lets say 85%+ Metacritic) that wasn’t a Tomb Raider reimagining or Deus Ex? What are they releasing that the general public consider worth buying?
30/11/2007 at 13:25 Kieron Gillen says:
So, fighting through my hangover, I’ve been thinking about this. Something just doesn’t sit right with it. The “they were looking for an excuse to sack him” doesn’t hold, because they didn’t need an excuse to sack him where he’s based – especially using an excuse which they knew was controversial. Especially when a review wasn’t actually out of line with what the rest of the reviews (It’s got a mid-sixty average on Metacritics).
In terms of wild speculation, this is how my mag-experience would suspect it went down.
Review appears.
PR or someone similar phones up and go apeshit. Really apeshit. This is par for course. A major game getting sub average reviews is something which PR *have* to phone up about. It’s what their bosses expect. Better PRs and Editors all know that it’s part of the game they play with each other, and roll with it.
Problem in this case, is whoever above Greg isn’t a good editor or manager. They’re someone who actually takes the threats seriously instead of something that’ll blow over by the next game. The panic, cave and sack the guy.
Now, this is the last thing any experienced PR would expect. I dare say Eidos are as surprised as everyone else at the sacking – and horrified, as a sacking over a review score is the worst publicity they could ever recieve if it got out (And, of course, being the internet it WOULD get out).
Internet chaos.
I suspect the next sacking we’ll see is the whoever made the sacking decision.
(The second possibility is someone upstairs from the editorial team felt threatened by the noise Eidos were making at the publisher level, and dictated something to the editorial team. Who then caved, instead of explaining why this just won’t work to the bosses).
This is, as far as I can make out, just a spectacular failure of nerve.
KG
30/11/2007 at 13:25 Kieron Gillen says:
Jonathan: The latest Hitman games have been superlative, apparently.
KG
30/11/2007 at 13:26 Butler says:
This will inevitably have knock-on effects to games journalism (particularly web-based) as a whole.
Consumer confidence is a delicate thing.
30/11/2007 at 13:27 Evo says:
My blog on this situation – here
30/11/2007 at 13:28 Kieron Gillen says:
Butler: Yeah, exactly.
Weird thing, of course, is that the review is still up there. It’s still got a 60% score from Gamespot, but they’re also facing ridicule for being cowards. Literally, it’s the worst of both worlds – the readers hate them because they’ve sold out their writers and the Publisher hates them as they’ve still given the game 60%.
What an enormous clusterfuck.
KG
30/11/2007 at 13:29 Inglorion says:
Disgraceful. I will cancel my GameSpot subscription, never visit a CNet website or buy an Eidos product again if this story turns out to be true.
30/11/2007 at 13:30 Alec Meer says:
KG: One rumour I’ve heard in a few places is that the decision was made by Gamespot’s owners CNET, rather than anyone at Gamespot itself – who would be, as you say, well-used to angry PRs on the telling-bone.
30/11/2007 at 13:30 LaKriz says:
@Jonathan Burroughs:
I really liked Flatout 2 – remembering some insanely funny sessions with my mates. But apart from that (never liked Hitman or Tombraider), you are absolutely right: there was nothing worth the money.
30/11/2007 at 13:32 Kieron Gillen says:
Alec: Yeah, that’s what I meant with the “From upstairs” subnote. An editor still should have told the upstairs people why this just wouldn’t work to their bosses.
KG
30/11/2007 at 13:35 Alec Meer says:
Of course, it could have been Gertsmann arguing with said bosses about intregity versus ad money that cost him his job, rather than the review itself.
30/11/2007 at 13:37 Jonathan Burroughs says:
Kieron: They seem to be relying very heavily on a narrow band of core franchises. I can’t think of any recent succesful titles that weren’t Tomb Raider or Hitman (which, in spite of the Io connection, I forgot somehow). Its been a fair while since Deus Ex and Thief.
I don’t know what the issue is there though. Maybe they just lack the resource to provide developers with lengthier development cycles and are cautious over risky new IP. But who isn’t apart from EA or Microsoft?
LaKriz: Gah. Flatout. I forgot that one too. Hurrah for my brain!
30/11/2007 at 13:39 Evo says:
Doubt this is related (forgot to blog it) but a C&C Kane’s Wrath article didn’t go up on GameSpot last night due to ‘technical issues’ according to the C&C Community Manager. If Jeff had been scheduled to write that then that may be another issue
30/11/2007 at 13:40 Evo says:
meant to say another issue resulting from this.
30/11/2007 at 13:42 Butler says:
“What an enormous clusterfuck.”
It really is a mess. Gotta say it’s going to be quite enjoyable to see how it pans out. But as i say, it really isn’t good for the already tenious reputation of games related e-publications.
This whole thing does /seem/ to stem from some misinformed bureaucratic decision.
30/11/2007 at 13:42 kuddles says:
@Alec Meer: I don’t think PA was actually saying the reviewers were wrong, simply that he disagreed with those giving it a bad mark. The comic and write-up on Wed. was actually mocking the IGN for misinterpreting that.
@Kieron: I think taking down the entire review of K&L at this point would just be an admission on CNET’s part. But yes, I agree with you, Gamespot has nothing to gain on this outcome. I can imagine any positive review of any game advertised on the site from here on in isn’t going to be taken seriously, regardless of whether it’s deserved or not. Not to mention all the tinfoil hat conspiracy theorist claiming game publications are all paid off will have a field day , even though the attention on this incident really proves how rare of an occurance this kind of thing really is.
