| GameBump |

GameSpot (Finally) Responds to 'GerstmannGate' Questions

Aaron Dunlap — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 12:39:54 -0600

At long last, GameSpot has issued a full Q&A regarding Jeff Gerstmann's firing and the swarms of conspiracy-theory rumors surrounding it, his Kane & Lynch review, the many edits to it, Eidos's reaction to it, and what really motivated the firing.

Unlike the last statement, this post contains significantly less legal stonewalling and seeming coverup.

Q: Why was the Kane & Lynch review text altered?

A: Jeff's supervisors and select members of the edit team felt the review's negativity did not match its "fair" 6.0 rating. The copy was adjusted several days after its publication so that it better meshed with its score, which remained unchanged. The achievements and demerits it received were also left unaltered. Additionally, clarifications were made concerning the game's multiplayer mode and to include differences between the Xbox 360 and PS3 versions of the game.

Q: Why was the Kane & Lynch video review taken down?

A: Both the text and video reviews of Kane & Lynch went up on Tuesday, November 13. The morning of Wednesday, November 14, the video was taken down due to concerns of quality. Specifically, its audio was deemed inferior due to a faulty microphone. There were also concerns about the limited amount of footage, which was unrepresentative of the game in the review.

Q: Why wasn't the video immediately reposted?

A: Due to the crush of high-profile games being released the following week, there were insufficient resources to reshoot and re-edit the video review.

And...

Q: Was Eidos Interactive upset by the game's review?

A: It has been confirmed that Eidos representatives expressed their displeasure to their appropriate contacts at GameSpot, but not to editorial directly. It was not the first time a publisher has voiced disappointment with a game review, and it won't be the last. However, it is strict GameSpot policy never to let any such feelings result in a review score to be altered or a video review to be pulled.

Q: Did Eidos' disappointment cause Jeff to be terminated?

A: Absolutely not.

Q: Did Eidos' disappointment cause the alteration of the review text?

A: Absolutely not.

Q: Did Eidos' disappointment lead to the video review being pulled down?

A: Absolutely not.

Q: Why was GameSpot "skinned" with Kane & Lynch ads when Jeff was terminated?

A: Due to design and development considerations, media buys on GameSpot are made weeks in advance. The timing of said ads was extremely unfortunate but was purely coincidental and determined solely by the game's release date of November 13, 2007.

It seems like a rather thorough squelching of the fires. It was just a fantastic series of coincidences all happening at just the right time in just the right order to completely throw several companies' credibility into question. Happens all the time.

Gerstmann's K&L Review Was Heavily 'Toned Down' Post-Firing

Aaron Dunlap — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 10:31:53 -0600

We all knew that shortly after Jeff Gerstmann was fired from GameSpot, some changes were made to his Kane & Lynch review. What we didn't know was how extensive those changes were.

Going off of a Google cache of an EB Games page that featured the original review, Joystiq was able to piece together all of the edits made to the original version.

Basically, it was heavily toned down in attitude. The wording of several complaints goes from active to passive neutral, such as the line:

"it's extremely difficult to care about anything that's happening to them." [the main characters]

...being changed to...

"it'll probably be tough for you to find anyone to latch onto and care about, even if you typically go for this sort of crime drama on TV or in movies."

And...

"So whether you're doing the shooting yourself or hanging back and letting your men do the dirty work, the game is a real letdown."

...to...

"So whether you're doing the shooting yourself or hanging back and letting your men do the dirty work, the game is a real disappointment, especially when you consider how well this same sort of stuff worked in the developer's previous squad-based game, Freedom Fighters."

The whole thing seems watered down to remove some of the "bite." It makes you wonder, if GameSpot actually had a problem with it, wouldn't they have changed these things during the pre-publishing process where nearly everybody on the review team looks over and makes changes to a review? The fact that the changes were made after publishing makes it seem like the changes were done at the request of an outside party.

If Jeff was fired for submitting an angrily-worded review instead of a nice, casual, everbody's-a-winner one, the review either wouldn't have been published or the changes would have been made before publishing. Making the changes after publishing means somebody saw it and decided it needed to be changed, be them from CNet management, a GameSpot manager who didn't see the review pre-publication, or someone from some outside party like a game developer or something.

The full body of the review with modifications highlighted by Joystiq is included after the jump.

Gamespot's Kane & Lynch Review
By Jeff Gerstmann

Kane & Lynch: Dead Men has a lot of promise, but nothing in this game works out nearly as well as you'd hope.

[Removed from original: Kane & Lynch: Dead Men is an ugly game, and we're not necessarily talking about the graphics. This criminal tale is packed with a collection of completely unlikable characters with no redeeming value whatsoever. It's impossible to even root for them as antiheroes. Once you get past the messy, meaningless story, things don't get too much better because you're saddled with clunky artificial intelligence on the part of your allies and your enemies, as well as a core shooting mechanic that simply doesn't satisfy. The unfortunate part is that the game does have a few bright points and feels like it had a lot of potential that just didn't come together as well as anyone must have hoped.]

[Added in edits: Io Interactive is best known for its stealth-focused Hitman series, but there's nothing quiet and sneaky about its latest release, Kane & Lynch: Dead Men. This time around, the developer put together a crime-themed shooter that starts out with a couple of simple, heist-like objectives and then rapidly spins out of control until, without much warning, you're gunning down soldiers in the middle of a foreign revolution. While the journey sounds interesting at first, and has a few bright points, it's weighed down by bad storytelling, a real lack of character development, and a host of gameplay-related issues. The end result is a game that squanders much of its potential and just doesn't come together as well as it probably should have.]

The story mode opens with you in the role of Kane, a death row inmate on his way to his execution, apparently convicted of being a very savage criminal as part of a notorious gang called The7. You're on your last ride with a quirky guy named Lynch who tells you to cover your head. After an explosion, you're both busted out and on the run. That might sound great, but it's a fate worse than death. The surviving members of The7 have busted you out to force you to recover something they think you stole from them. They consider you a traitor and will kill Kane's family if he doesn't comply. Lynch is sent along for the ride to watch over Kane and report in if anything weird happens. Circumstances change over time and the back half plays out like a revenge tale, but it's a revenge tale where you don't actually care if anyone actually gets their revenge. Every single person you play as or encounter is despicable and wholly abrasive; thus, [it's extremely difficult to care about anything that's happening to them.] [it'll probably be tough for you to find anyone to latch onto and care about, even if you typically go for this sort of crime drama on TV or in movies.] You can play through this story alone or with a friend in co-op mode, though this mode is only available locally and takes place on a vertically split screen that makes it difficult to follow the action, even on a widescreen TV.

The core gameplay in Kane & Lynch is your standard third-person shooter with cover elements and a light dusting of squad tactics. You can fire from the hip, but it's somewhat more accurate to fire while aiming. Unfortunately, even when you're aiming, hitting your targets is more difficult than it should be because your automatic fire has a wide spread on it. Kane is supposedly a badass arch-criminal; he should be able to hit his targets with short, controlled bursts. You're able to get behind cover and either blindfire or pop out for aimed shots, but there's no easy way to stick to walls. You don't press a button or anything; instead you sort of get up against a wall and turn sideways. Then after jiggling the controls back and forth a bit, you'll eventually snap into place to get behind cover. It's such a pain that you'll rarely want to use it, and it seems like you're always snapping into cover behind something at the most inopportune times, making the game quite frustrating. There's no health meter, but if you go down, you don't die immediately either. You can be revived by one of your teammates with an adrenaline shot. If you get that shot too frequently, you'll overdose and die. If your teammates don't reach you in time, you'll die too. Also, if one of the guys on your crew gets dropped, you have to make sure he gets revived. If he dies, the game ends. Between your poor accuracy, the enemy's sharp accuracy, and the boneheaded AI from your squadmates, this all adds up to you keeping your squad on a very short leash.
When you've got a team with you, you can order team members around individually or order the team all at once by telling it to regroup to your location, move to a specific spot, or attack specific targets. Telling team members to move to locations is the most effective move because you can keep them close and revive them when they get shot down. Sending them after targets results in your squad running around aimlessly and trying to get too close to targets. That leads to them getting dropped in the line of fire, where you probably won't be able to rescue them. So whether you're doing the shooting yourself or hanging back and letting your men do the dirty work, the game is a real [letdown.] [disappointment, especially when you consider how well this same sort of stuff worked in the developer's previous squad-based game, Freedom Fighters.]

