Thanks -Official Guide to the Post-Jeff System Wars (Mod Approved)

Honest to god man, its just the internet.

" We need to figure out what ulterior motives might have played into things like the review score overhaul." WTF man?

serious, THE INTERNET IS NOT SERIOUS BUSINESS. who cares if gamespot is biased? who cares if jeff is fired? who cares if the damned cooeration is really a secret agency killing the worlds population of bunnies? its just a damned website.

you people seriously take this stuff too seriously.

JPOBS

Besides if this is somehow confirmed true, it'll affect the whole of game journalism and how people look upon these sites/magazines.

Kane & Lynch is an absolutely awful game, and a complete waste of $60. Compare it to any other $60 shooter - Halo 3, Orange Box, Call of Duty 4. Now tell me it even deserves to exist, let alone get reviewed. It's a 6.0, and it barely deserves that. It's a cliched, crappy, poorly controlling shooter on a system with a *TON* of shooters, then they have the nerve to put it on PC, against games like Crysis.

It's a giant turd and if you like it you're no longer a gamer and might as well cut off your thumbs and donate them to someone who's going to make some decent use of them.

Jeff didn't deserve to be fired for saying that, and we need to figure out how System Wars is going to deal with all of its credibility going out the window.

subrosian

thats a matter of opinion..remember gamespot gave hitman a 5. It was buggy and had issues but it nowhere deserved a 5. I personally thought hitman 1 was brilliant and new game in the making!Does that mean i need to cut my thumbs off?

If you go what you are saying all oblivion hype blandwagon need their thumb cut off which think is the RPG of the century

I know you angry but not IO fault,its the publisher!!

I think it all comes down to this: We are all human. Yes, users of this forum, moderators, and reviewers are all human. We all make mistakes.

For some reason, many forget that in SW. Many put too high of a value on one persons opinion of a game (review). Many put to high of faith in those who run this site and make the reviews. We keep telling ourselves they're perfect and in no way would let their personal feelings get involved with fair business.

But, of course, this is not the case. Reviewers are swayed by their own opinions. I mean, come on, everyone has a favorite console, you know we all do. And to think that plays zero part in how things are run is just missing the boat.

Not to mention further issues when money and power come into the mix. When the companies this site needs to get information about games from is the same company they must bash when it comes to the review. Does,'t anyone see the immediate conflict there? Haven't you all noticed the "happy go lucky" previews games get and then the reality they get when being reviewed?

If you haven't been questioning what's behind scores and write-ups on this site or others, you truly are a cow, sheep, or lemmings.

Again, we are all human. Even the reviewers. Stop putting so much power in their hands and this won't be an issue.

Kane & Lynch is an absolutely awful game, and a complete waste of $60. Compare it to any other $60 shooter - Halo 3, Orange Box, Call of Duty 4. Now tell me it even deserves to exist, let alone get reviewed. It's a 6.0, and it barely deserves that. It's a cliched, crappy, poorly controlling shooter on a system with a *TON* of shooters, then they have the nerve to put it on PC, against games like Crysis.

It's a giant turd and if you like it you're no longer a gamer and might as well cut off your thumbs and donate them to someone who's going to make some decent use of them.

Jeff didn't deserve to be fired for saying that, and we need to figure out how System Wars is going to deal with all of its credibility going out the window.

subrosian

WOW....I...I couldn't disagree with you more.

IO is the In&Out of gaming and Kane and Lynch is the Double Double.

Again, this is not a debate over what site we're going to use, that should not occur *just yet* we need time to assess the criteria of such a site, and how we feel about CNET's credibility. This is a discussion on what steps we need to take to move forward, and an agreement to work as a community. Social pressure will deal with the few who do not wish to worker for the greater good of System Wars.

System Wars depends heavily on the credibility of the industry and quality of information, unless such things are found and restored by us ( the community ) what little intelligence is in System Wars will die.

subrosian

Now I just couldn't push myself into reading all of your main post and maybe I shouldn't even be debating about the... well... problems addressed in it, mostly because I just couldn't give a rats ass about this place. But come on, Social pressure? It and all things concerning community its welfare and its survival...

