Fired for a bad game review?

A SENIOR HACK working for the C|Net affiliated gamer's website Gamespot apparently has been fired for panning a game marketed by a major advertiser.

Reportedly Gamespot Editorial Director Jeff Gerstmann was summarily fired because game publisher Eidos didn't like his negative review of its first-person shooter game Kane & Lynch: Dead Men.

Gerstmann's text review of the game gave it a score of only 6 out of 10, but it seems his video review was even more direct, criticising it for, among other failings, "impossible to like" characters, a "lazy script" and excessive profanity.

News source: Inquirer
Video: Jeff Gerstmann Review of Kane & Lynch

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Microsoft: Less Vulnerabilites in IE7 compared to Firefox

Next Story

NeowinCAST News Edition for November 30th, 2007

50 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

If we as views are not careful this could be a major point for all sites like this. if gamespot get away with this other site will look at this as an oprtunity that they can do the same or even they are already. eather why it will let then know we dont care enough and that they could do it more and even blantly obvously. the only way to stop this and set a standered is to boycot gamespot. and anyoen who is already a subscriber cancel there account and go eles where even for a few months.

Good thing i downloaded the game... :P

what da hell is that, instead of firing people for giving bad review they should make good games that worth the money.
I didnt buy the game just because the bad review and good for that. But now since everyone will be scared of getting fired most likely all games will get good reviews so i will have to download illegal copies to test them and if they are good buy them.

I hate when big companies do whatever they like, we should come up with an open source game that no one can control, lol.

GameSpot needs to come clean and tell us exactly why he was fired. If they do not, then people will continue to assume it was under pressure from Eidos, and it will ruin their reputation.

all i got to say is that what he says (form what i have heard) is that most of actually true... compared to whats on offer this end of year the game wont sell for well...

That's why I don't put any value to reviews, especially not from such big wigs. I don't need to read opinions that were paid for.

Gamespot sold their soul... They should know that they can't sacrifice credibility for dollars. That doesn't do their longterm survival well...

I'll get my reviews from Amazon instead

Masterp said,
The game had promise but after playing it, it's bad. Not awful but bad.

No, it's awful. I tried to give it more than a chance. After many hours of dealing with it's glitches and poor design. I brought it back to the friend I borrowed it from --- with my condolences. There is one part where you are playing multiplayer where it tells you, in the corner, to "Grap" something. Good god. Plus, the clipping, bad collision, etc., is all there. Whoever tested this game should be the one who gets fired, not Jeff for giving an honest review.

But, this trend of the paid review has been going on for a long time. Movie reviewers (like Roger Ebert) have their palms greased to make positive reviews. IGN let slip on one of their podcasts that they get pressure from their superiors to give prominent advertisers positive reviews.

Trust users (mostly), and not these paid reviewers on websites.

Freedom of speech implies a public forum. You do not have the automatic right to free speech on private property or when communicating in lieu of a third party, i.e.: your employer. What GameSpot has sacrificed is objectivity. I will not trust any of their reviews anymore if this is true.

The reviewer stuck to his guns and deserves mad props, though he doesn't have a case against GameSpot.

GameSpot is obviously corrupt and thus justifies my previous course of never going to their site or listening to them.

A rule of thumb: When a critic receives revenue from the very group it criticizes, they cannot be trusted.

I only take reviews from independent gamers like myself who play and review the very games they chose and paid for.

good point goatsniffer ;)

you said... "I only take reviews from independent gamers like myself who play and review the very games they chose and paid for."

thats becoming more and more true nowadays when game reviews are basically being paid off to get good "reviews". so you cant trust them for the most part now.

THIS is why I NEVER trust reviews! Money can buy anything in the world, especially good reviews. Cross that line and we see what happens.

And this is why I visit Metacritic, as it gives a good idea of what the overall quality of a game is, even when you factor one or two completely different reviews from the rest.

I've stopped visiting Gamespot for their reviews for a while now because they always seemed a bit biased. Now I have proof.

how sad... now we know we have to remember to check the ads of a site before reading their reviews. When said like this it almost seems to be too obvious but I still had some faith in the system and though things like impartiality could never be removed from the equation.

This clearly illustrates that Gamespot is not offering unbiased and fair reviews but is instead in the business of promoting its advertisers products (despite their mediocrity) at the expense of decent journalism.

I thought they called those guys REVIEWERS not ad copy writers.

FAIL!

nunjabusiness said,
This clearly illustrates that Gamespot is not offering unbiased and fair reviews but is instead in the business of promoting its advertisers products (despite their mediocrity) at the expense of decent journalism.

I thought they called those guys REVIEWERS not ad copy writers.

FAIL!

Indeed, so we can no longer trust their reviews.

Gabe3 said,

Indeed, so we can no longer trust their reviews.

exactly!, cause i used to look at gamespot.com alot for reviews but since they obviously being paid by game companys... "conflict of interest" :(

p.s. although game reviews in general dont effect me "to much" in terms of getting/liking a game. cause after all only "I" can decide if "I" like a game or not... but it's generally nice to know what people generally think of it and give u a ball park figure of whats good and whats bad about a game

Seems to me a really STUPID thing to do.

Reflects very badly on both Eidos and Gamespot, most importantly, in the eyes of gamers.

Idiotic, and sad to see.

Paid subscription canceled.

Jeff has been my favorite reviewer there ever since Greg left. It's a shame this had to happen, because I liked all the content that GameSpot provided. I'll consider continuing my subscription if they hire Jeff back. But if not, then I will quit visiting the site after my current membership runs out, as I won't want to help provide advertisement money for them.

From the Tv reviews I saw, it's pretty much a poorly tested game. At one point, the review shows the main character throw a grenade at a group of soldiers/policemen and it goes off and none of them die.....a good sign of poor collision detection and bad game testing. Thought I did like the driving sequence shooting out the back of a van aka Robocop style along the motorway...but it said and done I'd give it 7/10 rather than 6.

it really dont matter to much cause IOI's bread and butter game is Hitman (which is one of my top game series by the way )

Agreed. He distinguished what was different and his experiences with the choice of dialog and AI limitations. Maybe he should have said, "this is not for remotely experienced gamers... only novices with potty mouths and money to burn."

Gamespot should of really stood up for Jeff.

Now they know to add something into their advertisement contract that you can not pull or refuse payment based on a bad review of their product.

I didn't play this game so I can't agree or disagree with his review. The fact is that this is not the first time that Gerstmann is criticized for bashing games, it has happened before. Maybe he had a lot of chances and the bosses at Gamespot got sick of it and decided to fire him this time.

That would be plausible, if it weren't for the fact that Eidos invested hundreds of thousands into advertising on GS and pulled it after that review...

-Spenser

stifler6478 said,
That would be plausible, if it weren't for the fact that Eidos invested hundreds of thousands into advertising on GS and pulled it after that review...

-Spenser

conflict of interest ... cause you cant expect a unbiased review from a company (eidos) who's paying another company (gamespot) money... as it's obvious there going to expect a generally positive review :(

as for the game i cant comment since i aint play it "yet"

Looks like crap to me too. Great job Gamespot, defending a stain in Eidos's shorts instead of your reviewer.

I'm no constitutional lawyer, but I don't think Freedom of Speech applies in this instance. The reviewer wasn't speaking, Gamespot was when they published his/her article. The reviewer is free (maybe, depending on his/her contract) to write whatever he wants on other locations around the Internet, but Gamespot is also free to publish, or revoke any article it wants. Now the reviewer may have grounds for a wrongful termination suit, but you would have to show that the reviewer was doing his/her job and not slandering the company/game.