Forums | MacLife

Wow, what a tell-tale response from fans! Glad to see them pounding down and showing the industry who's boss when they smell a hint of bullsmurf.

What I want to know is, however, what's the difference between this and when they pimped the site out for Spiderman 3? They gave it a low score as well, as I recall, and no one's head rolled on that.

This is indeed a special moment for Penny Arcade, though, because they warned of this way back then, that we're going to see more and more corruption in regards to trying to maintain ad dollars as time goes on.


But really, Eidos, how is a reviewer supposed to give a run-and-gun without online multiplayer, along with lacking many other industry standard features, any sort of decent score? Don't dilute our Halo 3s, Orange Boxes and Bioshocks. We've had a good thing going, there is absolutely no sense in rewarding a company for churning out crap. If it's not on the level of those titles, it's not worth $60.

It looks very fishy. I'm withholding judgement until more specifics are given. This could be a case of really really bad timing (which they should have avoided).

In the wake of the rumors surrounding Jeff Gerstmann's suspicious removal as editorial director of Gamespot, Gamespot owner CNET has issued a short, official comment on the situation. "GameSpot takes its editorial integrity extremely seriously," the statement reads. "For over a decade, Gamespot and the many members of its editorial team have produced thousands of unbiased reviews that have been a valuable resource for the gaming community. At CNET Networks, we stand behind the editorial content that our teams produce on a daily basis."

As for Gerstmann specifically, CNET repeated their assertion that "it is CNET Networks' policy not to comment on the status of its employees, current or former."

While it's nice to see CNET taking the accusations seriously, the statement doesn't confirm or deny the facts behind the controversy, or add any significant information to the story. With the rumor still generating significant discussion throughout the online gaming community, such a short, pat statement seems unlikely to stop the gathering storm of attention.

GameSpot issues short comment on Gerstmann firing

Well, I'm not going to take Gamespot seriously at all anymore (not that I wasn't taking reviews from the big companies with a grain of salt).

Is New CNet Management The Cause For GameSpot Firing?

1Up.com has their own article on the firing of GameSpot executive editor Jeff Gerstmann. The article speculates that the dismissal could be due to Stephen Colvin, the new Executive Vice President at GameSpot's parent company CNet. Colvin, who joined CNet just a month ago, was formerly the CEO of Dennis Publishing, who handle Maxim, Blender and the former Stuff magazines. Those publications tend to mix editorial and marketing a bit (game reviews in those magazines don't mean a lot since many of them are written months ahead of the game's release) and it's thought that Colvin's influence might be extending to GameSpot. The article also links to an anonymous poster on a blog site claiming to have inside info on Gerstmann's firing but there's no real proof that the poster is indeed a member of Gamespot.

http://www.firingsquad.com/news/newsart … chid=18543

The only reason I didn't visit places like Gamespot and IGN in the past was because the heavy-laden graphics and animation made my poor Mac Mini get all overworked just to load the front page. Now I have two reasons!

Bat wrote:

More On GameSpot Editor Firing

The effects of GameSpot executive editor Jeff Gerstmann's firing from the web site earlier this week continue to be felt. This Flickr page shows a number of employees from rival Ziff-Davis going to GameSpot's parent company CNet's offices in San Fransisco to hold up signs and protest Gerstmann's firing (allegedly for giving a low review to Kane and Lynch: Dead Men while its publisher Eidos paid for ads to promote the game on the site). Meanwhile Gamespot's message boards are full of people who have stated they will cancel their paid subscriptions to the site in protest of Gerstmann's firing. Finally, a message from GameSpot's community manager states that "I am eagerly anticipating the official word to be released on Tuesday." Thanks Joystiq.

http://www.firingsquad.com/news/newsart … chid=18551

That's great! These companies know consumers are a bunch of dumb smurf and couldn't care less about what we think...so I *love* to see consumers in turn protest with their almighty dollar...the only thing these dickless corporate mouth breathers understand. I hope they lose subscribers by the thousands (they'll probably only lose about 15, but I can dream, can't I...)

They don't care if the game sucks...they just want you to pay for it. Anytime someone is punished for telling the truth (even if the truth is simply a trusted opinion), then a crime has been committed.

The question isn't if World of Warcrack is good. It whether it's worth $15 a month above the cost of the game plus any and all of your free time.

After the Gamespot debacle, now would've been the time for Eidos to curl up and lay low, but they can't even do that. What filthy liars. People with controlling interests in the company should be making sure that heads roll over this bullsmurf.

Their credibility is nearing bottom.

GameSpot Posts Q&A On "Gerstmanngate"

Even though it released an official response to the situation on Monday night, the gaming web site GameSpot has now posted up a full FAQ on the firing of executive editor Jeff Gerstmann. Once again, the FAQ does not talk about the direct reason why Gerstmann was dismissed last week, saying only, "they stemmed from issues unrelated to any publisher or advertiser; it was due purely for internal reasons." It does address why Gerstmann's 6.0 (out of 10) review of Eidos's action game Kane and Lynch was altered several days after it was posted, saying, "The copy was adjusted several days after its publication so that it better meshed with its score, which remained unchanged." The video review of the game was taken down, according to the FAQ, because of technical issues; "Specifically, its audio was deemed inferior due to a faulty microphone." The video review has now been reposted on the site, in its original form, "in the spirit of full disclosure." While publisher Eidos "expressed their displeasure" about the review, that displeasure was never given to the editorial department of Gamespot and Eidos's comments did not influence Gerstmann's departure. While the FAQ states that the review did not deviate from GameSpot's own review policies, it did say, "an internal review of the incident and controversy is under way."

http://www.firingsquad.com/news/newsart … chid=18601

"The copy was adjusted several days after its publication so that it better meshed with its score, which remained unchanged."

Rewriting a review by another author is unforgivable. I think it's safe to assume the tone was softened a fair bit, and note the original has apparently not been similarly reposted, 'spirit of full disclosure' notwithstanding.

ScifiterX wrote:

The question isn't if World of Warcrack is good. It whether it's worth $15 a month above the cost of the game plus any and all of your free time.

The issue is entirely different. The Activision-Blizzard deal was done to create an entity big enough to rival EA.

It's about 800 lb. corporate gorillas big enough to not care much about reviews, public perception etc.

Blizz might care, but VU clearly doesn't, especially if you remember the scandals of a few years back.