All the great guys leaving GS.

So recently alot of great guys, Jeff Gerstman, Alex Nevarro and now Ryan Davis has left Gamespot. And honestly, its really upsetting not to know the reason why all my favorite on the spot guys decide to leave. And I feel there is no one left anymore that makes me want to watch On the Spot, really sad.

Can anyone cast some light on the whole leaving gamespot scene? Im confused :s

Jeff Gerstmann got fired, and no one is willing to honestly tell us why. But Alex Navarro and Ryan Davis left because of Jeff's firing and how things surrounding his firing had been handled, so I'm guessing the whole story they fed us about Jeff's departure has been a load of bs.

So to sum up: Jeff got canned, and Alex and Ryan left cuz of it.

Jeff Gerstmann got fired, and no one is willing to honestly tell us why. But Alex Navarro and Ryan Davis left because of Jeff's firing and how things surrounding his firing had been handled, so I'm guessing the whole story they fed us about Jeff's departure has been a load of bs.

So to sum up: Jeff got canned, and Alex and Ryan left cuz of it and no one should care.

Kazona

I fixed it for you

I don't see the problem. Can someone spell it out for me?

[QUOTE="Kazona"]

Jeff Gerstmann got fired, and no one is willing to honestly tell us why. But Alex Navarro and Ryan Davis left because of Jeff's firing and how things surrounding his firing had been handled, so I'm guessing the whole story they fed us about Jeff's departure has been a load of bs.

So to sum up: Jeff got canned, and Alex and Ryan left cuz of it and no one should care.

smerlus

I fixed it for you

The fact that CNet has swept this whole thing under the rug is proof positive what they think of us as readers and consumers (don't forget, a lot of people pay real life actual dollars to be members here). They very obviously don't value us as supporters, and are willing to treat us like mindless dogs so long as the advertisers are ponying up the dough. And if the fact that they've basically admitted to this by firing Jeff for his negative review of K&L doesn't cement it for you, nothing will.

A lot of people here, myself included, have provided a lot of value to GameSpot in the form of money and in the form of contributions like ReviewSpotting. In good business, the return on our value given would be value returned. Thing is, CNet has made it clear they have no interest in reciprocating that value. Just pay up, shut up, and color.

The only reason I haven't abandoned the site is because I don't want to abandon the wrong people (like the community admins) and add more bad news to the oversized stack they've got to deal with. The fact that I've got a lot of personal time invested in the site also comes into play, but whatever... I can get over that. If things continue along this path, though, I don't think I can hold out. Sorry, but I don't like being treated like I'm too stupid to know when I'm getting shafted.

[QUOTE="smerlus"][QUOTE="Kazona"]

Jeff Gerstmann got fired, and no one is willing to honestly tell us why. But Alex Navarro and Ryan Davis left because of Jeff's firing and how things surrounding his firing had been handled, so I'm guessing the whole story they fed us about Jeff's departure has been a load of bs.

So to sum up: Jeff got canned, and Alex and Ryan left cuz of it and no one should care.

ShenlongBo

I fixed it for you

The fact that CNet has swept this whole thing under the rug is proof positive what they think of us as readers and consumers (don't forget, a lot of people pay real life actual dollars to be members here). They very obviously don't value us as supporters, and are willing to treat us like mindless dogs so long as the advertisers are ponying up the dough. And if the fact that they've basically admitted to this by firing Jeff for his negative review of K&L doesn't cement it for you, nothing will.

A lot of people here, myself included, have provided a lot of value to GameSpot in the form of money and in the form of contributions like ReviewSpotting. In good business, the return on our value given would be value returned. Thing is, CNet has made it clear they have no interest in reciprocating that value. Just pay up, shut up, and color.

The only reason I haven't abandoned the site is because I don't want to abandon the wrong people (like the community admins) and add more bad news to the oversized stack they've got to deal with. The fact that I've got a lot of personal time invested in the site also comes into play, but whatever... I can get over that. If things continue along this path, though, I don't think I can hold out. Sorry, but I don't like being treated like I'm too stupid to know when I'm getting shafted.

1. it's standard practice for a work place not to broadcast out to the world what a person is fired for.

2. No one knows if it is for the kane and Lynch deal. If people weren't crazed conspiracy theorists listening to websites that directly compete with gamespot as to what happened, and actually looked at the picture logicallly, you'll see they pretty much had a good reason for firing that guy.

K&L scored a 6.0 which is a fair game and by Gamespot's ratings it's a slightly above average game.

Supposed A film critic rated a movie and gave it a little over the typical 2 1/2 star rating...Let's say a three star, and then the review said the movie is ugly, the characters suck, the dialogue sucks, the story is garbage, the idea of the is good but quickly wears off, don't watch this movie unless you're interested in the idea... does that sound like an above average 3 star review to you?

because those are the things that Jeff said about Kane & Lynch while scoring it as an above average and fair game.

3. Then people want to talk about integrity when the previews on this website are the biggest pieces of fluff i've ever seen

4. and if the editors of gamespot would have listened to the majority of the us "paying customers" that they care so much about more so than evil Cnet, then they wouldn't have changed the way reviews are done then K&L could have been rated according to those guidelines and they would have matched the review.

