November 30th, 2007 – Long time games reviewer of major gaming website Gamespot.com Jeff Gertsmann has been rumoured to have been fired from his job of which he held for 11 years allegedly due to his review for Eidos game Kane and Lynch for the Xbox 360 and PS3.

The game had received a massive marketing campaign on the Gamespot website, and it is rumoured that Gertsmann's not so glowing review (he awarded the game a 6.0 ) saw Eidos “take issue with the review and threatened to pull its ad campaign”. Ironically Gertsman’s review in fact seems to be in line with the general press opinion, with the game in the mid 60’s range on Metacritic.

Certainly if this is true, it points to a severe compromise of Gamespot’s credibility and the profession of gaming journalism as a whole. Large corporate websites like Gamespot rely quite heavily on advertising revenue from videogame publishers, and thus a poor review on the very website that contains such glowing advertisements most certainly creates a conflict of interest between the parties involved. Clearly it is not in Eidos’s best interest to have their marketing dollars put into a website, where the review suggests the game is not worth the consumer’s time.

On the other hand, websites like Gamespot provide a service to consumers in the form of independent reviews of videogames, having their reviews influenced in any way by the game publishers creates another conflict of interest. Perhaps this is a case of gaming websites becoming too commercialised for their own good, and if the big corporate sites wish to continue to operate without compromising their integrity perhaps their marketing revenues need to come from other sources, such as products that the website does not directly review.


Source: Kotaku

I saw this earlier today and frankly I'm not surprised - I often get the impression that IGN and indeed, almost any review publication which has reached a certain critical mass has lost it's access to true objectivity.

He shouldn't be fired for this, but Gerstmann hasn't exactly been a paragon of professionalism for quite some time now, and that's not something that should simply be ignored.

Since when was Gamespot really a credible source for reviews?

Also, Gertsmann was a horrible writer, really. He picked out the tiniest, insignificant things ("oh my Bioshock disc may be damaged which is why it's skipping so frequently, DOCK THE FUCKER 10 POINTS") and used them objectively to lower review scores to try and portray himself as a unique flower in a field of daisies.

Internet journalism? Pfft.

Edit - watching the video review, it looks like it's reviewing all of one level. Watching the GameTrailers review, they cover the whole game (after reading spoilers), while the GS review really just shows the first level, the escape from the prison truck. Way to go guys!

In all honesty I'm surprised we haven't heard about something like this earlier. Be it Gamespot, IGN or wherever, it's pretty clear that the reviews should be taken with a grain of salt because A) their opinion and B) because the commercial aspect almost dictates that this is plausible.

I also find that personally, it's a lot easier to find writers you trust and to stick with their views than it is to pick a website/magazine/whatever and trust it as a whole.

At the end of the day, I read multiple reviews for what should be obvious reasons. Firstly I want multiple perspectives to help give me a fair idea of how a game is and what its faults may or may not be. I also use their scores as a rough estimate as to whether I should still try a game or not. Take Assassin's Creed for example, that has been reviewed with perhaps a little more negativity than most of us were expecting but because I'm personally interested in the game and because the scores are still above average, I'm still going to check the game out. If the scores/opinions were below average on the other hand, I'd probably steer clear of it despite what I felt towards it personally.

But meh, all of the above is irrelevant for one and obvious for two. With regards to his actual firing, I don't visit Gamespot and therefore haven't really read any of his reviews so I can't make a judgement on how he writes. I can say however that if offered what seems to be the truth in his review and then got fired because Eidos made threats, that's absolutely pathetic. I don't care who the writer is, if he's trying his utmost best to be honest about something he is supposed to be critical of (since you know, that's his job and all) and then gets fired because higher ups don't want to lose their precious money, then that's just shit.

Thats why gamers should always read around, dont base your decisions on one review. I read gaming blogs too and I also try out demos -they're there for a reason. Otherwise just rent the game and if you like it buy it. I tend to find that borrowing games from mates is the best way to save money cos most games dont get replayed that much unless they're really good (in which case you'll buy the title).

But yeah, sucks for the guy to get fired lol! If he's really as good as they say then he's not lost, he'll get picked up by some site or mag.

I actually prefer it when video reviews dont show too much of a game, this is why I tend to avoid GameTrailers reviews since they tend to show a bit too much, I prefer to avoid spoilers. Though GameTrailers have the best video reviews around in terms of quality and professionalism.

And while you could argue that some of Gertsmann's reviews have been off the mark lately, others would argue they where right on the money, it's an opinion afterall, and as long as it is justified there shouldn't be a problem.

Jeff responds to the rumors

Summary: I got owned.... like really hard.

I don't see how that's the right stance to take in this matter.

He was fired for not writing a review and score that matched a publisher's expectations? I don't care what his other reviews about in this instant, the content of them doesn't even matter, nor the quality of his writing, if someone is fired, because a publisher is basically buying out your reviews to make their games look good and someone disagrees with that, I'm all in the favour of supporting that reviewer.