Subrosian, you're a hell of a good poster and so are others that are giving their answers to this thread but... quite frankly, from where I'm coming from what little intelligence there is in System Wars is definitely out of its prime here.

I think we need to go back to GameRankings to determine AAA status for games, but maybe consider than an 85 and up is AAA instead of 90+. I have always been pro-Gamerankings and against this idea that only one site is the standard, specifically because taking a whole host of reviews into account is much more reliable (and less likely to be "skewed" to put it nicely).

Second, I have my doubts that the general publis cares about scores and therefore companies are encouraged to bribe scores. Scores have nothing to do with it. BAD REVIEWS have everything to do with it. No matter the score, if people think the game is good or fun they will get it. We've seen countless times where a game that scored in the 7s end up selling millions based on name or brand or image. However, as gaming starts to become equal to the movie industry, they start to attempt using the same shady, dirty tactics to make a quick cash in. Think about how certain movies refuse to allow critics screenings and yet pump up the advertising budget. They know that word of mouth will be bad, so they want to do everything they can to make a quick,fast and early cash in on opening so that by the time the public realizes the movie isn't worth the money, it's too late...they've been took. I think that is a more appropriate analogy to this situation. Eidos knows the game isn't any good, but they somehow spent a bunch making it and they desperately need to cash in quick. The best way is to pump up the ads, do everything they can to avoid reviews (or at least the really bad reviews where they are advertising), and hope for casuals to be blinded by the advertising and buy the game without thinking.

But I agree completely with everything else you say.

Wait, so then the whole Bets thread is defunct? It's really: "Who has the most money and the best bribing techniques"

Not: "Who makes the best games?" or "Which game is the best?"

GameRankings? But then we wouldn't know the official score of the game until all sites have reviewed it (including magazines) so that would take quite a while!hamstergeddon

Gametrailers, IGN, 1up, Gamespot, I dunno, Gamespy and Eurogamer too. I don't know how many sites should be included.

On the bright side at least it's pretty obvious Sony hasn't been paying for their reviews lol.darthogre

my God man. Pure comedic genius.

4. This is Partially Our Fault

System Wars (not just on this site) is why Eidos would want to buy reviews in the first place (if they did such a thing). Publishers tie salaries for some game developers to review scores. Why? Because review scores have been shown to directly impact sales. We need to address how our *own focus* on "official review scores" may be corrupting the industry, and journalism. This is something system wars will have to address in the future.

We need to address how we are buying into PR, Marketing, and Sales Data - how (by tying our a part of our identity to a companies success) we have allowed ourselves to be targeted. Our eagerness for "ownage" creates a market ripe for deceit - how can we prevent companies from believing the media can be used in this way? How do we punish unethical businesses practices - not just with Kane & Lynch, but also with games we might personally enjoy?

subrosian

I completely disagree here. Movies and music have handled reviews well for decades. This is not the fault of consumers, it is the fault of the corporations who continually want to push set release dates and limit funding for the games that they produce. If Eidos wanted to clip some funding from development to market the game, that is their problem. If Eidos wanted to stick to a release schedule instead of delaying it to improve it, again, their problem.

Gamers are to blame for games like Psychonauts and Okami not getting the "love" they deserve, but gamers are not to blame for publisher greed and corruption. The onus for that falls squarely on them.

GameRankings? But then we wouldn't know the official score of the game until all sites have reviewed it (including magazines) so that would take quite a while!hamstergeddon

I disagree. Just like here, people will jump on the very first score that pops up. And as more scores come in, people will argue and change their expectations or predictions accordingly.

But that is why I personally think that the AAA title should start at 85. It is rare that GR scores settle so much lower than initially posted that a game goes from a 90+ to below 85. Not to mention the fact that GR doesn't even post an average score until a certain number of proper scores come in. They don't count every review score they post in the average and they don't post any score until they have a few.

Let's be honest, by the time every single score comes into GR, nobody is going to care anymore and will have moved on to some other game anyway.

