With the recent rumors of Jeff Gerstmann (Gamespot) being fired for his less-than-glowing review of Kane & Lynch, I suppose it's as good a topic as any.
Source:
http://kotaku.com/gaming/rumor/gamespot-editor-fired-over-kane--lynch-review-328244.php
Gabriel of Penny Arcade stating that it's true:
http://forums.penny-arcade.com/showthread.php?t=42776
Review (unsure if it is unedited - seems doubtful):
http://www.gamespot.com/xbox360/action/kanelynchdeadmen/review.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=gssummary&tag=summary;review
In summary, the guy essentially wrote a not-so-nice review of the game, Eidos got mad (you may have noted the many K&L ads on Gamespot of late), said something to CNET, and the guy got fired.
Ultimately, not a particularly good thing for anyone involved. If you're a developer, it makes it look like you can intimidate a score out of Gamespot, even if your game isn't great. If your game is great, you get to share the limelight with people who did intimidate their way to those higher scores (and have lower quality games). Gamespot ends up looking like it has no integrity. CNET makes money - for now. So I guess not everyone loses.
Small incident, but the principle is a big deal. News agencies have been dealing with this sort of thing for centuries, now. The BBC makes a pretty darn big deal out of it. MSNBC gets flak for it. Of course, this happens because it's important that readers can believe that they're reading articles that aren't being censored by their subjects. What's the point of a movie, book, game, or art review if you can't know the writer is being honest, without punishment hanging over his head if he says the wrong thing?
More on the focus of gaming, what does this say about other review sites? How common is this in the industry that we all know and love? It's relevant to us because it's in our interest that there's a monetary incentive for companies to produce quality games. People use reviews to determine purchases, and - while I'm sure many of us do more research than a review or two at the major sites - if "quality" can be faked through underhanded tactics, then people are going to be tricked into buying games of lesser quality. Which means there's less money and more confusion when trying to find a game that actually is brilliant. And that sucks.
That all does sound a bit conspiracy theorist, or maybe alarmist, so I want to make it clear that the above instance is still a rumor. Regardless, I think it's a topic worthy of some thought.
-----------
(5:25 PM Pacific) Update (I thought I'd keep all my rumormongering in one post):
http://kotaku.com/gaming/rumor/alleged-gamespot-employee-spills-guts-on-valleywag-328797.php
Summary:
An uncomfirmed Gamespot employee posts on Valleywag and comments on the situation. He doesn't seem happy, and indicates several reasons why the situation happened on this timeframe. He also comments on a lack of communication about Mr. Gerstmann's termination. Note that he has NOT been identified as an official source, and that this is still a rumor.
Posted on Kotaku 7:40 PM ON FRI NOV 30 2007 (I am unsure of the timezone, likely EST)
Source:
http://kotaku.com/gaming/rumor/gamespot-editor-fired-over-kane--lynch-review-328244.php
Gabriel of Penny Arcade stating that it's true:
http://forums.penny-arcade.com/showthread.php?t=42776
Review (unsure if it is unedited - seems doubtful):
http://www.gamespot.com/xbox360/action/kanelynchdeadmen/review.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=gssummary&tag=summary;review
In summary, the guy essentially wrote a not-so-nice review of the game, Eidos got mad (you may have noted the many K&L ads on Gamespot of late), said something to CNET, and the guy got fired.
Ultimately, not a particularly good thing for anyone involved. If you're a developer, it makes it look like you can intimidate a score out of Gamespot, even if your game isn't great. If your game is great, you get to share the limelight with people who did intimidate their way to those higher scores (and have lower quality games). Gamespot ends up looking like it has no integrity. CNET makes money - for now. So I guess not everyone loses.
Small incident, but the principle is a big deal. News agencies have been dealing with this sort of thing for centuries, now. The BBC makes a pretty darn big deal out of it. MSNBC gets flak for it. Of course, this happens because it's important that readers can believe that they're reading articles that aren't being censored by their subjects. What's the point of a movie, book, game, or art review if you can't know the writer is being honest, without punishment hanging over his head if he says the wrong thing?
More on the focus of gaming, what does this say about other review sites? How common is this in the industry that we all know and love? It's relevant to us because it's in our interest that there's a monetary incentive for companies to produce quality games. People use reviews to determine purchases, and - while I'm sure many of us do more research than a review or two at the major sites - if "quality" can be faked through underhanded tactics, then people are going to be tricked into buying games of lesser quality. Which means there's less money and more confusion when trying to find a game that actually is brilliant. And that sucks.
That all does sound a bit conspiracy theorist, or maybe alarmist, so I want to make it clear that the above instance is still a rumor. Regardless, I think it's a topic worthy of some thought.
-----------
(5:25 PM Pacific) Update (I thought I'd keep all my rumormongering in one post):
http://kotaku.com/gaming/rumor/alleged-gamespot-employee-spills-guts-on-valleywag-328797.php
Summary:
An uncomfirmed Gamespot employee posts on Valleywag and comments on the situation. He doesn't seem happy, and indicates several reasons why the situation happened on this timeframe. He also comments on a lack of communication about Mr. Gerstmann's termination. Note that he has NOT been identified as an official source, and that this is still a rumor.
Posted on Kotaku 7:40 PM ON FRI NOV 30 2007 (I am unsure of the timezone, likely EST)
