Discuss!
Discuss!
Is this true?
NeoGAF seems to think Gerstmann was actually fired. True?
The rumor has indeed been going around all day that he was fired, yes, and that it was related to his Kane & Lynch score.
This is disgraceful if true. Especially since his score seems largely "right" (mid-60s on metacritic)
Seems like Gamespot's had a lot of people shuffled into other areas of CNET, or move off to other places in the last year or so.
If this is true, I hope people never visit Gamespot ever again. If the site soldiers on as the number one or number two or whatever they are, it proves that people do not care one bit about the integrity of the games press and every one of us should start writing what publishers want instead of what readers should know.
What's it doing up on Thursday?
Gamespot is pretty much the first place I go to look at game reviews online (all the others are just too much of a fucking design mess or written by morons or both), but if the facts bear this out I'll be dropping them too.Originally Posted by Dave Long
Causing a commotion.
Wow. Super slimy if true.
I would've also accepted "The backstroke."
I'm not understanding what happened here. You mean he rated a game at a 6.0, they published his review and then fired him?? That can't be right. Gamespot gave Mass Effect an 8.5 while everyone else was giving it the 9's and higher so being out of sync isn't new for them. Like I said, if someone can explain in laylady speak, I'd appreciate it :).
Did Microsoft pay megabucks to skin the entire site with Mass Effect graphics?
The problem is that a 6 isn't in the 7-9 range. You just can't go around doing that sort of thing.
-Tom
P.S. I'm very confused about which thread to post in.
What's odd here though is that Gerstmann's review is dated Nov 13. So why was he fired NOW? The review would have been up before the megabucks site-skinning happened....or was it?
Maybe certain parties hadn't checked the review yet and made the stink once they found out.
So you are saying that he ignored all the ads and called it like he saw it? And was fired for that? But can reviewers on Gamespot publish their own reviews or don't they have an editor? And if they have an editor, isn't it the editor's fault anyway?
If in fact they fired him or anyone else because of the money a sponsor spent on the site and he then didn't give that sponsor a 8+ review, then yes, I won't be reading them ever again either <sigh>.
Hadn't he taken over Kasavin's position? I've never been a fan of Gamespot's silly blender-of-numbers review style, and so don't check in often, but I thought he was kind of the editor already.
Eidos' involvement in this does not surprise me in the least.
I don't agree with his reviews and found his demeanor in early Wii videos - his reluctance to give a new platform the benefit of the doubt and play by its rules - unprofessional and immature.
But the guy doesn't deserve to be fired over this shit. This is why, as a journalist myself, I shun writing editorials and keep my blog going with the bare minimum of content, which is typed up with a ten foot pole strung to each finger.
Someone at GAF is claiming the Gerstmann firing as fact, but has no word on the reason why...
If the K&L review turns out to be the reason I'll be really disappointed and a bit angry, but not that surprised. Eidos has always, always been more about marketing and image than just making quality games. Kane & Lynch is really an archetypical Eidos product - gritty, press-baiting story line, state-of-the-art marketing, mediocre game. As a company that relies more heavily on marketing/PR spin than most, they're more likely to throw their weight around when a major marketing partner doesn't play ball.
I should add that never once in my magazine career was any such pressure applied from an advertiser, but I have no idea how much the climate has changed in the years since I left...
Someone once told me this one chick was into me. It turned out not to be true, though.
A news outlet doesn't send all of its copy to a central corporate overseer who stamps the ones that he/she deems print-worthy with a seal of approval. No news outlet that I've seen could do that and compete. That's why there are managing editors, and then publishers and then a nebulous cloud of corporate beauracracy from which lightning bolts of punishment come days and sometimes weeks after something that they might disagree with is let out into the wild.
Someone in our company was fired for writing a story in our paper about how our parent company's stock was the worst performing stock on the market - even worse than Ford Motor Company stock, at the time.
Nothing like that has happened in MY magazine career, either. The business side does a pretty good job of shielding us from the "feedback" over reviews - we usually don't even hear about unhappy advertisers until much later, as a funny anecdote, if ever.
Eidos blackballed Tom Chick for the Deus Ex review didn't they?
I'm pretty sure Jeff is aware of how publishing happens.
Wow. Read the comic. Didn't assume there was any truth on it. I'll be following the story. No Kasavin and now no Gerstmann due to bullshit and I'll have one less online subscription.
Not to get too P&R, but I can't understand why people don't take the effect of media conglomeration on society more seriously.
If only Eidos spent their bribe money on making good games. They have some of the best IP out there in terms of potential - Deus Ex, Legacy of Kain, Tomb Raider, Thief.
Oh, no, he won't get free copies of their terrible games anymore, whatever will he DO? ;)
The people who do that have voices to reach many people get fired or disappeared.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote