GameSpot reviewer fired because of review?

[Glockstar]

That's the rumor. But this isn't news that you're going to see over at GameSpot:

The lowdown:
GameSpot Editorial Director Jeff Gerstmann was unceremoniously fired yesterday after 10 years of working for the site.

Eidos, publisher of the game Kane & Lynch (which came out November 13) had had the GameSpot website blanketed with Kane & Lynch advertisements - as part of a fairly strong marketing push for the game - for a good couple of weeks... since before the game released thru, I think, yesterday.


This is where things get curious/interesting:
Gerstmann reviewed Kane & Lynch for GameSpot... and gave the game a score of 6.0.

He also did a video review of the game. The video review is no longer available.

Kane & Lynch ads are no longer present on the site. Is it because of natural reasons - was that simply just the end of the marketing campaign. And a mere coincidence (that the ads were pulled the same day as Gerstmann was fired)? Or... is Eidos pissed at GameSpot/Gerstmann?


Some strange things going on:
GameSpot issues short comment on Gerstmann firing
In the wake of the rumors surrounding Jeff Gerstmann's suspicious removal as editorial director of Gamespot, Gamespot owner CNET has issued a short, official comment on the situation. "GameSpot takes its editorial integrity extremely seriously," the statement reads. "For over a decade, Gamespot and the many members of its editorial team have produced thousands of unbiased reviews that have been a valuable resource for the gaming community. At CNET Networks, we stand behind the editorial content that our teams produce on a daily basis."

As for Gerstmann specifically, CNET repeated their assertion that "it is CNET Networks' policy not to comment on the status of its employees, current of former."

http://www.joystiq.com/2007/11/30/gamespot-issues-short-comment-on-gerstmann-firing/


GameSpot replies to inquiries around firing of editorial director with statement about site's integrity.
While the loss of a high-profile editor is a negative for any publication, GameSpot has recently lost several editors in recent months and Gerstmann was one of the last two remain original editors on the GameSpot staff. Some of those losses seem to stem from disagreements with CNET's new style of management and a rethinking about how the company does business.

http://www.gamedaily.com/articles/news/jeff-gerstmann-departs-gamespot/18710


GameSpot denies Eidos pressured firing of Gerstmann
We just got off the phone with Sarah Cain, a CNET spokesperson who wanted to amend CNET's previous statement to Joystiq on the recent firing of executive editor Jeff Gerstmann. While reiterating that CNET does not discuss personal employee matters with the press, Cain said directly that "we do not terminate employees based on external pressure from advertisers." When asked specifically about whether any such pressure was even attempted on Eidos' part, Cain had no comment. We're still waiting for a response to multiple e-mail requests for comment by Eidos PR.

While we had Cain on the line, we also asked her about the odd disappearance of Gerstmann's video review of the game from the GameSpot site. She responded by pointing out a note at the bottom of the still-running text review for the game, which states that "this review has been updated to include differences between the Xbox 360 and PS3 versions and a clarification on the game's multiplayer mode."

When pressed for clarification, Cain said that this note applied to the video review as well. "At the bottom of the post of the [text] review we made a note that we have updated the review, and we made those decisions based on our own editorial standards," she said. "It was our decision to take down the [video] review." Given this justification, we can't help but wonder why GameSpot couldn't just edit the video review, as they did the text version. Why remove the entire thing if the problem was really just a "clarification?" When asked just that question, Cain reiterated her initial statement.

http://www.joystiq.com/2007/11/30/gamespot-denies-eidos-pressured-firing-of-gertsmann/


Joystiq has been covering the story in detail. Link to their outline and to other related links/articles. (http://www.joystiq.com/2007/11/30/rumor-gamespots-editorial-director-fired-over-kane-and-lynch-rev/)

[Zilla Man]

Yeah, this was all over NeoGaf yesterday. A lot of people are planning to boycott Gamespot, CNET, and Eidos:

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=212539

and the original thread:

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=212394

And here's the actual review (which was taken down by Gamespot):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FuJ81sDR2o

From what I've heard from people who've played through the game, this review is fairly accurate. Too bad Gamespot can't simply be honest.

