Money talks - advertisement money, that is

[Zomg]

I'm a believer in the idea that the reviewers are not generally corrupt, just very insipid, and while the advertising and hyping structure creates a lot of implicit payola it's not clumsy jackboot stuff like this. A few more incidents of this kind of thing will have the paradoxical effect of engaging the pride of the reviewers and reminding a few that their burrow is in a shitpile.

 

[obediah]

... that is very unlikely

By all means, I agree. However that doesn't justify Eidos in the slightest, and it certainly won't stop me bitching about them

Sure it does. Eidos has one goal, to make money for their stock holders. They are ethically and somewhat legally bound to pursue that goal. If they have the power to influence reviews and don't then they are failing.

Gamespot (CNET) operates under the same ethics and laws. If they can make more money being a PR extension than providing honest and unbiased reviews, then that is what they should do.

The mouth breathing scum that read gamespot, and that don't boycott the site along with sending a nastygram because of this are the ones we should blame. In all likelihood, that includes me, so I've set aside some time tonight for drunken self-loathing.

 

[Pegultagol]

I thought the video review was rather harsh, as he could have conveyed the exact same thing with more subdued choices of words. I see how Eidos was trying to take up the issue with the tone with which it was delivered, but it was really all about getting a return on their investment and PR campaign. In the end, it may do them more of a disservice to what ultimately matters, the bottom line, than actually reinforcing the mutual publisher-journalism agreement. It also speaks volumes about how companies like Cnet and Eidos regard gaming journalism overall; we may hold them in pretty low regard, but that would not even come close to the depth of contempt with which those who actually hold the money stream harbour against them. I think gaming journalism is a rather thankless job, probably not the first choice of employment for most now involved in the industry. They have to be in constant competition to get the scoop and exclusive content to stay on top of business and that kind of privilege requires collusion and actively selling into the advertising arm of game industry.

Gamespot was going downhill for a long time, what with their new rating system that makes the written content seem much more irrelevant, low budget game shows, dispirited tournament coverages, and shorter and shorter reviews with grammatical errors. They really need to be shaken up and offer more interesting game related things like features coverage of indie games and interview those involved in classic games, like they used to do some years ago. Their PC hardware features are just not that extensive, and why they have stopped covering mobile games is still a mystery.

 

[HanoverF]

Does this mean deus ex 3 will get a good review now? Seriously this guy was a douche, he gave twilight princess a high score despite a slamming it for not innovating and being similar to the previous games (which was true).

That's what I find interesting, he clearly toed the company line on that pos Twilight Princess (Which was also covering Gamespot with ads at the time) and was Public Enemy Number One among Nintentophiles for it not getting a perfect score. Now he's Local Hero for this small glimmer of credibility? Meh. If I remember his review correctly the main points were unlikable characters and poor combat. Sounds like every Bioware game ever.

 

[Xi]

As gamers, RPGs aside, it is in our best interest to see all major gaming journalism companies go under. Seriously, we should be taking advantage of every attempt we possibly can to see every single one of these Gaming Websites and Magazines crash and burn and their editors hung out to dry. This is the most unethical situation I can remember in the history of gaming, and most of these companies are just plain guilty.

Crash and burn, that's what I say.

 

[roshan]

The user review score of Kane and Lynch is 2.7

http://uk.gamespot.com/xbox360/action/k ... lt;title;0

Considering that the critic score for Kane and Lynch is not much higher than his score at 7, I think his scoring of the game was fair.

 

[mahdi]

Kane and Lynch currently has a user score of 2.7 over at GameSpot. Probably the lowest ever. Some people are making comments in their reviews about the rumor:

Chirico_Cuvie
Due to unforseeable circumstances, I must give this game and it's publisher the finger. 1.0/10

ultimatekoko
THIS GAME SUCKS!!! I'll swallow this if u give me a BRIBE!!! 1.0/10

_CLOWN_BABY
"Disastrous"
Every time someone plays this game god kills a kitten. 1.0/10

TyZeRViRuS
"Disastrous"
Jump on the 'this game sucks because it got Jeff fired' bandwagon!!!! 1.0/10

The truth is out there. files:

 

[WhiskeyWolf]

I wonder if we are possibly getting the story backward. I wonder if Gerstmann knew he was going to get fired, and hammered the game as a sort of an "up yours" to his former employers.
This would have been a master stroke on his part by making GS look bad, and making himself look the good guy with the proof being what happens next.

