GameSpot fires editorial director over poor review

[Praxis]

Sorry, there is no game that I have ever played that deserves a perfect score. They all have some flaw, however minor, that prevents it from attaining 100%. The closest I can think of to being perfect is maybe Tetris. And even that doesn't get a perfect score.

Still trying to think of the score as the objective critical judgement on the game. Still the wrong way to approach the whole concept of a review.

Game review scores are not an objective scale with perfection at the top and complete worthlessness at the bottom. All they are is a ten second comprehension aid for thickies who can't read reviews and divine the likely quality or personal enjoyment of the game from there.

The whole concept of a perfect score is a thinking error. (That's also why any scale finer than around ten points is getting it wrong, because you can't define games accurately with numbers.

You seriousely need to get your head out of your ass. 100% is a perfect score. If a game reviewer gives out perfect scores all the time then their reviews are worthless. Even you seem to agree with that.

I would consider a 10/10 to mean "this game can't really get much better than this on the current platform". For example, a 10/10 platformer would have no glaring cons, and cover everything both expected and hoped for, and there's really not anything else you could ask for without being unreasonable. However, someone who hates platformers may still not like it.

10/10 is not perfection because there is no such thing, but it should mean that a game is all it can be. If a game is 10/10, it should be evident that there are no improvements that can be made to it on the current platform without making it into a completely different game/genre.


Ocarina of Time is one of the few games I would consider 10/10 worthy. Perhaps Super Mario Bros 3 as well. Even then I'd hestitate to hand out the score. But those games were the height of greatness for their platforms. 10/10 means there is no further improvements that can be made to that game in its current state.

[Stark]

Nobody marks that way, though: comparisons to similar games on other platforms are everywhere. And even then, it's still a meaningless, baseless, almost-certainly-wrong statement - 'can't get any better on this platform' is prognosticating bullshit, and a review should be about the game, not futurist prediction.

Frankly, saying 10/10 isn't perfection because it doesn't exist is stupid. This is the mass market and reviewers aren't rocket scientists. The implication of 10/10 is that a game is perfect, the 'best evvvvvah', and that's how people treat it. When Halo got 10/10s, people didn't think 'wow best FPS on console', they thought 'wow best FPS evvvvvvah'.

[Shogoki]

10/10 "is not perfection" is such as stupid thing to say it's ridiculous. You're attaching a number to your review because you want to translate your totally subjective text into an objective piece of data that easily represents your opinion, where 10/10 is perfection and 0/10 is a non-existence. If you think otherwise, then why even include a number? It won't be objective and it is stupid, just stick to words.

If you give a 10/10 and there's any "but" in your review, then you're worthless as a reviewer, I don't mind so much the ridiculous 10/10 claims as the fact that they ALWAYS follow a list of "buts". Fanboy reviewers who think the library is a plus in Halo and then attach a 10/10 are better than yours because at least they're consistent.

[Dominus Atheos]

Somewhat off-topic, but I guess I'll find out with the CoD4 review. If that dolled-up, bloomed-over (the new video game equivalent of wearing entirely too much eyeshadow) piece of mediocrity scores in the 80s or above, then I guess I'll know whether my beloved PCG has finally succumbed...

Sorry to tell you, but they gave it a 91%.

On the other hand, they had a huge 2-page ad just inside the front cover for Empire Earth III, and then panned it with a 63%. What's all this discussion about reviewers that sell good scores?

[Praxis]

You know, if EGM were smart, they'd hire the fired GameSpot editor. It would do wonders for their PR.

Whoever hires him is making a good move.

[18-Till-I-Die]

I personally like AVGN and the Brit guy from Zero Punctuation.

I think they're funny, and frankly, they're not supposed to be legit reviewers (as if such a thing exists).