[ilnadmy]

Damn that sucks. I don't particularly like Gerstmann, but he's one of the reviewers who doesn't shy away from giving hyped-up games lower review scores than other sites (BioShock and Twilight Princess come to mind). CNET is really shooting themselves in the foot by doing this.

[Shinjifei]

Jeff's pretty alright and if this is true i'll be canceling my subscription to gamespot.

[Glockstar]

It's strange, but I do find myself rather down on GameSpot now. I usually visit their site, like, daily, but am now checking out other vg websites, "shopping" for a replacement.

Well 1UP was one of my stops today. And lo-and-behold they actually had a kind of article on this news/controversy. Here's a link to the full article. (http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3164656) While here's an excerpt:

But pressure from other advertisers may have contributed to the clash with editorial. Just a few weeks prior, GameSpot came under fire from Sony Computer Entertainment America for scoring Ratchet & Clank Future: Tools of Destruction a 7.5. In his former position, Gerstmann was responsible for overseeing (and defending) all reviews.

-

If you read the full 1UP article you'll see that they cite another website, Valleywag (who?), for a large portion of the article's content. The Valleywag article is VERY INTERESTING. The content of this article is mostly comprised of a post made by a, supposedly, GameSpot insider. Is it legit?

Link to (http://valleywag.com/tech/jeff-gerstmann/gamespot-editor--on-fired-reviewer-328775.php)

Here's some of what this, supposed, GameSpot employee wrote:

"What you might not be aware of is that GS is well known for appealing mostly to hardcore gamers. The mucky-mucks have been doing a lot of "brand research" over the last year or so and indicating that they want to reach out to more casual gamers. Our last executive editor, Greg Kasavin, left to go to EA, and he was replaced by a suit, Josh Larson, who had no editorial experience and was only involved on the business side of things. Over the last year there has been an increasing amount of pressure to allow the advertising teams to have more of a say in the editorial process; we've started having to give our sales team heads-ups when a game is getting a low score, for instance, so that they can let the advertisers know that before a review goes up. 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.

I was in the meeting where Josh Larson was trying to explain this firing and the guy had absolutely no response to any of the criticisms we were sending his way. He kept dodging the question, saying that there were "multiple instances of tone" in the reviews that he hadn't been happy about, but that wasn't Jeff's problem since we all vet every review. He also implied that "AAA" titles deserved more attention when they were being reviewed, which sounded to all of us that he was implying that they should get higher scores, especially since those titles are usually more highly advertised on our site.

I know that it's all about the money, and hey, I like money. I like advertising because it pays my salary. Unfortunately after Kasavin left the church-and-state separation between the sales teams and the editorial team has cracked, and with Jeff's firing I think it's clear that the management now has no interest at all in integrity and are instead looking for an editorial team that will be nicer to the advertisors.

When companies make games as downright contemptible as Kane and Lynch, they deserve to be called on it. I guess you'll have to go to Onion or a smaller site for objective reviews now, because everyone at GS now thinks that if they give a low score to a high-profile game, they'll be ****canned. Everyone's ****ing scared and we're all hoping to get Josh Larson removed from his position because no one trusts him anymore. If that doesn't happen then look for every game to be Game of the Year material at GameSpot."


Wow. Can you imagine if that's legit...

[folken001]

Damn that sucks. I don't particularly like Gerstmann, but he's one of the reviewers who doesn't shy away from giving hyped-up games lower review scores than other sites (BioShock and Twilight Princess come to mind). CNET is really shooting themselves in the foot by doing this.
I think he does on purpose. If a game is hyped, he tends to be over critical to it. That's the problem I think.

I love how peopel are overracting to this bs and are threatening to cancel their subscriptions. I say, go ahead. there are like, what, 400 peoople who cancelled? For about 1-2 dollar an issue, that's not really a big loss to anyone. If I had subscription to gamespot, I would not cancel it for this. I believe there are way more people who don't care about him being fired than who do.