On the bright side at least it's pretty obvious Sony hasn't been paying for their reviews lol.darthogre

:lol: Or Nintendo for that matter... No I'm not calling this place (like most usually do)Lemmingspot, since I find a lot of 360 games to have deserved such merit and many sites overall come to the same conclusion.

This is just a case of people coming to terms of something completely obvious and normal in the video game world for years, to actually witnessing such an event taking place and for a lack of a better word freaking the hell out about it :P.

Why did it take so long, that review has been up for awhile. Lemme guess. They didn't mind the review until it effected sales. Someone got angry and they searched for a scapegoat. That scapegoat was Jeff? wtf?

I mean the game is BROKEN. Even Stranglehold turned out better. This really is crazy stuff.

Bread_or_Decide

I talked directly to 3rd party sales reps and let me just say they take the reviews of their games SERIOUSLY. Honestly they think it directly effects how bad or good their titles do.

I think we need to go back to GameRankings to determine AAA status for games, but maybe consider than an 85 and up is AAA instead of 90+. I have always been pro-Gamerankings and against this idea that only one site is the standard, specifically because taking a whole host of reviews into account is much more reliable (and less likely to be "skewed" to put it nicely).

Second, I have my doubts that the general publis cares about scores and therefore companies are encouraged to bribe scores. Scores have nothing to do with it. BAD REVIEWS have everything to do with it. No matter the score, if people think the game is good or fun they will get it. We've seen countless times where a game that scored in the 7s end up selling millions based on name or brand or image. However, as gaming starts to become equal to the movie industry, they start to attempt using the same shady, dirty tactics to make a quick cash in. Think about how certain movies refuse to allow critics screenings and yet pump up the advertising budget. They know that word of mouth will be bad, so they want to do everything they can to make a quick,fast and early cash in on opening so that by the time the public realizes the movie isn't worth the money, it's too late...they've been took. I think that is a more appropriate analogy to this situation. Eidos knows the game isn't any good, but they somehow spent a bunch making it and they desperately need to cash in quick. The best way is to pump up the ads, do everything they can to avoid reviews (or at least the really bad reviews where they are advertising), and hope for casuals to be blinded by the advertising and buy the game without thinking.

But I agree completely with everything else you say.

ZIMdoom

And for those people naive enough to think that advertisers have no influence on other sites go look at some of say IGNs scores. They are ridiculous.

It's time to use GR scores. LINKloco

i don't know whether to agree or not

GR reviews can end up being skewed by biased reviews from other sources .. like an official console magazines giving their hyped games high scores just to generate hype and sales

[QUOTE="hamstergeddon"]GameRankings? But then we wouldn't know the official score of the game until all sites have reviewed it (including magazines) so that would take quite a while!Jandurin

Gametrailers, IGN, 1up, Gamespot, I dunno, Gamespy and Eurogamer too. I don't know how many sites should be included.

Preferable to using GR or metacritic, but can you guarantee any of those sites are reliable? They've given out plenty of bizarro scores, waaay more generous than any GS scoring.

On the bright side at least it's pretty obvious Sony hasn't been paying for their reviews lol.darthogre

except GS gave PS3 multiplats which were scored much harsher on other sites the same score here?!?!?! teh conspiracy! :P

4. This is Partially Our Fault

System Wars (not just on this site) is why Eidos would want to buy reviews in the first place (if they did such a thing). Publishers tie salaries for some game developers to review scores. Why? Because review scores have been shown to directly impact sales. We need to address how our *own focus* on "official review scores" may be corrupting the industry, and journalism. This is something system wars will have to address in the future.

We need to address how we are buying into PR, Marketing, and Sales Data - how (by tying our a part of our identity to a companies success) we have allowed ourselves to be targeted. Our eagerness for "ownage" creates a market ripe for deceit - how can we prevent companies from believing the media can be used in this way? How do we punish unethical businesses practices - not just with Kane & Lynch, but also with games we might personally enjoy?

subrosian

People seem to disagree with this point.

I don't. I totally agree.