They're basically comedians of a sort, taking games that either A--they know are terrible, or B--games everyone loves and shitting on them. Trying to use that as a legit review is like trying to use an Eddie Murphy joke about New York as a way to define the city. By that same token pointing out that AVGN uses made up, childish "curse words" is as asinine as saying Pokemon is unrealistic...thats part of the joke, he's making fun of internet culture's use of non-existent swear words like "fucknuts" and other such 3rd Grade-like terms. Thats why he pushes the "nerd" cliche, with his stereotypical dress and such, he's mocking those (as Stark put it) "moron cockhead bloggers".

And Yhatzee (sp?) is just fucking funny. Listen to his "review" of Halo 3 or BioShock, it's also a mockery of the very concept of a review but done in a much more straight faced format.

Basically they're both joking around, it's a parody of the very reviewers that everyone here is (very rightfully) decrying, but taken to an absurd extreme. Especially the Video Game Nerd, slightly less so but still for the Brit Guy Whose Name I Can't Spell.

Now, of course, you may not find this funny. I wouldnt say you have to, but it's not legitamate reviews nor is it meant to be mature. Again, especially the AVGN, it's meant to be as immature as possible, that's the joke, it's poking fun at the very concept of a lot of these review sites.

I find them both funny, but of course i find toilet humor and black humor (AVGN and the Brit Guy, respectively) almost always side splitting so, i can understand if someone who finds that stuff distasteful thinks it sucks.


As for these review sites...well, i've never bought a game based on a review and i never will. I buy games based on weather or not something that is supposed to be in that game interests me. Thats why i bought the Orange Box, as soon as i saw Portal i knew i had to play it. I really cant imagine anyone actually taking any stock in reviews. The only reason i read a review is that, sometimes, they're funny or interesting but now i mainly only utilize the above mentioned parody reviewers for the very reasons stated in this thread--so-called "legit" reviewers are all in the pocket of someone or another. Really i dont even know why they try and pretend to have objectivity anymore, i mean it's becoming more and more of a farce as stuff like this bull over at GameSpot happens.

As time goes on it becomes increasingly clear to most outsiders that they're being manipulated. When i was a kid i thought that maybe they werent by by the time my balls dropped i figured out that most of them were bullshitting, as the games would be hilariously bad when played and yet get rave reviews. But then i was ALWAYS smart enough to rent before buying, thank God, so i never got burned. That is far better than any sort of review or "averaging" the scores or whatever. Get something like GameFly and rent the game for a few days before buying. Yeah, yeah it'll spoil some of the plot or whatever, but if the game is really great and has great replay value then that wont matter.

[White Haven]

To this day, my favorite game review ever was in a mid-nineties issue of a defunct PC gaming magazine whose name I can't recall. They gave a game a rating of zero, and specifically mentioned that it came packaged with a plastic hand grenade that was more fun to play with than the game itself.

I miss terrible reviews.

[Duckie]

To this day, my favorite game review ever was in a mid-nineties issue of a defunct PC gaming magazine whose name I can't recall. They gave a game a rating of zero, and specifically mentioned that it came packaged with a plastic hand grenade that was more fun to play with than the game itself.

I miss terrible reviews.

We should have all known something is massively wrong with Gamespot reviews when...

The box of Big Rigs states that the player may "race trucks across the country, with cops chasing [them]." GameSpot considered this description of the game to be nothing more than "horrible, horrible lies", since there are no police in the game. Additionally, they pointed out, the computer-controlled opponent vehicles have no AI and never move from the starting position, making even the description of the gameplay as a "race" questionable.

There are technically no obstacles for the player to negotiate in Big Rigs, as the truck may freely be driven on and off roads without any loss of traction, straight up 90° inclines, through structures, simply falling right through bridges (there is no collision detection whatsoever), and even out of the boundaries of the map into an endless grey void. When the player's truck is put into reverse, the truck will accelerate infinitely; however, the truck will halt instantly when the reverse key is released.

Upon completion of the race, the player is presented with a large, on-screen trophy cup overlaid with the text "YOU'RE WINNER !"