I doubt most of these whiners even care about Kane and Lynch. I also doubt most of them read the actual review. I furthermore doubt most of them even played the game.

[T.Tashi]

Damn talk about absolutely no journalistic integrity.

I started staying away from GS for a while now because I felt their reviews were really shaky on both the high and low ends, but I still checked out their reviews because they've been around so long. But if you come up outside the ethics of journalism I guess this kind of thing seems like it might not be so bad but it is. Editorial is different from news in that editorials deal with opinions. News should be objective and deal in fact. Editorials don't have to perse. Unless the news organization is slanted one way or another, even editorials will present opinions in balance. You run a right wing columnist one day, you run a liberal columnist the next day. I think EGM tries to do this with their little second opinion column. So if any dept. or section should be totally insulated from advertising, it's editorial, so a game reviewer shoudn't have to be at all concerned with advertising.

But it sounds like they have a serious conflict of interest, and that they are letting advertising call the shots, and that they are willing to alienate the hardcore base for the mainstream and casual crowd who will probably care a lot less about game review integrity.

[T.Tashi]

I think he does on purpose. If a game is hyped, he tends to be over critical to it. That's the problem I think.

I love how peopel are overracting to this bs and are threatening to cancel their subscriptions. I say, go ahead. there are like, what, 400 peoople who cancelled? For about 1-2 dollar an issue, that's not really a big loss to anyone. If I had subscription to gamespot, I would not cancel it for this. I believe there are way more people who don't care about him being fired than who do.

I doubt most of these whiners even care about Kane and Lynch. I also doubt most of them read the actual review. I furthermore doubt most of them even played the game.

That's true, any publication makes its money from advertising not subscriptions. But if traffic drops enough it might cause advertisers to look elsewhere. But that's a big if.

[Intangir]

GameSpot used to be one of my more trusted review sites--one of the only ones I'd bother to keep up with at any rate. But once Kasavin left I pretty much fell back on message boards to keep track of games and how they fare. While I'm not a fan or anything of Mr. Gerstmann, this incident stinks and would definitely have me a bit stirred up if I still frequented GameSpot for reviews.

Somewhat funny is how many people who were outraged by the incident have gone to GameSpot's User Review page for the game and been giving it 1s (http://www.gamespot.com/xbox360/action/kanelynchdeadmen/players.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=gsreaderreviews&tag=readerreviews%3balluser).

[Mochan]

This just goes to show that these game review sites aren't as "unbiased" as we would like to think. I think it's pretty obvious what happened here. Publishers pay money to get their games reviewed favorably and this is what happens when someone bucks that trend. I don't even remember who Gerstmann is (not a big fan of Gamespot reviews) but let this be known this is what happens when you deny a moneyhat corporation.

As for people suddenly boycotting Gamespot, I wouldn't be surprised if Gerstmann is masterminding this negative publicity blitz through whatever connections he has to get back at his former employer.

[silversparrow]

I think it's pretty clear the large gaming publication sites like Gamespot can't be trusted since they deal directly with their advertisers, leading to a conflict of interests when reviewing games.

Smaller sites don't have this problem since they go through some third party for their advertisements. One such site that has very good unbiased reviews is Game Revolution (http://www.gamerevolution.com/). I don't always agree with their scores (letter grade system), but their commentary is usually spot on with the occasional bits of humor. They also give you a quick breakdown of the major strengths and weaknesses of a game at the bottom of the review.

[Jyoharl]

This situation is quite simple.

I go to gamespot for honest reviews, a man gives an honest review, he gets fired for it, I don't want to deal with gamespot anymore.

Problem solved. They don't miss me, I won't miss them. As Lauryn Hill once said, "You might win some, but you just lost one".

Also, check out this website making fun of gamespot. Lovely.

http://www.destructoid.com/

[ilnadmy]

Hahaha that's an amazing parody site. 10/10.

[T.Tashi]

Hahaha that's an amazing parody site. 10/10.

Yep I think I found a new site to visit. :thumbsup:

Nice Mass Effect review. Well written, sarcastic with being juvenile or cliched and it felt like a complete review. And it was actually funny. Even if I disagreed with it I couldn't complain about it. You could argue the score til you're blue in the face though, but ultimately the number gets way too much attention.