It's not only a "system wars" issue, it's an issue with the gaming community as a whole. MAny people make purchasing decisions based on scores from sites such as this. Companies realize that, which is why they send free copies to reviewers in the first place. It's free publicity, and with a good score can boost sales. On system wars we treat GS scores as religion. Indisputable fact, for some people. So yeah, we're all partially to blame for these and other similar events that don't get as much publicity. Companies only want good scores to appeal to us, and as long as we hold critical reviews with such high regard, they will continue to do so.

This whole event over the last 24 hours has made me reconsider my own views on critic scores. We've all heard conspiracy theories before on how companies buy good scores, but this is so blatant. So out in the open. It's shocking. I don't think i'll ever take another journalistic review seriously again. It almost makes system wars pointless. What does it matter if we switch from GS to some other site? Who's to say that they arent corrupt as well? Why do we argue over game scores in the first place?

Its a sad state, right now. Very sad.

Do you support Jeff getting fired?. I mean you are still posting here, on a CNET owned site, they are the people who own Gamespot, the people who fired Jeff. If you want to support Jeff you really should stop posting here and on other CNET owned sites, here is the list,

Gamespot, Gamefaqs, Gamerankings, Metacritic, CNET.com, News.com

No man should lose his job for scoring a game low, even if you don't like him. I will avoid these sites from now on, just posting this here before I go.

You have the most sensible and appropriate posts subrosian.

On the bright side at least it's pretty obvious Sony hasn't been paying for their reviews lol.darthogre

This whole event over the last 24 hours has made me reconsider my own views on critic scores. We've all heard conspiracy theories before on how companies buy good scores, but this is so blatant. So out in the open. It's shocking. I don't think i'll ever take another journalistic review seriously again. It almost makes system wars pointless. What does it matter if we switch from GS to some other site? Who's to say that they arent corrupt as well? Why do we argue over game scores in the first place?

Its a sad state, right now. Very sad.

TeamR

I do agree and can sympathize with the state of mind this has left you in. At this point, I feel that Gaming Journalism has been rendered almost pointless if we can't even certainly determine what games truly deserved their scores. Switching from GS to GR won't remedy anything at all, especially since GS would still be counted in the total. I think that a radical disregard for reviews would suffice at this point, but I know that a vast majority of people aren't going to let reviews go without a fight, especially GS reviews on SW.

But if sponsors seemingly have enough influence over scores to inadvertedly cause the firing of an 11 year veteran, how can we determine if any review is "credible"? What does credibility even mean at this point?

Of course, I know GS will just try to sweep this under the rug and pretend nothing happened, but I don't see a clear cut way to remedy this issue. And the only way I can see would render SW pretty much worthless.

Preferable to using GR or metacritic, but can you guarantee any of those sites are reliable? They've given out plenty of bizarro scores, waaay more generous than any GS scoring.blue_hazy_basic

Great post very detailed. You should look in to becoming a mod.

Anyways I don't know if GS reviews are bad. There are some details that are staring to come up that don't just add up. If thought we chose to pick another board to use for reviews I will end up voting IGN.

Great post very detailed. You should look in to becoming a mod.

Anyways I don't know if GS reviews are bad. There are some details that are staring to come up that don't just add up. If thought we chose to pick another board to use for reviews I will end up voting IGN.

HarlockJC

IGN gives out the ****ing wierdest scores of all! The reviews often are in depth but bear absolutely nothing to the final mark they give out.

Love your sig BTW :)

I do agree and can sympathize with the state of mind this has left you in. At this point, I feel that Gaming Journalism has been rendered almost pointless if we can't even certainly determine what games truly deserved their scores. Switching from GS to GR won't remedy anything at all, especially since GS would still be counted in the total. I think that a radical disregard for reviews would suffice at this point, but I know that a vast majority of people aren't going to let reviews go without a fight, especially GS reviews on SW.

But if sponsors seemingly have enough influence over scores to inadvertedly cause the firing of an 11 year veteran, how can we determine if any review is "credible"? What does credibility even mean at this point?