Jeff Gerstman did the biggest account suicide ever on this website and just like in OT, there are going to be people that complain and leave... there's no difference at all

Lastly this has nothing to do with games so it should be locked anyways. since when does general game discussion encompass canned editors?

[QUOTE="ShenlongBo"][QUOTE="smerlus"][QUOTE="Kazona"]

Jeff Gerstmann got fired, and no one is willing to honestly tell us why. But Alex Navarro and Ryan Davis left because of Jeff's firing and how things surrounding his firing had been handled, so I'm guessing the whole story they fed us about Jeff's departure has been a load of bs.

So to sum up: Jeff got canned, and Alex and Ryan left cuz of it and no one should care.

smerlus

I fixed it for you

The fact that CNet has swept this whole thing under the rug is proof positive what they think of us as readers and consumers (don't forget, a lot of people pay real life actual dollars to be members here). They very obviously don't value us as supporters, and are willing to treat us like mindless dogs so long as the advertisers are ponying up the dough. And if the fact that they've basically admitted to this by firing Jeff for his negative review of K&L doesn't cement it for you, nothing will.

A lot of people here, myself included, have provided a lot of value to GameSpot in the form of money and in the form of contributions like ReviewSpotting. In good business, the return on our value given would be value returned. Thing is, CNet has made it clear they have no interest in reciprocating that value. Just pay up, shut up, and color.

The only reason I haven't abandoned the site is because I don't want to abandon the wrong people (like the community admins) and add more bad news to the oversized stack they've got to deal with. The fact that I've got a lot of personal time invested in the site also comes into play, but whatever... I can get over that. If things continue along this path, though, I don't think I can hold out. Sorry, but I don't like being treated like I'm too stupid to know when I'm getting shafted.

1. it's standard practice for a work place not to broadcast out to the world what a person is fired for.

2. No one knows if it is for the kane and Lynch deal. If people weren't crazed conspiracy theorists listening to websites that directly compete with gamespot as to what happened, and actually looked at the picture logicallly, you'll see they pretty much had a good reason for firing that guy.

K&L scored a 6.0 which is a fair game and by Gamespot's ratings it's a slightly above average game.

Supposed A film critic rated a movie and gave it a little over the typical 2 1/2 star rating...Let's say a three star, and then the review said the movie is ugly, the characters suck, the dialogue sucks, the story is garbage, the idea of the is good but quickly wears off, don't watch this movie unless you're interested in the idea... does that sound like an above average 3 star review to you?

because those are the things that Jeff said about Kane & Lynch while scoring it as an above average and fair game.

3. Then people want to talk about integrity when the previews on this website are the biggest pieces of fluff i've ever seen

4. and if the editors of gamespot would have listened to the majority of the us "paying customers" that they care so much about more so than evil Cnet, then they wouldn't have changed the way reviews are done then K&L could have been rated according to those guidelines and they would have matched the review.

Jeff Gerstman did the biggest account suicide ever on this website and just like in OT, there are going to be people that complain and leave... there's no difference at all

Lastly this has nothing to do with games so it should be locked anyways. since when does general game discussion encompass canned editors?

Anyway, you can't prove with any more certainty that you're right than I can that I'm right. Your angle revolves around plausible deniability, and mine revolves around probable cause. Either way you slice it, people on this site should care.

[QUOTE="smerlus"][QUOTE="ShenlongBo"][QUOTE="smerlus"][QUOTE="Kazona"]

Jeff Gerstmann got fired, and no one is willing to honestly tell us why. But Alex Navarro and Ryan Davis left because of Jeff's firing and how things surrounding his firing had been handled, so I'm guessing the whole story they fed us about Jeff's departure has been a load of bs.

So to sum up: Jeff got canned, and Alex and Ryan left cuz of it and no one should care.

ShenlongBo

I fixed it for you

The fact that CNet has swept this whole thing under the rug is proof positive what they think of us as readers and consumers (don't forget, a lot of people pay real life actual dollars to be members here). They very obviously don't value us as supporters, and are willing to treat us like mindless dogs so long as the advertisers are ponying up the dough. And if the fact that they've basically admitted to this by firing Jeff for his negative review of K&L doesn't cement it for you, nothing will.

A lot of people here, myself included, have provided a lot of value to GameSpot in the form of money and in the form of contributions like ReviewSpotting. In good business, the return on our value given would be value returned. Thing is, CNet has made it clear they have no interest in reciprocating that value. Just pay up, shut up, and color.

The only reason I haven't abandoned the site is because I don't want to abandon the wrong people (like the community admins) and add more bad news to the oversized stack they've got to deal with. The fact that I've got a lot of personal time invested in the site also comes into play, but whatever... I can get over that. If things continue along this path, though, I don't think I can hold out. Sorry, but I don't like being treated like I'm too stupid to know when I'm getting shafted.

1. it's standard practice for a work place not to broadcast out to the world what a person is fired for.