There's only one multiplayer mode in Kane & Lynch, and it's a great idea. [Unfortunately, the idea doesn't translate into a great or long-lasting experience.] It's called Fragile Alliance and puts up to eight players in one team of criminals. Then, it sets the team off to steal money, cocaine, and jewels from various locations seen in the single-player game. So you might start out in front of a bank, run in, collect a bunch of cash, and then escape from in a van out back. The catch is the way the money is split up among teammates. If you all work together, the money is split evenly. But at any point, a player can go rogue and gun down one of his teammates. This brands you a traitor; thus, any money you collect and escape with is yours to keep. Of course, this also means that other players who are still part of the team will try to waste you before you escape with their hard-stolen loot. So every round is a tentative affair where you always expect the worst--you're just never sure when someone's going to finally turn on you. When you die, whether it's from the AI that opposes you or another player, you respawn on the other side of the heist. Now you need to stop the heist by eliminating the other players and you earn money by collecting it before the criminals collect.

[It's a great idea that's] [It's a bummer that the multiplayer is] mucked up by a few different things. First, you're still playing Kane & Lynch, so all of the inaccurate firing issues and poor cover tactics from the single-player still apply. But another problem is that you can see the names of the other players over their heads from a distance and through walls, even if they're on the other side. While you can run while crouched to make your name disappear, it's pretty weak that you can see the names of the police team members as they head your way. There's no element of surprise. Also, there are only a handful of different scenarios for this, and they play out the same way every single time. The security guards are always in the same positions in the bank and the cops are always waiting for you right outside, so it gets old fast.

[Technically,] [While it might seem like a basic heist game, Kane & Lynch does a good job of moving the action around, and you'll see a variety of different environments and situations, ranging from banks, to prison breaks, to full-scale conflicts in the middle of illicit poppy fields. It also has some] good-looking player models, with Kane and Lynch both looking appropriate as over-the-hill criminals. And even though their faces don't animate much in-game, they still look good. Most of the animation isn't so hot, though, and you'll see a few ugly textures here and there too. Some of it looks a bit unfinished, like the way you see guys go through the motion of hitting you with an adrenaline shot, but their hands are actually empty.

[The multiplayer mode is a really cool idea that leaves you wondering who's going to turn traitor on you, but it isn't strong enough to make you forget the game's other problems.]

The soundtrack is probably the best part of the whole game, delivering some tense music when the game calls for it. There's a lot of voice acting in the game. The voices are appropriate for the characters, but the dialogue is hokey and filled with [lazy] [gratuitous] cursing. The good ol' F word is certainly appropriate, given the nature of what these guys are doing, but when it's every third word out of every character's mouth, it comes across as a crutch that drags down the rest of the game a bit. Lynch frequently responds to your squad-orders by just shouting "F*** you!" [That's just lame.] [Things like that just make the game feel purposely abrasive, and not in a "gritty" or "cool" sort of way.]

[The game is available on the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 as of this writing, and the differences between the two versions are minimal. Both games have occasional frame rate issues and the control issues with finding cover and hitting targets are noticeable in both. The only real difference is that the PlayStation 3 version doesn't seem to have voice chat support. The multiplayer mode only really clicks when you can talk things out with other players and try to convince them that you're not going to turn traitor--only to turn traitor on them and then laugh about it. Without that, the whole experience feels a little dry. The Xbox 360 version also has the standard set of 1,000 achievement points, a few of which reward you for specific moments in co-op, like having the player controlling Lynch put a few cops out of their misery, rather than leaving them to writhe on the ground.]

Kane & Lynch: Dead Men is a premise with promise, [but the gameplay isn't sound while the story and characters go nowhere. And it's got enough random AI-based glitches to make you want to scream. Considering] [and if you've been waiting patiently for a game to really dive into the whole "crew-based heist tale" concept, you might be able to look past some of the story flaws. But when you consider] the nearly ridiculous number of extremely high-quality shooters available recently, there's not much room for something like Kane & Lynch, [but] [even taking into account the somewhat unique nature of its story. That said,] the multiplayer is a smart idea that's worth seeing, even if playing it makes you wish that it was used in another, better game.