30/11/2007 at 13:45 terry says:
He was right. Kane & Lynch is a poorman’s Hitman.
30/11/2007 at 13:47 Monkfish says:
Maybe we can glean something from this comment made by a moderator on GameSpot’s forums:
Jeff was the editor, it seems. It’s the suits at CNet that appear to have made the call on this one, with Eidos allegedly threatening to pull advertising, potentially costing CNet a considerable income. Money’s more important than people, right?
Hmm. Always nice to see marketing getting in the way of objectivity, isn’t it? I guess this is something that’s always been around, but this is really getting out of hand.
Anyway, I wish Mr. Gerstmann well in his future endevours – I hope this hasn’t damaged his employment prospects (I doubt it, seeing as almost everyone in Internet land is rooting for him).
30/11/2007 at 13:48 Kieron Gillen says:
Yeah – the one actually winner here, hopefully, will be Gerstmann.
KG
30/11/2007 at 13:53 Schadenfreude says:
I’ve never even heard of him up until now. Go Gerstmann! :D
30/11/2007 at 13:55 Jonathan Burroughs says:
Winners don’t do drugs.
30/11/2007 at 14:04 Evo says:
Eidos forums are back up now by the by guys :P
30/11/2007 at 14:10 CrashT says:
As always… Bill Hicks said it best:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDW_Hj2K0wo
30/11/2007 at 14:15 cullnean says:
lol watch out Alec, Tycho and Gabe may come and get you.
Also if a company wishes to kowtow to sponsors it’s their choice but the company should make this clear to their employee’s so that they can see if there integrity out weigh’s there pay check
30/11/2007 at 14:19 Dracko says:
I’m reminded of something along these lines that happened on the then French television channel GameOne.
There was a reviewer, known as Marcus. Quite warm character, very jokey, didn’t take games all that seriously. It was refreshing, honestly. There’s this program on the channel called Level One, wherein for about a quarter of an hour, a reviewer would play through the beginning of a game. Marcus was doing Metal Gear Solid 2 (This was years back), way before it’s actual release. Many people were watching, as you might expect. And then, halfway through, he just stopped. He stopped, turned to the camera and said “I’m about to leave soon”, and followed through giving some of his reasons, without ever going into too much detail. What it boiled down to was he was pressured by the channel, along with all the rest of the staff and by advertising, to write bogus reviews and other usual suspects. As I said, at the time, he didn’t say it in that many terms, but that was the end of him.
Checking his website now, it seems he’s returning to the channel. I haven’t watched it in years, as I’ve found it turned dire and cliché, so I don’t know if it’s under new management. I hope this doesn’t mean he’s compromised his values, because that made for great television back at the time, especially when everyone else noticed how they racked up advertising and had progressively worse review writing.
30/11/2007 at 14:26 CrashT says:
Maybe this explains why GameSpot gave Assassin’s Creed a 9.
30/11/2007 at 14:29 Evo says:
And Halo 3 a 9.5?
30/11/2007 at 14:32 Kalle says:
Sigh. I wish they would just have fired him for the crappy review. And I’m not talking about the score here, I’m talking about how Gerstmann gives the impression of never having played more than two levels of the game. The video review, which I had never seen before, looping footage from the tutorial level certainly doesn’t detract from this impression.
And now he gets to be a freaking martyr. If he got fired because of publisher pressure then that’s wrong and says heaps about Gamespot’s lack of integrity. I’m certainly not going to trust their opinion in the future. I just wish we were all out defending someone who isn’t an incompetent ass.
30/11/2007 at 14:36 Evo says:
I found it a good review (the video one) despite the actual gameplay video being looped near enough, he talked about the gameplay and storyline and how it wasn’t up to scratch for todays games, seemed decent enough
30/11/2007 at 14:38 Dracko says:
I can’t say I’m fond of his lack of sympathy towards the characters either. I’m sick and tired of “good” anti-heroes anyway. More games should feature confused, amoral bastards who DON’T have their actions glorified.
30/11/2007 at 14:42 Robin says:
I think it’s a bit early to jump to conclusions (we don’t even know if Gerstmann was sacked or walked, yet), but if this has played out as the rumours suggest, Kieron’s comments above are about right. Looks more like incompetence than malice, and doesn’t logically serve any of the parties’ interests.
I’d also say that it’s pretty massively hypocritical that Ziff Davis (Games for Windows Magazine, 1UP, various other outlets stuffed with payola and drivel) employees and Penny Arcade (whose editorial content for the last few years has consisted almost exclusively of starstruck reports of press junkets and pimping comics they’d been commissioned to do for games’ ad campaigns) are shaking their heads and tutting about this. Glass houses, etc.
30/11/2007 at 14:51 kuddles says:
@Robin: Joystiq confirmed that he was indeed fired out of the blue.
Also, I don’t see how you can call Ziff Davis and PA hypocrites. Part of the reason 1up is on the brink of bankruptcy is the fact that they’re no longer on good terms with a lot of publishers. I don’t know where you’re getting “payola” from. GFW is pretty much acknowledged as having a lot of integrity, the point where they refuse to even review a game unless it’s the final boxed copy, and to the point where everytime Microsoft talks about their GFW live service, they go straight to PC Gamer instead to avoid criticism. And PA flat out refuses to even allow a game to advertise on their site, unless they’ve played it and like it themselves.
30/11/2007 at 14:51 Richard says:
I considered the Game Over screen to be the ‘good’ ending. No more wanton carnage. And all those poor policemen’s families still had a daddy at the end of their shift.