2. No one knows if it is for the kane and Lynch deal. If people weren't crazed conspiracy theorists listening to websites that directly compete with gamespot as to what happened, and actually looked at the picture logicallly, you'll see they pretty much had a good reason for firing that guy.

K&L scored a 6.0 which is a fair game and by Gamespot's ratings it's a slightly above average game.

Supposed A film critic rated a movie and gave it a little over the typical 2 1/2 star rating...Let's say a three star, and then the review said the movie is ugly, the characters suck, the dialogue sucks, the story is garbage, the idea of the is good but quickly wears off, don't watch this movie unless you're interested in the idea... does that sound like an above average 3 star review to you?

because those are the things that Jeff said about Kane & Lynch while scoring it as an above average and fair game.

3. Then people want to talk about integrity when the previews on this website are the biggest pieces of fluff i've ever seen

4. and if the editors of gamespot would have listened to the majority of the us "paying customers" that they care so much about more so than evil Cnet, then they wouldn't have changed the way reviews are done then K&L could have been rated according to those guidelines and they would have matched the review.

Jeff Gerstman did the biggest account suicide ever on this website and just like in OT, there are going to be people that complain and leave... there's no difference at all

Lastly this has nothing to do with games so it should be locked anyways. since when does general game discussion encompass canned editors?

Anyway, you can't prove with any more certainty that you're right than I can that I'm right. Your angle revolves around plausible deniability, and mine revolves around probable cause. Either way you slice it, people on this site should care.

well with all your modding power, most of the people don't really care. welcome to planet Earth and it doesn't matter who's right.

All i know is an editor got fired, I don't care and you're upset about it. I'll let you be right all you want

Well for whatever reason this happened, if it was because of the K&L incident or something else. You can't deny that Gamespot and On the Spot will never be what it once was. I've been following On the Spot for quite some time, and really got to like the guys running it. Thats when I decided that I would sign up for a premium account, and contibute to these great guys and their awesome work. But now, while seeing all the great guys leave. I can't help to think I don't want to support this site anymore, because there is no one left that I can relate to or even like that much.

I've never been a big forum person on this site, but I've watched On the Spot every damn week for as long as I can remember. And I was really looking forward to each new episode, not so much because of the content. But because of the people there, representing On the Spot. So yeah, I do care.

And I guess I agree with the statement of them leaving cuz of Jeff, and I can understand that after reading their blogs etc. I just hope will will see all these great guys working together some time in the future. Atleast I hope so.

As of now, I don't really look forward to On the Spot anymore. Because all the guys that I got to know, and really liked to watch is gone. And it really makes me sad.

All I know is that Alex and Ryan left because Jeff got fired, and I don't know about you, but that's not a reason I would use for quiting a job I've been at for 5+ years unless the manner surrounding my colleagues firing was very questionable to say the least. In fact, if you read their blogs, you'll find out that they both feel very strongly about Jeff's firing and how the matter was handled by CNET. If two people who have worked for this website for as long as they have, but are still willing to throw away their career because of that, then my logic tells me CNET cares very little about its employees and probably just as little about the paying subscribers of Gamespot.

So as ShenlongBo put it, we got shafted and the Gamespot editors got shafted. And quite frankly, I don't like being shafted after I spent about 4 years paying for my subscibtion. So yes, I do care, and I will always care when companies do their employees and customers in like CNET has.

2. No one knows if it is for the kane and Lynch deal. If people weren't crazed conspiracy theorists listening to websites that directly compete with gamespot as to what happened, and actually looked at the picture logicallly, you'll see they pretty much had a good reason for firing that guy.

K&L scored a 6.0 which is a fair game and by Gamespot's ratings it's a slightly above average game.

Supposed A film critic rated a movie and gave it a little over the typical 2 1/2 star rating...Let's say a three star, and then the review said the movie is ugly, the characters suck, the dialogue sucks, the story is garbage, the idea of the is good but quickly wears off, don't watch this movie unless you're interested in the idea... does that sound like an above average 3 star review to you?

because those are the things that Jeff said about Kane & Lynch while scoring it as an above average and fair game.

smerlus

Thing is, if you used a review that was extremely critical but ended up giving a score that was above the halfway point of the review scale as a basis for firing a guy, the whole staff would have been on the chopping block a long time ago. Fact of the matter is, whether they want to admit it or not, a game in the six range is in there "barely playable" range, while anything in the five or lower range is "broken". It's a flaw, but it's an industry wide problem, and nothing to toss him over.

And there's enough circumstantial evidence to suggest that while Kane and Lynch was probably not the reason why Gerstmann was fired, it was certainly emblematic of the problem. It's worth caring about because that casts serious doubt on GameSpot's credibility from here on out. Ricardo might be able to rebuild the company's reputation, but it's a long, uphill climb.

All I know is that Alex and Ryan left because Jeff got fired, and I don't know about you, but that's not a reason I would use for quiting a job I've been at for 5+ years unless the manner surrounding my colleagues firing was very questionable to say the least. In fact, if you read their blogs, you'll find out that they both feel very strongly about Jeff's firing and how the matter was handled by CNET. If two people who have worked for this website for as long as they have, but are still willing to throw away their career because of that, then my logic tells me CNET cares very little about its employees and probably just as little about the paying subscribers of Gamespot.

