In brief, Jeff Gerstmann has been fired from Gamespot (a game review website). In itself, this doesn't sound like a huge deal. However, the problem rests with the circumstances in which he was fired. You can find out more about the controversy from these links (here and here).
Now, before I get any further, bear in mind that I don't actually know what happened. Although I have read a few news articles and blog posts, all I know can be summarised in the above couple of posts that I linked to. All of my following comments are going to be based on the gut feel and impression I get when looking at what happened.
Anyway, the key issue in the departure of Jeff Gerstmann is the reason that he was fired. Currently, the hot rumor is that Jeff was fired for a negative review of Kane & Lynch. Eidos, the publisher of Kane & Lynch had spent a ton of money on advertising this game on Gamespot. Apparently, the negative review was leading Eidos to push future advertising money away from Gamespot which would have made a huge dent in their pocket. As such, Jeff Gerstmann lost his job.
I believe the official position is that Jeff was fired due to negative tone in his reviews and that he had been warned about this before. This sounds like Gamespot are saying that he was fired because he wasn't objective enough when reviewing a game.
As I said above, I have no idea if this is true or not. In one sense, the general public will never know for sure simply because Gamespot can't divulge the exact reasons for Jeffs firing and Jeff has already stated that for legal reasons he can't disclose the reason for his firing either. In other words, all we will ever have is rumours and heresay from 3rd parties.However, looking at the arguments both for and against the idea that Jeff was fired for a negative review, it seems to me that the truth (as always) is somewhere inbetween.
I highly doubt that Jeff was fired for 1 negative review. In this regard, I believe that Gamespot have indeed given him several warning about the tone of his negative reviews. To me, it seems likely that the Kane & Lynch review was simply the straw that broke the camels back.
Does this mean that Gamespot did the right thing? In my opinion - No. I read the Kane & Lynch review (and also saw the video review). Although Jeff panned the game, it seemed like he justified the reason that he thought the game was a piece of crap with examples. In a situation like this, it seems to me to be a fair review of his opinion on that game and he should be allowed to call out Eidos as having published a shitty game.
Based on this belief (and again, I have to stress that I don't actually know what happened), by taking the action to fire him (and by all accounts, it was done in a horrible manner - ie he came into the office and found his door locked), Gamespot have sent the clear message that their advertising revenue is more important than their journalists integrity. Granted, the review score for Kane & Lynch was never modified - however, other game reviewers at Gamespot now know very clearly the potential consequences for pissing off a big advertiser on their site. And you have to ask the question - will this affect futusre review scores?
Most likely yes (in my opinion). Which is a shame because Gamespot used to be game review site which I trusted highly.
Update - interesting article here.
3 comments:
Thats why I:
1. Look at sites such as Metacritic, where one funny score by a gamer site can be seen in context of how other sites are rating the game
2. Look at user comments (although these too have to be taken with a pinch of salt)
3. Look at the track record of the games publisher / game creator (sorry, but Eidos hasn't been a "good" publisher for me for a long time)
4. Try out the demo (nothing beats hands on experiencing it yourself)
Bro
1. Yeah - I normally use Gameranking. As you say, you can get a better idea of the wider context of how other sites are rating the game.
The thing is though, ultimately, you need to buckle down and read the actual reviews to see what the reviewer liked and didn't like. Before I buy a game, I generally go through at least several different review sites.
After a while, you start to trust certain sites simply because those reviewers hold a similar view to your own. Thus, if they liked a game, then its a good bet that I would like the game as well.
Gamespot, for me, had reached that stage. Of course, I still read a lot of other reviews - but if it came down to the wire, Gamespot used to hold the deciding vote (for lack of a better term).
Assassins Creed is a good example of this. Very wide range of ratings - some people panned it, some people loved it. Gamespot loved it. They acknowledged the games faults in the review - but their point was that the game was enough fun anyway to make up for those faults. Clearly, not everyone would get the same experience. Assassins Creed was an example of where I was going to buy the game (sometime next year after I clear the backlog!!) based on the positive review from Gamespot.
2. I don't trust user comments at all - too many fanbois online.
3. Track record is only useful for good developers. If its a good developer (eg BioWare), then I may be willing to buy the game before reading any reviews. Every other situation, I always troll through the reviews first. ALWAYS.
Also, imo, publisher doesn't factor into this as even shitty publishers can publish good games if they get a good developer (I am desperately hoping this is the case with EA and BioWare!!!).
4. Agreed - unfortunately, not all games have demos.
There is an interesting update on this from an insider on the Kotaku website - the main article has been updated with the below link.
http://kotaku.com/gaming/gamespot-on-the-spot/gamespot-may-see-mass-resignations-over-dismissal-329822.php
Post a Comment