Anyone here work at Eidos? (Kane & Lynch)
polycounter lvl 19
Put on your sleuthing cap and get to the bottom of this, will yah?
Lying: http://kotaku.com/gaming/kane-%26-lynch/kane--lynch-site-fibbing-about-reviews-scores-329529.php
Redesign: http://www.destructoid.com/
He speaks: http://www.joystiq.com/2007/12/03/exclusive-gertsmann-speaks-about-kandl-review-future/
Writer support: http://www.joystiq.com/2007/12/01/ziff-davis-staff-holds-impromptu-gamespot-rally/
wtfux
Lying: http://kotaku.com/gaming/kane-%26-lynch/kane--lynch-site-fibbing-about-reviews-scores-329529.php
Redesign: http://www.destructoid.com/
He speaks: http://www.joystiq.com/2007/12/03/exclusive-gertsmann-speaks-about-kandl-review-future/
Writer support: http://www.joystiq.com/2007/12/01/ziff-davis-staff-holds-impromptu-gamespot-rally/
wtfux
Replies
I had high hopes for this game, it's a damn shame it was so poorly implemented.
Did anyone else pick this up for PC? I grabbed it to play co-op with my girl. But, when trying to start a co-op game it asks me to plug in the Xbox 360 controller, and won't continue without it. A lot of the other features are ripped straight from the Xbox interface, same interface graphics, and "Press the A Button to continue, or the B Button to go back.", without any obvious correlation between the A and B buttons on the controller to the appropriate keyboard buttons. Damn shame.
Fuck you Eidos and that is what you get for making a shitty game. Just terrible that Gamespot doesn't have the damn back bone to stand behind their reviewers and staff and gave in to Eidos demands and fired him. Yeah you can say that hasn't been stated yet but seriously use your brain and you can figure it out pretty easily that Gerstmann was fired because of his review and Eidos putting pressure on Gamespot.
Heres the article. The typical pr bullshit.
http://www.gamespot.com/news/6183603.htm...estnews;title;0
With everything I have heard about it i would say it sucks too.
What company would keep an employee that just cost them millions of dollars?
Sectaurs - what should he have done then? Lie? Say it's a kick ass game and give it a 9.5? The game is lame, and he wrote an accurate review.
Would you keep someone around if they just cost you several millions, because they were 'right?' Perhaps you would - I'd like to think I could afford that choice as well. But realistically, it is not going to happen, and didn't.
I think this outcome was inevitable. Honest reviews and advertising rarely play nice together. I think it worked well for sliced bread. maybe.
Sectaurs - what should he have done then? Lie? Say it's a kick ass game and give it a 9.5? The game is lame, and he wrote an accurate review.
[/ QUOTE ]
He didn't give kane and lynch the lowest score, but he easily wrote the most harshly negative review. He could have just written a more professional condemnation of the game, instead of the angry rant he came up with.
Negatively reviewing your advertisers is common in the industry. Ranting to a point that borders on liable isn't, and considering how much money eidos is giving gamespot, it's understandable for them to let the guy go. He made them look unprofessional on multiple occasions, and in this instance happened to do it in front of an advertiser.
Would you keep someone around if they just cost you several millions, because they were 'right?' Perhaps you would - I'd like to think I could afford that choice as well. But realistically, it is not going to happen, and didn't.
[/ QUOTE ]
This is why review sites/magazines shouldn't rely heavily on advertising money from those who they're reviewing. Obviously it makes sense to have game ads on a gaming site, but if it's going to interfere with honest reviews, then there's an obvious conflict.
To be honest, I think most reviews are junk anyway. They often ignore items that really matter to me, which are bugs and hardware complications. Typically it's because they are playing beta versions of the game, so they ignore these problems in their reviews. I honestly trust peer review of games more.
The review, though, I thought was fair. It's not like he gave a 1/10 and just pooped on the system it was playing on or anything. He pointed out actual flaws and everything he said is probably accurate...but yeah, if I were his employer and he just cost me millions of bucks, I'd have him publically caned....or lynched, i guess.
Have you guys seen gamespot? it doesnt have the ads it used to. So many people don't like hope they dealt with the situation thats why they dont have ads now.
Thats what I think.
Yes maybe the game sucks a lot but I dont think it justifies the review. However im sorry for Gert I liked him on gamespot, he shouldnt lose his job over this but he did and that harmed lots of people...
He didn't give kane and lynch the lowest score, but he easily wrote the most harshly negative review. He could have just written a more professional condemnation of the game, instead of the angry rant he came up with.
Negatively reviewing your advertisers is common in the industry. Ranting to a point that borders on liable isn't, and considering how much money eidos is giving gamespot, it's understandable for them to let the guy go. He made them look unprofessional on multiple occasions, and in this instance happened to do it in front of an advertiser.
[/ QUOTE ]
Did anyone here even watch the review? He gave is a 6.5 out of 10. He pointed out each problem that the game had (and it definitely has those problems), and he recommended not buying it.
