Eh? Gamespot in damage control mode. Call me a cynic, but after reading two paragraphs it's just PR rubbish. The fact that it simply posted "By Staff" doesn't instill me with any kind of believability. If it was by other editors, throw their names on the article.
Kane & Lynch & Enough of the Bullshit
- Thread starter Russ Pitts
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I'll confess to not knowing what kind of position "editorial director" is, but I get the feeling the whole fuss about the K&L review - regardless of whether it was grounds for firing or not - could have been prevented with having an editor above Gerstmann. It seems a little shortsighted on the aprt of Gamespot to have a firebrand character in charge of editing his own work. I'm no fan of censorship, but if they were unhappy about having the review available, they should have never let it get out in the first place.
It's worth noting that the K&L written review is still present on Gamespot, and still gives it a poor rating. Many of GS' recent reviews have also been in the 5-7 range, so the K&L wasn't without precedent.
It's worth noting that the K&L written review is still present on Gamespot, and still gives it a poor rating. Many of GS' recent reviews have also been in the 5-7 range, so the K&L wasn't without precedent.
Well it isn't only gamereviews working like that, but many areas where people receive money for advertisement or donations it works like that. Hell, even politics works like that. I mean, a senator is not going to bite a company that funded him, even if the compagny did something wrong. If it works like that on that level, I'm not even remotely surprised that it works like that on this level.
I Read The Escapist, Gamepolitics, and occasionally Kotaku or Joysiq for my games news.
I watch Yahtzee for the entertainment.
Apart from my own personal experiences, there are only two people [http://www.penny-arcade.com/2007/11/14#1195073220] who I trust to give me an OPINION (that's all it is) on games.
Gamespot, etc are too flashy for my liking, and flash usually tastes like shine.
I watch Yahtzee for the entertainment.
Apart from my own personal experiences, there are only two people [http://www.penny-arcade.com/2007/11/14#1195073220] who I trust to give me an OPINION (that's all it is) on games.
Gamespot, etc are too flashy for my liking, and flash usually tastes like shine.
i agree somewhat that yahtzee should review kane and lynch only b/c it would be funny for us, and because the game is so bad it would have a good rant going.
its kind of interesting to see this all unfold so quickly, i have been a member of the gamespot sister site for nearly 7 years and Gamespot itself for roughly 2-3years and have been quasi dependent on them for game reviews, even when they gave games a poor score, you could always read why they did and decide for yourself.
since i found out all this i have since stopped going there and will only a few more times to get my old reviews off the site and onto my the new site i decided to spend time on GameTrailers.com, this is mostly due to the fact that now that there was this scare, there is a good chance the rest of the reviews will not be so honest. besides i like the way the video is set up for GameTrailers.com better, plus the community forums are much more accessible and lively.
its kind of interesting to see this all unfold so quickly, i have been a member of the gamespot sister site for nearly 7 years and Gamespot itself for roughly 2-3years and have been quasi dependent on them for game reviews, even when they gave games a poor score, you could always read why they did and decide for yourself.
since i found out all this i have since stopped going there and will only a few more times to get my old reviews off the site and onto my the new site i decided to spend time on GameTrailers.com, this is mostly due to the fact that now that there was this scare, there is a good chance the rest of the reviews will not be so honest. besides i like the way the video is set up for GameTrailers.com better, plus the community forums are much more accessible and lively.
That's actually an excellent point, and one that hadn't occurred to me.Kwil said:
I guess we also have to remember that the internet allows for the dissemination of news, the development of such stories and the airing of reactions to that news faster than any other medium in the history of mankind. It's been less than a week since Gertsmann was fired, and that includes a weekend, which may have slowed down both parties in any subsequent discussion.
To expect either of them to come out with some public remark in reaction to the news without undergoing some kind of consultation is pushing it, yet they've had hardly any time to try such consultation before receiving demands to spill the story.
Yup. Although Russ's ultimate point - that the very fact that Gertsmann being fired for pissing off the advertisers is so plausible suggests that the industry is screwed - still stands.
