Gamespot's Editorial Problems in Perspective

Sam Kennedy is a guy you can respect. As the Editor of the 1up site, he's overseen some great features and some unbelievable breaking news; he also has a great point of view on the games industry. So his massive blog entry posted today talking about Gamespot's sad state of affairs post-Gerstmann-gate is something you should take seriously. Sam runs down the sordid affair itself, the changes to C|Net and Gamespot management that led to unreal expectations at Eidos, and what this could mean for the future of game reviews. "Shortly after Gerstmann was fired, I got a call from a friend at one of the major nationwide news networks asking me what I knew about what happened, as he was considering trying to pitch a story to his editor. You want to know what it was? 'Game Reviews: can they be trusted?' Basically, 'You're a parent and you're going to buy a videogame for your kids this holiday season, but can you trust those reviews you're reading on the web?' That's why this story matters so much. Gerstmann-gate ... made him want to give the industry a nice kick in the pants. I applaud his motives, but again, it's a shame to have this sort of doubt hanging over us all."

Gerstmann Was Nothing More Than A Halo Fanboy

[Anonymous Coward]

Just like sites that have been overrun with Xbox/Halo fanboys, Gamespot had a foaming at the mouth Halo fanboy in charge with Gerstmann.

Management there had grown tired of his unprofessionalism for month and finally fired his ass. Gamespot will be a better place in the long run after all the fake cries of 'outrage' and the rest his sympathizers there at Gamespot.

Gamers want unbiased information about games. Not fanboys with platform agendas or using game reviews and news as a springboard for their own self promotion. Gerstmann can now sit at home blogging about how much absolutely loves his Xbox 360 and Halo 3 and thinks its the best game ever 24/7. The rest of the gaming world outside of the Xbox niche doesn't need or want to hear that crap. Nor will they tolerate Gerstmann type crap for long be it in reviews, news, or an overall editorial tone.

Microsoft and hardcore Xbox fans did a very good job of setting up 'marketing arrangements' and landing jobs or using their existing jobs to hype the Xbox 360 and slam other platforms in news and reviews.

Sites like EMG recently got bitchslapped by a group of publishers over their fanboy review games.
And now Gamespot has been effectively purged and is on its path to once again becoming a legitimate gaming news site.

Good news for gamers. Bad new for Xbox/Halo fans who have been reveling in their fellow fans at review sites abusing their positions.

Driv3r

[Enderandrew]

I thought it was leaked that Atari out-right paid for Driv3r reviews, many of which were extremely high despite the game sucking. When it came out, many sites claimed they only gave high reviews because they tested an early very-buggy build for a few hours, and then was told all the bugs would be fixed before retail ship. When the game actually shipped as a buggy mess (not to mention, a piss-poor game) the reviewers were claiming they never played the retail game and gave a review based on hype and expectations.

Either you believe what I consider a lie, and then reviews are worthless because they're based on hype, or you call them liars and reviews are worthless because publishers pay for them.

Take your pick. Personally, what I'm looking for (and what I rarely see) is a good description of how gameplay goes down. I don't need an arbitrary score, because the reviewer and I might not have the same tastes. We all like differen genres of games. But if the review does a very good job describing objectively what gameplay is like, then I might be able to decide for myself whether or not I will enjoy the game.

Kind of ruining your own argument with blizzard

[SmallFurryCreature]

Until WoW SOE was the big (western) MMORPG company and seemed to have the market in its grasp. People tought that the half a million or so subscribers to EQ at one point was the maximum market.

And then Blizzard came along and didn't so much raise the bar as send it into orbit.

Currently SOE has a lousy reputation, which makes me extremely reluctant to try any new MMO from them, Pirates of the Burning Seas is the latest and altough it was developed outside SOE, well so was Vanguard.

I on the other hand would have little trouble in putting in a pre-order for the next Blizzard MMO title (Sorry, never was much of a RTS fan).

Rep matters and the suits know it. Why do you think suit run companies change their name constantly and have huge marketing campaigns? Because when all else sucks you hope you can bluff your way into having a good rep.

Re:A reputation

[king-manic]

The value of a reputation is difficult to quantify. Blizzard has a great reputation because all of its games have been solid. But what is the value? A Blizzard title may sell just as many as many other titles that year. So suits may look at that and say that the reputation itself has no value. They they calculate the profits from a cheap spinoff title, and release Starcraft:Ghost.

Reputation has a great deal of value. They operate in a market that usually sells titles in the hundreds of thousands on average. They sell millions. They release a small 30s snippet from a game and get more free advertising then most titles receive in paid advertising. They have a user base that will buy the game first and then look for reviews only to re-affirm the value of their purchase. I know that if Diablo 3 comes out, I will first check into a rehab isolation clinic.. then check out 15 min later check out and buy it. For SC2, I have 2 weeks vacation I rolled from last year and all my vacation this year reserved so I can use it to take a month off when it comes out. etc...

EA

[Anonymous Coward]

The article mentions that EA has a "hands off" approach when it comes to review scores. Part of why this is key is the upper management decides if a game was "good" not just on sales, but directly on its metacritic score. If they mucked about with the scores, they would not then be able to use those scores as a good metric on what games to make in the future (and thus make more games people wanted to buy and thus make more money).

As much as people hate EA in these parts, they understand the business and they understand what's important for the long term, rather than the short term.

Re:Driv3r

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately, reviewing "retail copies only" means that your review isn't going to come out until at least a few days *after* the product hits the shelves (a month later if you're doing a magazine review). Which is fine if you're reviewing vacuum cleaners, but not okay in the gaming world, when you can get a million people shell out $60 to get a copy the first day of release.