I guess no one got the memo: Kane & Lynch

[PhysX]

Its been out for awhile now...

http://www.joystiq.com/2007/11/30/rumor-gamespots-editorial-director-fired-over-kane-and-lynch-rev/

Apparently someone gave it a bad review and got fired. Anyways he was askign for it the way he goes o nabout the game

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBD0cUeeEQc <-- the review

[Anjow]

So far I find it really quite poor. Feels like a game from several years ago, doesn't look good either. A bit like Hitman if you tried to play it as a shooter.

[maxio098ui]

even tho jeff gerstman does break it in halve with words. he should not be fired for a critical objective review because the publisher is sponsoring the site.

[Mr.Guvernment]

your kiding, he deserved to get fired because he didnt take the payoff, get real, Cnet is the biggest con job of a company for taking bribes.. look at their product reviews

[Fr3@k3r]

IMHO Kane and Lynch wasnt worth the hype.. Yes its a decent game but it feel like most recent shootem up games to me.. i played a good few hours and got really bored and annoyed of it.. back to COD4 Kthx

[Leviathan41]

It doesn't matter how good or bad the game was, there is NO WAY a journalist should get fired for a bad review.

[Hardin]

I already posted my thoughts in the other thread, but I'll say it again. What gamespot did was wrong. Jeff was totally right in saying what he did. He shouldn't have to give it a good review because of the advertisers. And I probably wont get this game either. The infamous video review really turned me off of it.

[SteveLord]

I have been a loyal Gamespot subscriber for years and liked Jeff. Thought he was pretty funny at times.

Saw this originally on XS. They posted a link to the EIDOS forums and it got slaughtered with trolls. I'm talking spam heaven.

[UnrealAlex]

I saw a gameplay video of that game on gametrailers and it looked freaking horrible...Arcade like as hell, with nothing interesting to offer...
Just shows how corporate ******** think advertising is more important than quality.

[Goateh]

Everything i've seen so far just doesn't impress me, sucks the guy got fired though :/

[glockjs]

just shows word of mouth > advertising specially with pc games ^ ^

[usp8riot]

I see nothing wrong with it. A good game gives you a good feeling, right? And so you support it. A game company gives you money to help secure you and makes you feel good, you support it, right? No problem there, the site is well within reason to support a company that supports them. A reviewer doesn't reviews the game in a way which is largely unsupportive of it, the Gamespot is well within reason to let him go for not supporting it.

You support a game, almost everyone states the good about it and not the bad. Maybe Gamespot expected the same but won't officially admit it. Hey, welcome to the real world. Life's a game too, you just got to know how to play it and how other people play it.

[Mr.Guvernment]

LOL

no problem with a company BUYING your opinion to make sure it is right and if you go against it you lose your job..... ya, cause that is why a site reviews a game, to give a biased bought out opinion...

The real world is being able to report your thoughts and opinions and NOT be punished for it....

1st ammendment anyone

[UnrealAlex]

I see nothing wrong with it. A good game gives you a good feeling, right? And so you support it. A game company gives you money to help secure you and makes you feel good, you support it, right? No problem there, the site is well within reason to support a company that supports them. A reviewer doesn't reviews the game in a way which is largely unsupportive of it, the Gamespot is well within reason to let him go for not supporting it.

You support a game, almost everyone states the good about it and not the bad. Maybe Gamespot expected the same but won't officially admit it. Hey, welcome to the real world. Life's a game too, you just got to know how to play it and how other people play it.
LOL
Wow. You seem to forget what the word "review" means...
Guess you would see nothing wrong with corruption too, it's just how the game is right :rolleyes:
Seriously sometimes I wonder if people ever give a moment's thought to what they are saying.

[usp8riot]

If my Dad supports me and you give a bad opinion of him, whether it's true or not, don't expect me to support you on it. If a company is being supported by a game and an employee gives an unfavorable review, it's well within reason to let him go. Anyone can express an opinion, but in the real world, when it's disrespectful about someone who helps that person out, whether true or not, you have to expect unfavorable thoughts or actions your way also.

You can come to my house and keep speaking bad about my mother, first amendment allows it. Just don't expect me to support your opinion or you in my house. That's life. People can complain for centuries, it won't stop. All you can do is acknowledge that you know they're being biased so they don't think we're all fools. And as such, I have nothing against people speaking out about it. I just don't like how some people take it overboard and like, "zomg, they're totally evil" or some crap. I'm just saying that's how things go down all the time and what we ourselves do a lot, whether we realize it or not.

[UnrealAlex]

No.
People read Gamespot because of their reviews:
Review: "a critical article or report...; critique; evaluation."
When a review is bought and paid for by the producer of the product being reviewed, it is no longer a review. It is no longer an evaluation or a critique. It no longer has substance because it is not based on facts. It's simply praise. Passing off praise as an objective review would be corruption and flat out lying for financial gains:
Corruption: "moral perversion; depravity, perversion of integrity.."

I see nothing wrong with it.
Well you see nothing wrong with corruption and absence of morals then. It doesn't matter if that is how "things go down." Just because it may or may not happen, doesn't mean it's acceptable.