It is total and complete bullshit that he got fired, end of story. You can try to stick up for Gamespot all you want, but in the end they will lose a large amount of users because they wanted one advertiser's panties to be straightened.
He didn't give kane and lynch the lowest score, but he easily wrote the most harshly negative review. He could have just written a more professional condemnation of the game, instead of the angry rant he came up with.
Negatively reviewing your advertisers is common in the industry. Ranting to a point that borders on liable isn't, and considering how much money eidos is giving gamespot, it's understandable for them to let the guy go. He made them look unprofessional on multiple occasions, and in this instance happened to do it in front of an advertiser.
[/ QUOTE ]
Suprore, did you even play the game? I bought this chunk of shit solely out of Io's track record and it was probably the most disappointing game I've played this year. His review was definitely the most dead-on and honest one I read, and I appreciate not being lied to, or having the ordeal sugar coated for me. It's my fault I didn't listen, and picked it up anyway.
You're right to want to expect a "professional" review, but your opinion of what a professional review seems to be a little skewed. A review is an opinion, and if a reviewer wants to present something in a format that isn't graphics, sound, gameplay, etc etc, that's up to him. We're big boys here, so if someone uses some hardly nasty words and tone in a review, don't condemn it for not sounding like PR point by point bullshit, and understand that his critical opinion is that he's less than impressed.
Look at critics for any of the other industries. Movies, books, and music aren't reviewed on some bullshit point form scale of 1-10 per feature. Game reviews have hit a wall, and because people still expect them in that same obsolete format, bucking the trend is pretty hard when they get shit on for making an objective review.
'Libel'? If something is crass just for the sake of being crass, you can't expect your critics to sugar coat your polished turd in their take on your product. Having comitted brand suicide with their hardcore crowd, I think it should be pretty clear what would have been the brighter choice between letting him go, or telling the publisher to fuck off.
btw - Ever occur to you that the CNet might be making such a deal over his 'tone' in order to save face?
It's all about sales in the long run...
Here's a review with almost all of the same complaints, and a lower score, which is a lot more professionally written:
http://www.worthplaying.com/article.php?sid=48062&mode=thread&order=0
'the game wasn't very good' is no excuse for writing an angry rant instead of a legitimate review. He made gamespot look bad. More importantly, he made gamespot look bad to their advertisers, which is their primary source of income. As a general rule, in any industry, if you make your company look horrible to your clients, you get fired. This is akin to yelling at a problem customer in a retail chain -- yeah, they might deserve it, but if you like your job you should stick to a polite and professional response. If not, you're asking to get fired.
If you want to write a negative review, fine. But write it professionally and respectfully. Gamespot relies on eidos for preview and review copies of games, and ads. Eidos can take a bad review, I'm sure -- gamespot hasn't always been a fan of their games. But this editor wrote a really unprofessional, almost angry review. Which he has a history of doing. I would have fired him too.
The fact remains that Gamespot is a business, and they make money from their advertisers. If one of their employees is needlessly offending their advertisers, he or she should be let go.
Here's a review with almost all of the same complaints, and a lower score, which is a lot more professionally written:
http://www.worthplaying.com/article.php?sid=48062&mode=thread&order=0
'the game wasn't very good' is no excuse for writing an angry rant instead of a legitimate review. He made gamespot look bad. More importantly, he made gamespot look bad to their advertisers, which is their primary source of income. As a general rule, in any industry, if you make your company look horrible to your clients, you get fired. This is akin to yelling at a problem customer in a retail chain -- yeah, they might deserve it, but if you like your job you should stick to a polite and professional response. If not, you're asking to get fired.
If you want to write a negative review, fine. But write it professionally and respectfully. Gamespot relies on eidos for preview and review copies of games, and ads. Eidos can take a bad review, I'm sure -- gamespot hasn't always been a fan of their games. But this editor wrote a really unprofessional, almost angry review. Which he has a history of doing. I would have fired him too.
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't have time to argue about this all day, so I'll make my final point clear as possible.
Jeff's review does not constitute an angry rant, if you want an example, go watch Zero Puncuation. If his 'angry rant' was the most accurate review of the bunch, and mirrored how I felt about the game in the end, then good. He did his job. If this is your idea of something unprofessional, keep your head in the sand. There's a much bigger, nastier world out there. *WELCOME TO THE INTERNETS*
His history of "unprofessional" reviews extends to controversial number scores associated to many high profile games. Those aren't unprofessional, those are excellent scores that were too low or high for warring console lemmings, and revoked their use as cannon fodder in console war posts.
The advertisements aren't what make the money, it's the people who see the advertisements that make the money. You betray their trust, they won't visit your site as much, spread it via word of mouth. etc. As for appeasing your advertisers, what about it? They aren't going to blackball them for a shitty review. They my bitch and moan about the score, but they're certainly not going to deny them coverage and exclusives to what's arguably the largest and most important game news site on the internet. Companies don't work like that, don't take their toys and bring them to another friend's house. They want their game out there on every facet. This isn't the first time a controversial review has been made, nobody notable got fired back then, and the status quo remains.