So as ShenlongBo put it, we got shafted and the Gamespot editors got shafted. And quite frankly, I don't like being shafted after I spent about 4 years paying for my subscibtion. So yes, I do care, and I will always care when companies do their employees and customers in like CNET has.

Kazona

These editors are friend's and it's normal when a friend gets fired for any reason to be pissed off. That's common sense.

Anyways it was in one of these Gamespot people's blogs that the people left could afford to leave. It's not like they were making a huge stand for Gamespot "integrity" and they're ending up homeless on the street defending their friend. They saw something they didn't like, and they left because they could. it's not because they care so much about us users it's just they don't like working at a place where an employee for 10 years can get fired for writing a crappy review and not follow the review guidelines that they set.

And your sig is a joke. Where were these editor's integrity when they were hyping up Kane & Lynch and not reporting any of these faults the game had before it came out? they played a version of it on october 22 and the game was release 3 weeks later; How many changes did they really think the game was going to make? Did the gameplay break down in those 3 weeks? did the characters get revamped and all of a sudden become unlikable? did they lower the graphics for release the date?

What I posted in my second post in this topic was the same thing I posted in my blog two days before Gamespot made a release about why Jeff got fired and the things I said were the same reasons they said they edited his review and took the video down, because it simply didn't match the score he gave it or the review guidelines. So that makes it one of three things, I'm psychic, CNET saw my blog post and thought it was so ingenious that they copied it or the most likely answer is, I'm right.

What cnet haters have to back up their claim is a bunch of coincidences that were pointed out by a competing website. You have the equivelent of the head of Microsoft pointing out that the head of Nintendo is a pedophile. Then you guys look back, see that Miyamoto knows how to make kid friendly games and market them to a younger audience and BAM! the head of Microsoft is right.

When the reality is much more simpler, he might just know how to make good games. They just might not have liked the way Jeff did things.

Thing is, if you used a review that was extremely critical but ended up giving a score that was above the halfway point of the review scale as a basis for firing a guy, the whole staff would have been on the chopping block a long time ago. Fact of the matter is, whether they want to admit it or not, a game in the six range is in there "barely playable" range, while anything in the five or lower range is "broken". It's a flaw, but it's an industry wide problem, and nothing to toss him over.

And there's enough circumstantial evidence to suggest that while Kane and Lynch was probably not the reason why Gerstmann was fired, it was certainly emblematic of the problem. It's worth caring about because that casts serious doubt on GameSpot's credibility from here on out. Ricardo might be able to rebuild the company's reputation, but it's a long, uphill climb.

Oilers99

a game rated 6 is above average by the Gamespot standards, it's us users that apply all these stipulations and things to the score. They've rated some sports games that are completely playable a 6 while just saying that it doesn't have any new modes and there are some framerate issues.

If i see a review that says everything about a game is messed up and I shouldn't buy it, then look at the rating and it's above average I seriously see something wrong with that and you can apply this to anything else that gets rated.

Another thing is, when they made a press release about why Jeff got fired, this review was the breaking point, it wasn't that they thought he was great up until then, they even said they didn't approve of his behavior prior to this or something like that. Kepping with the rule that MOST employers don't broadcast why someone got fired, this all makes sense.

Jeff could have been running around patting interns on their butts, microwaving burritos in the employee lounge and not cleaning up and had the Playgirl 2003 pin up calander in his office... and this review was the last straw.

again, looks like business and nothing personal to me.

a game rated 6 is above average by the Gamespot standards, it's us users that apply all these stipulations and things to the score. They've rated some sports games that are completely playable a 6 while just saying that it doesn't have any new modes and there are some framerate issues.

If i see a review that says everything about a game is messed up and I shouldn't buy it, then look at the rating and it's above average I seriously see something wrong with that and you can apply this to anything else that gets rated.

Another thing is, when they made a press release about why Jeff got fired, this review was the breaking point, it wasn't that they thought he was great up until then, they even said they didn't approve of his behavior prior to this or something like that. Kepping with the rule that MOST employers don't broadcast why someone got fired, this all makes sense.

Jeff could have been running around patting interns on their butts, microwaving burritos in the employee lounge and not cleaning up and had the Playgirl 2003 pin up calander in his office... and this review was the last straw.

again, looks like business and nothing personal to me.

smerlus

Still doesn't mean we shouldn't care.

You know, you really might be right. For all we know, Jeff was already on thin ice and the K&L situation was just the last straw.

Still doesn't mean we shouldn't care.

ShenlongBo

Didn't mean to be a prick last night... I was really bored at work and pretty tired. I understand that there are people that did care, that enjoyed parts of this site that i don't care for such as the video portions and commentaries and those things will change and probably won't be the same.

But this whole mentality that Gamespot is doomed, the "integrity" is gone*** , and just the constant beating of a this topic like it was a dead horse is useless. What's done is done and the people that were really offended by it pretty much already left for greener pasture. The rest of us our here out of obligation, the fact that we don't care or the changes aren't that bad. Let's move forward instead of dwelling on the past.

