GameSpot's Gerstmann Fired Due to Negative Review

[Squeek]

As for refusing to review a game ... that would cause significant issues.

More significant than the way it actually turned out? What issues are those?

I would rather put up a review that gets me in trouble for its' honestly that try to avoid controversy by not reviewing it at all.

Me too. That's one of the reasons I don't work at a place like GameSpot. You don't either, do you?

 

[xSamhainx]

It's happened quite a few times that I can remember, that they totally hype a game then it gets a poor review, Dark Messiah o' M&M comes to mind. Ive always wondered how that plays out in the smoky back rooms.

Always makes me crack a smile, knowing the irony of the whole thing. You know, all the previews, interviews, all the videos, the contests.... then a sheepish grin and a 6.something score?

I think it's funny that a company finally said enough is enough, we're tired of this crap, just getting to third base and then inning over. We want to go all the way, baby. We want the grand slam, for the money that we're shellin out here. How do ya like that, I dont even really know anything (nor care to) about sports and I busted out a sports analogy!

Like I said tho, that is if the rumor is indeed true. This may all be fanboy bullshit!

 

[magerette]

It's more than a question of honesty. GameSpot doesn't just review games. They advertise them too. They are, in fact, trying to make a buck. There's obvious potential for conflict of interest there. That makes it a question of tact as well as honestly and having the good judgement to know how and when to avoid those situations.

Yes, I know I'm niave, but I completely disagree. This doesn't look to me like a situation you can avoid your way out of for the employee. If you say yes to a demand from your boss to do something you don't think is right once, you will for sure be asked to do it again. You can quit and look like a prima donna, or do what you think is appropriate and accept the consequences.

To me a game review is not the same as a commercial and that's what you seem to be implying. The guy has ten years at Gamespot and obviously knew what was going on. You think he should have said a mediocre game was great in a review because the main goal of a review is to be consistent with the advertising of the publisher sponsoring his site? The publisher bought ad space. He got ad space. He bought product exposure. He got exposure. Did he also "buy" an automatic favorable review at the same time? No. Then it isn't a review.

In your opinion, "Good judgement" would be to lie about the game's quality and encourage people to spend their money on the game when you think it's not worthwhile? What about after people have bought the game on the basis of your glowing review and found out it sucks? Do you think that your reviews will mean anything next time around? That's being a shill, not a reviewer.

Of course, like Sammy says, this could be 99% rumor and 1% truth.The real situation may be nothing this melodramatic--but the principal still remains--will you do anything for money and a hassle-free life--and if so how much?

 

[Remus]

There are more comments on the whole things here:

http://valleywag.com/

 

[xSamhainx]

1Up Shows Support for GS Reviewers

put a tear in my eye! *sniffle*

 

[Squeek]

You think he should have said a mediocre game was great in a review because the main goal of a review is to be consistent with the advertising of the publisher sponsoring his site?...In your opinion, "Good judgement" would be to lie about the game's quality and encourage people to spend their money on the game when you think it's not worthwhile?

No, of course not. Nobody wants that. Everybody wants reviews to be honest. I've never once heard anyone say otherwise, and I'm sure I never will.

I'm saying his firing makes it perfectly obvious that reviews aren't always completely honest at GameSpot. I'm not saying or implying that I approve of it. I can see the potential for a conflict of interest at GameSpot, because they don't just review games. They also advertise them, even the ones they don't like. I'm pointing to the obvious connection between that and his being fired.

I think Gerstmann should have known and understood that and avoided being fired. If he didn't like GameSpot's principals, then he never should have gone to work for them in the first place. If he discovered it later, then he should have quit when he found out. He didn't. He got fired. Unless it was his intention to be fired, I think he blew it.

 

[magerette]

Well, obviously we'll never know the real story, if any. I lean to the theory that it was his intention to be fired, but who knows why. Ten years is a long time in the games industry. Gamespot has never been ad-free of course, but they used to be a fairly honest source for reviews. I can't say I'm going to be taking their word for it in the future though.

 

[Remus]

During the late 90s i quite frequently visited Gamespot, to read reviews such as Baldur's Gate (it's hot game during that time), Elder Scroll: Arena, Command & Conquer, etc. But couple years later it start to load slower due to more adverds been put on it front page; lousy nagivations, focus on consoles, young forumers who could only comment on games in 2-3 sentences, etc. Occasionally i still read reviews from Gamespot especially RPGs by Greg Kasavin or Desslock but later they left as well...

