Comments
Gamespot reviewer fired: game review payola?
Written By daviddemchuk on Dec. 2, 2007.
13 Comments
Report Note
+ Clip This
Late last week, it was rumoured (now confirmed) that GameSpot editorial director, Jeff Gerstmann, was abruptly terminated from his position. While neither he nor GameSpot are speaking directly about why this happened, the strong sense is that he was fired over a negative review of a game heavily promoted on the site: Kane & Lynch: Dead Men.
The review is here, the video version is here (apparently that started it all), the kotaku story is here, the penny arcade comic is here (with accompanying article) and the uselessly ambiguous statement from GameSpot/Cnet is here.
It's all a bit depressing.
I'm not shocked that a game manufacturer would threaten to pull their ads from a game site over a bad review--but I'm surprised that a major game site like GameSpot would take such a threat seriously, and would fire a reviewer (especially one who had been with them for ten years, and who was the Editorial Director as well) because they didn't care for the 'tone' of this review among others.
If you check out the video review (apparently the written review was toned down somewhat), you'll see Jeff speaking honestly--if bluntly--about the game. He's not unprofessional, and he does mention a few good points in the game, but he's clearly not holding anything back. Nor should he. If a game developer doesn't want to hear their game is shitty, then they shouldn't release shitty games.
How much do you take game reviews into account when you purchase a game? (Or do you always rent first, buy later?) Are there some game sites that you don't trust at all? And how prevalent do you think this kind of behaviour is in the videogame industry?
Tyme
Written Dec. 3, 2007 / Report /
I'm not sure what to think of this. The fallout of the video (text and video) should have happened earlier. As a veteran reviewer he knew the words "ugly" and "lazy" are no-no words (glad he used them though because it was appropriate).
He was not only fired, he was locked out of his office and asked to leave the building (according to an anonymous GameSpot employee). My personal opinion is that once one of their key people left GameSpot the integrity took a dive. It's a fine line to balance...sometimes they are put in the position of biting the hand that feeds them.
As far as reviews, I pay more attention to consumer reviews than review sites. There are many reviewers that I respect out there but I also know many times they can't say what is "really" on their mind.
GameFly is a beautiful thing...gives a person a chance to try it out before sinking $60 on a game.
daviddemchuk
Written Dec. 3, 2007 / Report /
I've never paid much attention to Gamefly but clearly I'm going to have to check it out more.
To this point I've been following game reviews the way I follow movie reviews--I either read as many as I can and try to get an 'average' in my mind of good points and bad points, or I read two or three reviewers who I think are fairly consistent and then weigh their tastes out against mine.
User reviews are harder, I find, because some people will just slap 10s or 1s on any old thing. Plus it's a system that's easier to game by the publishers. (Or, until this week, so I thought.)
I don't have too many regrets about games I've bought (except that I regret not having enough time to play them all) but there are some on my shelf that make me wince when I see them. Overhype was definitely a factor in their purchase. I think now most game customers are going to want to hear more word of mouth about a game, or at least play more demos and such, before they sink their hard-earned money into a purchase. It may be a boon for the rental industry though.
Sigh.
Tyme
Written Dec. 3, 2007 / Report /
As far as user reviews if you look at GameFly (as an example) you will see people tend to be honest. I picked a random game: Stuntman Ignition. It has a 6.6 out of 573 reviews. There are enough reviews there to get a feel for the pros/cons of the game. On Halo 3 it's a 8.8 out of 10,124 reviews. A lot of people liked the game but many did not.
The gaming industry became tainted just as I was coming out of it. An example, there are "independent" review sites like metacritic and Game Rankings but they are both owned by cNet. The reality: if Jeff was fired over his reviews losing Eidos could have meant losing millions over the long term. There are so many conflicts of interest for businesses online that wouldn't be tolerated in traditional businesses.
daxgti
Written Dec. 3, 2007 / Report /
It's tough to make a complete decision about this case for me as well, but I think if it's the guy's job to write reviews, then they need to be honest reviews. if it turns out to be a negative one (and as long as he's professional about it), then so be it. If the game sucks, the game sucks, and it shouldn't matter if the company who created it is a current advertiser etc. etc.
The way Gamespot is handling this screams to me that I can't trust their reviews. If a guy gets canned for being honest, then how could you trust them?
Tyme
Written Dec. 3, 2007 / Report /
I haven't trusted GameSpot since cNet bought them. :) Don't get me wrong, there are some very reputable reviewers there but they don't own the company so they don't always have control over what eventually becomes public.
Even if Jeff was fired for his review locking him out of his office? He's been there 10 or 11 yrs. Unless they caught him doing something illegal I can't think of a good reason to have that kind of response. They've scared the crap out of their employees. I can't recall cNet handling something this bad...it's seems like someone had an emotional reaction to whatever Jeff did and didn't properly think things through.
daviddemchuk
Written Dec. 4, 2007 / Report /
Gee. Sounds like my workplace!