As far as the contract goes, it likely has a clause saying that if Gertsmann causes sizeable damage to CNET at any point, he's liable to be fired. I've had such clauses in contracts (albeit freelance contracts rather than editorial team ones). The reason for the firing didn't come into it, and morality has nothing to do with legality.Russ Pitts said:
I think this is a slightly unfair view of the event. Unless Jeff has enough money that he can go indefinitely without getting paid, then speaking out and incurring a damages claim and/or losing his severance package is going to pretty much ruin his life in the short-term. And if he has kids or a dependent wife then it moves from noble stupidity to out-and-out irresponsibility. Especially since the long-term effects could well mean him becoming unhireable in the industry that he is passionate about (rememeber that in the case of places like Gamespot, the boys with the money have a say in who gets hired, not just the editorial board).
Jeff would be commended if he came out anyway, and rightly so, but I don't think that not speaking out should be seen as a negative act or one of cowardice. He certainly shouldn't be accused of lacking balls, when it was his balls that supposedly got him into this situation in the first place.
As for the difference between taking money to lie about Kane and Lynch and taking money (or refusing to lose money) to not expose Gamespot, the difference is that as an editor and reviewer he had a responsibility to the reader to tell the truth about the game as he saw it. But that's as far as that it went, and once fired from the company his responsibility to Gamespot's audience ended completely. It would be a fine thing to expose alleged corruption decisively, but he had no obligation to do so whatsoever.
And it's very easy to complain that the guy doesn't have "balls" when you're not in his situation and don't have a full idea of what happened.
Of course, if Gamespot's announcement is to be believed then it's all academic anyway. But the point still stands.
I thought you hired him [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/editorials/zeropunctuation]?Russ Pitts said:
Only thos with brass balls should walk that path,the rest of us need to be kind to our masters 0-oSaltiness said:
I totally agree. He's been straight in his shoes enough to speak his mind and give an honest review of the game, and yet, it was not that terrible, seriously. That's his job. That's why he was hired - well, I hope.JamesW said:
It just got blew out of proportions because of the insane load of ads in the balance.
Gamespot's latest PR release won't change a nut about their actions.
We may never know the truth, but I consider we have enough evidence on ours hands to make reliable guesses about what said truth looks like.
Now... sheesh. I see how this stuff entertained us. Would have been a boring week otherwise!
^-^
About two years from now (which is forever in Internet time), someone will let slip the last few pieces of info...then we'll know that we knew it from our gut.
Man, I've been hearing this argument my whole life (and it's already appeared three times in this very thread). Saying "that's easy for you" is equivalent to saying "it's hard for me," and both are bullshit. It's no accident I work for people who's ethics agree with mine, and because I do, and because I've always held myself to a higher standard, and because I've reaped the rewards of that (and the punishments) doesn't disqualify me from being able to recommend that path. If anything, I'd say it gives my opinion on the subject a plus ten to relevance. Believe me, my life would have been much easier if I'd bowed to certain individuals and compromised certain personal moralities at certain times, but I've always believed one has a responsibility to stand up for oneself. I know it's not "easy" but what of any value is?JamesW said:
I can understand that there may be legal proceedings underway in this case, and, if so, then we certainly can't expect anyone to tell all. Not until there's a ruling and a book deal. And it's also possible Gerstmann's firing had nothing to do with Eidos or advertising, and CNET is covering their legal asses by keeping mum, and Gerstmann is trying to keep his iron hot by being mysteriously controversial.
It's also possible Gerstmann may be quite comfortable going out on a limb when reviewing a game, but suddenly feels as if all of this has become too real, the stakes too high and he's overwhelmed and running scared. Anything is possible. But I'd still respect the man far more if he'd come clean about what happened. It's what I would do. Whether that makes it right is another story, but it's what I'd do.
It's a long long long journalism tradition that editorial content and ads are completely separate. PA, I know, does not follow this, in the sense that they will only approve ads for games they *do* like, which is fine, really, if I disagree with the principle, because the separation wall is critical. Even if it wasn't broken with this gamespot fracas, it have the appearance of being broken, so Gamespot is worse off already, which is also fine in my book. Sometimes the mere appearance of impropriety should be punished to encourage people to play things on the honest side. And if the allegations are *true* then they really deserve everything they have going to them.