 

[woges]

Well, obviously we'll never know the real story, if any. I lean to the theory that it was his intention to be fired, but who knows why. Ten years is a long time in the games industry. Gamespot has never been ad-free of course, but they used to be a fairly honest source for reviews. I can't say I'm going to be taking their word for it in the future though.

Well you might, if Jeff files suit against gamespot. I'll be surprised if he doesn't.

 

[xSamhainx]

I like Gamespot, but for me it's always been more of a news and archival resource, not really a review site. It's worth the money to be able to pretty much pull up any game I want, and get most of it's available material such as patches, screens, vids, demos etc instantly, and dl'd high speed. I dont have to hunt thru dead links and sunk fansites and all that. Once and awhile they bust out a good game guide too.

I'm not saying that I dont take any reviews there seriously, Ive just learned to cherrypick disparate elements of ALL reviews, not just GS.

This really is a category 5 nerdstorm tho, of the likes Ive never seeen.

 

[Kelvorn]

I'm not a big fan of Gamespot's review but for Eidos to take offense on a bad review. That just unprofessional of them.

 

[magerette]

Definitely category 5, Sammy.
Latest poop--hot off the presses. I'm not going to put this on the front page, but Gamebanshee has a pretty credible sounding post on this and well worth a read--I'll quote it here so you don't have to follow links-but there is profanity so be advised:

Gamespot Controversy, Continued:
The plot thickens, as both Kotaku and Penny Arcade are offering up a few more surprising comments about GameSpot's termination of long-time employee Jeff Gersttman over his Kane & Lynch review. Kotaku brings us word from an unconfirmed source that claims to work for GameSpot:

The main problem here is that no one in the entire editorial team was aware that this was about to occur, least of all Gerstmann. We're very clear in our review policies that all reviews are vetted by the entire team before they go live - everything that goes up is the product of an entire team's output. Our freelancers are especially guilty of making snide comments, but those are always yanked before the review goes live, because everyone in the office reads these reviews and makes sure they're up to our standards before they get put up.

If there was a problem with his reviews, then it would've been a problem with the entire team. Firing him without telling anyone implies that anyone else on this team can be fired at the drop of a hat as well, because none of us are writing any differently or meaner or less professionally than we were two years ago before the management changed. I'm sure management wants to spin this as the G-Man being unprofessional to take away from the egg on their face that results after a ten-year employee gets locked out of his office and told to leave the premises and then no one communicates anything to us about it until the next day.

...

Also, despite the fact that this occured two weeks ago, there was no way they were going to fire him then; the last big games didn't come out until just before Thanksgiving, and there was no doubt that management knew that the rest of the reviewers would refuse to write any reviews after his termination, which is indeed what is happening. After thanksgiving nothing major comes out in games; everything is either before thanksgiving or comes out in January. They waited to fire him until they knew that any strike or walkout by the rest of the staff wouldn't have much of an effect.

Also, keep in mind that these salespeople do have axes to grind with editorial. I know a lot of people busted their asses to get not only this large deal with Eidos done, but also other huge ad deals. The salespeople and the marketers are the ones who have to deal with the publishers when a heavily-advertised game gets a bad review, so obviously they like it if every game that comes out is peachy keen and gets a 9.0 or above. If a salesperson knows anything about unprofessional review practices, then that says a lot about the management team that we have in place because not a single other member of the editorial team had heard word one about this until Jeff was fired. Surely site management would want to let us know about their concerns before firing the most senior staff member and one of the most respected game critics in the industry? If they're sharing their concerns with the salespeople and not with us then that says a lot about their priorities.

...

No one wants to be named because no one wants to get fucking fired! This management team has shown what they're willing to do. Jeff had ten years in and was fucking locked out of his office and told to leave the building.

What you might not be aware of is that GS is well known for appealing mostly to hardcore gamers. The mucky-mucks have been doing a lot of "brand research" over the last year or so and indicating that they want to reach out to more casual gamers. Our last executive editor, Greg Kasavin, left to go to EA, and he was replaced by a suit, Josh Larson, who had no editorial experience and was only involved on the business side of things. Over the last year there has been an increasing amount of pressure to allow the advertising teams to have more of a say in the editorial process; we've started having to give our sales team heads-ups when a game is getting a low score, for instance, so that they can let the advertisers know that before a review goes up. Other publishers have started giving us notes involving when our reviews can go up; if a game's getting a 9 or above, it can go up early; if not, it'll have to wait until after the game is on the shelves.