*** I'm a firm believer that the preview section of this site proves there was little inegrity to begin with but I guess people don't mind being lied to as long as those lies mean that Gamespot can keep previewing games, giving us the little tid bits of gaming news we need and continue lying to us in the future.

Thing is, if you used a review that was extremely critical but ended up giving a score that was above the halfway point of the review scale as a basis for firing a guy, the whole staff would have been on the chopping block a long time ago. Fact of the matter is, whether they want to admit it or not, a game in the six range is in there "barely playable" range, while anything in the five or lower range is "broken". It's a flaw, but it's an industry wide problem, and nothing to toss him over.

Oilers99

Yup....totally agree.

The 10 point scale is just too large really. That's why 99% of games get over a 5, even though a game that scores a 5 might as well have gotten a 1.

I won't bother with any game that averages under a 7, its just not worth my time. And even in the 7 range, I have to be a serious fan of the franchise to consider a purchase on a game that averages 7 at most major outlets.

Lets face it, 7 is basically used as average, not 5. 7.5-8.5 is good to great. 8.5-10 is great to awesome.

Yup....totally agree.

The 10 point scale is just too large really. That's why 99% of games get over a 5, even though a game that scores a 5 might as well have gotten a 1.

I won't bother with any game that averages under a 7, its just not worth my time. And even in the 7 range, I have to be a serious fan of the franchise to consider a purchase on a game that averages 7 at most major outlets.

Lets face it, 7 is basically used as average, not 5. 7.5-8.5 is good to great. 8.5-10 is great to awesome.

EdgecrusherAza

but this is all your opinion and added experience that you're including with the way gamespot judges games. I can say I don't play anything under a 9 and 8.5 is an average game to me. it doesn't matter because that's not how the rating system is set up on Gamespot.

5.0 is considered a mediocre game by gamespot's standards and if I look at a bunch of games that were given 5.0 and read the reviews, none of them were as harsh as what Jeff gave Kane & Lynch. The words in his review make the game sound like a 3.

Try this out for yourself. Look at anything else that is graded or scored in the history of man. be it a C+ in math class, a 2 1/2 star rated movie, a car, book, anything. You will never find something that was given a grade or score that is above average with such a scathing review by someone that is supposed to be a professional that says everything is horrible and not to buy that item. It's unheard of.

Again, everyone wants to dodge this question but what would you think if Ebert gave a movie 3 stars and said it was crap and dont watch the movie just rent it?

what if you got a C+ in English and the teacher said everything you did was horrible and wrong, you don't belong in the class and you'll have a helmet waiting for you on your desk tomorrow?

The score set up by the guidelines is totally different than the review and that was the last straw, it's as simple as that.

[QUOTE="EdgecrusherAza"]

Yup....totally agree.

The 10 point scale is just too large really. That's why 99% of games get over a 5, even though a game that scores a 5 might as well have gotten a 1.

I won't bother with any game that averages under a 7, its just not worth my time. And even in the 7 range, I have to be a serious fan of the franchise to consider a purchase on a game that averages 7 at most major outlets.

Lets face it, 7 is basically used as average, not 5. 7.5-8.5 is good to great. 8.5-10 is great to awesome.

smerlus

but this is all your opinion and added experience that you're including with the way gamespot judges games. I can say I don't play anything under a 9 and 8.5 is an average game to me. it doesn't matter because that's not how the rating system is set up on Gamespot.

5.0 is considered a mediocre game by gamespot's standards and if I look at a bunch of games that were given 5.0 and read the reviews, none of them were as harsh as what Jeff gave Kane & Lynch. The words in his review make the game sound like a 3.

Try this out for yourself. Look at anything else that is graded or scored in the history of man. be it a C+ in math class, a 2 1/2 star rated movie, a car, book, anything. You will never find something that was given a grade or score that is above average with such a scathing review by someone that is supposed to be a professional that says everything is horrible and not to buy that item. It's unheard of.

Again, everyone wants to dodge this question but what would you think if Ebert gave a movie 3 stars and said it was crap and dont watch the movie just rent it?

what if you got a C+ in English and the teacher said everything you did was horrible and wrong, you don't belong in the class and you'll have a helmet waiting for you on your desk tomorrow?

The score set up by the guidelines is totally different than the review and that was the last straw, it's as simple as that.

Well Jeff gave Mario Sunshine an 8 but made it sound like a 2.5

Haha, that was the way he did things I guess. I never liked his reviews personally, but he seems like a cool guy.

Anyway, what I'm saying is NO website truly goes by what their review system is SUPPOSED to mean. Its not just Gamespot.

[QUOTE="Kazona"]

All I know is that Alex and Ryan left because Jeff got fired, and I don't know about you, but that's not a reason I would use for quiting a job I've been at for 5+ years unless the manner surrounding my colleagues firing was very questionable to say the least. In fact, if you read their blogs, you'll find out that they both feel very strongly about Jeff's firing and how the matter was handled by CNET. If two people who have worked for this website for as long as they have, but are still willing to throw away their career because of that, then my logic tells me CNET cares very little about its employees and probably just as little about the paying subscribers of Gamespot.

