Support NeoGAF

[SCHUEY F1]

This is the end...this is the end of dog racing...

 

[SCHUEY F1]

Fixed

 

[koam]

This just in..

a few posts up.

 

[mosaic]

The guy that posted to forumopolis basically confirms how dire this whole thing is. Read what he's saying. Jeff wasn't specifically let go because he gave **** & ***** a negative review and the advertiser complained. He was let go because Eidos was the latest in a line of advertisers that complained to CNet marketing, and CNet felt he wasn't running things right because advertisers were unhappy.

It doesn't matter whether it was one review or ten. The implication is as clear as glass: Don't be too negative in reviewing games published by our advertisers.

How can an editorial staff work under THAT pressure?!

 

[Link648099]

The guy that posted to forumopolis basically confirms how dire this whole thing is. Read what he's saying. Jeff wasn't specifically let go because he gave **** & ***** a negative review and the advertiser complained. He was let go because Eidos was the latest in a line of advertisers that complained to CNet marketing, and CNet felt he wasn't running things right because advertisers were unhappy.

It doesn't matter whether it was one review or ten. The implication is as clear as glass: Don't be too negative in reviewing games published by our advertisers.

How can an editorial staff work under THAT pressure?!

Mmm. Eidos is going to get most of the flak for this though, as evidenced by their forums.

 

[SuomiDude]

and anyone who complains at TP's 8.8 review should think again. That game deserved lower, Jeff was atleast almost money on it...(and i am a nin fan)

I'm a Nintendo fan as well, and I think TP deserved 9+ score. YET I think that this firing a guy for giving a "low" score for a game that apparently at least partly deserves it, is fucking disaster for the whole review business. And I don't really give a shit if that guy gave TP too low score IMO, it's still a disaster that a guy can't have a personal opinion...

Btw, sorry if I missed something, I'm pretty drunk right now...

 

[memorandum]

Penny Arcade has their post up.

It's been a couple weeks discussing reviews and reviewers around here, but somewhere along the way I neglected to mention that their job is essentially impossible. The 7-9 scale they toil under is largely the result of an uneasy peace between the business and editorial wings of the venue. No matter what score they give it, high or low, they're reviled equally by the online chorus. Apparently, even when they do it right they're doing it wrong.

Jeff Gerstmann is no stranger to controversy. In general terms, Gamespot can be relied upon to give high-profile games scores which are slightly lower than their counterparts elsewhere. It's almost as though there is an algorithm in place there to correct the heady rush associated with cracking open an anticipated new title. Gerstmann's 8.8 review of Twilight Princess cemented his reputation as a criminal renegade with no law but his own, even though he gave the game an 8.9 - a nine, essentially - out of ten.

I will tell you the Gerstmann Story as we heard it. Management claimed to have spoken to Jeff about his "tone" before, and no doubt it was this tone that created tensions between their editorial content, the direction of the site, and the carefully crafted relationships that allowed Gamespot to act as an engine of revenue creation. After Gerstmann's savage flogging of **** & *****, a game whose marketing investment on Gamespot alone reached into the hundreds of thousands, Eidos (we are told) pulled hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of future advertising from the site.

Management has another story, of course: management always has another story. But it's the firm belief internally that Jeff was sacrificed. And it had to be Jeff, at least, we believe, precisely because of his stature and longevity. It made for a dramatic public execution that left the editorial staff in disarray. Would that it were only about the 6.0 - at least then you'd know how to score something if you wanted to keep your Goddamned job. No, this was worse: the more nebulous "tone" would be the guide. I assume it was designed to terrify them.

For Gabriel, this tale proves out his darkest suspicions. People believe things like this anyway, but they don't know it, and the shift from intuitive to objective knowledge is startling. I think it rarely gets to this point. The apparatus is very tight: there are layers of editorial control that can massage the score, even when the text tells a different tale. A more junior reviewer might have seen their **** & ***** review streamlined by this process, divested of its worrisome angles and overall troubling shape. It was Jeff Gerstmann's role high in the site's infrastructure that allowed his raw editorial content to pierce the core of the business.