This IS totally evil. It's more corporate dollars misleading the public, and saying that's totally acceptable is equivalent of saying "I'm fine with corporations doing whatever they want because they lobbied politicians"

[rainless]

Well me being ME... I find this a travesty. I always thought that Jeff Gertsman was a horrible "gamer" stereotype... But being a fellow professional writer, Gamespot can BITE ME. And any other organization that screws with its head editors. I think the entire Gamespot staff should go ON STRIKE like the rest of the writers in this country are doing right now.

I spent about six months writing for Tomshardware until they almost, inadvertently, RUINED MY LIFE. Most companies, across the board, don't even hire full-time writers anymore. They just contract them and write cute little clauses on how much money they can cheat you out of for your work. That's what the hollywood/TV/broadway thing is all about. You can write a television show, or a play, or a film, have a company tell you that they aren't going to use some or all of it, in which case you wind up with either 15% of what you were supposed to be paid or nothing (for my first writing project with Tomshardware.com I got 15% and for my last project I got NOTHING)... only to see a trailer for your movie, or the lines you wrote for a television show pop up on TV six months later... unedited... and in their entirety.

That much goes back to the very begining of writing. But tampering with your own editors in immoral. If all the writers in gamespot walked out, the website would fold. No one with the talent and experience to take the job (writers for joystick, and gametrailers, and kotaku) would do so after the way they dumped Gertsman.

It's a shame I don't know anybody in that particular industry. I'd organize the damned strike myself.

[maxio098ui]

i agree with rainless. jeff is a veteran of that site and shouldn't be fired without warning or notice

[Satsumomo]

When a review is bought and paid for by the producer of the product being reviewed, it is no longer a review.

That is correct. It becomes an advertisement.

[usp8riot]

No.
People read Gamespot because of their reviews:
Review: "a critical article or report...; critique; evaluation."
When a review is bought and paid for by the producer of the product being reviewed, it is no longer a review. It is no longer an evaluation or a critique. It no longer has substance because it is not based on facts. It's simply praise. Passing off praise as an objective review would be corruption and flat out lying for financial gains:
Corruption: "moral perversion; depravity, perversion of integrity.."

If people are naive enough to read reviews from major sites and be surprised that their review is "corrupted" then the only corruption is their logic or naivety. The point not exactly being this happens and is not favored by you or me, but who reads these sites for reviews anyhow? I usually go to a forum and get your average joe's opinion of it where it's less likely to be tampered with by the influences of money. Things like this happening just weeds out the idiots who take a corporation's words and wind up spending $50 or whatever on a game only to find out it's not that good to them. The word "evil" is usually used when naive people have something unfortunate happen to them and out they set out for revenge.

[UnrealAlex]

If people are naive enough to read reviews from major sites and be surprised that their review is "corrupted" then the only corruption is their logic or naivety. The point not exactly being this happens and is not favored by you or me, but who reads these sites for reviews anyhow? I usually go to a forum and get your average joe's opinion of it where it's less likely to be tampered with by the influences of money. Things like this happening just weeds out the idiots who take a corporation's words and wind up spending $50 or whatever on a game only to find out it's not that good to them. The word "evil" is usually used when naive people have something unfortunate happen to them and out they set out for revenge.
Again, what you just wrote still doesn't make a wrong right.

[rainless]

If people are naive enough to read reviews from major sites and be surprised that their review is "corrupted" then the only corruption is their logic or naivety. The point not exactly being this happens and is not favored by you or me, but who reads these sites for reviews anyhow?

I'm guessing, on average, about 2 million people a week.

Not everybody is as cool and hip as you are to get all their recommendations from forums. ;)

[usp8riot]

Again, what you just wrote still doesn't make a wrong right.

I guess we just have different philosophies. I see someone trying to take me as a fool as a way to grow and I'll know better next time. Every small fall is a step up in prevention as well as the old "fool me once..." adage which our Pres. quite famously tried to quote. I don't see any right or wrong in this world. To me it will all balance no matter what happens. If Gamespot knowingly hosts a biased review and broadsides readers, then the readers will know better next time and Gamespot will lose an audience. It's all good and all works out in the end without having to resort to emotional backlash which is common on the interwebs. I hate to bring philosophy into this but perhaps that's what this topic's about.

[SteveLord]

I read Gamespot all the time (4 years). I watch the video reviews when they are there. I have 5 years on GameFAQs with Elite status. I have the majority of my stars on OCF, earned here in Games. And I peek into IGN and XSystems sometimes too.

That doesn't include my many subscriptions to PC Gamer, Maximum PC and Computer Gaming World/Games for Windows over the years.

I get news and feedback from everywhere.

[Hardin]

People go to the major review sites because...um hello they review games. Sometimes people want to know what a game is about before they buy it. If the reviews are biased then they could buy a crappy game without knowing it. This taints the entire system. Sure user reviews are good but not everyone shares the same opinion on the game. I like Master of Orion 3 a lot but I don't think most people do. Most reviewers told people to stay away from Moo3 and so the people stayed away.

[Anjow]

If a company is being supported by a game and an employee gives an unfavorable review, it's well within reason to let him go.

