Quoting Bebop: LINEBACK OVER MIDNA FOR LYFE
**** YES.
For giving Kane and Lynch a bad review.
Yeah, that's right. Gerstmann, the guy who gave Twilight Princess 8.8, was fired from Gamespot because Eidos complained and threatened to pull its ad contract after Gerstmann gave the review a 6.0. Mind you, Gamespot's been going downhill for awhile now (since 8.8) and Gerstmann's reviews have sucked since, but come on. I'd be ****ed if I worked at a job for ten years and suddenly find myself without a job because I did my job right. I mean, it's the first one he got right in awhile and Kane and Lynch really does suck that bad.
Hilarious. And pathetic.
http://kotaku.com/gaming/rumor/gamespot-editor-fired-over-kane--lynch-review-328244.php
They say so far it's a rumor.
Wow, what ****ty reason to get fired. WTF.
[quote=Vampiro V. Empire;787577]I'd be ****ed if I worked at a job for ten years and suddenly find myself without a job because I did my job right.
[quote]Gerstmann has been no stranger to controversial reviews, as his scores of 10 for Tony Hawk's Pro Skater and 8.8 for The Legend of Zelda: Twilight PrincessIdk, I don't find that score all that fair.
But yeah, that's a really dumb reason to get fired over.
Also:
[quote]Update: We did get confirmation that Mr. Gerstmann is no longer with Gamespot. The circumstances in which he was terminated or left of his own accord, however, were not disclosed.
He rated WarioWare Wii higher than Twilight Princess. I mean, COME ON.
Still, I'd be pretty shocked if he's been fired for doing his job. And to think, Eidos are supposed to be bringing us Deus Ex 3...
It doesn't really surprise me. This is Gamespot we're talking about here.
Kane and Lynch has being getting bad reviews everwhere. Seeing as how 8.8 wa far too genourous for TP it's far to say his reviews were too good.
TP was awesome.
A lot more awesome than so many other games that got higher scores.
He gave a Wario Ware game a higher score than a Zelda game? Wtf?
I'd rather play Zelda II than any Wario Ware game.
[quote=MottaTheHutt;787719]I'd rather play Zelda II than any Wario Ware game.
Sounds like you're just as big an idiot as he is.
Not really. =/
I always said Gamespot sucked.
If it's true than it's a **** shame when a, somehow, respectable critical source is swayed by an advertising contract into constructing their reviews. Way to lose your journalisitc integrity.
I wasn't refferring to inside of Gamespot but Eidos's influence. It's one thing for your editor to not like your wording of a sentence but to have another company to have this kind of affect is worrying on a startling scale
That's exactly what I mean. Eidos threatened to withdraw their business, so the hammer comes down.
Sorry mis-read. I heard Sony sponsored a review of Mario Galaxy in a magazine. That said if Eidos didnt want a bad review of their game they should have made it a good game.
[quote=Bebop;787748]Sorry mis-read. I heard Sony sponsored a review of Mario Galaxy in a magazine.
Variety.
http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117935396.html?categoryid=1023&cs=1
I always thought 8.8 was a fair score for TP. Fun, great, but not perfect.
[quote=Borealis;787938]Even then, it should be at least rounded off the 9.0 so it's isn't so impacting.
Nah. 8.8 summed it up pretty well. 'Good game, but it doesn't quite make it as a classic'. He was pretty accurate, with retrospect.
[quote=The X;787750]Variety.
[URL]http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117935396.html?categoryid=1023&cs=1[/URL]
That was an LOL read.
TP wasn't the best game ever or anything, but relative to other reviews, it certainly should've been higher. Seeing Super Paper Mario and virtual console games ahead of TP is just wrong.
Can't believe so many went *****ing about TP's music.
And speech in a Zelda game? Nay please.
Personally I thought 8.8 was a generous score. =/
yeah, what a real piece of ****. :rolleyes:
Penny Arcade seemed to know about this before it was even announced. Suspicious...
Though I remember that Ubisoft were cool about Gabe and Tycho being highly critical of Warrior Within, even while it was being advertised on Penny Arcade's main page.
Found this on another forum, no source for it unfortunately. It's a post in a Gamespot editor's blog:
[quote]We're very clear in our review policies that all reviews are vetted by the entire team before they go live - everything that goes up is the product of an entire team's output. Our freelancers are especially guilty of making snide comments, but those are always yanked before the review goes live, because everyone in the office reads these reviews and makes sure they're up to our standards before they get put up.