[Jyoharl]

Hahaha that's an amazing parody site. 10/10.

Hey man, you guys were supposed to play WoW with me...what happened?

lol I'm just messin' with ya. But seriously, I'd really love to play with you guys.

Earthen Ring Server. Alliance: Phryea.

[slade]

This is nothing new in the gaming world. MS passed around duffle bags filled with two hundred dollars worth of goodies to the vg press when Halo 3 launched. I'm sure Sony and Nintendo have done the same in the past. The only big difference here is that someone actually got fired over it this time.

The indignation over this is kinda hypocritical if you ask me. For better or for worse, this is how this industry operates. Ignorance of the facts is a sin in itself anyway.

[ilnadmy]

Hey Jyo, I cancelled my WoW account a long time ago. Way too much of a time commitment, plus I wasn't playing any other games, and it was kind of annoying me. I might start it up in the future, but we'll see about that.

[Renzatic Gear]

Hey man, you guys were supposed to play WoW with me...what happened?

lol I'm just messin' with ya. But seriously, I'd really love to play with you guys.

Earthen Ring Server. Alliance: Phryea.

I'll see you tonight! Shame you had to pick alliance, though.

[ThaMaskedGamer]

Couple things about this issue, first if he was fired solely for his review and if his review was how he really felt, of course that's morally wrong and Gamespot deserves all the negative backlash they get. Eidos, if it is true they put pressure on Gamespot due to the review, are a bunch of sorry arses too. Their games mostly suck lately, they have been under intense pressure to deliver a hit game, they pushed a lot of stuff back into next year because they lean toward the PS3, they had a lot riding on this game.

I find it hard to believe that he was fired soley for this, especially given Gamespot's review process, from what I read after a review is complete, it is vetted by the whole damn company for accuracy and such. So it isn't like he just completed a review and posted it blindly before anyone else in the company saw it. I think what probably happened is Eidos complained and there was probably an argument with the editorial staff and management and I wouldn't be surprised if he just quit. Anyway, who knows, I think the whole thing is silly, its just a game review. But i'll tell u what, we had this argument on this site earlier in the year. A lot of you guys said reviews don't matter, I think we all know they do matter. Not saying they matter to everyone personally, but in the aggregate they have a big economic impact.

One thing is for sure, I don't know much about Kane & Lynch, or at least I didn't, but I read the IGN review and I watched some flics of the gameplay on Gametrailers. I'm going to rent the game and see what's up. It has an interesting multiplayer component and has a lot of Heat references, one of my all-time fav movies. According to IGN the game suffers from imbalanced levels, some great some mediocre, wow sounds like COD4. It also has stupid enemy AI, wow sounds like COD4. It also has useless friendly AI that can't hit crap and get in your way, wow sounds like COD4. But at least u can control them in this game! It appears to have a good story, good emotional content, good presentation, wow just like COD4! It seems to me the only thing the game doesn't have is shiny purty graphics like COD4. It seems like a lot of the problems in COD4 were ignored but not in other games, hmm. Now i'm going to play this game and if i'm wrong, i'll retract my statements. But I have a funny feeling this game will probably be more fun gameplay wise. Take a look at some of the clips and it looks pretty intense. Hey I can't wait to take down a bank and there is a club shoot-out scene. It seems to be more interesting storywise.

But anyway back to this issue. Reviewers aren't bulletproof, someone posted the link to the Gamespot review, i'm gonna go read it and see what his criticisms were. But if it ends up that this site forgave a game like COD4 for its mindless AI and took K&L to task for the same problems, that kind of sh*t drives me nuts and I can see where Eidos might have a problem with it.

[ilnadmy]

Kane and Lynch is NOTHING like COD4. Honestly. Imbalanced levels in COD4? Only if you're playing on Veteran. COD4 honestly has the best level design in any game I've played recently. "Crew Expendable"? "Ghillies in the Mist"? "One Shot One Kill"? Some of the best levels I've had the pleasure of playing through.