No, not when that company is meant to be maintaining objectivity. That's the point of reviews matey. What you're suggesting is a world where reviews don't exist, where they are analogous to adverts.

If a company has a vested interest in giving a good review it is no longer a review. It is just an advert.

[zexmarquies01]

No, not when that company is meant to be maintaining objectivity. That's the point of reviews matey. What you're suggesting is a world where reviews don't exist, where they are analogous to adverts.

If a company has a vested interest in giving a good review it is no longer a review. It is just an advert.

100% CORRECT. And that is NOT an opinion. If you are payed to say good things about something, then its an advert, as Anjow said.

people are not paying for subscriptions, and going to the GS website for adverts. They go there for reviews.


And sheesh, don't you people ever visit the console gaming section? There's a thread about this, that has been there for at least a day or two.

[zexmarquies01]

If a company is being supported by a game and an employee gives an unfavorable review, it's well within reason to let him go.

one problem with your logic.

they arn't supported by game companies. They just get extra money for advertising. they get their support from subscriptions that people pay money for, so they can get reviews. they DON'T pay for a subscription so they can get a bunch of 9.0+ advertisements.

People are paying for a service. And GS doing this, demeans ( if not totally destroys ) the service.

If you pay money for a service, you had better get the service you payed for. If not, people have the right to b*tch and moan about it, and to stop buying your services.

Without going into flaming, or being really mean. I'll just say this instead. You are wrong.

[PhysX]

I think what really did him in was the fact that he said "if you can get it at less than full price go for it"..

[zexmarquies01]

I think what really did him in was the fact that he said "if you can get it at less than full price go for it"..

haha. I think that was one of the BETTER remarks in his review about the game. At least he told you to give it a try.

sure, he could have just said " you should rent it instead ", but everyone knows what he means by "if you can get it at less than full price ". Which means, either rent, or borrow.

but at least he told the viewers to give it a try.


and i agree when people here and at the GS forums say...

" If you don't want Sh*tty reviews, then don't make a Sh*tty product! ". simple as that.

[lordkosc]

wow , this is messed up, and I always liked gamespot as they seemed to have a food feel for the games I liked, at least review wise...

[usp8riot]

Without going into flaming, or being really mean. I'll just say this instead. You are wrong.

Gamespot gets a lot of money from video game adverts. When you go to a video game review site and see ads from video games plastered all over it, can anyone in their right mind expect a fair review? I'm not saying this is right or wrong, but jeesh, this is old news. This goes back since the dawn of time.

If you're reading a game review that says a game is basically ****ty and an ad for it is plastered all over the site, that puts the site in a tight spot. Maybe Gamespot didn't think ahead about that. But clearly, game ads help support game sites and thereby supporting this writer's salary. He should've probably been more respectful in his review. If someone's paying your salary, it's best to not talk **** about them. Then again, if you read review sites with gaming ads and don't know that simple concept of life, maybe you deserve to lose $50 for thinking you'll get a fair review.

I don't think it's ever going to change unless humans' biologically change because we've always been this way. The only way I see is have game sites have no game ads whatsoever, or only support games that the reviewers have a favorable opinion of.

[rainless]

Gamespot gets a lot of money from video game adverts. When you go to a video game review site and see ads from video games plastered all over it, can anyone in their right mind expect a fair review? I'm not saying this is right or wrong, but jeesh, this is old news. This goes back since the dawn of time.

If you're reading a game review that says a game is basically ****ty and an ad for it is plastered all over the site, that puts the site in a tight spot. Maybe Gamespot didn't think ahead about that. But clearly, game ads help support game sites and thereby supporting this writer's salary. He should've probably been more respectful in his review. If someone's paying your salary, it's best to not talk **** about them. Then again, if you read review sites with gaming ads and don't know that simple concept of life, maybe you deserve to lose $50 for thinking you'll get a fair review.

I don't think it's ever going to change unless humans' biologically change because we've always been this way. The only way I see is have game sites have no game ads whatsoever, or only support games that the reviewers have a favorable opinion of.

This is already done. Kotaku comes immediately in mind. As does Joystiq. Then of course there's gametrailers. I thin the bottom line is: In the case of Kane and Lynch... if they're going to go THAT far out, then they shouldn't have even been REVIEWING kane and lynch. News sites associated with Disney just don't say anything bad about Disney... they don't go around saying the OPPOSITE... that that forced child labor they've got going on in Indonesia is a GOOD thing.

It's called Journalistic Integrity.

That's why a lot of the independant sites refuse to take money from game companies: They couldn't be what they are by doing so. CNET is just another corporation. But that doesn't mean what they did was right. And that has nothing to do with any innate sense of being that all human beings have. That's just what corporations have become accustomed to getting away with. But we've evolved as a society. And I would think that, even in the business world, what Cnet did would be deemed as: "Going too far."

[Satsumomo]

The only way I see is have game sites have no game ads whatsoever, or only support games that the reviewers have a favorable opinion of.

Just what Penny-arcade does.

[Hillsdale]

Im not gunna lie, that game does look like crap. I think the review is quite accurate. And if someone gets fired for doing his job then thats just stupid. I wish him luck if this story is true.