So as ShenlongBo put it, we got shafted and the Gamespot editors got shafted. And quite frankly, I don't like being shafted after I spent about 4 years paying for my subscibtion. So yes, I do care, and I will always care when companies do their employees and customers in like CNET has.

smerlus

These editors are friend's and it's normal when a friend gets fired for any reason to be pissed off. That's common sense.

Anyways it was in one of these Gamespot people's blogs that the people left could afford to leave. It's not like they were making a huge stand for Gamespot "integrity" and they're ending up homeless on the street defending their friend. They saw something they didn't like, and they left because they could. it's not because they care so much about us users it's just they don't like working at a place where an employee for 10 years can get fired for writing a crappy review and not follow the review guidelines that they set.

And your sig is a joke. Where were these editor's integrity when they were hyping up Kane & Lynch and not reporting any of these faults the game had before it came out? they played a version of it on october 22 and the game was release 3 weeks later; How many changes did they really think the game was going to make? Did the gameplay break down in those 3 weeks? did the characters get revamped and all of a sudden become unlikable? did they lower the graphics for release the date?

What I posted in my second post in this topic was the same thing I posted in my blog two days before Gamespot made a release about why Jeff got fired and the things I said were the same reasons they said they edited his review and took the video down, because it simply didn't match the score he gave it or the review guidelines. So that makes it one of three things, I'm psychic, CNET saw my blog post and thought it was so ingenious that they copied it or the most likely answer is, I'm right.

What cnet haters have to back up their claim is a bunch of coincidences that were pointed out by a competing website. You have the equivelent of the head of Microsoft pointing out that the head of Nintendo is a pedophile. Then you guys look back, see that Miyamoto knows how to make kid friendly games and market them to a younger audience and BAM! the head of Microsoft is right.

When the reality is much more simpler, he might just know how to make good games. They just might not have liked the way Jeff did things.

What I find ironic about that whole deal is that Jeff was one of the longest working employees at Gamespot. If I recall correctly it's at least 10+ years that he's been working there. If they really didn't like how Jeff handled things, then why didn't they fire him sooner? No company is going to keep an employee around for 10 years if he's really such a bad guy, let alone promote him. The so called 'final straw' would have come years ago if he really was that bad of an employee. It may seem all just business as usual to you, but I find it very ironic that Jeff got fired around the time that CNET got their new top suit--a man who's reknown for prioritizing income from advertisers over journalistic intergrity.

And I really don't see why your blog post is automatically right because of a press release from the very company that fired Jeff. If you ask me, I'd sooner believe those competing websites than CNET's 'official press release' because no company is going to publicly admit that they fired one of the longest remaining employees because his review angered some heavy advertisers. The only way they would ever admit to such a thing (if it is true) is if it's the least financialy damaging option for the company as a whole.

And I don't know about you, but no matter how close of a friend someone might be to me, I would never quit my job for them if they got fired for a good reason. There would have to be some seriously questionable motives behind my friend's firing if I were to consider handing in my resignation.

As for my sig being a joke, you obviously haven't really read or watched any of the previews for K&L, because if you had, you would've known that the editors doing the previewing never really saw anything beyond the two or three coolest levels in the game. Heck there was even an outright complaint in one of the previews that Eidos showed off the very same level they'd shown several times before yet again.

I would try to find that preview, plus all the articles with those so called 'coincidences' that happened right around the time of Jeff being fired, but quite frankly I'm too tired to do so right now, and I think that no matter how many of articles I show you, you'll still choose to believe whatever the head honchos at CNET tell you.

What I find ironic about that whole deal is that Jeff was one of the longest working employees at Gamespot. If I recall correctly it's at least 10+ years that he's been working there. If they really didn't like how Jeff handled things, then why didn't they fire him sooner? No company is going to keep an employee around for 10 years if he's really such a bad guy, let alone promote him. The so called 'final straw' would have come years ago if he really was that bad of an employee. It may seem all just business as usual to you, but I find it very ironic that Jeff got fired around the time that CNET got their new top suit--a man who's reknown for prioritizing income from advertisers over journalistic intergrity.

And I really don't see why your blog post is automatically right because of a press release from the very company that fired Jeff. If you ask me, I'd sooner believe those competing websites than CNET's 'official press release' because no company is going to publicly admit that they fired one of the longest remaining employees because his review angered some heavy advertisers. The only way they would ever admit to such a thing (if it is true) is if it's the least financialy damaging option for the company as a whole.

And I don't know about you, but no matter how close of a friend someone might be to me, I would never quit my job for them if they got fired for a good reason. There would have to be some seriously questionable motives behind my friend's firing if I were to consider handing in my resignation.

As for my sig being a joke, you obviously haven't really read or watched any of the previews for K&L, because if you had, you would've known that the editors doing the previewing never really saw anything beyond the two or three coolest levels in the game. Heck there was even an outright complaint in one of the previews that Eidos showed off the very same level they'd shown several times before yet again.