What's mindblowing to me is that had Gerstmann had been reviewing a MOVIE, his "tone" would have been whollly appropriate. Ebert has published an entire book of harsher reviews.

 

[DarciisFyer]

The guy that posted to forumopolis basically confirms how dire this whole thing is. Read what he's saying. Jeff wasn't specifically let go because he gave **** & ***** a negative review and the advertiser complained. He was let go because Eidos was the latest in a line of advertisers that complained to CNet marketing, and CNet felt he wasn't running things right because advertisers were unhappy.

It doesn't matter whether it was one review or ten. The implication is as clear as glass: Don't be too negative in reviewing games published by our advertisers.

How can an editorial staff work under THAT pressure?!

QFT.

The notion that an EIC can be sacked for giving a poor review for an advertised game was always ludicrous at best, but the notion of CNETmarketing getting Jeff, who has a history of harsh reviews, fired to make an example out of him and keep the rest of gamespot in line, is a disturbingly realistic picture.

 

[kaching]

What do you think about the portion I highlighted? Because in my opinion there is no way of interpreting that as anything other than pay-for-points.

In the comment you highlighted, I see nothing more than the confirmation of the folly of the practice and Eidos' realization of that. I don't see that it extends into a confirmation of Eidos continuing to try to force payment for points.

 

[Kintaro]

The guy that posted to forumopolis basically confirms how dire this whole thing is. Read what he's saying. Jeff wasn't specifically let go because he gave **** & ***** a negative review and the advertiser complained. He was let go because Eidos was the latest in a line of advertisers that complained to CNet marketing, and CNet felt he wasn't running things right because advertisers were unhappy.

It doesn't matter whether it was one review or ten. The implication is as clear as glass: Don't be too negative in reviewing games published by our advertisers.

How can an editorial staff work under THAT pressure?!

Is it that clear? Is it "don't be too negative" or "don't be too disrespectful"?

There's a giant difference there.

IF what Penny Arcade is saying is true...

1) Jeff has been warned about his "tone" (whether mocking, ranting, disrespectful, or whatever) before. Was this repeat behavior? His job isn't stand up you know.

2) This time, Eidos felt disrespected or didn't care for the "tone" and pulled FUTURE ad dollars because of it. Was this the first time this happened because of Jeff? We don't know.

3) THIS TIME CNet said fuck it. They have just lost a lot of money because of something they have talked with him about in the past, and he has turned into a liability. What you do you do with liabilities? You cut them loose.

If this is the way it went down, I honestly can't blame CNet for it. If he was costing them money, not because of his scores, but because he slighted publishers or disrespected the product, then you let him go. It's business.

There's still more to this. We honestly don't know how much trouble Jeff has gotten into his in time at Gamespot. Obviously, after 11 years there, everything fell into place.

 

[taconinja]

I can't get to Penny Arcade. It keeps going "Page not found" on me. I wonder if that's because they're updating or some nut at one of the companies is threatening a lawsuit.

I feel sad that I'm so paranoid these days.

 

[Kintaro]

What's mindblowing to me is that had Gerstmann had been reviewing a MOVIE, his "tone" would have been whollly appropriate. Ebert has published an entire book of harsher reviews.

You cannot compare what Ebert and others do to what gaming sites do.

 

[memorandum]

You cannot compare what Ebert and others do to what gaming sites do.

Because you say so?

 

[DenogginizerOS]

If Jeff got fired because he unknowingly violated some ad revenue-for-points agreement that Gamespot had struck with Eidos, then this is truly tragic for him and for gamers. But if he knew an agreement existed and he was acting on behalf of gamers, then why didn't he just write a story about the agreement and expose that? To me, this would have been the more appropriate way to expose this behavior. On the other hand, what if he was found to be acting unprofessionally in the video review and had been warned to change his tone in the past or face termination? This is also a reasonable explanation.

