Gamespot Reviewer Fired after Poor Review for Sponsor's Game

Editor blogs seem to be confirming the worst as well, though obviously not blatantly (that'd get them locked out of their offices too).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by g0zen

Those stores, especially Target and Wal-Mart, only offer the big franchises. I made this clear in my earlier posts. But it doesn't matter, the argument is long over. You missed the boat.

---

Actually, those big box stores seem to have great selection here. I could find The Red Star at Wal-Mart but not at EB, for instance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vasteel

It isn't a surprise, but it is highly unprofessional and unethical 'journalism'. This wasn't a story kill, they ran it and then backpedaled. These are two different things. I'm surprised that it was the writer in this case and not his EIC who was put out to pasture.

---

Jeff was the EIC.

When it comes to journalistic integrity, is Gamespot worse than IGN, 1up, EGM, GamePro, etc?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biff-chan

Meh, it's a video game site, who really gives a fuck? It's not like Tom Brokaw all over again or anything.

---

... you mean Dan Rather?

It seems like ineffective management to Tommy Tallarico. The story that Gerstmann was dropped over being a negative nancy is stupid shit... if that was really bugging Gamespot, they should've talked to the guy, said "Jeff, tone down the bitchy shit," and refilmed the video review. It looks like no one ever really put the guy on notice, and Gamespot locking him out of his office instead of giving him a proper exit talk adds evidence to CNet not knowing how to handle their business.

The guy was dropped over being a dick to advertisers, and it's actually the best thing that's ever happened for everyone that has ever played a videogame and looked at a gaming site. Now we'll finally get somewhere at setting things the way they should be, instead of having to resort to conspiracy theories every time a score seems off. This twin size bed isn't big enough for the advertisers and publishers to get intimate with each other anymore.

Tommy Tallarico

You'd think they'd learn how to convey that a game is crap in a sly way, rather than the direct way that ticks off advertisers. The Brits seems much better at it. If the masses don't catch the sarcasm, too bad for them. Like in a preview, where it says "if they fix A, B, C, X, Y and Z, this will be an incredible game." Veteran readers know what that means.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by article

Other publishers have started giving us notes involving when our reviews can go up; if a game's getting a 9 or above, it can go up early; if not, it'll have to wait until after the game is on the shelves.

---

Companies are compromising their integrity by allowing this. If you give a game a bad review, you have to wait until it's released? Fuck that.

I've long known that if a company waits until the last minute to give a review copy to IGN, that means the game will suck. When IGN tells me that (before it hits the shelves), I know what it means. Even with these embargoes, they should at least find some way to signal before release that something's fishy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RoleTroll

You'd think they'd learn how to convey that a game is crap in a sly way, rather than the direct way that ticks off advertisers. The Brits seems much better at it. If the masses don't catch the sarcasm, too bad for them. Like in a preview, where it says "if they fix A, B, C, X, Y and Z, this will be an incredible game." Veteran readers know what that means.

---

This is stupid. If advertisers don't want to be pissed off, they shouldn't drop buckets of cash to promote a dog of a game. It's not the writer's fault that the gamemakers made a shitty game and decided to bet on it, and the writer shouldn't have to consider these things when reviewing something. Review doesn't mean "speak your mind as long as you like what you see or use doublespeak."

Tommy Tallarico