I would try to find that preview, plus all the articles with those so called 'coincidences' that happened right around the time of Jeff being fired, but quite frankly I'm too tired to do so right now, and I think that no matter how many of articles I show you, you'll still choose to believe whatever the head honchos at CNET tell you.

Kazona

there's nothing ironic and it doesn't matter if you worked a place 1 year or 100 years. If you get a new boss and he doesn't like the way you do things. Then you're gone, as simple as that.

Both sides of the story have something to gain from lying to everybody. I'm sorry but the side I chose to pick is the average and most likely side, your side is a bunch of coincidences compiled to look like a reason thrown in with practices this site has been using for years.

You're right, you're just one person and something you you do might not be something else other people do. A blog by one of the people work at gamespot said the people that quit could afford to quit. What's so crazy about that? If i worked at a place for 5 years, a friend of mine got fired and i didn't have to work, would it be so outrageous if i left for something else?

read this preview.

http://www.gamespot.com/xbox360/action/kanelynchdeadmen/news.html?sid=6181498&om_act=convert&om_clk=newsfeatures&tag=newsfeatures;title;3

here they say the multiplayer that Jeff called a bore and repeatitive they say they played it a bunch and it's innovative.

They also say they've been through a bunch of the story missions (where you'd be able to see if voice acting is as bad as JEff said it was, you'd also be able to tell if gameplay is broken, graphics are terrible, the characters suck and parts of the story are bad) yet none of that is mentioned.

here's the closing caption of that preview "Although we must've seen the majority of what Kane & Lynch: Dead Men's campaign has to offer at this point, we're still eager to get our hands on the finished game next month. The PlayStation 3 version that we saw was almost indistinguishable from the Xbox 360 game that we've played previously, and although the PC version was being shown on a laptop that we very much doubt did it justice, switching between the two platforms during our session wasn't jarring at all. Our only concerns with Kane & Lynch at this point are that the auto-cover system doesn't always seem as eager as to back us up against objects as we are, and that some of the AI-controlled colleagues in the game are a little too quick to move forward when instructed to target a specific enemy when they could just as easily remain in cover. "

hmmm that doesn't sounds like horrid AI, broken gameplay, a terrible story, crappy characters, horrible voice acting... I mean I'm not in the game development world at all but I thing if I was shown a preview of a game and it's supposed to come out a month later, I'd have a good idea of what the game is going to be

a game rated 6 is above average by the Gamespot standards, it's us users that apply all these stipulations and things to the score. They've rated some sports games that are completely playable a 6 while just saying that it doesn't have any new modes and there are some framerate issues.

If i see a review that says everything about a game is messed up and I shouldn't buy it, then look at the rating and it's above average I seriously see something wrong with that and you can apply this to anything else that gets rated.

Another thing is, when they made a press release about why Jeff got fired, this review was the breaking point, it wasn't that they thought he was great up until then, they even said they didn't approve of his behavior prior to this or something like that. Kepping with the rule that MOST employers don't broadcast why someone got fired, this all makes sense.

Jeff could have been running around patting interns on their butts, microwaving burritos in the employee lounge and not cleaning up and had the Playgirl 2003 pin up calander in his office... and this review was the last straw.

again, looks like business and nothing personal to me.

smerlus

I'm not arguing that scoring sub-par games in the 5s and 6s is right... I'm arguing that it's an industry wide problem that you couldn't single Gerstmann out for. It's not a huge issue in my mind, mostly because games that score in the six or lower range are ignored anyway, and certainly not something to fire someone over.

And when exactly was his "behavior" part of the equation? I never remember anyone bringing that up as a point of contention, from any side. There was the "multiple instances of tone" quote, but that doesn't really relate to behavior. Any speculation about what he "might" have been doing, without any of the circumstantial evidence that we've come to rely on to gain some understanding of the events that transpired, is inappropriate.

But if you want to take this to a business level, let's look at it from a business level. They fired a popular staff member, both among his co-workers and readers (though he did have his share of detractors too). Neither the staff or readers get a satisfactory satisfaction, and they are left to look elsewhere for answers. This is timed to go off at the same time as Eidos pulling their extensive advertising due to said reviewer's low score of the game. Little imagination is required, and the trust, which is required for an industry that boils down to belief that the opinions are honest, is shaken. Further shaking trust is the subsequent departures of other key staff members, which the average reader can only assume is departing due to them not liking the answers they were getting.

Yeah. That's seems like sound business.

As for the "personal" angle, that exists because we've come to identify with Gerstmann. You don't have to. As the word you so aptly chose summarizes, it's a personal decision.

Oh, their previews have integrity. They are consistently forgiving. If I had my way, they'd be tougher on games, but honestly, I have trouble taking major issue with the "forgive and wait for the final review" model of previewing games.
Oilers99

ok so integrity means that they can fudge previews so that we can get little tidbits of news and they can continue getting preview copies of games

but fudging reviews for money is a lack of integrity?

interesting. I must have a difference definition.

furthermore how come their so "forgiving" during previews even weeks before a game release and then really tough on their games in reviews? seems a bit inconsistant with the way this place does business.

again, the most obvious solution is usually the correct one. they brown nose on reviews to keep the devs happy and the demos, interviews coming.