Either way, for whatever the reason, JG and/or Gamespot owe it to gamers to explain what happened. If they truly cared about the integrity of the industry and the journalists that cover it, then they would dispel this rumor if it is false before it festers into fact and more people get harmed. If it is true, then a whole lot of medicine will be dished out and the integrity of the industry and the journalists that cover it will not be the only ones tasting the bitter taste when we have to all take that medicine. Either way, Gerstmann or Gamespot need to start talking and clear this mess up immediately.

 

[Dirtbag]

Is it that clear? Is it "don't be too negative" or "don't be too disrespectful"?

There's a giant difference there.

IF what Penny Arcade is saying is true...

1) Jeff has been warned about his "tone" (whether mocking, ranting, disrespectful, or whatever) before. Was this repeat behavior? His job isn't stand up you know.

2) This time, Eidos felt disrespected or didn't care for the "tone" and pulled FUTURE ad dollars because of it. Was this the first time this happened because of Jeff? We don't know.

3) THIS TIME CNet said fuck it. They have just lost a lot of money because of something they have talked with him about in the past, and he has turned into a liability. What you do you do with liabilities? You cut them loose.

If this is the way it went down, I honestly can't blame CNet for it. If he was costing them money, not because of his scores, but because he slighted publishers or disrespected the product, then you let him go. It's business.

There's still more to this. We honestly don't know how much trouble Jeff has gotten into his in time at Gamespot. Obviously, after 11 years there, everything fell into place.

Yeah from a business standpoint it makes perfect sense.

But from a moral one its terrible. And it has some questionable legal ramifications (our 1st amendments' rights ! In case anyone wants to overlook that).

 

[Prospero]

What's mindblowing to me is that had Gerstmann had been reviewing a MOVIE, his "tone" would have been whollly appropriate. Ebert has published an entire book of harsher reviews.

Yeah--after reading many of the posts here, when I finally watched the video review I expected to see a madman foaming at the mouth. He pointed out what he perceived to be the game's flaws, but he didn't seem mean-spirited to me, or as if he were taking undue pleasure in handing out a low score.

Never mind movie reviews--the average negative book review is more malicious than that.

 

[Vashu]

Penny Arcade has their post up.



What's mindblowing to me is that had Gerstmann had been reviewing a MOVIE, his "tone" would have been whollly appropriate. Ebert has published an entire book of harsher reviews.

Exactly

What we see here is the fact that corporations really do have the leverage to gain a result more fitting with their agenda. I find it revolting to see that the gameindustry still has to pipe up to higher ups, whereas most movie-sites can get away with anything. It is absurd to see this is happening, and that Jeff (even though I may not agree with his reasoning at times) has to be the one to take the fall.

It's not the review apparently, even though it has contributed to his current position of being in limbo, but his 'tone'. Well whoop-de-fracking-doo, what a reason to fire someone. I hope he does the right thing and will make this known, because this is preposterous and downright idiotic.

As a matter of fact, is this even legal?

 

[taconinja]

Is it that clear? Is it "don't be too negative" or "don't be too disrespectful"?

There's a giant difference there.

IF what Penny Arcade is saying is true...

1) Jeff has been warned about his "tone" (whether mocking, ranting, disrespectful, or whatever) before. Was this repeat behavior? His job isn't stand up you know.

2) This time, Eidos felt disrespected or didn't care for the "tone" and pulled FUTURE ad dollars because of it. Was this the first time this happened because of Jeff? We don't know.

3) THIS TIME CNet said fuck it. They have just lost a lot of money because of something they have talked with him about in the past, and he has turned into a liability. What you do you do with liabilities? You cut them loose.

If this is the way it went down, I honestly can't blame CNet for it. If he was costing them money, not because of his scores, but because he slighted publishers or disrespected the product, then you let him go. It's business.

There's still more to this. We honestly don't know how much trouble Jeff has gotten into his in time at Gamespot. Obviously, after 11 years there, everything fell into place.

I have worked as a journalist. Yes, this is true. I will not mince words, nor will I tell you that your stance has a snowball's chance in Hell of being true.

Gaming journalism is at a crossroads. Either quit being journalists and become unofficial PR sites or divorce themselves from unethical, corrupting influences and be journalists. You can not have your cake and eat it, too.