If there was a problem with his reviews, then it would've been a problem with the entire team. Firing him without telling anyone implies that anyone else on this team can be fired at the drop of a hat as well, because none of us are writing any differently or meaner or less professionally than we were two years ago before the management changed. I'm sure management wants to spin this as the G-Man being unprofessional to take away from the egg on their face that results after a ten-year employee gets locked out of his office and told to leave the premises and then no one communicates anything to us about it until the next day.
"This management team has shown what they're willing to do. Jeff had ten years in and was bleeming locked out of his office and told to leave the building.
What you might not be aware of is that GS is well known for appealing mostly to hardcore gamers. The mucky-mucks have been doing a lot of "brand research" over the last year or so and indicating that they want to reach out to more casual gamers. Our last executive editor, Greg Kasavin, left to go to EA, and he was replaced by a suit, Josh Larson, who had no editorial experience and was only involved on the business side of things. Over the last year there has been an increasing amount of pressure to allow the advertising teams to have more of a say in the editorial process; we've started having to give our sales team heads-ups when a game is getting a low score, for instance, so that they can let the advertisers know that before a review goes up. Other publishers have started giving us notes involving when our reviews can go up; if a game's getting a 9 or above, it can go up early; if not, it'll have to wait until after the game is on the shelves.
I was in the meeting where Josh Larson was trying to explain this firing and the guy had absolutely no response to any of the criticisms we were sending his way. He kept dodging the question, saying that there were "multiple instances of tone" in the reviews that he hadn't been happy about, but that wasn't Jeff's problem since we all vet every review. He also implied that "AAA" titles deserved more attention when they were being reviewed, which sounded to all of us that he was implying that they should get higher scores, especially since those titles are usually more highly advertised on our site.
I know that it's all about the money, and hey, I like money. I like advertising because it pays my salary. Unfortunately after Kasavin left the church-and-state separation between the sales teams and the editorial team has cracked, and with Jeff's firing I think it's clear that the management now has no interest at all in integrity and are instead looking for an editorial team that will be nicer to the advertisors.
When companies make games as downright contemptible as Kane and Lynch, they deserve to be called on it. I guess you'll have to go to Onion or a smaller site for objective reviews now, because everyone at GS now thinks that if they give a low score to a high-profile game, they'll be ****canned. Everyone's bleeming scared and we're all hoping to get Josh Larson removed from his position because no one trusts him anymore. If that doesn't happen then look for every game to be Game of the Year material at GameSpot."And other pretty bad stuff that's happened:
[quote]Interestingly, Eidos had deactivated their forum purged it of all the hate comments and then brought it back online again. So much for freedom of speech and accountability.
[URL]http://www.eidosinteractive.com/forums/index.html[/URL]
This is the only trace left of this incident on the site with Eidos' super administrator citing its just a 'rumor' and closes the thread.
[URL]http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?t=73819[/URL]
Edit: Gamespot have removed their user reviews section since several thousand users vented their anger by giving it a 1.0.
Edit: Gamespot have also removed his video review here: [URL]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBD0cUeeEQc[/URL]
If anyone else wants to tell Josh Larson what you think of his decision to fire Jeff you can contact him here:
[URL]http://www.imediaconnection.com/profiles/iMedia_PC_ContactAuthor.aspx?ID=3346[/URL]
If you want to cancel your gamespot account click here
[URL]https://secure.gamespot.com/rps/manage/cancel.html[/URL]
I guess this isn't an isolated incident but rather a glimpse into the general runnings of Gamespot.
Or any company.
I can see how "us gamers" can find paying for reviews blasphemous, but come on. It's not like you guys didn't know it was happening before. The guy's a douchebag for not budging a little to keep his job.
Protip: When it comes to a job you are not the boss of, when they ask you to jump you ask how high.
I'm pretty sure when he gave that score to Twilight Princess, he wasn't comparing it to Tony Hawk or Wario Ware for the wii. He's setting his score on last Zelda titles and games pertaining to that genre. Like an 8 our of 10 is a bad score.
[quote=Fate;788661][COLOR=skyblue]Or any company.
I can see how "us gamers" can find paying for reviews blasphemous, but come on. It's not like you guys didn't know it was happening before. The guy's a douchebag for not budging a little to keep his job.
Protip: When it comes to a job you are not the boss of, when they ask you to jump you ask how high.[/COLOR]
...what?
Not one part of that made sense.
What she's saying is we should all be aware and should have been aware long ago that reviewers have been paid off by advertisers to give games high scores. Do you honestly think this Kane & Lynch incident is the first?
---
When the person who controls whether or not you're employed tells you to do something, you do it, and that's the end of all that, or you don't have a job anymore.