Of course, I know GS will just try to sweep this under the rug and pretend nothing happened, but I don't see a clear cut way to remedy this issue. And the only way I can see would render SW pretty much worthless.

Nysuki

System wars is basically a game, a game that perhaps got out of hand. Many people are taking this game way to seriously and it seems to be showing in the reviews aswell. I think, like Subrosian said, we need to let it settle in for about a week before we start to decide what we are going to do next.

This is all pretty sad, because reviewers are supposed to be independent....

[QUOTE="Nysuki"]

I do agree and can sympathize with the state of mind this has left you in. At this point, I feel that Gaming Journalism has been rendered almost pointless if we can't even certainly determine what games truly deserved their scores. Switching from GS to GR won't remedy anything at all, especially since GS would still be counted in the total. I think that a radical disregard for reviews would suffice at this point, but I know that a vast majority of people aren't going to let reviews go without a fight, especially GS reviews on SW.

But if sponsors seemingly have enough influence over scores to inadvertedly cause the firing of an 11 year veteran, how can we determine if any review is "credible"? What does credibility even mean at this point?

Of course, I know GS will just try to sweep this under the rug and pretend nothing happened, but I don't see a clear cut way to remedy this issue. And the only way I can see would render SW pretty much worthless.

_Pedro_

System wars is basically a game, a game that perhaps got out of hand. Many people are taking this game way to seriously and it seems to be showing in the reviews aswell. I think, like Subrosian said, we need to let it settle in for about a week before we start to decide what we are going to do next.

This is all pretty sad, because reviewers are supposed to be independent....

I dont always agree with GS reviews, and think some are very inconsistent. But, developers shouldn't have a blank check to a good review score just because they payed money to advertise on a video game website, or magazine. It sets a bad precedent for the video game journalist industry.

Also it Eidos really did have something to do with Jeff's dismisal, its a sad day indeed. It means that game journalists are no longer free to give an honest opinion (no matter how much we disagree) on a game without being afraid for their job. What choices do they have now? Risk their job and write an honest review, or play it safe to give some big budget title review ignoring obvious flaws. The whole point of video game reviews are so consumers dont waste their money on crappy games, and developers learn how to make games that dont suck. In theory.

[QUOTE="_Pedro_"][QUOTE="Nysuki"]

I do agree and can sympathize with the state of mind this has left you in. At this point, I feel that Gaming Journalism has been rendered almost pointless if we can't even certainly determine what games truly deserved their scores. Switching from GS to GR won't remedy anything at all, especially since GS would still be counted in the total. I think that a radical disregard for reviews would suffice at this point, but I know that a vast majority of people aren't going to let reviews go without a fight, especially GS reviews on SW.

But if sponsors seemingly have enough influence over scores to inadvertedly cause the firing of an 11 year veteran, how can we determine if any review is "credible"? What does credibility even mean at this point?

Of course, I know GS will just try to sweep this under the rug and pretend nothing happened, but I don't see a clear cut way to remedy this issue. And the only way I can see would render SW pretty much worthless.

blue_hazy_basic

System wars is basically a game, a game that perhaps got out of hand. Many people are taking this game way to seriously and it seems to be showing in the reviews aswell. I think, like Subrosian said, we need to let it settle in for about a week before we start to decide what we are going to do next.

This is all pretty sad, because reviewers are supposed to be independent....

True, but Jeff Gertsmann leaving Gamespot without any notice does certainly imply something "fishy"

Wow Jeff's video review is just SCATHING. It seems like it should've scored lower the way he's talking about it.

How could gametrailers score this game so high? Ummm.

Wow, I am a little late for the party concerning this news, lol. So let me get this straight, Jeff was fired because he gave Kane and Lynch a low score even though Eidos alledgedly had paid CNET to insure that Gamespot would give the game a good review score? If that is indeed the case, then Gamespot should be held accountable for fraudulent reviews and taking bribes.

I was never a fan of Jeff's reviews, but I respect the guy for trying to review the game in a way that he felt was honest, even though I personally think that Kane and Lynch deserves about a 7.5. But, whether one personally agrees with a review or not is irrelevant. However, what is relevant, is if the review was honest or not.