What has happened has a very clear and common term: Chilling Effect.

From now on, their "reviewers" will have to toe the line for fear of being fired for their "tone." This destroys credible journalism. There's a trust between a journalist and the audience. If the journalist betrays that trust in any way, they become useless.

 

[Archaix]

You cannot compare what Ebert and others do to what gaming sites do.

That's only because gaming sites allow shit like this to happen.

 

[taconinja]

You cannot compare what Ebert and others do to what gaming sites do.

Then you should definitely bring this up the next time that old chestnut "Games are art!" comes up.

Again, you can't have it both ways. Art is meant to be subjectively reviewed in a fair manner by critics. If there is no true review, then games aren't art at all.

 

[memorandum]

Yeah--after reading many of the posts here, when I finally watched the video review I expected to see a madman foaming at the mouth. He pointed out what he perceived to be the game's flaws, but he didn't seem mean-spirited to me, or as if he were taking undue pleasure in handing out a low score.

Never mind movie reviews--the average negative book review is more malicious than that.

That's exactly my point - I simply don't see the unprofessionalism in Gerstmann's video review.

If game reviewers don't even have the lattitude to call it as they see it in a video review, what's the point of having them at all? Just give every game an E for effort and be done with it?

 

[Kintaro]

I have worked as a journalist. Yes, this is true. I will not mince words, nor will I tell you that your stance has a snowball's chance in Hell of being true.

I'm honestly not following you here.

 

[VinZuku]

If this is the way it went down, I honestly can't blame CNet for it. If he was costing them money, not because of his scores, but because he slighted publishers or disrespected the product, then you let him go. It's business.

I'm sorry, I don't mean to use you as an example but I always find "corporate speak" funny. Do you watch Jerry Maguire and root for Bob Sugar?

 

[Link]

Probably been mentioned already in the previous 40 pages, but if this is true, I can't imagine what's going through the minds of the rest of the Gamespot staff. How many of them are considering leaving? If they stay, they can either compromise their own integrity or live in constant fear of being fired for speaking their opinion (which is what they're supposedly paid to do in the first place).

What a mess.

 

[Dirtbag]

the solution is to sell advertising to non-video game products first. i bet axe body spray, or montain dew, etc. can really give a fuck about the K&L review.

 

[taconinja]

I'm honestly not following you here.

Here's the simple version.

You are wrong. I'm not saying this to be an ass. You're just wrong. I'll write a longer response and post it, but I didn't want this to get lost in the responses.

 

[Kintaro]

Then you should definitely bring this up the next time that old chestnut "Games are art!" comes up.

What I mean is, Ebert, etc are not in the business of keeping up money by previews, interviews, etc. All they do is review the final product. They are not under the influence (ideally) of any party because they are reviewing the product when it comes out. They don't have to fight for exclusives, for ad dollars or whatever. They are not acting as the hype machines for movies as gaming sites/mags are for games.

That's why you really can't compare them because the circumstances are completely different. I don't about the games are art crap, had nothing to do with my point.

 

[Evlar]

In the comment you highlighted, I see nothing more than the confirmation of the folly of the practice and Eidos' realization of that. I don't see that it extends into a confirmation of Eidos continuing to try to force payment for points.

OK, so when they say it was "understandable" that Eidos was upset, what exactly was understood? They clearly weren't complaining about the lay-out of the pages, the pixel-count of the ads, or the quality of the adspace artwork. They were bitching about CONTENT. Is it so obvious that advertisers have sway over content that it doesn't even need to be stated?

 

[bishoptl]

You cannot compare what Ebert and others do to what gaming sites do.

Are you serious?

What other purpose is there to game reviews except to let the gaming public know what titles are worth their money - and which ones are not?

What other purpose are there to movie reviews except to let the viewing public know which movies are worth their money - and which ones are not?

Ridiculous. And that's coming from someone who has sat on both sides of the fence.