Apparantly it got a 1.

WHY DID IT EARN A POINT?

[Stark]

The best part of reviews, for me, is the breathless fanservice most of the gonzo reviews have. The whole paragraphs gasping about how amazing and life-changing something is, without any actual content or explanation of WHY. If they'd put the objective stuff in a separate section, I'd read that: really, all a Bioshock review has to say is 'respawn every 15 meters, incredibly easy, moral choice = lame'. Everything else is just nerd-fanservice 'oh my god it's full of normal maps' nonsense.

[The Yosemite Bear]

a critic is someone who can't. most perfect example of this in action, is that the guy who did MoO3 is in fact the guy who gave MoO it's 94% review way back in the day.

No, I prefer to make up my own mind. However I really do wish I hadn't pre-ordered MoO3. However my current method is to do my own research, including looking through developer logs, playing demos etc...

[Stark]

Bear, that's fine but it takes a great deal of time. Not everyone can afford (or has the inclination) to do that shit, that's why reviews exist. It just turns out they're more about marketing than accuracy.

[18-Till-I-Die]

I'd also like to point out while we're on the subject of critics, movie critics are far, far worse than video game ones ever will be.

Movie critics take the concept of "constructive criticism" and remove the "constructive", and usually their "reviews" are so hilariously biased and filled with vitrol about the individual actors and directors that they dont even talk much about the movie. For example i read a review about the recent War of the Worlds movie that was, literally, two paragraphs about how much the guy hated Tom Cruise (not even his acting, but him as a person, as if i give a shit about what he thinks) and one and a half about the fact that he actually liked the film. The other half was about how much he hated Dakota Fanning. Again not her acting, but her as a person.

Video game reviewers are a joke, true, but compared to movie critics they're practically paragons of virtue and honesty.


The lesson...never use reviews to form opinions about movies or games. Judge things for yourself.

[The Yosemite Bear]

yup, it's payola all over again, unfortunatly while it caused some reviewers to lose their jobs back in the 1950's it's regular business right now.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

To this day, my favorite game review ever was in a mid-nineties issue of a defunct PC gaming magazine whose name I can't recall. They gave a game a rating of zero, and specifically mentioned that it came packaged with a plastic hand grenade that was more fun to play with than the game itself.

I miss terrible reviews.

That would likely be PC Accelerator, an offshoot that ran under the same company that produced PC Gamer and had a pseudo-friendly rivalry with them.

And yes, I miss that magazine too because it *did* give awesome and generally useful reviews (as well as inventing a new metaphor each month to represent each rank in the 1-10 review scale they used). Hell, they even took the time to quick-blurb the severe flaws and biggest hooks of the game right next to the review.

And hell, if the game (or series) did poorly enough, they'd often have an an article or two showing creative ways of disposing of the game, or making it entertaining in ways that don't even involve computers (my personal favourite was the highlander-skit involving Extreme Rodeo, I believe).

I don't want to sound too conspirational, but I'm guessing it got shut down due to the fact that it didn't pander to the advertisers, because as far as I could tell it was pretty damn popular when it got canned.

Apparantly it got a 1.

WHY DID IT EARN A POINT?

...they got it in the box and successfully shipped to stores? That has to count for something, right?

[General Zod]

Apparantly it got a 1.

WHY DID IT EARN A POINT?

Because all of the copies of it produced and unsold have yet to be buried in a landfill and paved over.

[Dartzap]

Daily tech

GameSpot scandal reveals the breakdown of church-and-state separation

For the videogame media industry, this week was a disaster. GameSpot’s Alex Navarro likened the situation to being a metropolis in SimCity intentionally destroyed by a variety of disasters. While Navarro draws no specific parallel, he’s probably referring to the firing of former GameSpot editor Jeff Gerstmann over supposed incongruence between editorial and sales.