Yes, Speedy, Fate's right, no matter how unfortunate that may be.
[quote=Skitzo Control;788674]When the person who controls whether or not you're employed tells you to do something, you do it, and that's the end of all that, or you don't have a job anymore.
Yes, Speedy, Fate's right, no matter how unfortunate that may be.
Restating her opinion doesn't make her right. Seems like you don't even understand what she's saying or how it doesn't even apply to this.
First she stated that this is common practise in games journalism. I don't buy it, there's plenty of review sources outside of big sites like Gamespot and IGN that don't have this problem.
All he did was do his job, no one told him to give Kane and Lynch a high score. I don't know about you, but Fate at least is one of the many gamers who get's pissed when the non-gaming media portrays games in a bad light due to extremely poor journalism. Yet when an actual games journalist does the right thing and corrupt management fires him for it she gets a nasty case of double standards.
To then go on and state that he should've done what was in the best interests for the company to save his job is failing to see what's actually happening here. Who's screwed right now, Gamespot or the guy who had been working there 10 years and is, for the moment, out of a job? This guy's gonna bounce back, Gamespot's reputation is tarnished forever.
[quote]I was in the meeting where Josh Larson was trying to explain this firing and the guy had absolutely no response to any of the criticisms we were sending his way. He kept dodging the question, saying that there were "multiple instances of tone" in the reviews that he hadn't been happy about, but that wasn't Jeff's problem since we all vet every review. He also implied that "AAA" titles deserved more attention when they were being reviewed, which sounded to all of us that he was implying that they should get higher scores, especially since those titles are usually more highly advertised on our site.
Some of you may see GameSpot has been "in dicline," or "has always sucked." But if things have been going down "for the last two years," then I can't match the above statement with the fact that GameSpot usually is the provider of low scores among gaming publications, almost especially with AAA titles. That's something that hasn't changed in the last two years.
Maybe "the new guy" is trying to implement the above (if his comments are taken that way), but we have yet to see the fruit of his actions in games' scores. Otherwise Kane & Lynch would've gotten a GS score of 8.4, Bioshock a 10 (like almost everywhere else), Mass Effect a 9.5, Okami a 10, Twilight Princess an 11, etc.
And that's a huge part of being a reviewer. You likely won't have a job anyways if people can't trust you.
Well, you probably will since publishers will pay you, but no one will care what you say.
Exactly. Advertisers come and go, their reputation is what should be protected at all costs.
[QUOTE=Speedfreak;788685]First she stated that this is common practise in games journalism. I don't buy it, there's plenty of review sources outside of big sites like Gamespot and IGN that don't have this problem.
You're right in only a few cases. Those big other places are the first places PR guys go to so they can pay them off. Some are just a little more discreet about it. You can't tell me that this is the first case with a straight face. No way you didn't suspect it happened elsewhere.
[quote]All he did was do his job, no one told him to give Kane and Lynch a high score. I don't know about you, but Fate at least is one of the many gamers who get's pissed when the non-gaming media portrays games in a bad light due to extremely poor journalism. Yet when an actual games journalist does the right thing and corrupt management fires him for it she gets a nasty case of double standards.
If this guy was working in GS for ten years, I'm sure he's either into what's going on or has seen other people ousted/harangued by higher-ups for giving the scores that weren't "appropriate" for the site. He knew. "But we're gamers and this is terrible news! Reviews are necessary to play games!" THEY. ARE. NOT. You check out multiple scores to get a general view of the game. When you see a bunch of sixes or fives and then a nine, you should think that those guys were paid off and continue to merrily ignore the game, just as you would've anyways if it was honestly worth a nine (not your gametype, Speed-o).
This kind of stuff happens all the time, not just in game publications. It sucks that the fourth wall is broken and we're exposed to what really goes on around here, right? Eidos didn't pay for a good review, they paid for persuasion.
I'm not saying it's right at all, FYI. Just saying that's what it is.
Edit: He could've saved his job by giving the score Eidos was looking for but praising everything that was wrong with the game. "I love that headshots don't mean instant death!"
[quote=Fate;789244][COLOR=skyblue]Edit: He could've saved his job by giving the score Eidos was looking for but praising everything that was wrong with the game. "I love that headshots don't mean instant death!"[/COLOR]
Or he could have straight up told the truth.
He did, but that's what has him out of a job now. :)
The score could've been a sarcastic one. Sarcasm counts as truth when taken in the opposite manner like sarcasm should.
Wait, what? I'm pretty sure he meant it deserved a 6.
Um, yeah, I know?
He'd still be lying to everyone, though. That doesn't annoy you at all?