Stupid enemy and friendly AI? The AI in COD4 doesn't get stuck on walls and run around in circles. They do in Kane and Lynch. But ZOMGWTFBBQPEWPEW YOU CAN CONTROL THEM AND GIVE THEM SQUAD COMMANDS!!! WOOT MODERN WARFARE!! Jeez, if that's all it takes to get you excited, you're going to LOVE the AI in Kane and Lynch.

COD4 is a well-balanced game. You ruined it for yourself by playing it on Veteran your first time through.

[folken001]

COD4 is a well-balanced game. You ruined it for yourself by playing it on Veteran your first time through.

I don't know if that's true either though. As much as I like COD4, I thought the AI can really frustrate me sometimes. remember that mission where you have to protect the tank as it advances? That level annoyed the heck out of me. Unlimited enemies is just a crappy way to go. Stupid AI sure didn't help the situation. I was pissed off!

[Mochan]

<I>=TMG=
I find it hard to believe that he was fired soley for this, especially given Gamespot's review process, from what I read after a review is complete, it is vetted by the whole damn company for accuracy and such. </i>

I don't know squat about GS' review policy, but considering that HE is the Editorial Director, it is very likely that it is his job to do the vetting you are talking about.

<I>A lot of you guys said reviews don't matter, I think we all know they do matter.</i>

Whoa don't get me wrong bud. Reviews don't matter TO ME. That's why I can easily say Jericho is my favorite FPS this year. However, I've said *many* times that reviews matter especially to the sheep out there who can't think for themselves, and oh judging how the industry is doing these days, I'd say that's a hell of a lot of sheep.

And again TMG, your vendetta with COD4 never ceases to amaze me... amaze me at the stupidity of it. First off, judging from the reviews, K&L is *nothing* like Call of Duty 4. In fact, K&L has more in common with your beloved GRAW than Call of Duty, as far as I can tell from what I'm reading.

<i>According to IGN the game suffers from imbalanced levels, some great some mediocre, wow sounds like COD4. </i>

Sounds like GRAW.

<I>It also has stupid enemy AI, wow sounds like COD4. </i>

You mean like the enemy AI in GRAW that basically tells them to camp in one spot and wait for you to come in sight and shoot?

<i>It also has useless friendly AI that can't hit crap and get in your way, wow sounds like COD4. But at least u can control them in this game! </i>

You mean like your Ghost team that doesn't move an inch unless you tell them too, jumps in front of a lot when you fire, and can't hit the blindside of a barn? Sounds like GRAW. FYI the Friendly AI in Call of Duty 4 hits enemy troops a hell of a lot more and can actually play out vast portions of missions for you, unlikr GRAW -- how soon you forget some people here complaining in the COD4 thread that the AI was killing everyone before they got the chance to?

<I>It appears to have a good story, good emotional content, good presentation, wow just like COD4! It seems to me the only thing the game doesn't have is shiny purty graphics like COD4. </i>

Whoa now there, COD4 did not have a good story. No more than any other Tom Clancy game. It just had far better presentation. K&L? No comment.

<I>It seems like a lot of the problems in COD4 were ignored but not in other games, hmm.</i>

I could say the exact same thing about GRAW.

[T.Tashi]

Reviews matter albeit more than they should but the emphasis on the score borders on ridiculous. You can say almost anything you want about a game as long as the score is high.

[ThaMaskedGamer]

Kane and Lynch is NOTHING like COD4. Never said it was, in fact, I said it was different than most shooters, at least the story. But it does appear to have horrible AI, just like COD4 did in fact have horrible AI. If K&L was lynched due to the bad AI, then COD4 should have been too.

<b>Honestly. Imbalanced levels in COD4? Only if you're playing on Veteran.</b>The fact that some of the levels were busted on Vet mode is in fact a problem, and is in fact a balancing issue.

