Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

Gamespot Editor Fired for Writing an Honest Review

<< < (3/5) > >>

Lashiec:
At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter why a publication writes reviews the way that it does. All that matters is how consonant they are with your own opinions. If their reviews tend to be similar to your own experiences, then it's a good bet to try other products that they review well, and the converse.

Does it really matter whether the reason for a review is the writer's heartfelt opinion or because the marketing department is able to line up advertisers who really tend to have good products? Or maybe they've got a llittle genie that lives in a box and tells them what to write. Who cares? If the reviews work for you, then use them. And on the other hand, even if the reviews are heartfelt, if the reviewers' personal tastes clash with yours, those reviews will be useless.
-CWuestefeld (December 01, 2007, 10:35 AM)
--- End quote ---

So, in that case, what would be the reason of existence for reviewing sites? To give you a pat in the back for choosing a game? To scream to you: "You poor being, we feel sorry that you employed your hard earned dollars in buying such a awful game"? Last time I checked, review sites existed for giving you some feedback over if products are really worth the money they demand from you, and wether they live to the expectations put behind them (not the marketing dollars, but the buzz created around the product) or not.

Besides, a good written article pinpointing a game weak and strong points really gives prestige to a reviewer and to a site. Cold, almost mechanical reviews written by a guy without talent for writing and without illusion for gaming are easy to catch, and people tries to stay away for them, as they don't transmit anything about the game. I don't care if the game is good or not, I want to know WHY it's good or not, and what are the personal feelings of the reviewer about the game. If my taste clash or not it's another story, but I discovered quite good games thanks to hard-working reviewers that said this or the other game was good, even if it wasn't exactly in line with my personal preferences.

Kane & Lynch could be a heavily publicised game on Eidos part, but there were not any buzz around it, gamers were not waiting for it to be released. The game looked good, and the premise was original, and, with proper handling, it could end up being a solid game, but IO Interactive borked this time and transformed the game into a trainwreck, this was evident from gameplay videos. It's no wonder that Eidos wanted to milk the cow even if they have no bucket to fill.

BTW, Opposable Thumbs coverage on the issue unearthed a interesting comment over the true nature of the firing of Mr. Gerstmann. Who knows, it may be true, I know more than enough about what's going in the scenes behind game reviewing sites, and it's not the first time it happens, you only need connections and to know about the skeletons in the closet to assure you're not fired.

wraith808:
Note: This may indeed be the reason that he was fired.  But this has not been verified by any facts.  In the beginning, news outlets were reporting it as rumour, but somewhere along the line, this has morphed into truth without any verifiable facts. 

Now people are boycotting GameSpot and cancelling memberships over an unsubstantiated rumour.  My how quickly we rush to judge based on nothing more than someone's word...

Ralf Maximus:
If indeed Gamespot wanted a guaranteed ass-kisser of a review, they would have given the job to somebody who takes orders well.  K&L would've been declared "best game evar!" and all would be smiles.

That's not what happened.  Instead, they got an honest (and professional, IMHO) readout on the game's flaws, as well as a few thumbs-up for game features that worked.  It was not a hate-fest; the game just scored low.

And very soon after, the reviewer got fired.

Cause/effect?  Or, as Lashiec's link suggests, perhaps this "bad review" was the final event in a long series of disputes with management.  Reportedly difficult to work with, he could have disobeyed suggestions to file a glowing review and when he didn't, down came the axe.  It wasn't the review per se that did it, just the perceived disobedience.

And if that's what happened, boy was that a mistake on management's part.  Even if the motives were pure, even if the guy was the Gamespot Strangler, they should have waited awhile before pulling the trigger.

Lashiec:
A lenghty article over the whole issue published yesterday by 1UP's Sam Kennedy.

Bah, IGN or GameSpy are much worse regarding ad placement, but that's no surprising considering the history of those sites, and who is owning them now ;D

mouser:
Thanks for the follow up Lashiec -- the long article is a MUST READ for people who always suspected that advertisers can buy their way into being featured on magazines and websites.

Here's a little snippet:

As a marketer, if you recognized you needed more traffic to your product, you could buy it. You could even buy a top placement for your title on the GameSpot homepage, pretty much assuring clicks to coverage on your title, regardless of whether there was organic interest or not. And we're not talking about just banner advertisements here -- we're talking about buying one of the top stories on the front of the site.
--- End quote ---

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page