Yeah, which is why I go to multiple reviewers to see the general look of the game. I know that people are paid off or "persuaded" sometimes. I thought everyone else did, too.
I'd rather find a few I can trust and base it on them, rather than basing it on a bunch of schmucks trying to keep their ****ty jobs... but that's me. Maybe I assume there's more integrity in this world than there actually is though.
I'd rather just try the game.
So that it will not be fouled by wicked minds.
[quote=Fate;789260][COLOR=skyblue]Yeah, which is why I go to multiple reviewers to see the general look of the game. I know that people are paid off or "persuaded" sometimes. I thought everyone else did, too.[/COLOR]
Yeah, but how do you distinguish between someone who's been paid off and someone who hasn't? How do we know everyone isn't being paid off?
[quote]If this guy was working in GS for ten years, I'm sure he's either into what's going on or has seen other people ousted/harangued by higher-ups for giving the scores that weren't "appropriate" for the site. He knew.
THIS IS CONJECTURE, THE COURT DOES NOT FIND VALIDITY IN YOUR CLAIM.
Wow, everyones still bitter over TP. An 8.8 stands for a great game. It really didn't deserve any more than a 9.0 at most. I played the gamecube version and sad to say it felt stale. If it came out midway through the life of the GC it would be much better, but for the final effort it was just solid, nothing more.
And as for Tony Hawk 3, you have to realize that game came out over 6 years ago. At the time, it really was a masterpiece as far as skateboarding and sports games in general. Not saying it deserved a 10, but in retrosect it was better than TP for what it was. I remember playing that game for months.
I still play TP.
Nope, at the time everyone was whining that it didn't get a high enough score. And then there's the fact that it's still being discussed, showing that no one got over it.
It's still being discussed because we're talking about the same guy and how he just got sacked. Big whoop.
But... him getting fired has nothing to with TP.
And even then, if the TP was "edgy", but the Kayne and Lynch review is totally legit, it's irrelevant.
Oh, and then someone says it deserved an 8 and gets derepped 5 times. LOL!
[quote=Last Fog;789350]Wow, everyones still bitter over TP. An 8.8 stands for a great game. It really didn't deserve any more than a 9.0 at most. I played the gamecube version and sad to say it felt stale. If it came out midway through the life of the GC it would be much better, but for the final effort it was just solid, nothing more.
8.8 is a great score on a 1-10 scale. But Gamespot don't rate games 1-10. They rate hyped games on a 7-9 scale; 7 being bad, 8 being okay and 9 being good. On that scale the difference between 8.8 and 9.0 is a lot more than 2%. The way games are scored is pretty f*cked up.
I don't know where you're getting this info, but that's ****in' retarded.
Yes... it opens up so many old wounds...
If anything it's JUSTICE WOOOOOOOO
JUSTICE FOR ALL!?
**** it I can't find that game anywhere.
[IMG]http://windrago.files.wordpress.com/2007/05/justice-league.jpg[/IMG]
... You called?
Anyway, of course we're going to bring up 8.8. I had no idea who the Gerst Man was until that point. It's pretty much how he became an internet celebrity outside of Gamespot.
Take her. Wonder Woman's mine.
[quote]Anyway, of course we're going to bring up 8.8. I had no idea who the Gerst Man was until that point. It's pretty much how he became an internet celebrity outside of Gamespot.
I didn't even know who he was after that happened, since I didn't consider it to be a big deal. Now he's a martyr, which is even better than being the douche who dared to give a Zelda game something below a nine. He's moving up in the world, if anything.
Hmm lots of fanboys for twilight princess i mean wow , this game wasn't nearly anything speedfreak had been hyping this game up to be. kinda sad that i get such hate for having different opinion on the game.
As you can see i have more wii and xbox360 games than ps3 games.
wii + 15 games
Xbox 360 + 15 games
PS3 + 11 games
[quote=Unite;789833]this game wasn't nearly anything speedfreak had been hyping this game up to be.
Oh yeah, it was all me. Just call me ZELDA HYPE MACHINE.
*** **** it, Speed, we don't want to hear about Zelda anymore. We know you think it's the greatest, but Jesus, shut up.
Speedfreak, I want to hear more about how awesome you know Zelda is.
Also, update Zelda's page on the dojo! :us:
Didn't you hear, Iris? No one cares about Zelda. Stop it.
I don't think everyone's had a chance to voice their opinions.
No, they have. Welcome to one year ago! :cookie:
I think Zelda's ok
Now everyone's voiced their opinions
[quote=Prince Shondronai;789884]Speedfreak, I want to hear more about how awesome you know Zelda is.