What I mean is, Ebert, etc are not in the business of keeping up money by previews, interviews, etc. All they do is review the final product. They are not under the influence (ideally) of any party because they are reviewing the product when it comes out. They don't have to fight for exclusives, for ad dollars or whatever. They are not acting as the hype machines for movies as gaming sites/mags are for games.

Holy shit. :lol Fighting for previews and ad dollars means that the line between journalism and commerce should be crossed with impunity?

 

[Okin]

Is it that clear? Is it "don't be too negative" or "don't be too disrespectful"?

There's a giant difference there.

IF what Penny Arcade is saying is true...

1) Jeff has been warned about his "tone" (whether mocking, ranting, disrespectful, or whatever) before. Was this repeat behavior? His job isn't stand up you know.

2) This time, Eidos felt disrespected or didn't care for the "tone" and pulled FUTURE ad dollars because of it. Was this the first time this happened because of Jeff? We don't know.

3) THIS TIME CNet said fuck it. They have just lost a lot of money because of something they have talked with him about in the past, and he has turned into a liability. What you do you do with liabilities? You cut them loose.

If this is the way it went down, I honestly can't blame CNet for it. If he was costing them money, not because of his scores, but because he slighted publishers or disrespected the product, then you let him go. It's business.

There's still more to this. We honestly don't know how much trouble Jeff has gotten into his in time at Gamespot. Obviously, after 11 years there, everything fell into place.

What you basically said is that if a game is not very good, the person reviewing the game has to make a really dry and boring review, and can't crack any jokes. Fuck that. Your stance isn't justifiable.

 

[TekunoRobby]

Ridiculous. And that's coming from someone who has sat on both sides of the fence.

When were you were a journalist?

 

[Kintaro]

I'm sorry, I don't mean to use you as an example but I always find "corporate speak" funny. Do you watch Jerry Maguire and root for Bob Sugar?

Come on. Business sucks shit, but that's the way shit happens. Are you incapable of seeing what could have happened from all sides?

 

[McLovin]

I would have liked the strip better if it went like this
"Gerstman.. do you see a moneyhat on my head?"
"... umm.. no"
"Exactly... you're fired!"
But yeah it sucks. Anyway they knew what kind of reviewer he was. Why would they give him that game if they wanted it to be a positive review? I think its their fault more then his.

 

[nightowl]

If PA's take that Gerstmann was sacrificed to set an example for remaining/future editors that they needed to consider the site's marketing income into their critical analysis of games, then I for one have a huge problem with that.

You would think that the editorial process would enjoy at least a modicum of protection from the demands/desires of the advertising realities of the business.

That Gamespot *appears* to have done the opposite is very disturbing.

 

[Dartastic]

If this is the way it went down, I honestly can't blame CNet for it. If he was costing them money, not because of his scores, but because he slighted publishers or disrespected the product, then you let him go. It's business.

There's still more to this. We honestly don't know how much trouble Jeff has gotten into his in time at Gamespot. Obviously, after 11 years there, everything fell into place.

Are you nuts? Game reviewers should get paid to offer truthful, uninfluenced and unbiased reviews of a product. If he was costing them money because he didn't like a game, Gamespot/CNet should have stood behind him because he was doing his JOB.

There probably is still more to this. But will we ever know?

 

[FnordChan]

Ebert has published an entire book of harsher reviews.

Yes, but Ebert is published by the Chicago Sun-Times, which receives advertising dollars from a broad range of sources, so if a film studio decides to pull their ads due to a negative review it doesn't really hurt them financially. Gamespot, on the other hand, gets all of their advertising dollars from game publishers, of which there are only so many, so having a single advertiser drop their funding is a major blow to the publication.

Ideally, all the major independent review outlets would tell upset companies that if they don't like it they can go to hell, at which point said companies would give the media their advertising bucks because they don't have much choice in the matter. Unfortunately, it looks like the publishers can, in fact, throw their weight around, at which point we can look forward to more of the 7-10 review scale, especially if advertising dollars are involved.

On the other hand, major game publishers generally have budgets that include television and perhaps even theatrical advertising, so you wonder why they're getting upset about relatively small fry like Gamespot. Hopefully they'll get fat and lazy to the point where said publishers can't be bothered to worry overmuch about the enthusiast press.