I guess all of those people who have laughed at all of the past comments about something being fishy about Gamespot's reviews are starting to wake up and smell the coffee a little more now, aye? It makes you question just how many other reviews have been nothing more than payoff scores.

In fact, how can one not now question just how many reviews have been paid off to be scored too high on games that do not deserve it? It also makes one question just how many times they have been paid to give otherwise great games bad reviews in order to make certain games on certain systems look weak. Not so much a consipracy theory anymore is it? Corruption is an unfortunate reality when it comes to money and the business world. Special treatment can nearly always be bought.

I love the forums here, and this is a great site for gaming news, but their already questionable reviews have been tainted beyond redemption in my opinion. How could anyone possibly trust their reviews now if this is all indeed true?

Contrary to what some of you want to believe, this System Wars forum, and the people who post here, have absolutely no influence or power in the gaming world whatsoever.

It seem some people have developed a "l33t superiority complex" posting here and actually think what they do here matters here at Gamespot, much less the real world outside of Gamespot. Nothing can be further from the truth.

As far as Gamespot is concerned, System Wars is the garbage can of the Gamespot forums. We get moderated harder and harsher than any forum and only exist as a neccessary evil to protect the other forums here.

I say this to say that since SW is not to be taken seriously, we should continue to use GS reviews to determine if a game "flops" or not.

Wow, I am a little late for the party concerning this news, lol. So let me get this straight, Jeff was fired because he gave Kane and Lynch a low score even though Eidos alledgedly had paid CNET to insure that Gamespot would give the game a good review score? If that is indeed the case, then Gamespot should be held accountable for fraudulent reviews and taking bribes.

I was never a fan of Jeff's reviews, but I respect the guy for trying to review the game in a way that he felt was honest, even though I personally think that Kane and Lynch deserves about a 7.5. But, whether one personally agrees with a review or not is irrelevant. However, what is relevant, is if the review was honest or not.

I guess all of those people who have laughed at all of the past comments about something being fishy about Gamespot's reviews are starting to wake up and smell the coffee a little more now, aye? It makes you question just how many other reviews have been nothing more than payoff scores.

In fact, how can one not now question just how many reviews have been paid off to be scored too high on games that do not deserve it? It also makes one question just how many times they have been paid to give otherwise great games bad reviews in order to make certain games on certain systems look weak. Not so much a consipracy theory anymore is it? Corruption is an unfortunate reality when it comes to money and the business world. Special treatment can nearly always be bought.

I love the forums here, and this is a great site for gaming news, but their already questionable reviews have been tainted beyond redemption in my opinion. How could anyone possibly trust their reviews now if this is all indeed true?

ironcreed

4. This is Partially Our Fault

System Wars (not just on this site) is why Eidos would want to buy reviews in the first place (if they did such a thing). Publishers tie salaries for some game developers to review scores. Why? Because review scores have been shown to directly impact sales. We need to address how our *own focus* on "official review scores" may be corrupting the industry, and journalism. This is something system wars will have to address in the future.

We need to address how we are buying into PR, Marketing, and Sales Data - how (by tying our a part of our identity to a companies success) we have allowed ourselves to be targeted. Our eagerness for "ownage" creates a market ripe for deceit - how can we prevent companies from believing the media can be used in this way? How do we punish unethical businesses practices - not just with Kane & Lynch, but also with games we might personally enjoy?

subrosian

I don't disagree with this but only to an extent. If theres a product that someone sees that could prove beneficial to them, why not get excited for it? Some might not feel that videogames are beneficial, but looking from a different perspective, we need entertainment in some form. I think this particular point that your making is not one that is as simple as 123.

Wow Jeff's video review is just SCATHING. It seems like it should've scored lower the way he's talking about it.

How could gametrailers score this game so high? Ummm.

Bread_or_Decide

He must've said that several times.