Twilight Princess had a lot of silly design mistakes, Miyamoto should've been more involved. It was great despite them though.
Phantom Hourglass was great apart from the storyline and setting. I didn't really care about what I was supposed to do. I know it's a handheld game, but Link's Awakening was powerful. It's also very hard to find Heart peices!
They will hopefully learn from both of those to make the next game THE BEST GAME IN THE WORLD EVER.
ZELDA: COMING 2009. GET READY.
Phantom Hourglass had a better story than TP...
LINEBACK OVER MIDNA FOR LYFE
Ganondorf + Zant + Hyrule being covered in Twilight > Generic monster + oh noes our ocean has some monsters in it and Tetra is stone!
Lineback>Everything in TP.
Plus Zant was cool up until you fought him. His 'insanity' went so far over the top it just came off as childish behaviour.
Twilight Princess had an inherent flaw in its plot - Zant was simply filler until Ganondorf's return. I remember ****ting my pants with excitement when I was about to fight Zant, and it turned out he was just a 'silly' boss. Disappointing, especially after seeing the scene after the Water Temple. Hyrule being covered in twilight was a cool concept on paper, but in the game, I hated being stuck in the Twilight Realm.
Plus, the 'dorf was much cooler in Wind Waker.
Yeh I was kinda ****ed with Dorfs appearance in Twilight. Felt it came too late. I was keen on their being a different bad guy. Was bummed out when Zant wasnt the final boss. Then again for a game that did it's best not to do anything new or original it's no real suprise.
That's pretty much the reason people don't like TP's story. They were expecting all kinds of other stuff to happen. He wasn't shown very late into the game anyway, you learnt of his involvement in the game after the 4th dungeon.
I think you guys are looking at WW through rose-tinted glasses. No one had high expectations for that game so it didn't disappoint anyone, I think your disappointment in TP is clouding your ability to judge it properly. Was Ganondorf really more of a bada[COLOR=lightgreen]s[/COLOR]s in Wind Waker than the time he defied execution, killed a sage and pulled a sword out of his abdomen before being sent into another realm? How about his G[COLOR=lightgreen]o[/COLOR]d-like spirit state? Perhaps I'm underestimating how badass a brown robe and losing to children is.
Yes he was more a badass because his portrayel in TP was weaker than in WW. Sure he defied execution but it seemed the designer wanted me to trust him that Dorf was badass whereas in WW I was convinced he was awesome. You can ask an audience to trust you, you have to prove to them. WW proved to me, TP didnt.
I'm exempt from TP hype because I really didn't give 2 ****s about it. I was interested in hearing about it when revealed but truth is I only bought it because it was a solid launch title. I didnt follow it through development and certainly didnt kick a fuss about the 8.8. score. I was always more interested in Wii Sports for Wii games and as far as Zelda my eyes were fixed purely on Hourglass.
Wind Waker's Ganondorf actually made awesome speeches, rather than relying on 'OMG LOOK HOW BADASS THIS GUY IS' scenes. But if you really want to evaluate him based on his actions - he strangled pirates, had a giant eagle for a pet, kept children in cages, lived on a huge island fortress, and dual wielded swords in the final duel. Even with the Master Sword lodged in his forehead, he still managed to get the final word in.
As for Wind Waker nostalgia - go back and play it. The graphics are still stunning. The gameplay is tight. The characters are all well fleshed out. Although there aren't many, the dungeons are as well designed as any in the series. It would perhaps be the greatest Zelda game, had it not been damaged by a rushed development schedule. Not to say Twilight Princess is a bad game, but it isn't going to age as well as Wind Waker.
IT HAD SAILING. SAILING IS BORING.
Sailing for the triforces was what was boring.Going from island to island when I had to do was fun although it got frustrating adjusting the wind when doing the side quests.
WW Dorf is coolest for the reasons X listed. Especially the children in cages. The only other bad guys to do that are the Child Snatcher and Micheal Jackson.
Eh, I have to say I enjoyed Twilight Princess more than Wind Waker. Ganondorf was cool in both visages, but I enjoyed his Twilight Princess representation much more because he seemed more like a villain to me. I just wish they'd gone a little more in depth on his past.
TP Ganondorf didn't have a past like WW 'Dorf did. TP was just a few generations after OoT, not hundreds of years after like with WW. He hadn't really ages, which is why he was rather more energetic and full of rage in TP than he was in WW.
I wonder if anyone's made PH sex based on that image.
No, but... what exists is even worse, trust me.
You don't know sick until you've seen graphic imagery of the Deku Tree raping Navi.
Seen it. And there's worse.