It made the game five minutes long, but I felt like I’d done my bit to make the world a little better.
30/11/2007 at 14:54 Monkfish says:
Interesting take from someone who worked on the K&L ads for CNet/GameSpot.
A couple of snippets:
and:
30/11/2007 at 15:00 cullnean says:
offical statements would be nice…..from both parties
30/11/2007 at 15:13 René Magritte says:
Did anyone notice the cheap use of FL-Studio samples?….man and that music sucked ass (gamespot video review)
30/11/2007 at 15:13 Julio Nobrega says:
I remember the uproar caused by his Zelda Twolight Review on the Gamespot forums. Maybe Gamespot is becoming not only a slave of its advertisers, but like Famitsu, a slave of its reader’s expectations. Kane & Lynch particulary wasn’t that much hyped compared to other games this holiday season, but Jeff was probably not much loved by some on Gamespot after some of his reviews.
30/11/2007 at 15:14 Pete says:
Top job on a very complete summary of events chaps. GameSpot and Eidos are definitely going to be short on brownie points after this. I can only think Gertsman will be hired by a competitor in no time though, especially with his name spread across the net like this.
Oh, and yes, Hitman basically improved with every game until Blood Money was *almost* a classic, mostly marred by a messy story and not-quite-there stabby stealthy gameplay. Christ knows how they dropped the ball so spectacularly on K&L, it sounds like the gameplay needed a lot more polish and the story needed a better writer.
30/11/2007 at 15:15 T-B0N3 says:
that sucks big time really. ive been checking out gamespot for reviews from when i still was on dial up modem.. anyone knows a good other review site ?
30/11/2007 at 15:21 cullnean says:
kuddles said
PA flat out refuses to even allow a game to advertise on their site, unless they’ve played it and like it themselves.
likeing a game does not make it a good game
plus gabe gets hot about pokemon
30/11/2007 at 15:28 Kadayi says:
Personally I thought the review was too harsh. Sure K&L isn’t going to be winning any GOTY awards, but it’s more a 7-7.5 than a 6 of a game. The same guy gave that PoS Halo 3, 9.5 so personally the jury is out for me with regard the validity of his reviewing.
30/11/2007 at 15:28 Evo says:
Get Jeff onto RPS :D
:P
30/11/2007 at 15:30 Radiant says:
The hitman series of games peaked at hitman 2.
You know I find it interesting this talk of publishers paying for/pressuring for review scores.
Is this the right place to talk about Edge giving Halo 3 a ten?
[Halo 3 for the record is EXACTLY the same as Halo 2 but shinier]
I also love the way that Kane and Lynch is obviously shit but he still gave it a SIX.
30/11/2007 at 15:31 cullnean says:
also as has been discussed alot these who cares about the numers?
i belive the words will tell you if a game is good or to your likeing
honestly whats the difference beetween 6 and 7?
30/11/2007 at 15:37 cullnean says:
seeing as how i work in it i gota learn to type
30/11/2007 at 15:41 usagizero says:
Something i find interesting, well a couple things actually. We don’t know the whole story, it could be he was fired for some totally unrelated issue, who knows if the bad review was even related, he could have been stealing from the company. We don’t know, and may never know really. What people like in games is very, very objective. I despise sport games, i couldn’t give one more than a one or two star review, some people enjoy games others don’t, just as much as books or movies, possibly more so. I personally couldn’t give Halo 3 a very high rating, i don’t care for the multiplayer experience with being called various homophobic and racist names, and the single player is just okay to me, but i enjoyed Assassin’s Creed more than others seemed to. All reviews should be taken with a grain of salt, learn what kinds of games you like to play and try them yourself.
This isn’t a free speech issue, he can start up a blog and go to town in any way he sees fit. No one is keeping from speaking his mind, he just won’t be doing it on Gamespys dime.
The biggest thing that is getting to me about this, people are more upset of some random guy getting fired for a game review than anything more important going on like politics or such. Seems like people need a little perspective here.
30/11/2007 at 15:43 Del Boy says:
culnean: 1.
30/11/2007 at 15:43 usagizero says:
Ugh, Gamespot, not Gamespy. :P
30/11/2007 at 15:45 Radiant says:
Six doubloons obviously
30/11/2007 at 15:48 The_B says:
Radiant: I personally disagree, and find Blood Money to be the best Hitman yet – I could never get into the others.
Like others, something is telling me this is bad timing, but it really is a blow to web journalism and indeed to everyone involved especially in eroding the confidence of readers.
30/11/2007 at 15:50 Theory says:
Something very strange is happening to this comments thread.
30/11/2007 at 15:50 GibletHead2000 says:
It’s interesting watching the Gamespot “User Score” for the game slowly creep down towards 1.0, as more player reviews are added.
30/11/2007 at 15:52 cullnean says:
@usagizero
if i want to comment on the wider world and big issues ill go to a site about them
this is a games site, and this is games news
@Del Boy
does that 1 matter to any one in the game reveiw scheme of things?
30/11/2007 at 15:57 John Walker says:
Theory: What strange thing is happening?
30/11/2007 at 16:10 Jonathan Burroughs says:
Theory: There can be no understanding between the hand and the brain unless the heart acts as mediator.
30/11/2007 at 16:11 Bobsy says:
Well if it was the video review that was judged to be at fault, it’s easy to see why. His last words are basically telling you not to pay money for it, and I imagine that was more or less at odds with what Eidos’s marketing strategy.