Interesting theory

Second that.

 

[Marsal]

Eidos forums several hours ago: http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/5830/eidosjn4.jpg

INTERNET DRAMA!

 

[Kingston]

Consumers should not be afraid of the publishers, publishers should be afraid of their consumers.

:V4Vendetta:

 

[Herbert West]

Oh, beautiful! I haven't found internet as fun for a long, long time! If that whole thing is true than I'm going to laugh watching them burried under the steaming pile of poo of their own making.

Although the things that makes me smile the most is seeing that all those supposedly dumb people that feed of mainstream sites, reacting with such outrage.

On a side note, user rating at the review page is growing very rapidly. It was 2.5 not a long time ago, now it's 3.4 and growing. Sneaky bumping maybe?
http://www.gamespot.com/ps3/action/kanelynchdeadmen/players.html

 

[Claw]

I approve of this e-drama. (e for entertainment)

 

[Grandpa Gamer]

Sure it does. Eidos has one goal, to make money for their stock holders. They are ethically and somewhat legally bound to pursue that goal. If they have the power to influence reviews and don't then they are failing.

Gamespot (CNET) operates under the same ethics and laws. If they can make more money being a PR extension than providing honest and unbiased reviews, then that is what they should do..

That's not ethics. It's just capitalism, and something we need to place ourselves above.
Herbert West is right: There's something like "ethics" to business too.
And if there isn't, there sure as hell should be.

Also, it should be illegal for a company to fire an employee for just doing his job.
Actually, Gamespot shouldn't get away with it. Don't gaming journalists have unions to protect their interests?

 

[roshan]

Oh, beautiful! I haven't found internet as fun for a long, long time! If that whole thing is true than I'm going to laugh watching them burried under the steaming pile of poo of their own making.

Although the things that makes me smile the most is seeing that all those supposedly dumb people that feed of mainstream sites, reacting with such outrage.

On a side note, user rating at the review page is growing very rapidly. It was 2.5 not a long time ago, now it's 3.4 and growing. Sneaky bumping maybe?
http://www.gamespot.com/ps3/action/kanelynchdeadmen/players.html

That is the page for the PS3 version. There are different user scores for the different platforms. The PC had a higher score than the PS3 version when I checked.

It seems that the Xbox kiddies are the most vindictive of them all.

 

[deuxhero]

Of coarse, without him there is noone left to tell them how much bloom a game has.

 

[HanoverF]

Penny-Arcade reading chocolate milk demanding X-Box kiddies are not a good group to rile up.

 

[Au naturel]

Also, it should be illegal for a company to fire an employee for just doing his job.
Actually, Gamespot shouldn't get away with it. Don't gaming journalists have unions to protect their interests?

Unions are evil Grandpa, have'nt you heard the latest? I doubt any unions exist of any note in the journalistic world.

 

[Marsal]

...drama from people who write for a living is so much nicer to read!

From Shacknews

 

[Jeff Graw]

Gamespot is fucked.

 

[Oarfish]

I'm a believer in the idea that the reviewers are not generally corrupt, just very insipid

But that is exactly the kind of reviewer that suits an industry where the critic is so beholden to the content producer. A pop culture obsessed man child with the memory of a goldfish. You could put 50 professional game reviews in front of me from different authors and I would have difficulty distinguishing one from another. Such bland uniformity has to arise from a deeply unhealthy cuture. The opposite end of the extreme would be food, wine and even movie criticism - where there are plenty of unique voices and the balance of power is markedly different.

 

[xedoc gpr]

Is there any actual proof of any of this?

Yeah it makes a lot of sense.

Guy publishes a review which makes Eidos' game look bad and potentially sell less copies. So Eidos forces Gamespot to.....fire the reviewer and leave the review up which everyone can still see and read easily.

 

[Elwro]

Where? I don't see it anywhere on Gamespot.

 

[xedoc gpr]

http://www.gamespot.com/xbox360/action/ ... index.html

 

[Elwro]

Eh, sorry, I thought it was newer. Thanks.

 

[Claw]

They did pull the video review. Pulling the entire review might have been even more awkward.
One may actually believe the "coincidence hypothesis" just based on how awful the reactions which shouldn't surprise them are.
For the exact same reason however, they should have been smarter than to fire him right now if the reason were indeed unrelated.