I was in the meeting where Josh Larson was trying to explain this firing and the guy had absolutely no response to any of the criticisms we were sending his way. He kept dodging the question, saying that there were "multiple instances of tone" in the reviews that he hadn't been happy about, but that wasn't Jeff's problem since we all vet every review. He also implied that "AAA" titles deserved more attention when they were being reviewed, which sounded to all of us that he was implying that they should get higher scores, especially since those titles are usually more highly advertised on our site.

I know that it's all about the money, and hey, I like money. I like advertising because it pays my salary. Unfortunately after Kasavin left the church-and-state separation between the sales teams and the editorial team has cracked, and with Jeff's firing I think it's clear that the management now has no interest at all in integrity and are instead looking for an editorial team that will be nicer to the advertisors.

When companies make games as downright contemptible as Kane and Lynch, they deserve to be called on it. I guess you'll have to go to Onion or a smaller site for objective reviews now, because everyone at GS now thinks that if they give a low score to a high-profile game, they'll be shitcanned. Everyone's fucking scared and we're all hoping to get Josh Larson removed from his position because no one trusts him anymore. If that doesn't happen then look for every game to be Game of the Year material at GameSpot.


And then some inside info from PA:

I will tell you the Gerstmann Story as we heard it. Management claimed to have spoken to Jeff about his "tone" before, and no doubt it was this tone that created tensions between their editorial content, the direction of the site, and the carefully crafted relationships that allowed Gamespot to act as an engine of revenue creation. After Gerstmann's savage flogging of Kane & Lynch, a game whose marketing investment on Gamespot alone reached into the hundreds of thousands, Eidos (we are told) pulled hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of future advertising from the site.

Management has another story, of course: management always has another story. But it's the firm belief internally that Jeff was sacrificed. And it had to be Jeff, at least, we believe, precisely because of his stature and longevity. It made for a dramatic public execution that left the editorial staff in disarray. Would that it were only about the 6.0 - at least then you'd know how to score something if you wanted to keep your Goddamned job. No, this was worse: the more nebulous "tone" would be the guide. I assume it was designed to terrify them.


Something tells me GameSpot's reviews are going to suddenly curve upwards, as the remaining staff members try to keep their jobs.

 

[Lucky Day]

Forgive me if this has been mentioned before in all those shiny words but I caught something at the end of his video review:

"..the multiplayer is really neat and is probably something worth seeing. If you have an opportunity to see it without paying full price take a look at it, but its probably not worth purchasing."

This sounds like he is actually endorsing pirating the game. After all this negative his tone of voice changes to something that could be interpreted as coy here. If he said take a look at the demo or a friends copy that would be different but I can't see another way to see something legally without actually buying it (yeah sure, maybe you play this game at gamestop, walmart or best buy on demonstration when every other thing said is the F word.)

 

[skavenhorde]

This sounds like he is actually endorsing pirating the game.

I took it to mean to wait off buying the game until it's in the bargain bin.

 

[Squeek]

This sounds like he is actually endorsing pirating the game.

I flashed on that too but didn't stop to think about it. You're right, Lucky Day.

The sentence doesn't make sense, so it's technically defensible -- no one can prove how it means anything. But he's either suggesting that you might want to pay a discount price to look at the game or that you might want to play it without purchasing it. In reality, nobody ever pays just to check out a game, but people sure do play them without paying. IMO, if his sentence means anything at all, it suggests that you might want to pirate the game.

 

[xSamhainx]

I think yes he fumbled his words but meant basically - "If you have an opportunity to see it without paying full price, take a look at it, but its probably not worth purchasing (right now)."

Adding the "right now", as he should have, but I'm thinking that's what he meant to say. In other words, hit the bargain bin later if anything but sure as hell dont pay full price now for the thing. I realistically cant see him intentionally advocating piracy, but I sure as heck can see the prosecution using that in their case.

 

[woges]

To be honest the game looks pretty offensive so the six grade and negative statements look warranted.

 

[Alrik Fassbauer]

It's all part and parcel of the "You are teh consumer--you have no brain, only a wallet." approach that seems to drive marketing and advertising these days.

I agree with you.

Time to vote with your wallet !

Apart from that, although I'm a bit shocked, I'm not really surprised. I've heard rumors of that habit in the markets of German gaming magazines already ...

 

[dteowner]

Has Gamespot made an official response? If the poopstorm is as big as it seems, I can't imagine they can get away with keeping silent and hoping it goes away.

 

[Alrik Fassbauer]

Some do stay quiet - we call that "aussitzen" ("sitting it through", as I'd translate it) and "totschweigen" ("silencing it to death").