It is, of course, all bullshit, and frankly the way he was talking about K&L there doesn’t really match up with what sane people might think of as a 6/10 game, though that’s really more indicitive of Gamespot’s rather skewed rating system, which scores between 5 and nearly-10.
30/11/2007 at 16:16 ConayR says:
Eidos got spammed with f-word topics and obscene content targeted at Cnet and Eidos. You can confirm it by yourselves: plenty of screen caps on neogaf.
30/11/2007 at 16:18 GibletHead2000 says:
Bobsy: I did kindof think that it would be possible to construe his last few words as basically saying “pirate it, don’t buy it”. Although I suspect what he meant was “don’t but it, but play it at a friend’s house” or something along those lines… But I certainly don’t think an ambiguous comment like that would be enough to get anyone sacked.
Yeah, I also agree that 6/10 sounds like “above average” in terms of numbers, and not “don’t bother playing it” as the review suggests. But, that’s what we’ve all grown up to expect isn’t it? My old C64 mags used to do the same thing.
30/11/2007 at 16:23 Monkfish says:
I think you made a wrong turn somewhere. This is Rock, Paper, Shotgun, we discuss issues relevant to videogaming. I think you want Rock, Paper, Dodgy Donations – Politics’ Beadiest Eyes. Easy mistake to make.
;)
30/11/2007 at 16:39 mujadaddy says:
Sadly (Penny Arcade) forgot to include a joke
They do that a lot. Like, almost every time.
Q: What’s better than getting the graphics in the Penny Arcade game “right”?
A: Not being fucking retarded.
30/11/2007 at 17:09 Robin says:
@mujadaddy: As much as it pains me to say it, the PA game looks ok, visually. Has a bit of a steampunk Chaos Engine vibe.
If they’d based it around original characters and made it a distinct entity to PA it could pass as a professional effort, even.
30/11/2007 at 17:10 Bulent says:
Hmmm. The video review pretty much trashed the game from top to bottom. Sounds like he was struggling to award it a “six”, and STILL he gets fired!
30/11/2007 at 17:19 Aaron says:
After watching the video review, I’m wondering how the written review’s rating of 6/10 seems more charitable than what Gerstmann really believed.
It certainly would have been an awkward situation for Eidos and Gamespot even before the Gerstmann was fired. Obviously, reviews should be untouched by advertising, but this suggests that game companies should set up an early glimpse at their game’s review if they’re going to advertise on a review site.
30/11/2007 at 17:26 Radiant says:
The B I felt that with Hitman 2 the game was quite open ended.
The games got more and more linear as the series progressed and degenerated into wear a disguise run up and stab the dude in the neck with the syringe affair.
30/11/2007 at 17:27 Colin D. says:
Didn’t anyone notice how Gerstmann seems to have a different attitude in this video review? I remember watching his review on Gears of War for PC and it was very energetic, it almost seems as if he may have gotten into a discourse with someone, and then had to shoot this video.
It’s very noticeable to me, anyone else thinking the same?
I must admit though, he shouldn’t be fired simply because he reviewed the game for what he believes it is.
30/11/2007 at 17:34 Oasx says:
As much as i like Gerstmann it looks like someone punched his puppy in the face and he decided to take it out on this game, the video review seems very unlike him, if the game got a 1.5 i could understand it, but he gives it 6.0 and cant even say one positive thing?
It seems more likely that he simply didnt like his work anymore and his reviews were showing it… who knows
30/11/2007 at 17:56 steve says:
Eidos doesn’t have the kinds of big, AAA titles to make a legitimate “we’ll pull our ads forever” threat. They also need Gamespot more than Gamespot needs Eidos.
One thing that hasn’t been mentioned here is that the text has a correction: “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.”
So, perhaps Eidos bitched. Perhaps Eidos threatened to pull ads. Or maybe they pointed out that the review was shoddy, Gamespot agreed, and maybe this isn’t the first review by this dude to have factual inaccuracies. Like, maybe he criticized multiplayer modes (incorrectly) which he never tried.
30/11/2007 at 18:07 mujadaddy says:
As much as it pains me to say it, the PA game looks ok, visually. Has a bit of a steampunk Chaos Engine vibe.
If they’d based it around original characters and made it a distinct entity to PA it could pass as a professional effort, even.
I think you missed the point — it wasn’t about the graphics ;)
30/11/2007 at 18:09 Zombie Games says:
Despite the over-the-top reactions of some people, I think it is a good message to send to both game publishers and review companies that gamers do not in any way support this sort of action.
Personally, no matter how this ends up, GameSpot and CNet’s credibility has been tarnished. I think that is a good thing. More people should be relying on sites that aren’t under the thumb of media conglomerates. Such as RPS, Zero Punctuation, and Penny Arcade.
I don’t know that the cheap-shot at Penny Arcade was necessary. Comics don’t always have to be funny, in this case they were using their medium to give commentary on the situation.
30/11/2007 at 18:35 Meredith Basingwary says:
Conclusive proof, if proof be need be — and be it not, frankly, because we all know what you’re all like — be that the games journalism industry is full of CORRUPT, FILTHY LAYABOUTS with a poor taste in hats.
So have I spake.
Meredith B.
Head of PR, EIDOS Interactive
30/11/2007 at 18:39 Phil says:
God, this discussion has made me pine for Amiga Power. I’m off to stare at the AP2 archive and sigh wistfully – who’s with me?
