Editor in chief of gamespot fired due to review

Actually, from what I've heard, this possible isn't all that serious shit.

- Kotaku posted that to whore out for hits. Their form of bribed journalism, they don't sell out to the man, they sell out for cheap hits. And it's working, the story has 113,356 views.

- As even Kotaku mentions, Jeff Gerstmann was a controversial figure and, essentially, a really crappy reviewer. His getting fired was actually something that was a long time coming.

I'm not sure either way. Either he's fired for being incompetent at his job (unlikely), fired solely because of Eidos big bucks (also unlikely and, amusingly, Eidos pulled their advertising only after and probably because of the Kotaku newsstory) or the Eidos big bucks gave the final push the CNET people needed to fire Jeff, who they already disliked greatly (this seems to be it)

Hell, that review was posted more than 2 weeks ago. Not exactly a good timeframe for direct linking when you consider Eidos' advertising was left on GameSpot for that entire timeframe, right up until Kotaku's newspost.

Whatever, in a world where review scores are determined as much by game quality as by publisher favours and advertisement bucks, it's not like this is a big exceptional thing.
 
Brother None said:
- Kotaku posted that to whore out for hits. Their form of bribed journalism, they don't sell out to the man, they sell out for cheap hits. And it's working, the story has 113,356 views.
Click to expand...

They tagged it onto all the different social bookmarking sites, it is racking up huge rankings all over the place, and their hits are rolling in en masse.

expect this to continue to grow exponentially as it just hit the front page of digg and propeller and reddit.
 
Yeah.

Nothing particularly wrong with exploiting those sites if you have genuine news, NMA does that too.

But this kind of stinks of the journalistic malpractice of fabricating news, one of the biggest sins a journalist can perpetrate. It'd be embarrassing for Kotaku if it is, but on the other hand I don't know their sources and while they may have inflated the news a slight bit, it's none too unlikely that Eidos did put some pressure on GameSpot.
 
I am a pretty active user on Digg, I've never seen any Fallout 3 news on there, even when I'm reading the new submissions.

Is there a Digg account for NMA I should add to digg them up?

I suggest embedding the Digg voting button on the main NMA articles, I could get a few up-voting crews to digg it pretty hard and get this stuff up on the front page. It's good news and lots of people would be interested in it.
 
If this is the actual case, sue their ass. You might not win, but it's a wrongful termination without due cause. Unless, of course, you claim that legally these guys are suppose to give a raving reviews to paid advertisers.
 
cashwhore.jpg
 
This is one of the reasons I typically don't listen to reviews unless I absolutely trust the reviewer. Certain gaming mags like Gamepro,Gamer,EGM,and Game Informer all have good points when it comes to reviews,but at times you can tell when they are pitching how great a game is when it's garbage. Kane and Lynch is utter shit in my opinion. It is a cookie cutter shooter with no depth. Shoot stuff and move on. Some of the missions were ok,but thats about it.
I would also like to say that if you ever read Games For Windows -formerly PC Gamer- that the endorsements by the reviewers and editors towards Microsoft are sickening.
 
TorontRayne said:
Kane and Lynch is utter shit in my opinion. It is a cookie cutter shooter with no depth. Shoot stuff and move on. Some of the missions were ok,but thats about it.
Click to expand...
i've never played the game, but i gotta give them credit for putting 2 ugly sobs as the main characters. really doesn't happen much in this world of bouncy boobs and male sixpacks.
 
I'll go with that. I still can't force myself to play it though. Just my opinion.
 
Hey check this out

http://www.insidegamer.nl/xbox360/kanelynchdeadmen/recensies/18673

The review may be in Dutch but the rating is rather universal.

Apparently the characters are considerd interesting and the story cool.
Further praise is given to some of the missions and the original and great gameplay.

The cons are the second half of the game, stupid NPC allies, unfinished gameplay and no online co-op mode.

I wonder how long this reviewer will keep his job.
 
I'm inclined to agree with Khohrn.
I do think the game is probably good, considering the devs, but I really don't know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top