When management fucks up, you do see change. Gamespy is a shell of what it once was because of a review scandal with that shitty Donkey Kong game. (There were other factors that contributed. I'm only pointing out relevant ones.) Just like then, this already has had an impact. Boycotts, blogs on fire, not to mention your entire community making you look far worse than your advertisers ever could. Do you really think advertisers will want to associate themselves with some blown up 'Watergate' scandal of the games media? No. I'm not going to go to the Entertainment Weekly of the gaming industry for my reviews, or news. The lesson behind all this? They did far more harm than good by trying to appease an advertiser.
If you would have fired him for some short term appeasement like this, then go ahead. The brand suicide would be on your hands.
That's all the patience and time I have left to devote to this thread, so knock yourself out.
I'd just like to say that the true value of that companies worth is the readership. Advertising is only bought because there is a large readership that goes to the site and sees the ads. The ads might be where the money comes from, but the ads come because of the people.
Now, with that in mind, what is more likely to be damaging to gamespot. Losing credibility with its readership after blatantly showing that they dont write real reviews and just give good scores to whoever pays them the most, or losing some ads, which they would no doubt get more of eventually if they continue to have a strong base of readers.
Credibility is the only thing they should be worrying about and they lost it.
*****
"its a great sequel to itself!"
-Bob our marketing guy
************ out of 5 stars
"all kinds of retarded chimpanzees love this" game*
- Buck the zoo keeper
*Actually talking about a tire swing.
BTW this post received 5 out of 5 stars from Post Magazine, 3 years running.
And wasn't he the dude that had to have his review of Bioshock pulled? Yea, Eidos is doing some stupid shit, but this guy should have been fired either way from what I've seen.
BTW this post received 5 out of 5 stars from Post Magazine, 3 years running.
[/ QUOTE ]
I knew there was a reason I liked you're posts... it's the high ratings you receive
A tidbit of calm reason in a rough sea of internet melodrama. :P
The same company that reviews the games collects ad dollars from the publishers of the game.
The reason newspapers can get away with this is because their main source of income is not the the same entities that they review.
If gamespot received their revenue from a different source then this wouldn't be an issue.
-R
The fact remains that Gamespot is a business, and they make money from their advertisers. If one of their employees is needlessly offending their advertisers, he or she should be let go.
[/ QUOTE ]
Which do you think hurts Gamespot's profit margin more:
1) publishing honest reviews, which might cause some advertisers to purchase less ad space.
-or-
2) firing honest reviewers because their reviews conflict with the advertisers, causing a shitstorm of negative backlash amongst the gamers who potentially see the ads and buy the games.
If this had never happened, I wouldn't have bought Kane & Lynch anyway - not my kinda game. Now that it has happened, I'm still not buying K&L, and I'm also much less interested in reading anything at Gamespot and or buying games that Eidos publishes. I don't think I'm alone in feeling that way.
If a site becomes known for subpar quality, viewing drops, as does income from ads.
[/ QUOTE ]
If that were true Gamespot would have disappeared a long time ago.
Gamespot Score: 6.0
Critic Score: 6.8
User Score: 2.8
maybe they should fire their subscribers. XD
Gamespot reviewers read each others reviews BEFORE posting them live for the public to enjoy. Jeff's review wasn't an exception, it was read by the staff @ Gamespot that normally would read it and went through the motions. Business as usual.
It's the fact they fired him from advertisement pressure, after 11 years of devoted service, over this. Again..
It was read and agreed upon by the Gamespot staff that his review should be posted live. It was his opinion, but he speaks on behalf of Gamespot. It's not like he wrote and posted this on his own without permission or going through the proper motions needed to get a review on the site.
Someone in this thread wrote, "If one of their employees is needlessly offending". Sorry, it wasn't needless nor offending. It was a review. Poorly written or not, it was a review.
It was his job.
It wasn't, "Fuck Eidos you're retarded. God, why make games? You must hire retards there..." That is needlessly offensive.
Just something to think about.
I do like Destructoid's take on all this.
http://destructoid.com/
It wasn't, "Fuck Eidos you're retarded. God, why make games? You must hire retards there..."
[/ QUOTE ]
It was pretty close. I half expected an 'in fact, kane and lynch's MOM is an ugly game...' to be the next line about halfway through.
It's the fact they fired him from advertisement pressure, after 11 years of devoted service, over this.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's been confirmed by absolutly no one. In fact, it has been confirmed that that was not the case. The exact reason for his being fired has not been released because it's against company policy (same as every other company pretty much)
Stop bein drama queens people. Gerstman's reviews are subpar in comparison to the reviews of reviewers in similar positions elsewhere. The idea that GameSpot fired a guy because of one review or because of presure from one company is absolutly asnine.
Gerstman fired.
Gamespot whores their main page with K&L advertisements.
Seems like advertisements pressure was the case. Maybe not fact, but believing what is said by Eidos at this point is naive also.
Anyhoo, go drama.