<b> COD4 honestly has the best level design in any game I've played recently. "Crew Expendable"? "Ghillies in the Mist"? "One Shot One Kill"? Some of the best levels I've had the pleasure of playing through.</b>That's your opinion. I don't see what is so special about limited scripted missions with no replay value and checkpoint based progression, but hey if that is what thrills you. "Crew Expendable" was a joke, there was nothing to the mission. "Ghillies in the Mist" was cool but actually more impressive to look at than to play. Anyway, i'm not going to argue your lack of taste, R6 and GRAW had much better level design than this. I think u just were blown away by the eye candy and the scripted nature of some of the action. If u are talking about gameplay, it is hard to be impressed.

<b>
Stupid enemy and friendly AI? The AI in COD4 doesn't get stuck on walls and run around in circles. They do in Kane and Lynch.</b>Yeah they don't get stuck on walls or run around in circles because they follow a direct path toward u. They all run up one behind another and line up like ducks to be shot. And your friendly AI runs in front of you while u are shooting, won't kill an enemy coming up from behind, throws grenades off walls to bounce back at u, gets blasted to bits but don't die.

<b> But ZOMGWTFBBQPEWPEW YOU CAN CONTROL THEM AND GIVE THEM SQUAD COMMANDS!!! WOOT MODERN WARFARE!! Jeez, if that's all it takes to get you excited, you're going to LOVE the AI in Kane and Lynch.</b>At least K&L made an effort to do this, I will have to see how effective it is. And I don't expect to love K&L, but i'll give it a rental, it looks like it might be fun and have a good story.

<b>
COD4 is a well-balanced game. You ruined it for yourself by playing it on Veteran your first time through.</b>COD4 is an unbalanced game, if u play it on anything but VET, it is way too easy. If u play it on VET it is mostly easy, except for certain points in certains missions where the difficulty is artificially imbalanced. You acknowledged this yourself and said if the same problem exists in COD5 u will have a problem with it. You know what i'm talking about, u just choose to gloss over it and forgive them, yet speak out the other side of your neck and say if they don't fix it for COD5, you'll be upset.

This is the kind of crap that makes Eidos probably have a fit when they see their game hammered and another game forgiven. Let's face it, if Halo3 had the same AI issues, if Halo3 was as scripted, it would be roasted. And aside from these probs, COD4 had a bunch of others such as the game mechanics which i've discussed previously.

[ThaMaskedGamer]

<I>=TMG=
I find it hard to believe that he was fired soley for this, especially given Gamespot's review process, from what I read after a review is complete, it is vetted by the whole damn company for accuracy and such. </i>

I don't know squat about GS' review policy, but considering that HE is the Editorial Director, it is very likely that it is his job to do the vetting you are talking about. If u had of taken the time to read some of the links posted in this thread, you'd know what you were talking about.

<b>
And again TMG, your vendetta with COD4 never ceases to amaze me... amaze me at the stupidity of it. First off, judging from the reviews, K&L is *nothing* like Call of Duty 4. In fact, K&L has more in common with your beloved GRAW than Call of Duty, as far as I can tell from what I'm reading.</b>Here we are talking about reviews and COD4 is exactly why reviews are garbage. This is a game ladden with problems that were all hidden, glossed over and not even mentioned in the candy coated reviews. Just the brevity of the game alone should have dropped it into the lower 90s. Then u add the fact there is NO co-op, hell at least K&L gave u a split-screen co-op! And online, COD4 is the same old stuff, while K&L at least creates a new multiplayer type of experience. Now i'm not saying K&L is better than COD4, all i'm saying is I can see how K&L was probably underrated and not given credit for the things it does well, while getting hammered for the things it does bad. While a game like COD4, which does some of the same silly things, never got hammered. And COD4 is missing major gameplay elements common to most nextgen games. And this is why a company like Eidos would open up on a company like Gamespot. The more I think about it, given the fact reviews do have a significant economic impact, perhaps Eidos was right in going after J.G.!

