Well one thing people need to stop saying is that all the remaining editors should quit over this. Some, no doubt, believe they can still contribute a lot to this site by staying, and I respect that. Mooshu92887

I think a mass exodus would contribute a lot more to the gaming press in general than staying and accepting what happened. That's why it's sad that solidarity at work,which helps everyone except the greedy and dishonest, is so hard to come by.

I'm a long-time Gamespot visitor and at one time I was a very active forum participant. I just found out about this today. To begin with, I'll sayI've never been a big fan of Gerstman's reviews - actually I think Gamespot has suffered in general since Kasavin's departure (actually, it would be interesting to hear what Kasavin has to say about this). But regardless of whether I'm a Gerstman fan - this is absolutely ridiculous. Any claim that he was fired for broader performance reasons is laughable, considering he was promoted when Kasavin departed.

I haven't had a premier membership in quite a while, so I don't have anything to cancel - but I can say that I will try to keep my site visits to a minimum in order to do my part to reduce Gamespot's traffic and advertising dollars. I will get my gaming news from the neogaf forums and use the game databases on other sites as my resource as much as possible. I am really disgusted with Gamespot and I hope I am for the most part done with giving this site my web traffic. This situation where the gaming media are in bed with the companies that make the products is probably a very widespread thing, and it's probably one of the reasons why the gaming media is so crappy in general. This blatant example of it shouldn't go unignored by people who visit this site. Unfortunately, Gamespot will probably get away with it and everything will just go back to "normal" (except that the gaming media will suck just a little bit more than it did a week ago).

Remember Westwood Studios. Bioware will exist for a couple more years if we're lucky, and then they will disappear into the EA swamp. It's sad.

As a long-time RTS fan, I downloaded the Command & Conquer 3 demo for Xbox 360 today - and I must say, I'm pretty impressed. Gamepad controls will probably never be as nice for RTS games as Mouse+Keyboard (or maybe a wii-style controller will work well if properly implemented at some point), but they did a really good job withit in my opinion. It's very playable control-wise, and it's a lot of fun playing an RTS on a big TV. I'm playing it on a 52" DLP, and it it's just a lot of fun sending your tanks rumbling around on the big screen. It really worked for me - I think I'm going to buy the full game if I can get it fairly cheap, and now I'm kinda hoping for more good quality RTS's for this machine. Anyone have this game and wanna share thoughts on it?

If you feel that all of the story that matters should take place during the game's event's you should give up on gaming now.

On the contrary, I'm simply stating that Bioshock doesn't have a video game story -just a backstory fed to you for flavor as you play -and that it would probably have been a more satisfying experience if it did, given the nature of the experience. And the suggestion I made is that the game should have been set during Rapture's fall and revolved around those events, rather than feeding you information about those events as you dungeon-crawl through in the aftermath of those events.

The game's strengths are obviously the richness of its setting and the artistry in the presentation of that setting. I think those strengths stand on their own to a certain extent, but I also think this game would have been better if it utitilized some real video game storytelling in which the player's actions propel a story forward, and vice versa.

The mechanics of gameplay in Bioshockare probably another conversation.

I appreciated the story the way it was told, moreso than if we were presented with it in real time through traditional cutscenes and sci-fi civil war set pieces. It's more of a mystery that way because you're in this oppressive, atmospherically haunting environment and the story is up to you to decipher as you move throughout the course of the game, examining what possibly could have happened here and how you play a role in it.

It's subtle and and it forces you to think by putting the pieces together of everything presented to the player, both large and small. Setting the game after the downfall of Rapture is essentially complete makes it that much more interesting of a place IMO.

The game is not story-driven, but there is a rich, sophisticated story that is waiting to be uncovered if you want it.

viberooni

A video game's "story" unfolds through the events experienced by the player in the game. If Bioshock's "story" is about the fall of a would-be utopian society, then the player should experience the fall of that society, not read about it after it's over.Scattering a narrative about the background of the game's setting does not constitute real video game storytelling. Bioshock is a game without a story, that has scattered throughout it a story that is not part of the game.

It's anything but subtle. It's basically a back-story spood fed to you through voice overs in the absence of any real plot driving the actual game events forward.

There's a difference between a premise and a story. But I'd love to hear responses that say more than "there was a story lol the story is great!"

What Bioshock does is set up a premise and add some texture to that premise now and then by giving you a little information about events that were over before the game began.

The game for the most part doesn't attempt real storytelling.

The story is great. It's like saying Deus Ex had no plot at all,

You're dropping the names of other games instead of thinking about Bioshock.