[Editor's Note: This review has been updated to include differences between the Xbox 360 and PS3 versions and a clarification on the game's multiplayer mode.]

Eidos Reduces K&L Fake Rating Complaints to 'Eidos Bashing'

Shiva Stella — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 13:57:14 -0600

Hey, at least our star is real.

While gamers and gaming journalists everywhere are currently in an uproar regarding GameSpot's firing of Jeff Gerstmann over a poor review score for Eidos Interactive's Kane & Lynch: Dead Men (you can check out our own review here), what's interesting is that Eidos itself has refrained from commenting on the K&L fiasco.

In particular, the company's blatant graphical lie about the game's review scores, which we noticed were preview quotes paired with star rankings that didn't exist (GameSpy was recorded as having given the title a five star rating when the actual review issued three stars; similarily, Game Informer was recorded as issuing a five star rating when it scored the title a 7/10, which is funny because Game Informer doesn't even use a star system).

While Eidos Interactive has remained quiet on the issue, the company's PR trolls have been hard at work handling the damage control on various Kane & Lynch "fan" sites, including this one, which contains a post in which an "Eidos Official" comments that, indeed, those cheeky five stars weren't meant to be viewed as scores because obviously it's common practice to issue star ratings for game previews. Here's the full quote:

One of the sites quoted gave us a score of 7, however it still showed 5 stars. Reason why? they were not actually supposed to be seen as a score. Yes i know you are all gonna say `pull the other one`. However look at the facts (which people seem to ignore), those quotes and stars have been there since the page launched, before ANY review code or scores were received. So the only reason they are being picked on now is cos its fashionable right now to hate us and bash us and everyone is scaling the wall trying to find something new to bash us for.

FYI this is my personal thoughts and opinions and should not be seen as an official comment in any way shape or form.

In the words of our own Aaron Dunlap, who broke the original story, "Silly us for thinking that a star near a review had something to do with reviews giving stars."

What's infuriating about this "graphical misrepresentation" of game scores that don't exist is that Eidos would "forget" to remove the intentionally misleading star graphics and then explain away the fans' negative reaction to being outright lied to as simple Eidos bashing - "bashing" Eidos apparently being the hip thing to do.

What's even more hilarious is that while the stars have since been removed from the official site's splash introduction, the site still parades preview quotes around as though they were the official "review" word on the title.

In other Eidos news, the game's official Eidos forum has been unlocked and is now available for posting. At one point an Eidos admin actually responds to a fan's statement that "they [the stars] are MEANT to be misinterpreted so that people will be misled into thinking K&L is a better game than it is and [buy] it" with:

You mean this is an [advertisement] that is not quite scientifically based? Wow, I never thought I would see the day an advertisement tried to sell me something.

Read: it is peachy to outright lie about your game's review scores if you can get away with labeling them as "design decisions". Thanks for the heads up, Eidos.

GameSpot (Finally) Issues a Statement Regarding Gerstmann

Aaron Dunlap — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 20:28:49 -0600

Though rumors and questions have been spiraling out of control for 4 days now, including proposed boycotts of GameSpot, all of their advertisers, and Eidos, GameSpot has only now issued a statement regarding Jeff Gerstmann's departure from the company.

The article is carefully worded and includes no mention of why Jeff left, or even whether he was fired or not. Although, it does include this:

Due to legal constraints and the company policy of GameSpot parent CNET Networks, details of Gerstmann's departure cannot be disclosed publicly. However, contrary to widespread and unproven reports, his exit was not a result of pressure from an advertiser.

(Emphasis added.)

Greg Brannan, CNET Networks Entertainment's vice president of programming, is quoted as saying, "The accusations in the media that it has done so are unsubstantiated and untrue. Jeff's departure stemmed from internal reasons unrelated to any buyer of advertising on GameSpot."

