Yeah, I agree. This is really genuinely fucked up. I don't want to make game journalism seem like it's more important than it is, but on a personal level this is sincerely fucked. It just means it's harder and harder to take any game criticism seriously, which is very bad for this still young industry.
I feel really bad. How could a goddamn publisher, WHO THE FUCK, can just say "fire him" and just let a guy go like that. Jeff has been there for years nad he has proven himself to be a credible enthusiast witter. He deserves much better than this horseshit that CNET has done to him.
the fact that they jumped on their high fucking horse and tried to bash reviewers for giving AC a bad score puts is pretty much ethical highwire which makes it hilariously hypocritical for PA to be calling CNET out on this.
Okay I think it's safe to say that Gamespot and CNet are not long for this forum. This is fucking ridiculous and I haven't seen ANYONE say it ISN'T true or even deny it. Not that the absence of those two things make it true but in a situation like this somebody needs to start clarifying exactly what happened here. Their whole community will likely revolt at this.
Jeff has an open invitation to come on GFW Radio any time to talk about this. As Shawn and others have said, this (if true, which we DONT know for sure yet) is just the most blatant and sad manifestation of a trend that has been building and building the last few years.
To those of us close to some of the horseshit maneuvers the big publishers have been pulling, it also hardly comes as a surprise--I mean, the part about a game publisher possibly applying pressure to a media outlet about a score. The nightmare here--again, if it's true--is that the media outlet may have buckled to the pressure. That is a fucking betrayal of epic proportions. So let's hope, for everyone's sakes, that there's more to the story than what we're hearing so far.
I mean I would agree with banning Gamespot if they were in charge of the firing and taking the deal and all that but it's been said already by an employee that all that is delt with CNET people.
Gamespot employee post on the GS boards
""People, don't direct your anger at Gamespot. This is CNet's meddling. Gamespot consists just of the editorial, news, community, and development teams. It's CNet's marketing that puts the ads up. CNet's marketing that complained. CNet is who can fire their EIC. ""
None of the GS staff is allowed to comment right now, so we're just as much in the dark as anyone else right now. However, to extrapolate from the comic/rumors, this wouldn't have come from GS, since Jeff is the EIC right now. It would have come from CNet corporate.
Mods are not employees of gamespot, if your friends on the gamespot forums are mods, they can basically vote you in, usually it's the whole "oh I respect your opinion so much mod ur so wise crowd" that gets considered, hell I was probably playing that game back in 92 when they split from zdnet which didn't last because I was an asshole before and still a bit of an asshole even now, that and sometimes gamespot mods get burned out and lose it eventually and stop posting there, while I've been posting there since 98 and I r as crazy as I wuz since day one.
I think the mods and admins talk in their own little forum, maybe that's how they know. And mods get free subscription as far as I know.
The fact is, PA simply aren't in the same position as professional reviewers - reviewers have no say on the advertising and marketing on the sites they write for. Gabe and Tycho control not only the comics and commentary itself, but the advertising and events such as PAX. In that position, you can't pretend to be impartial about Ubisoft and AC when you two cooperated heavily in ad content for the site, as well as the major event at PAX as well. To call out game reviewers on AC when you're in that position is unethical, striding a dangerous line and flat out puts you in a bad light.
If Gerstmann or any game reviewer got his paycheques directly from Eidos, you'd question the impartiality of his views, no?
watching the video review, the game looks really bad.
however, the idea for the multiplayer is actually kind of neat, it reminds me of the days I used to...role play inside of The Specialist and me and other guys on the server would choose roles inside Mecklenberg. I was always the Private Detective who was the best, besides the guy who played as Spiderman.
I played it on PC and really enjoyed it, sure it has its flaws (most notably in the aiming and mission design) but it's nothing gamebreaking (that is until you get to one of the last missions and have to battle a helicopter).
It hurts me to see that this game which has so much potential just being "shoved on the air" so to speak, since I love the story and the missions really have that "heist" feel that they're going for.
If it had received some more polish then I'd say that it could easily be an 8-9, but as it is now, if you can't deal with the quirky controls (which I think probably works better on PC, since it's basically the Hitman design and thus designed with a mouse in mind) and whatnot, it will inevitably be placed in the 6-7 region.
He gave it the right score, and this is coming from someone who really loved it. :/
Guest seat with Shoe Shoe Fan Fan (or was that Fan Fan Shoe Shoe?).
I wish Gertsmann the absolute best and--as Jeff Green said--would love to have him on. However, due to paperwork and agreements involved when an employee leaves an employer of 10 years, I can't imagine he'll be able to talk for another two years, though.
I frankly don't care how PA operates their advertising.
At the end of the day, Gabe and Tycho act as marketing and editorial - a fundamental conflict of interest, and ultimately I have to take all their viewpoints with a large grain of salt. But the fact that they jumped on their high fucking horse and tried to bash reviewers for giving AC a bad score puts is pretty much ethical highwire which makes it hilariously hypocritical for PA to be calling CNET out on this.
Gamefaqs is useful for cheaters and also for keeping the horrors of the internet in one nasty place. CHEATERS.
But Metacritic is good because I like shuffling through it to find which movies people are talking about and then watch them. Sometimes it's hard to keep up with what's coming out in the movie industry that is getting any buzz!