But seriously, this has blown up so spectacularly in their faces, I can't imagine what they can do to resolve it. Their official statement yesterday basically amounted to 'the game company didn't tell us to fire him.' Wow, that's different! That makes everything all better!
I can't imagine what it must have been like in those offices yesterday.
Josh
Written Dec. 4, 2007 / Report /
Like daxgti, I'm not really sure how to look at GameSpot now. I suppose I have been naive over the years, figuring that game reviewers could (and should!) call it like it is. If a game sucks, they should say as much. That's what the point of the site is, isn't it? To help gamers separate the good from the junk? But I can also see it from the company's precarious position: say that a game from a huge dev / publisher is junk, and they could lose huge amounts of ad revenue. It isn't a position I envy.
Regarding how much I rely on game reviews before checking them out: a lot. GameSpot may have just dropped off of my "review sites to check", though.
Tyme
Written Dec. 4, 2007 / Report /
Honest reviews used to be the checks/balance system for good games. Looking back you can see when gaming became "tainted" with the lack of good games. This is the first year in years where there is a healthy selection of great games to play - and who knows when this will happen again?
Developers didn't want to be eaten alive in the reviews so they would make an effort to release a great game. Now, they know a game sucks but they release it anyway to try to recoup costs. If the reviewers on the big sites can just be neutral on the game they might have a shot. cNet catches it hard because they bought up so many gaming sites they (along with IGN) dominate the space:
GameSpot
1Up
metacritic
GameRankings
GameFAQs
SportsGamer
And that's what I can think of off the top of my head. Even though Jeff used the terms lazy and ugly the game received a 6/10 (Fair). He said in the review:
People pay attention to the numbers (rank) and not the words. The words say this game is a 4 at best. I ignore the rank and read the words.
Josh
Written Dec. 4, 2007 / Report /
Yeah, I noticed that the review was a 6/10, which didn't seem in line with what he said (or what others are saying about what he said).
Regarding that list of sites - when did cNet by Gamefaqs?! I just took a look, and wow, quite a change.
Tyme
Written Dec. 4, 2007 / Report /
GameSpot has the official statement on his departure. I faithfully listen to both of those podcasts and I am curious about the tone of the podcast. Should be interesting but it sounds like a clean up job to me and I doubt they are going to say what is "really" on their minds.
@Josh - They bought it in 2003. I'm not sure if the original owners still work there.
Josh
Written Dec. 4, 2007 / Report /
I just checked out the official statement; I agree with you Tyme, it sounds like a clean up job. I chuckle at the tag cloud at the bottom right, showing the tags for that article. The two biggest / brightest ones are "bullshit" and "lies."
Tyme
Written Dec. 5, 2007 / Report /
They talked about Jeff's firing on HotSpot. Interesting aspects of the interview:
1) The video review was taken down because it did not meet the standards they want to set. For example, it only showed level 1 footage (but why spend more time recording a game that sucks...IF they didn't have some sort of obligation to Eidos?).
2) There is a huge disconnect between corporate and their editors. Everyone knows it was a corporate decision to fire Jeff but to think Jeff would go un-noticed is moronic.
3) It sucks they found out about Jeff's firing hours before the public did - and had no details.
4) They saw Jeff over the weekend and he's doing well.
5) His firing trounced that Blizzard and Activision merged - and that's some huge news. Take THAT EA!!!
In the end, I still think there are editorial issues there. His words said a 4, he rated it a 6, and he hated it so much he didn't even provide footage for the video review over level 1....yet end score was a 6. Why? It makes no sense.
And there is another aspect people aren't considering. cNet has Eidos as an advertiser, they own multiple rating sites and they offer reviews. When you have a powerhouse like GameSpot giving a game a 6 it takes balls to go way under that because of cNet's reputation. The game sucks (a game with bad AI usually does), IGN gave it a 7 (but the words would point to a 4), on 1UP the editor gave it a 7.5 but in the end the user ratings (where the truth comes in) drops it down to 4-5 range (the average user rating on 1UP is 1.7). All the major review sites rated the game higher than their words or higher than the users. How can that not shape how a game sells?
So I'm not buying the "advertising doesn't affect reviews" line. It looks like you can say anything you want in the review (the words) and the advertising affects the rating.
daviddemchuk
Written Dec. 6, 2007 / Report /
Yes, the "you'll see a variety of different scenery" line as one of the "good" features in the review summary was a pretty clear signal to me. Yet what's the point if the number score you're forced to attach to your review doesn't reflect what you're actually saying?
I'm sure Jeff was told he couldn't score it lower than a six (because it was a so-called AAA title) so he compensated/rebelled in the text and in the video review.
The video review is on YouTube and while it's a bit rough and ready there's nothing that makes me think "unprofessional". What was he supposed to do--one of those intros from Masterpiece Theatre?
I haven't been back to any of the CNet sites since, and I can't imagine why I would return. It's all just left me disgusted and dismayed.