Comments posted to the article seem to be largely of the opinion that GameSpot's statement is too little, too late. There is still the question of why Gerstmann's video review of Kane & Lynch (a game I wasn't too impressed with) was taken offline along with all Kane & Lynch advertisements immediately after Gerstmann's departure.

According to GameSpot, several staff members will be posting tributes and farewells in the coming week.

Amazon, PC Gamer Quick To Capitalize On Firing

Aaron Dunlap — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 18:30:32 -0600

Do a Google search for Jeff Gerstmann and you might be troubled by the automatic advertisement that appears on the right-hand side.

They Fired Jeff?
Get reviews from PC Gamer instead.

The link goes to an Amazon.com page at which you can subscribe to PC Gamer. It's a little funny, but I think it's slightly more pathetic. Someone lost their job. The entire game review industry is under suspicion. They want to sell magazines?

UPDATE: Using our own Google Adwords account, we sent a message to Amazon. See below:

The Amazon ad was removed soon afterwards.

Official Kane & Lynch Website Lies About Its Scores

Aaron Dunlap — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 17:26:44 -0600

At the heart of this Jeff Gerstmann controversy is the unconfirmed notion that Eidos was upset with GameSpot's 6/10 review of the game. While we have no way of knowing if that is actually what happened, it seems that Eidos might just be completely delusional about the media reception for the game.

If you go to the official Kane & Lynch website and watch the flash intro that plays before the main content appears, you'll see two excerpts from reviews flash by with a 5-star rating for each. The problem is, those reviews did not issue a 5-star, or 100% rating.

It lists a GameSpy review with the quote, "It's the best emulation of being in the midst of a Michael Mann movie we've ever seen." This quote doesn't exist from GameSpy's review. It's pulled from some early E3 2007 coverage that would have been published at least 5 months ago. The preview issues no kind of score or rating that could be perceived as a 5-star rating.

In fact, GameSpy's actual review gave Kane & Lynch a 3-star rating. Three stars, on a 5-star scale, equates to a 60%, or 6-out-of-10 score, which is exactly what Gerstmann gave the game.

The Kane & Lynch webpage also lists a quote from Game Informer: "A mercenary, a psychopath, & a bundle of cash... what could go wrong?" and also lists it with a 5-star rating. That quote also does not appear in Game Informer's review, it seems to be pulled from an early preview. And if you guessed that Game Informer's actual review gave the game a 5-star score, you'd be both wrong and stupid. They gave it a 7/10.

It's common for game PR to include preview quotes on early advertisements, as those are the only kind of quotes available before the game's release. Never before, however, have I seen preview quotes being paraded around as reviews, and also given completely imaginary scores to boot.

Delusion. Complete delusion.

Screenshots of the website are included after the jump.

UPDATE: GameBump (that's us) gave Kane & Lynch a 1-star review. And no, it's not a joke.
UPDATE UPDATE: Apparently people are mad at Eidos because "Eidos Bashing" is the thing to do.

ZiffDavis Shows Their Support For Gerstmann

Aaron Dunlap — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 20:39:34 -0600

Several staff members from Ziff Davis Media (owners of, among other things, 1UP and EGM) put together banners and marched down the street from their San Francisco offices to CNet's office where GameSpot is based and held an impromptu support rally from the street.

This whole fiasco has really brought everybody in the gaming media together in communal outrage. I'm sure that these folks, CNet and GameSpot's largest competators, are genuinely showing support here, but the whole thing was recorded and could very well be a bit for the 1UP Show. Either way, I applaud the notion.

Idea: Maybe GameSpot Needs A Writers Strike

Aaron Dunlap — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 11:55:17 -0600

If you've been following entertainment news lately you're probably aware that the Writers Guild of America (the people who write our TV shows and movies) are on strike because studio executives refuse to increase the percentages of online and DVD sales distributed to the writers.

Writers fear they are being treated unfairly, so they strike. They stop working, showing management how important they are.

If you've been following video game journalism news lately, you're probably aware that Jeff Gerstmann, an editor from GameSpot was apparently fired because Eidos put financial pressure on them of CNet, their owners, over a negative review Gerstmann gave to Kane & Lynch.