Interesting article. Props to Russ Pitts for writing it. That said, I don't think we're gonna get an answer on this. It's been too long with no useful revelations coming to light. When that happens, it's usually a sign that they're just trying to ride out the storm rather then deal with it. A friend of mine is convinced that neither Eidos nor Cnet are in any real danger. Simply because he believes the public has a notoriously short attention span and gamers are generally worse. I wish I didn't agree with that, but to an extent, I do.
If it's true, the goal just becomes waiting until we're distracted by the next major controversy. Issue should be forgotten in a couple months, and it's business as usual. I say couple months, because the last one (to my knowledge) was Manhunt2, so one can only assume it'll be about that until the next one.
If it's true, the goal just becomes waiting until we're distracted by the next major controversy. Issue should be forgotten in a couple months, and it's business as usual. I say couple months, because the last one (to my knowledge) was Manhunt2, so one can only assume it'll be about that until the next one.
With anything that goes to the courts in the US, there's not a question of risk. Lawyers and legal fees put even successfully defending your rights at more than a few years salary for most of us. The time spent is almost impossible to work a job around. And if there's a jury involved, well, justice isn't the issue. Juries involve 12 people selected for gullibility and forced into a few days or weeks of brainwashing from being talked at by lawyers non-stop.
It's uncomfortable for everyone involved, it's expensive for normal people... and the only ones who win are lawyers.
If he had a suit against them, then there's risk & reward. A jury might be willing to award damages to offset the costs of litigation. Of course, then he's permanently affected his ability to convince a future employer that he's a good worker and not a lawsuit waiting to happen again.
But when the fear is that he'll be sued... he'd be paying legal fees regardless, likely to bankrupcy, if he wins. If he lost, well, same result, plus humiliation, and anyone researching him after a job application would be able to see that his last employer sued his ass off.
Going with the flow and getting fucked out of one job, and not getting bankrupted by litigation... when no option exists for anything like justice. Does that sound wrong?
It's uncomfortable for everyone involved, it's expensive for normal people... and the only ones who win are lawyers.
If he had a suit against them, then there's risk & reward. A jury might be willing to award damages to offset the costs of litigation. Of course, then he's permanently affected his ability to convince a future employer that he's a good worker and not a lawsuit waiting to happen again.
But when the fear is that he'll be sued... he'd be paying legal fees regardless, likely to bankrupcy, if he wins. If he lost, well, same result, plus humiliation, and anyone researching him after a job application would be able to see that his last employer sued his ass off.
Going with the flow and getting fucked out of one job, and not getting bankrupted by litigation... when no option exists for anything like justice. Does that sound wrong?
I think that's a fine line there, but I see your point.Kwil said:
Still, I think we're being a bit Pollyanna suggesting Gerstmann is, or would be, a martyr. I think someone who came out and said "hey I just got fired for bashing on a company that paid us a lot of advertising money" would have little trouble finding work. I'm not denigrating the man for failing to sprout wings and make my dreams come true, I'm denigrating him for taking money in return for silence, if that is indeed what took place.
I'm not just talking about this in the abstract, I'm talking about it literally. How much do you know about his private life? Does he have kids that he needs to buy Christmas presents for? Does he have a sick mother whose medical bills he's paying? Does he have a house to make payments on?Russ Pitts said:
It's entirely possible that the guy has responsibilities in his life that outweigh his responsibilities to the readers of Gamespot, a company that he doesn't even work for any more.
And sure, you can look on that as moral compromise. But that's not always the same as cowardice.
Do you make all of your money from The Escapist? Does it pay all your bills? And if it threatened to sue you for damages because you broke a contract, would it pretty much leave you destitute?
If the answer to all of those is yes and if put in that position you would still throw away everything to tell your story then I am impressed and respect you for it, even if I think you're a little crazy.
That said, I am a firm believer in the theory that a man cannot say for sure how he would act in any given situation until he is actually in that situation. And I certainly don't believe that a man can stand there and call into question another man's bravery unless he, too, has been in that position and done the same, or at the very least knows how the event went down in more detail than we have right now.
But maybe you have been exactly where Gertsmann is, with the same high stakes and same audience of hundreds of thousands of beady eyes inspecting your every move. And maybe you did take the hard route and lose it all. Maybe.