30/11/2007 at 18:40 kuddles says:
I don’t know what to think. Clearly the review has something to do with his firing, that much is clear by now. Whether it was just the final straw on management’s side of his sliding quality scale or if it was something more sinister, is a question that will probably never, ever be answered. I’m getting too invested in this, so I think I’ll stop paying attention to it and just say it sucks because I’m a big fan of Jeff, and he was the last interesting person there so I doubt I’ll be listening to the podcast anymore.
30/11/2007 at 18:54 The_B says:
Radiant: For fear of derailing the thread I’ll keep it brief, but I thought that Blood Money was pretty much the most open ended of the lot. There are so many ways to go through nearly every mission, especially the clown/cake hit level.
30/11/2007 at 19:09 Coleman says:
Haha, that video review is nothing. It’s a totally reasonable review of a bad game. What’s wrong with that?
I’ve seen so much more negative video reviews on other sites for other games. Deservedly so. It would help everyone out a lot if so many companies would stop making shitty games. I loved the Hitman games, but Kane & Lynch doesn’t even look remotely compelling to me.
30/11/2007 at 19:17 JM Jacob says:
Someone better transcript the video review before gamespot makes a copyright claim to youtube.
30/11/2007 at 20:01 kuddles says:
Here’s another flame to add to the theoritical fire, if anyone’s interested:
http://boards.1up.com/zd/board/message?board.id=games&view=by_date_ascending&message.id=488071#M488071
30/11/2007 at 20:24 Leeks! says:
CNET speaks:
Or so says Joystiq.
30/11/2007 at 20:32 Will Tomas says:
Just to pour another smidge of petrol on the fire, it’s worth noting this article from The Escapist from October 4th. We all can guess how much making/marketing new games cost, and this implies Eidos are (unsurprisingly given the push they gave the first title) really pushing K&L as a franchise.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/77610-Eidos-Sees-Big-Future-for-Kane-Lynch-Sequel-Already-In-Production
30/11/2007 at 20:50 Richard says:
That quote’s not going to go down well. Even if it might not be believed, the one thing it’s quite obviously lacking is anything approaching a straight-up denial.
30/11/2007 at 21:18 Oasx says:
“Haha, that video review is nothing. It’s a totally reasonable review of a bad game. What’s wrong with that?”
He gave the game a 6.0 which is not a bad score, Gamespot is pretty good about sticking to the real meaning of the 1-10 scale so obviously he must have thought there was more good than bad in the game, the video review didnt reflect that at all
30/11/2007 at 21:23 James Lyon says:
Interested readers should also point their eyes towards a similar situation from the recent past, when 1UP/GFW pulled their first Neverwinter Nights 2 review for a more positive one.
As far as I can gather, though, not knowing the whole story, that was more an editorial decision than a marketing one – the first review is a little erratic, and it only improves from a 5 to a 6. Still, reviewers aren’t beyond reproach for voicing an opinion, even if it is their own.
Coincidentally, both reviews end with the conditional that if you like this sort of thing, this is the sort of the thing you’ll like. Fancy that!
30/11/2007 at 21:56 Will Tomas says:
Well, someone asked for it, and so here it is. Any errors or typos are mine.
Video Review Transcript:
Jeff Gerstmann: “Kane and Lynch: Dead Men is an ugly, ugly, game. That’s not necessarily me just talking about the graphics, it’s got a really ugly storyline with characters that are impossible to like, and it’s a third-person shooter that has several gameplay flaws as well. Some really neat ideas are buried deep, deep, in there, but you’re going to have to do a whole lot of digging, more than you’ll probably want to do, in order to find them.
“The main thing of the game is its story mode, that you can play alone, or in co-op mode with another player, though that player has to be local: there’s no online co-op. You play as Kane, and in co-op you play as Kane and Lynch, who are two guys that are on Death Row. They get broken out, but before they can rejoice, it actually turns out that Lynch is in on the act, breaking Kane out so that he can reunite with this criminal organisation called ‘The Seven’, who think he’s a traitor, who want him to go and get this money back, because they think that he’s screwed them over, and also there’s this other stuff. The story’s really convoluted and about half-way through it turns into a revenge saga, but it’s impossible to care about anything that’s going on in the story because almost every single character in the game is almost completely unlikeable. There’s no-one to root for here, not even like in a cool anti-hero sort of way. You’re just left with a bunch of really ugly characters that just become impossible to care about over time.
“The script certainly doesn’t do it any favours, the dialogue’s not particularly great, the voice acting’s not bad, but really the problem is that every third word out of every character’s mouth is the ‘f-word.’ It’s not a big problem, the f-word, it’s great when properly used, but here, it’s just so done to death, that the cutscenes are permeated with it, it just becomes a real crutch, and really stands out as just kind of lazy. To give you some kind of indication of this, one of the guys, when responding to your squad commands, his response is just ‘Fuck you!’” Jeff shrugs, “It’s just lazy.”
But it’s not the story or the premise that are going to drive you away from Kane and Lynch: Dead Men: the gameplay also has more than its share of flaws. It’s a third-person shooter with cover mechanics and a squad tactic: it’s pretty basic stuff. But the cover mechanic doesn’t work well at all. You don’t hit a button to get into cover or anything like that, you gotta turn sideways, turn back a little bit, and keep turn[ing] sideways, until eventually he sticks up against the wall. It’s a, it’s a real pain that you just kind of never use, because it’s such a hassle.
“The squad tactics are there but they don’t work very well, because the artificial intelligence on both sides of the game is really pretty flawed: your guys will just get gunned down over and over again if you send them out to do any real kind of dirty work, and the enemies aren’t much better: they’ll get stuck on cars and run in circles and do all kinds of dumb stuff. So that’s not much fun either.