FnordChan

 

[Kintaro]

Holy shit. :lol Fighting for previews and ad dollars means that the line between journalism and commerce should be crossed with impunity?

You think it hasn't been already?

It, not he. Blah.

 

[Link]

When were you were a journalist?

I can't tell if you're kidding, but it's funny either way.

 

[bishoptl]

When were you were a journalist?

I wrote for Jim on Gaming-Age.com for years. Got a whole thread dedicated to the most inane hate mail over reviews over in the forum archive.

 

[Peru]

Is it that clear? Is it "don't be too negative" or "don't be too disrespectful"?

There's a giant difference there.

Bullshit it is. It's the exact same thing. The "tone" is whatever tools a reviewer finds necessary to communicate his/her opinion on a game. The "tone" is the reviewers subjective qualities and a big part of the difference between quality or poor writing - not that quality or ones personal views on the journalist at hand matters at all. No matter what CNET objected to it is the same degree of wrong. The wall between ownership/sponsorship and the journalism has been torn down and made worthless. The credibility of the entire company is gone.

It's only made worse that it's not just about one case, but that for a long time he's refused to sacrifice his journalistic integrity because of sponsorship - and because of this he's made an example of. Eidos and CNET have publically threatened the integrity of the entire games journalist industry with their "hang his head on a pole"-tactics.

You cannot compare what Ebert and others do to what gaming sites do.

If what you deem just and fair becomes commonly acceptable, then no. Luckily there's management elsewhere who would never accept this, and luckily there are many examples of games journalism rising above consumer shopping advice. Not that Roger Ebert is particularly good at what he does, but relating to movie criticism as a whole.

 

[probune]

Is it that clear? Is it "don't be too negative" or "don't be too disrespectful"?

There's a giant difference there.

IF what Penny Arcade is saying is true...

1) Jeff has been warned about his "tone" (whether mocking, ranting, disrespectful, or whatever) before. Was this repeat behavior? His job isn't stand up you know.

2) This time, Eidos felt disrespected or didn't care for the "tone" and pulled FUTURE ad dollars because of it. Was this the first time this happened because of Jeff? We don't know.

3) THIS TIME CNet said fuck it. They have just lost a lot of money because of something they have talked with him about in the past, and he has turned into a liability. What you do you do with liabilities? You cut them loose.

If this is the way it went down, I honestly can't blame CNet for it. If he was costing them money, not because of his scores, but because he slighted publishers or disrespected the product, then you let him go. It's business.

There's still more to this. We honestly don't know how much trouble Jeff has gotten into his in time at Gamespot. Obviously, after 11 years there, everything fell into place.

What are you trying to say here? Are you saying that CNET had the right to fire him? If so, then I agree, they absolutely did. Who's arguing that point? If you're saying that no one should be angry about the line being crossed here, then you're wrong.

 

[TekunoRobby]

I can't tell if you're kidding, but it's funny either way.

How so?

I wrote for Jim on Gaming-Age.com for years. Got a whole thread dedicated to the most inane hate mail over reviews over in the forum archive.

Ahhh, that's cool. Thanks for the reply. It seems a lot of people get their start in the industry writing for Gaming Age.

EDIT: Haha it seems I even posted in that thread. I completely forgot about it!

 

[DenogginizerOS]

Why isn't Gerstmann talking? What gamer would not lift him to the heavens if he revealed that he was fired for violating some payola policy? He could start his own website and he would have legions following him for doing this and he would become a trusted reviewer at a height no one has ever achieved.

On the other hand, if he was fired for other reasons, and people who work at Gamespot or Eidos lose jobs as a result of this rumor, and he does nothing to clear it up, then he is doing a huge disservice to the industry he covered for 11 years.

Come on Jeff. Speak up.

 

[traveler]

Awful, just awful.

And even though it seems we have only guesswork at this point, there is the story of Tim leaving GS as well. That seems pretty damning to me.