If I were a writer at GameSpot now, I would be terrified to submit any writing in fear that my job could be at stake for simply crafting an opinion: what their job requires. I couldn't do my job if it became apparent that credibility was for sale.

I'd go on strike. I'd stop submitting reviews or news. I'd stop working.

That's what I'd do, maybe it's what GameSpot writers should do.

Interesting to note, there haven't been any reviews posted at GameSpot today or yesterday. Maybe they're already refusing to submit reviews.

Gerstmann Firing Not GameSpot's Fault, Says Mod

Aaron Dunlap — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 10:34:04 -0600

According to a post by a moderator at the linked page of the GameSpot forums, if anybody at the GameSpot (not Eidos) side of this issue is to be blamed, it's CNET, not GameSpot itself. CNET handles advertising for GameSpot and all other property sites, and they handle hiring/firing.

From the thread:

People, don't direct your anger at Gamespot. This is CNet's meddling. Gamespot consists just of the editorial, news, community, and development teams. It's CNet's marketing that puts the ads up. CNet's marketing that complained. CNet is who can fire their EIC.

This makes sense to me. CNet, as owners of GameSpot and damn near a thousand other websites, would be the ones handling HR and marketing rather than having each individual property doing it themselves; that would be redundant.

So who should we blame here? Eidos for pressuring CNet into firing Gerstmann over a bad review of a game they've been paying CNet to promote, or CNet for caving to pressure and firing a journalist for doing his job?

UPDATE: However, there would of course be people within GameSpot's management that can fire people. Complete control wouldn't be handed over to CNet.

[UPDATED] Eidos Backlash Begins: Eidos.com is Down

Aaron Dunlap — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 10:05:07 -0600

I'd heard that the forums over at Eidos.com were going completely crazy over the firing of GameSpot's Jeff Gerstmann over a negative Kane & Lynch review so I was on my way to the site to collect some quotes or screenshots and, well, the site was down.

Needless to say, the entire internets are in an uproar over this (now confirmed) firing. Gerstmann's Wikipedia article has been locked from changes by new users due to vandalism.

If it turns out to be true that Eidos forced GameSpot to fire Gerstmann over a negative review, there will soon be unleashed a holy hellstorm of outrage that this industry has never before witnessed.

UPDATE: The GameSpot homepage now includes no mention of Kane & Lynch, but yesterday there were many images and links to the review. The GameSpot forums don't seem too pleased. This thread alone has over 4,000 replies so far.

UPDATE UPDATE: We've received word that Tim Tracey, another GameSpot employee, has left his job today. As we understand it, he left voluntarily. We can't confirm whether this is related to the Gerstmann firing. Tracey worked in the video production team for GameSpot LIVE then moved to MP3.com.

UPDATE THE THIRD: Eidos.com and Eidosinteractive.com are back online. The US Eidos forums are also back, though every forum is locked and nearly all threads related to Gerstmann have been purged. There is this one, but it ends rather tersely.

Long-Time GameSpot Editor Fired. Negative Review To Blame?

Aaron Dunlap — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 20:04:26 -0600

We have it on good authority from a source close to GameSpot that Jeff Gerstmann, a GameSpot employee for over 10 years and more recently titled as an editorial director was abruptly fired yesterday.

While there is no official reason for this, many people (our source included) and convinced that he was fired because of a somewhat negative review of EIDOS's Kane & Lynch: Dead men. EIDOS had been advertising pretty heavily on GameSpot recently, and apparently the 6.0 didn't please them.

We received the following statement from the Human Relations department of C|NET after inquiry.

"... it is CNET Networks company policy to never comment on individual employees current or former regarding their job status. This policy is in place out of respect for the individuals privacy."

Interestingly, the online gaming-themed comic Penny Arcade has just published this strip, featuring the firing of Gerstmann. How they knew about it is anybody's guess at this point, as no news story has been posted for it yet. Keep in mind that there is no official confirmation from any parties about the firing.

Today there was no episode of On The Spot, a video segment that Gerstmann typically hosts.

GameSpot's 6/10 review of the game, while low, isn't unique. GamePro and GameSpy also gave the game 60% scores, with no high-profile outlets giving any scores above a 90%.