Wow, I am a little late for the party concerning this news, lol. So let me get this straight, Jeff was fired because he gave Kane and Lynch a low score even though Eidos alledgedly had paid CNET to insure that Gamespot would give the game a good review score? If that is indeed the case, then Gamespot should be held accountable for fraudulent reviews and taking bribes.ironcreed

Personally, I am eagerly anticipating Penny Arcades blog post concerning their comic, which started all of this.

Wow Jeff's video review is just SCATHING. It seems like it should've scored lower the way he's talking about it.

How could gametrailers score this game so high? Ummm.

Bread_or_Decide

LOL...I see what your doing

[QUOTE="ironcreed"]

Wow, I am a little late for the party concerning this news, lol. So let me get this straight, Jeff was fired because he gave Kane and Lynch a low score even though Eidos alledgedly had paid CNET to insure that Gamespot would give the game a good review score? If that is indeed the case, then Gamespot should be held accountable for fraudulent reviews and taking bribes.

I was never a fan of Jeff's reviews, but I respect the guy for trying to review the game in a way that he felt was honest, even though I personally think that Kane and Lynch deserves about a 7.5. But, whether one personally agrees with a review or not is irrelevant. However, what is relevant, is if the review was honest or not.

I guess all of those people who have laughed at all of the past comments about something being fishy about Gamespot's reviews are starting to wake up and smell the coffee a little more now, aye? It makes you question just how many other reviews have been nothing more than payoff scores.

In fact, how can one not now question just how many reviews have been paid off to be scored too high on games that do not deserve it? It also makes one question just how many times they have been paid to give otherwise great games bad reviews in order to make certain games on certain systems look weak. Not so much a consipracy theory anymore is it? Corruption is an unfortunate reality when it comes to money and the business world. Special treatment can nearly always be bought.

I love the forums here, and this is a great site for gaming news, but their already questionable reviews have been tainted beyond redemption in my opinion. How could anyone possibly trust their reviews now if this is all indeed true?

blue_hazy_basic

Why was he fired then?

Why was he fired then?ironcreed

[QUOTE="blue_hazy_basic"][QUOTE="ironcreed"]

Wow, I am a little late for the party concerning this news, lol. So let me get this straight, Jeff was fired because he gave Kane and Lynch a low score even though Eidos alledgedly had paid CNET to insure that Gamespot would give the game a good review score? If that is indeed the case, then Gamespot should be held accountable for fraudulent reviews and taking bribes.

I was never a fan of Jeff's reviews, but I respect the guy for trying to review the game in a way that he felt was honest, even though I personally think that Kane and Lynch deserves about a 7.5. But, whether one personally agrees with a review or not is irrelevant. However, what is relevant, is if the review was honest or not.

I guess all of those people who have laughed at all of the past comments about something being fishy about Gamespot's reviews are starting to wake up and smell the coffee a little more now, aye? It makes you question just how many other reviews have been nothing more than payoff scores.

In fact, how can one not now question just how many reviews have been paid off to be scored too high on games that do not deserve it? It also makes one question just how many times they have been paid to give otherwise great games bad reviews in order to make certain games on certain systems look weak. Not so much a consipracy theory anymore is it? Corruption is an unfortunate reality when it comes to money and the business world. Special treatment can nearly always be bought.

I love the forums here, and this is a great site for gaming news, but their already questionable reviews have been tainted beyond redemption in my opinion. How could anyone possibly trust their reviews now if this is all indeed true?

ironcreed

Why was he fired then?

[QUOTE="ironcreed"] Wow, I am a little late for the party concerning this news, lol. So let me get this straight, Jeff was fired because he gave Kane and Lynch a low score even though Eidos alledgedly had paid CNET to insure that Gamespot would give the game a good review score? If that is indeed the case, then Gamespot should be held accountable for fraudulent reviews and taking bribes.Jandurin

Personally, I am eagerly anticipating Penny Arcades blog post concerning their comic, which started all of this.

Indeed, as I am still trying to put the puzzle of this story together myself. I just posted the gist of what I have heard thus far.

if the Jeff story is true then SW flops niall077

Can some one give me a link???