[QUOTE="smerlus"]

a game rated 6 is above average by the Gamespot standards, it's us users that apply all these stipulations and things to the score. They've rated some sports games that are completely playable a 6 while just saying that it doesn't have any new modes and there are some framerate issues.

If i see a review that says everything about a game is messed up and I shouldn't buy it, then look at the rating and it's above average I seriously see something wrong with that and you can apply this to anything else that gets rated.

Another thing is, when they made a press release about why Jeff got fired, this review was the breaking point, it wasn't that they thought he was great up until then, they even said they didn't approve of his behavior prior to this or something like that. Kepping with the rule that MOST employers don't broadcast why someone got fired, this all makes sense.

Jeff could have been running around patting interns on their butts, microwaving burritos in the employee lounge and not cleaning up and had the Playgirl 2003 pin up calander in his office... and this review was the last straw.

again, looks like business and nothing personal to me.

Oilers99

I'm not arguing that scoring sub-par games in the 5s and 6s is right... I'm arguing that it's an industry wide problem that you couldn't single Gerstmann out for. It's not a huge issue in my mind, mostly because games that score in the six or lower range are ignored anyway, and certainly not something to fire someone over.

And when exactly was his "behavior" part of the equation? I never remember anyone bringing that up as a point of contention, from any side. There was the "multiple instances of tone" quote, but that doesn't really relate to behavior. Any speculation about what he "might" have been doing, without any of the circumstantial evidence that we've come to rely on to gain some understanding of the events that transpired, is inappropriate.

But if you want to take this to a business level, let's look at it from a business level. They fired a popular staff member, both among his co-workers and readers (though he did have his share of detractors too). Neither the staff or readers get a satisfactory satisfaction, and they are left to look elsewhere for answers. This is timed to go off at the same time as Eidos pulling their extensive advertising due to said reviewer's low score of the game. Little imagination is required, and the trust, which is required for an industry that boils down to belief that the opinions are honest, is shaken. Further shaking trust is the subsequent departures of other key staff members, which the average reader can only assume is departing due to them not liking the answers they were getting.

Yeah. That's seems like sound business.

As for the "personal" angle, that exists because we've come to identify with Gerstmann. You don't have to. As the word you so aptly chose summarizes, it's a personal decision.

your business angle is full of hindsight that no one would have been able to predict.

1. they fired someone who wasn't working to their satisfaction

2. a bunch of competing websites looked at a few things that happened all around the same time and a conspiracy theory popped up.

3. Fanboy backlash happened and all of a sudden gamespot is the garbage dump of the internet right behind scatty porn

4. editors that can leave left for what could be numerous reasons. A. they might not like their boss. B. their friend was fired and even C. they don't want their names attached to a site where it's own users don't have trust of anything they do thereby making their work pretty much useless.

Yeah it does seem like it started out as sound business but thanks to the internet, everything went crazy.

There is no conspiracy theory, its 100% true. CNET wants GS to be easier on the games, former members of GS have said this. Everyone that has talked to GS editors that left have said its true. Its not made up, thats what happened. dvader654

The people who left are disgruntled GS editors. I have never abruptly quit a job and said things nice about it and again these are the same editors that were easier on the game previews so they could get stay on good terms...how reliable are they anyways?

[QUOTE="smerlus"]

[QUOTE="dvader654"]There is no conspiracy theory, its 100% true. CNET wants GS to be easier on the games, former members of GS have said this. Everyone that has talked to GS editors that left have said its true. Its not made up, thats what happened. dvader654

The people who left are disgruntled GS editors. I have never abruptly quit a job and said things nice about it and again these are the same editors that were easier on the game previews so they could get stay on good terms...how reliable are they anyways?

When everyone involved and around the situtaions agree on what happend I think that makes it true. They dont know whats happening now, I am sure CNET got the message and maybe backed off, but what happend then is pretty clear.

ok so wait... Everyone that made the conspiracy and a bunch of disgruntled employees that quit say means it's true but Gerstman himself never said what it was over and Cnet says other wise?

What's keeping Gerstman from saying "yes I got fired because they wanted me to give higher scores" other than the truth?

All you have is third party sources saying what happened vs first party that has their version and another first party that's not saying anything.

Well to be perfectly honest, I can't be 100% sure which of the stories is the right one. But one thing I know, is that all these great editors wouldn't have quit a workplace they've been at and loved for so many years without a good reason. I mean, up until this incident it seemed to me like all of these guys had a blast every Thursday (On the Spot). They really loved doing reviews, previews you name it. And then suddenly they just feel like its time for them to go? Just out of the blue?

To me that seems kinda fishy. But yes, its really frustrating that none of them comes forth and really admits to what really went down. And reveals the real reason for them leaving, instead of just making it sound like it had been coming for quite som time.

But for whatever reason it might be. I must say I will really miss all those guys. Especially Jeff and Alex, I really loved those guys. And even tho he didn't take a part of this while dramatic incident, I really miss Rich Gallup aswell. He was jsut purely awesome!

I can just hope that Gamespot will find some new great guys to fill the empty space these awesome people left behind.