Indeed, getting fired isn't a joke, even if you're not a fan of Gertsmann this isn't how things should be handled, it seems like this 'rumour' is indeed true, and this is going to place Gamespot in a difficult position, it shows that all they care about is the money/commercial aspect, not a good sign.

The thing is, opinion is different to critical thinking. I'm all for independant thought and the right to present those opinions, but Gertsmann exploited that to try and appear 'edgier' than his colleagues in the field.

If Eidos did actually do that, then I'm not say it's right; however, don't think that stuff like this hasn't gone on before and that Gertsmann is the first for this to happen to. I guarantee this shit happens all the time, it's just that no-one hears about it; Gertsmann is just a gigantic attention whoring douche who will be using this to his own personal gain.

No one will end up benefitting out of this, and that's a good thing.

Oh yeah I'm sure this sort of thing where the advertisers try and influence the reviews happens a lot, and the fact that it does brings into question the whole critical thinking, how can the reviewers be expected to be independntly critical if these conflicts of interest exist?

Firing doesn't seem like a top idea, mainly because it only highlights the fact that the writers are in the advertiser's pocket and therefore cannot be trusted. But, as most say, read a variety of sites.

But I see sites like www.gamecritics.com seemingly struggling, and they offer a fairly different reviewing angle (their review of Bioshock going against the grain), which could be the price of objectivity.

The old Amiga Power magazine had a interesting reviewing policy, which put them out of favour with many advertisers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amiga_Power#Philosophy

... ah, good days.

And this is why I was slight;y miffed that Cam Shea, once editor of Hyper, defected to IGN.
Hyper was funny and good to read. I don't read websites like magazines. I just go for one review and that's it. A magazine I read in it's entirety.
And to wrap this up in a nicely tied on topic package, another reason I'm sad at it is because of things like this. You never got the advertiser's influencing game scores in Hyper mag, yet I don't doubt they'll have an effect on IGN's scores.

Read magazines :P

[/nonsensical rant]

Tim Tracy leaves Gamespot after Jeff is fired - http://www.gamespot.com/users/TimT

He packed up all his stuff and left after Jeff was unfairly canned. Just put this here for those who still believe Jeff was fired for other reasons. Oh an CNET has lost around 3000 dollars from canceled subscriptions:

http://www.gamespot.com/users/Adam_B/show_...=m-100-25233743

The more Gamespot suffers for this, the better.

Wow, this might be a significant turning point for videogame journalism.

I doubt it. I can guarantee that CNET made far more than 3000 dollars from the K&L advertising.

But it's not just the lost subscriptions, it's the bad publicity for the game Kane & Lynch, the questionable integrity of professional reviews brought to the public, the potential losses can be measured to extend beyond the pure monetary losses.

Reputation and image are very powerful for instance, and while exisiting customers have now cancelled accounts, you have to consider that this scandal may cause potential future customers to now no longer become customers, thus there are oppurtunity costs (i.e. lost future benefits) for CNET.

I never used Gamespot much before, and don't imagine I will in the future. This whole debacle has only pushed it further down the list of sites I'll visit for reviews.

Gamespot is actually crumbling. This quite intriguing, I never seen anything like this before. Its like a movement. :o

there was a post saying the reason jeff was fired was that he was intoxicated during the review, i saw a post last night saying that and siting the source, not the post is gone. coincidence?

On the mention of Hyper; One of the main reasons I continue to buy and read Hyper these days is because I trust them. Sure, I read all my gaming news and a lot of the reviews that are posted online too, but it is usually Hyper's verdict (depending on the writer though of course) which is the one I will trust and therefore believe the most. The mag has copped some slack over the years for being crap (which I have always disagreed with but that's for another topic) but I don't think anyone can deny that, when compared with a lot of the main online sites, Hyper definitely can be trusted.

On Cam's move to IGN - I agree in that IGN would be another site to be weary of when it comes to scores and what is advertised on the site, but I have to say that at the same time, IGN AU is actually pretty decent. When it was first announced I thought it was going to be just the odd review here and there and that's it, but they pump out the reviews and articles quite regularly. I actually enjoy reading the Aussie articles at IGN now, something I never would have expected to be the case when it was announced. Is Cam's being there part of that?

I think so as he would be one of the people that I'd trust, or if not trust, respect.

Speaking of which, that's another thing the Hyper boys have from me and the way they write in the mag - respect.

Gamespot answers tough questions regarding Jeff's departure

They seemed to imply that he was fired due to his writing not matching his scores, but he would have been fired a long time ago if that was the case.

It will be interesting to see how this all plays out, I can imagine executives at both CNET and Eidos aren't very happy at the moment, if you google Kane and Lynch you'll get results about Gertsman, not ideal for Eidos.

I just hope Jeff starts a blog and tells us his side. It's like they black bagged him or something... he's totally vanished.