Edit: Denog, Jeff likely isn't speaking because his severance pay is probably dependent upon some sort of gag order regarding the conditions of his departure.

 

[Kintaro]

Are you nuts? Game reviewers should get paid to offer truthful, uninfluenced and unbiased reviews of a product. If he was costing them money because he didn't like a game, Gamespot/CNet should have stood behind him because he was doing his JOB.

You are absolutely correct. But do we know what the guidelines are inside of Gamespot? No, we don't. Again, there's still more here, but this isn't COMPLETELY due to his review of **** of ***** either. We just don't know.

That being said, has any other website had Eidos threaten to pull their future advertising dollars BECAUSE of their review of **** and *****? Don't know that either.

 

[Richardfun]

Here's PA's take:



It's clear the side he takes (anti-management), but if this was how it went down, it's pretty much like I thought. And to tell the truth, I don't have much of a problem with it. There's still more I need to hear though to firmly make up my mind.

If that is how it went you don't have a problem with it? You find it alright that someone gets hired at a place to express his opinion (in this case on videogames) and he is subsequently fired for doing so?

 

[itsinmyveins]

I gotta agree to some point that you can't really expect Eidos to act in any other way, so it's mainly cnet who're at fault here. If Eidos don't wanna put up ads or send review copies -- fine. It's gonna be their problem if they continously act that way.

 

[Richardfun]

The guy that posted to forumopolis basically confirms how dire this whole thing is. Read what he's saying. Jeff wasn't specifically let go because he gave **** & ***** a negative review and the advertiser complained. He was let go because Eidos was the latest in a line of advertisers that complained to CNet marketing, and CNet felt he wasn't running things right because advertisers were unhappy.

It doesn't matter whether it was one review or ten. The implication is as clear as glass: Don't be too negative in reviewing games published by our advertisers.

How can an editorial staff work under THAT pressure?!

QFT, and a heartfelt amen!

 

[taconinja]

I'm honestly not following you here.

Okay. This is the long version.

First, you have to ask a simple question: Are reviewers for the various gaming websites journalists? Many of them claim to be, and since they all try to fall under the banner of "gaming press" when it suits them they're stuck with it. So yes, they are purporting to be journalists.

As a journalist, credibility is everything. You don't betray your sources because you need to be credible in their eyes. You don't plagiarize or "borrow" stories because you need to be credible in the eyes of other journalists. You especially do not invent stories or lie in your stories because you must at all times be credible in the eyes of your audience. As far as gaming journalism goes, this is a tenuous and dubious state these days, specifically because of the allegations of paid-for-points reviews, the crass, crowing acceptance of "gaming swag" accepted by reviewers, and the heavy reliance of advertising dollars, which are handled poorly.

Now the advertising dollars are okay in and of themselves. What should be the case is that companies advertise on these websites--not because they've bought reviews but because the websites have established themselves through their reviewers as credible, ethical sources of gaming journalism where the gaming majority can find accurate, clear news and opinions. Someone will inevitably bring up bias, but that's a strawman. Everyone has bias, but working to eliminate that as much as possible is necessary and expected from journalists.

By firing Mr. Gerstmann and claiming that it was his "tone," the company has sent a clear message: We can and will fire you at any time if you do not write the opinions we want you to write. Is this bad? Yes, because it taints any positive review in the future, which the gaming public must trust in order to fairly evaluate their purchases.

As I said earlier, it also lampoons the argument of "games as art" which pops up fairly regularly. If art can not be reviewed by a critic fairly and accurately without external pressures, then the review is trash. It is untrustworthy and useless. I could honestly write a thirty-page dissertation on why the "games as art" debate is pointless until true independent reviewing is established. I will elaborate if you like, but I warn you it will be long.

 

[VinZuku]

Come on. Business sucks shit, but that's the way shit happens. Are you incapable of seeing what could have happened from all sides?

I'm capable of seeing it from all sides but, at the end of the day, a dude losing his job beacause he (supposedly) was too harsh while reviewing a crappy video game is pretty crappy. Don't you think? Disrespecting the product is one thing, what about disrespecting a person?