“The neatest idea the game has to offer is its multiplayer mode, which is called ‘Fragile Alliance.’ It’s a really neat idea, unfortunately, that idea plays out in the context of Kane and Lynch, so it has most of the same kinds of problems as the story mode has. How it works is up to eight players can get in there: you’re trying to rob a bank, or steal some jewels or something like that. You’re on the same team. You go in, you start collecting loot, each player has loot, and there’s a getaway car waiting for you. If you get away, you split the loot evenly with everyone else who escapes, but at any point one player can try and keep all the money for themself by turning traitor and shooting down one of the other players. At that point all the other players want to kill that player, and any dead players respawn as cops, and they can try and take out the traitors, take out the whole heist themselves. It’s a really clever idea because you never really know who’s going to turn and win, unfortunately the shooting isn’t very accurate or very much fun to pull off, and also the AI’s in the exact same spot every time you play the maps, so it’s like: you know these cops are going to be here, there’s going to be two cops over the fence, and all of that, it just becomes really repetitive, really, really, quickly.
“That’s really the overall problem with Kane and Lynch, it does have some really clever ideas here and there, in very short bursts, but by and large, it’s a fairly standard shooter that doesn’t really have mechanics that live up to the standards of the genre. If you’re a fan of shooters, you’re probably just going to be frustrated by a lot of the things that this games does wrong. But that said, the multiplayer is really neat, and something that’s probably worth seeing, so if you do have an opportunity to see it, without paying full price, take a look at it, but it’s probably not worth purchase.”
30/11/2007 at 22:02 Will Tomas says:
Honestly, I think it was probably that last sentence that did it, if anything. Publishers may be able to take a game being slated (to a point, anyway…) but actively saying that you shouldn’t buy it may have been the straw that broke the camel’s back.
30/11/2007 at 22:11 James Lyon says:
He did say “probably” three times, though.
30/11/2007 at 22:15 Radiant says:
The B but with the later hitman games it was all too easy to take the quick syringe to the neck route.
It was always there and always the easiest way to a silent assassin rating.
Do you remember hitman 2 the first level… the mafia one?
I remember sitting on a hill outside the complex with my binoculars just seeing how everything moved planning my way in and out and then going in.
It was real tense when I got inside the house because I hadn’t planned it and that was the only seat of the pants bit.
With the later hitman games on all the levels you just go in wear a peon’s or a cop’s uniform then you’re set to run in stab the guy and then run out again.
Or with the last hitman game you just triggered the set special kill trap and that was that [ie the pyrotechnic's death on heavan and hell] .
Pretty rudimentary and pretty straightforward.
Go back and play hitman 2; it’s really overwealming at first but it’s just teaching you to be patient about where to throw the spanner into the machine.
30/11/2007 at 23:18 kuddles says:
I don’t think that last sentence would do that. There are tons of other reviews, even on Gamespot’s site alone, that say that a game is better worth renting than purchasing.
Whether the firing was justified or not, CNET sure as heck handled this situation poorly. Removing the video review from the website, then waiting until midday to post a highly non-informative statement isn’t going to do anything to make them look less guilty.
30/11/2007 at 23:30 Andrew Doull says:
Eidos should have put in place a code of conduct at a board level to ensure that they don’t have ‘PR ringing up and going apeshit’ at people.
I’m surprised and disgusted that this is standard practise in the industry. The unholy trinity of journalism, advertising and PR is a mess enough without major corporates failing to see the ethical problems in the situation and putting proper procedures in place.
01/12/2007 at 00:48 Radiant says:
Journalism…Advertising…PR…Corporations…Ethics…Proper procedures.
If that was a venn diagram it would look like the milky way.
01/12/2007 at 00:54 kuddles says:
Well, a very coherent picture is being painted, along with all the rumours and what Penny Arcade is claiming.
http://valleywag.com/tech/jeff-gerstmann/gamespot-editor-on-fired-writer-328775.php
http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3164656
I’m beyond pissed now, this is closer to a smoking gun then I ever anticipated seeing, and it also would explain the harsh video review that feels much more rushed than the usual ones.
01/12/2007 at 01:00 WCAYPAHWAT says:
Does anyone really pay all that much attention to these online reviews, anyway? I’ve never really looked at any, Except the user reviews on GameFAQs (which is pretty much gamespot anyway, I know).
I just figured i can take those ones as honest from the game players perspective, or its blatantly obvious the writer has no idea what they’re on about.
01/12/2007 at 01:13 mujadaddy says:
Does anyone really pay all that much attention to these online reviews, anyway?
I read them from time to time, but only to gather enough information to make my own judgements, and only in the context of “it’s a frikkin’ web review” :P
01/12/2007 at 08:08 Garth says:
I really have to ask, what the hell is with that review, and then 6/10? I wish people would actually use the ‘out of ten’ to accurately review a game. 98% for HL2? 95% for Doom 3? 6/10 for a game totally panned? I was under the impression that a high ranking meant “Oh my God, buy this game,” and a 6/10 meant “It’s ok, but it isn’t anything amazing.”
What would it take to get a two, or a four out of ten?
01/12/2007 at 08:34 JORI BURTON says:
I am in mourning over this, now all the greats are gone from GAMESPOT— KARIE, GREG, RICH and now JEFF—- what is the point of that web site any more. Also TIM TRACEY left GAMESPOT at the same time as JEFF, so maybe, they are gonna do something, online and game related together. Here is hoping
And to top it off I am listening to 1 UPYOURS podcast, and JOHN DAVIES , is not going to be on that podcast anymore.
