GameSpot Reviewer is "Divinely Punished"

[Habunake]

Remember that asshat Jeff Gestmann who DARE gave a 8.8 to Zelda Twilight Princess!?

Well, now this horrible reviewer dare and gave Kane and Lynch, which Gamespot was promoting, a 6.0 and was quickly fired for it apparently!

Justice have been swerved.

So, what is everyone's opinion on Professional Ratings? Do you believe Jeff has the right to not be swayed by company promotions and rate games as he sees fit, or does is Gamespot perfectly in their jurisdiction?

 

[Zeta]

Why is he an asshat? That was pretty much what Twilight Princess deserved. And this isn't divine punishment, this is Gamespot being corrupt . . . -_-;;

 

[Habunake]

I was being sarcastic.

 

[Cless Aileron]

Well, I tend to be harsh in how I critique (hey, it's just something like to do, okay?) so this is going to sound different. Okay, I tend to look at reader reviews in a lesser light than I do professional reviewer unless I can trust it. Maybe it's because they have too much subjectivity than I care to see (Me after seeing so may 10/10 being thrown around by GameFAQs reviews). Oh yeah, just because I look more into professional reviewers doesn't mean I don't have a mind of my own.

That being said, this is Gamespot becoming corrupted. Jeff was doing his job and calling it out as he analyzed it. At least he didn't let a "bribe" (i.e. tons of ad revenue for the site from the game he reviewed) force a different review.

Besides, an 8.8 is what Twilight Princess deserved. I won't go any further (I really don't want to have to yell, "get over it.").

 

[Edge]

In his video review, Jeff stated that Kane and Lynch was an "ugly, ugly game". He also said that it wasn't worth buying, which is bad for the advertisers trying to sell the game. It looks as if Gamespot chose money over the reviews, even though Jeff wasn't that good of a reviewer. I disagree with firing him, even though it probably was going to happen anyway, considering the higher value of professional reviews when advertising is involved. Gamespot is always advertising something on their homepage, which makes it difficult for reviewers to speak their mind on a sponsored game if what they have to say is negative.

I don't like professional reviews too much for this particular reason, that they can be manipulated to fit the sponsor's liking.

 

[fate]

What's wrong with a 8.8 anyway? I never understood why that score was so criticized. It's a 88/100, a B+. If I get that on an exam, I dance for joy and hang it on the refridgerator

And yeah, this is a real mess. IMO, Gamespot's image has already been immensly diminished in the past 3 days. Kane and Lynch is being 1.0-bombed by users, subscribed members are canning their subscriptions and telling their friends to do the same.

And whether or not his reviews were the most fair (though the ones I read and I didn't really disagree with), Jeff was one of the faces of Gamespot, especially after Greg left. I imagine he'll get picked up by someone else, or maybe do something independant, who knows?

And to think, all this over a run of the mill "lol gangsters deth row peoples are kool" game.

 

[Ben Cousins]

I must be in the minority then. He was a horribly bias reviewer, always preferred his Xbox 360 compared to the Wii and PS3. He gave Twilight Princess an 8.8 for repetitive game play, but then gave Gears of War a 9.6 despite Gears, for most part, had repetitive game play as well.

 

[Dual]

I usually look at fan-given reviews over professional reviews all together. Most of the time they're horribly biased, and you can never tell if it's an honest rating or just what the game designers paid for.

 

[bell02+]

Personally I hate most reviewers. It's really so much easier to judge a game over making one, and most gamers are so touchy because of other reviewers that they consider an 8.0 rating with the same respects as a 5.0 rating. It doesn't help that most view that a good critic is a tough critic, not an accurate critic. When I want someone's opinions I don't want to be told something is bad when it isn't! Honest Opinions! "Free gold? You don't need that, Platinum is better" Just Watch Ratatouille!

I guess I wouldn't hate reviewers so much if gamers were more rational, or at least knew how to make their own decisions (generally).

That said, I don't like the Gus-man, but I don't think he should have been fired for that. As for TP, I personally was disappointed by it, but it deserves at least a 9.0.

Also he wasn't disliked due that, he was disliked because he lets pre-opinions on games effect his reviews which is completely unprofessional. (and by that, I mean he criticizes and is unenthusiastic towards games before he plays them. He probably should have been fired for that)

 

[Trainer-c]

Here is a podcast by gamespot that addresses the issue.
http://www.gamespot.com/pages/featu...clk=multimodule&tag=multimodule;picks;title;1

Kotaku also has spoken with a source at gamespot.

My take on this matter is that there has been behind the scenes clashing between the management and the editors/reviwers at gamespot for the last year. And if the speculation of the Kotaku source is correct, then Gestmann was the editor that butted heads most with the management, or manager, in particular; the VP of games Josh Larson. (Whom it seems that no one on the editorial staff really liked.)

The Kane & Lynch review was a convenient reason for "management" (more likely just the VP of games) to get rid of Gestmann. And exercise some power to the editorial staff. This decision wasn't thought out (as most emotional decisions tend to be) so it has caused a firestorm in the gaming media as an issue of journalistic integrity and corporate greed. And caused a blow to the credibility of gamespot. The other members of the editorial staff are angry because their friend and coworker was fired, the management of gamespot is on damage control. I notice that both sides defend the credibility of and maintain that Gestmann was not fired.

In short, I don't see this as an issue of journalistic integrity, it was a clash of egos and the ego with the power fired the other. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if we see Josh Larson on the chopping block, depending on how much he shared with other members of management, and his own higher ups before deciding to fire Gestmann.

As for reviews, I take them all with a grain of salt. By their very nature a review is an opinion. And opinions can vary, the things a reviewer might find fun about a game, I might not. The things a reviewer might think suck about a game, I might find to be the best parts.

 

[The Lucario Trainer]

While the actual reason for his canning is pretty lame, I'm not upset whatsoever. He was one of the least professional critics I've ever had the misfortune of knowing.

I just hope this doesn't mean that the site's reviews are going to be unfair from here on. This whole situation just scares me as a journalist. If I get a job for a major publication someday, am I going to get fired if I say something negative about a product the same company is advertising? And how am I supposed to trust Gamespot if they give a game they have ads up for rave reviews? I just think it's ridiculous that companies can have much sway over publications that exist for the sole purpose of expressing opinions.