The only official word from parent company CNET representatives have been denials that advertiser pressures had any role in the termination of Gerstmann, and that “GameSpot takes its editorial integrity very seriously...”

Eidos, the games publisher who produced the Kane & Lynch game at the controversial core of this entire matter, is saying even less. Michelle Curran, Eidos’ director of public relations, said, “Yeah, we're not commenting on that right now.”

For multiple reasons, the official truth will never be on record – but thanks to the anonymity offered by the web, a supposed insider posted comments on the Silicon Valley blog Valleywag his or her account of the recent events. Furthermore, I have good reason to believe that the words of the anonymous writer are true.

Select excerpts from comments made by “GAMESPOT” are clipped below, though it’s highly recommended for those interested to read the text in full. Read the full comment history here.

The main problem here is that no one in the entire editorial team was aware that this was about to occur, least of all Gerstmann. 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.

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...

Also, despite the fact that this occured [sic] two weeks ago, there was no way they were going to fire him then; the last big games didn't come out until just before Thanksgiving, and there was no doubt that management knew that the rest of the reviewers would refuse to write any reviews after his termination, which is indeed what is happening. ... They waited to fire him until they knew that any strike or walkout by the rest of the staff wouldn't have much of an effect.

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.

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 advertisers [sic].

There’s no question that videogame journalism is still very much in its infancy, but really, reporting on the videogame industry is no different from reporting on movies, theatre or music. I won’t buy for a second that videogame journalism is any less valid than other entertainment mediums – all are equally vulnerable to advertiser pressures.

This wasn’t a step back for videogame journalists, but it should be a critical point for the industry as a whole. The real failure here wasn’t by the hands of the journalists, but rather the sales team’s blatant and gross disrespect for the entire editorial staff at GameSpot, resulting in the obliteration of the publication’s credibility.

Further reading from that Ace Pace bloke. Don't shoot the messenger!

[Phantasee]

Why isn't Ace posting these himself?

[Dartzap]

Why isn't Ace posting these himself?

He is currently in the land of Coockoo Clocks, Racists and Chocolate, and his connection is not entirely reliable, thus, I'm being the messenger.

[Ace Pace]

Also, ace was afraid of losing the entire new posts list. But stupid ace logged on anyway to check some other stuff. Anyway, from my prespective, the gamespot complete forums are in complete overload, long story short, gamespot is also taking a financial hit. Furthermore, if you read between the lines, practically every single gamespot editor and staff member is confirming this. Take from that what you will.

[The Yosemite Bear]

you know I almost didn't download the new content that's finally fixing the glaring bugs in Bioshock, because it's hosted there...

[Duckie]

Gamefaqs has issued a post saying that all of this is untrue.

Here is their version, paraphrased en mis propias palabras:

1. Gertsmann was fired coincidentally, due to CNET Policies and "Calfornia Law"
2. It's standard procedure to have nondisclosure agreements on all people fired for generic reasons.
3. The review and the ads were coincidence- Gertsman was presumably (although we won't talk about it as it is ÜBARSECRET for unknown reasons) fired because he was unfair to all games, not just the ones giving us loads of cash.
4. Coincidentally there was a bad mike so we had to pull the video reviews of Kane and Lynch too, which coincidentally repeated the same review thoughts- "Shitty at worst, mediocre at best.". This isn't because they weren't by Gerstmann and so didn't have "Multiple Tone Issues" and so needed another excuse to be pulled, of course.
5. COINCIDENCE MMKAY.

Sure, Eidos-CNET Corp. We believe you.

[Vendetta]

Coincidentally, and to the surprise of none, Gamespot's review of Kane & Lynch is a little different now.

[The Yosemite Bear]

do those bastards have an Email addy where annoyed gamers can ping them?

[Uraniun235]

"Why the hell do you have to be so damn critical?"
"I'm a critic."
"No, your job is to rate movies on a scale from "good" to "excellent"."
"What if I don't like them?"
"That's what "good's" for."