What a crud time to be an adult gamer, and a fan of gamesites
01/12/2007 at 11:19 Kieron Gillen says:
James Lyon: The comparison isn’t really fair. That wasn’t a publisher-going-apeshit story – it was a READERS going apeshit story. The review was a “What’s the point of a D&D game?” review, basically, and tore it apart for that. Readers, since the guy didn’t actually make the argument well, were furious. The review was going to be in GfW magazine too, but the editor decided – since he signed off on it online prematurely, he realised – he wouldn’t run it in the mag. He decided that if they did that, they’d have to pull the one online too.
It’s the equivalent of Gamer pulling Alec’s reiew of the Witcher because of the readers being angry with him not digging it, not the equivalent of a publisher bullying.
While there’s much to be angry about as a games writer in the story – i.e. Editor selling out writer when water gets too hot- for the consumer, it doesn’t compare to this.
KG
01/12/2007 at 11:27 Alec Meer says:
“Don’t mention the war.”
01/12/2007 at 11:46 billiards says:
ridiculous. i’m with the others on the boycott against GS, CNET and eidos. i cannot let opinion manipulation to go by passively. bets of luck to jeff.
01/12/2007 at 11:49 kuddles says:
Now an actual writer of Gamespot is confirming that what he’s heard is true, not an anonymous person.
http://frankprovo.livejournal.com/2007/11/30/
That was pretty much the nail in the coffin that was my skepticism over this whole ideal. It’s so depressing to think Kasavin and Gerstmann spent over a whole decade trying to build up a reputation for Gamespot and in two days it now stands for every paranoid fanboy’s rabid claims of payola come true to life. So fucking depressing.
01/12/2007 at 12:16 shai says:
I would suggest adding http://www.gamespot.com to your local HOSTS file.
01/12/2007 at 12:53 malarky says:
Review scores matter in a very tangible sense to most people on the dev/publishing side of games. At a lot of publishers, the marketing, PR, and production execs bonuses are structured around metacritic scores as well as sales, so if they take this personally, it’s because it’s going to affect their xmas. Eidos seems to have an awful lot riding on Kane and Lynch this year (with a sequel in production and a movie in the offing), so I can understand them going nuts at Gamespot.
That said, I think everyone in the industry wants to make sure reviews are honest and reliable. Games purchasers are so savy, they will literally make a decision to buy or ignore something based on reviews. That doesn’t really happen in movies or music, as it’s much easier to make records and movies on the cheap, and buying the media isn’t much of a risk for the consumer either – it’s £10-£15, versus £40+ for a new game.
Marketing blitzes will make a bad game successful if they are aimed at non hardcore buyers (that’s your mum or GF), but if the game’s not even half decent, it’s still going to bomb.
Reviews keep publishers on their toes, and it’s great for developers, because it means that good publishers recognise that they have to commit to making quality games. But equally, we need to know that consumers trust reviews.
The relationship between editors, magazine publishers, developers, and sales/marketing is so much tighter than you’d see in most other industries. Shit like this just highlights how much everyone relies on each other in this industry, and just how risky it is to launch a new IP if it isn’t ready.
01/12/2007 at 13:21 Hump says:
allow me to disagree here. The Gerstmann does have a history of not being enamored of shooters. Many of his reviews of the genre are usually rife with glib, condescending remarks that come off as somewhat unprofessional. He does better in genre’s that he enjoys which seem to be racing and quirky Japanese hand-held titles. I believe he had been tempering his remarks of late though as his recent reviews are decidedly less glib. As negative as the K&L review has come off, he did do a commendable job of pointing out the games (many) flaws with a minimum of smart-ass editorializing.
Personally I didn’t care for his reviewing style as a whole but as a writer in general he was decent. Certainly he didn’t deserve this (if true).
01/12/2007 at 14:06 Kieron Gillen says:
Hump: To be fair, RPS is made entirely on glib remarks.
Gerstmann’s merits as a reviewer though, really, are pretty much irrelevant to the debate.
KG
01/12/2007 at 16:47 Evo says:
Another bit of rumour mongering for you all – Kotaku
01/12/2007 at 18:01 Briosafreak says:
The valleywag.com thing is the shitz, a must read:
01/12/2007 at 21:41 James Lyon says:
Gillen: You’re right. I didn’t want to imply there was advertiser pressure involved in the GfW situation in the first instance. They’ve always been open about their editorial process and the criticism of others’ on their (excellent) podcast, and I’d be happy enough to trust that they aren’t living in a glass house.
Loving all this desperate dirt-digging from all around the web, though.
02/12/2007 at 13:11 Nestersan says:
His video review is certainly not my opinion of the game. I loved the story, loved the atmopshere, loved everything.
EXCEPT the execution. Utterly mediocre.
The lack of a hotkey based cover option is ridiculous.
The missions are frustrating.
The save system is flawed.
HOWEVER, no matter how I hate on this game, I wonder what the hell is gonna happen next, and after cursing the developers to an eternity of being sex-slaves to demon spawn, I start playing again.
The dialog is ADULT, and while I think the reviewer is a bit of a p@@@# for complaining about the language, I know real life bad-men. REAL bad men,and this is par for the course. My Girl swears more than these guys do.
The weapon accuracy is ok, not great, ok. Part of the problem is in videogames, we n00bs are used to 5000 yard headshots 99% of time, in real life that will not happen ever. I find that like in real life, when you play the game, 5 bullets to centre mass are far more effective, or even better like cops do, fire till the opponent hits the ground.
I love the premise of using adrenaline shots to recover if you are killed, but you die if you use it too often or no one is around to administer it.
If I was a bastard, I would give this game a 6.5, penalising only for flawed execution.
I love the game so damn much, like a ugly kid, or a one eared cat that execution aside, I give it an 8.9
The Japan level, in it’s entireity, is the most intense and brilliant time I have had gaming in years.
Please note, I did complain bitterly about the idiocy of playing the nighclub scene twice, but I realise the contrast between the first and second was what the developer was trying to bring across.
Here is the Biggest Problem with this title, the developers had a specific way they wanted each stage/ scenario to be played. When you figure it out it is a 9.5 out of ten. When you don’t, as in when I nearly uninstalled the game the first 7 times, or when i tried to play using a gamepad, you will curse the developers to the pits of hell and give the game a 5.0 or lower.
Just my opinion, I could be wrong.
02/12/2007 at 22:11 Alexander says:
There was a lot of good stuff in Kane and Lynch, really. I have been keeping track of most AAA titles the last few weeks, and this was the first one to surprise me; game mechanics were flawed to the bone. But at least the game stood out of the huge heap of political correct nonsense dung that seems to litter all the other AAA titles.
So game is as two-faced, two-sided, fragmented, plural as the game is, at least this game made me snicker. At least this game had me explain to my comrade Lynch how to shoot his gun, instead of being told every damn time how to do it when buy another computer game. At least I was an asshole in this game and there was no annoying Alyx person telling me how much she would like to swallow my balls on the first occasion she confused my scrotum for the flashlight. At least my friend shot all the witnesses, which I expected him to do, so that was good; and he doesn’t just stand around next time someone is perishing on the floor, but he aims that shotgun at their face and makes a nice big hole.
I saved my daughter from a monstrously big truck, and then almost cryed of admiration when my characters take the same damn truck to drive into a prison complex. This is art direction that embraces absurdity and they win. Assholes being pissed of at other assholes. The game was such a gem, that I was pissed off at the end, when I didn’t pay attention and finished the game, took off with my daughter in a chopper. I was so pissed off the credits rolled that when I shut down the game I realized that it was crazy, so I went back and checked out the title of the last chapter, which was ‘choice’.
Kane and Lych has the kind of flavour that Reservoir Dogs has, nonetheless far less profound, far less artsy; but it excels amongst every AAA title at the moment simply on the basis of ‘complete intellectual experience’. And THAT, is crazy.
I have abandoned the major gaming websites long ago, it’s a large conglomeration of chromosomic failure and every word I read there pisses me off beyond terms managable for translation into w.o.r.d.s.
02/12/2007 at 22:14 Alexander says:
wow, my writing/spelling/coherence is horrible… must still be under the influence… where, where are those pills?
03/12/2007 at 10:23 Kast says:
Joystiq has a short interview with Jeff Gertsmann about this whole debacle.
LINK
04/12/2007 at 07:22 Fan says:
I do want to get to the bottom of this. Someone official needs to actually come out and say something for real, or Jeff even. On one hand it definitely seems like many arrows are pointing to his being fired, due to the massive loss in advertising from Eidos. On the other hand I’ve heard that the main reason he was fired was because he never played past the second level of the game (as his gamertag would indicate), but claimed he finished it. If watching the review, that is somewhat supported in that there is no footage beyond level 2.
04/12/2007 at 09:42 Feet says:
Did Eidos just go and make this worse?
http://kotaku.com/gaming/kane-%26-lynch/kane–lynch-site-fibbing-about-reviews-scores-329529.php
http://kotaku.com/gaming/eidos/did-we-give-kane–lynch-5-stars-329539.php
They arn’t just quoting stuff out of context. They’re actually lying…
04/12/2007 at 11:13 Kieron Gillen says:
The “His Gamer Tag Proves…” argument is just nonsense. Most reviewing happens on debug machines on Partnernet, which is a completely separate place. Looking at a reviewer’s profile is a deeply unreliable way to work out how much of the game they’ve played.
Regarding the video, if he’d used footage from the end of the game, I dare say the same fanboys would have hung him up to dry for spoilers. Between that and basic laziness meaning they’d only want to set the capture footage thing once, that it’s from one level doesn’t really mean anything.
And most categorically, it implies that the suits would care whether or not he’d completed the game.
KG
16/04/2008 at 16:34 Zombie Games says:
I don’t know what to think. Clearly the review has something to do with his firing, that much is clear by now. Whether it was just the final straw on management’s side of his sliding quality scale or if it was something more sinister, is a question that will probably never, ever be answered. I’m getting too invested in this, so I think I’ll stop paying attention to it and just say it sucks because I’m a big fan of Jeff, and he was the last interesting person there so I doubt I’ll be listening to the podcast anymore.
16/02/2010 at 21:24 inndir says:
-indirmeden izle-inndir-şarkisini dinle-justin tv-yükle-full porno indir—konulu porno—liseli kizlar-sexsi-firikik-yesilcam pornosu-anal sikis-canli sikis–uzun pornolar—-full porno indir
-recepivedik3sinemacekimi–kutsaldamacana2idman
xvideos–vidyo—”>>günlükfilm-tikla indir-
yeni videolar
12/03/2010 at 14:59 escort ajansı says:
eskort siteleri
köpek eğitimi
internet sitesi
arkadaşlık sitesi
eskort
bayan erkek