Your childish attempts to say GRAW had the same problems COD4 had just show that as usual, u talk about crap u don't of first hand. Just like u tried to say Halo3 had an impossible level that would make u want to not finish the game, just because u read it in a IGN review, a review which doesn't matter to you personally:rolleyes: Then u tried to say that COD4 had no problems, yet u admitted u played it first on NORMAL mode, lol, not even HARD mode. And now Ilnadmy and Folken and others admit the game is broken at points on VET mode. Now u say, well u shouldn't play it on VET mode first. It doesn't matter whether u play it first second or third on VET mode, the problems still exist. It shouldn't be broken in the first place, the same thing u were willing to KILL Halo3 over(which never existed) exist in COD4, and it is the gamers fault for playing it on VET mode.

<b>
You mean like your Ghost team that doesn't move an inch unless you tell them too, jumps in front of a lot when you fire, and can't hit the blindside of a barn? Sounds like GRAW. FYI the Friendly AI in Call of Duty 4 hits enemy troops a hell of a lot more and can actually play out vast portions of missions for you, unlikr GRAW -- how soon you forget some people here complaining in the COD4 thread that the AI was killing everyone before they got the chance to?</b>Yeah your ghost team that doesn't move an inch, unless ordered, yeah its called orders. And if I need an element of my squad to provide cover, I don't want them to move. If I need them to flank an enemy, I want to make sure they will do it. That's called tactics, not mindless lazy arse programming. And they can hit and supress the enemy, don't know what version u played.

FYI the friendly AI in COD4 can hit enemy troops, but u can't rely on them to supress an enemy, to cover and seal off a flank, etc. Plus it doesn't matter any way, they are just there for show. What ever enemy they kill, will be replaced by three more before u can even blink! And then it all magically ends when u reach a checkpoint. And then like u say, at other points like the chopper pilot rescue, u don't have to do ANYTHING except reach the pilot, get the pilot and drag them back. And u think this is good. But then again, u think Jericho is good.


<b>
<I>It seems like a lot of the problems in COD4 were ignored but not in other games, hmm.</i>

I could say the exact same thing about GRAW.</b> Just cause u can say it, doesn't mean its true.

[ilnadmy]

I said if Veteran is this imbalanced in COD5, then I wouldn't play through the game on Veteran. I didn't say I wouldn't play COD5.

[Mochan]

I don't see what is so special about limited scripted missions with no replay value

I've never understood this sentiment. You mean to tell me you never replayed games on your FamiCom/NES like Double Dragon, Ninja Ryuukenden/Gaiden, or Castlevania or Rockman/Megaman? Those games were msotly linear, by our standards today were extremely scripted, yet I played those hundreds of times over and over, because *I loved the game*. I don't care if the same enemies came at me and appeared in the same places each time, replay value doesn't mean that you get a different game each time you play it (which frankly isn't true either even with games that have far bigger allowance for deviation in the game than games like GRAW, such as Far Cry or Oblivion) replay value is simply how much fun you can expect to have when you play the game again.

There's a reason why people keep playing the Light Gun games over and over in arcades, why people play the same race tracks over and over in their favorite racers, etc. it's not because new content/new things happen each time they play, it's because they love going through it and if it was great enough to be loved the first time around, surely it's worth going through again.

R6 and GRAW had much better level design than this. I think u just were blown away by the eye candy and the scripted nature of some of the action.

R6 Vegas was eyecandy when it first came out. COD1 was not an eye-candy fest when it first came out.


Yeah they don't get stuck on walls or run around in circles because they follow a direct path toward u.

ENNNK first mission in the tanker they would go ahead of you -- and not always in the same paths. Enemies weren't always in one place I played through that mission more than once and I got surprised my an enemy camping in one spot I didn't expect and headshotting me to oblivion.

In the mission with the barn Tappy likes to whine about (and some other missions as well) they do not follow you in a straight line either, and you will often end up facing each other as they flank with you and quite a few people here (*ahemtmgahem*) have complained about shooting their buds and getting Game Over for friendly fire. So they always follow a direct path to you huh? How quick you are to forget your experiences with "Friendly Fire."


And your friendly AI runs in front of you while u are shooting,

Something I am sure you are familiar with after playing GRAW.


Let's face it, if Halo3 had the same AI issues, if Halo3 was as scripted, it would be roasted.

I don't know what you're talking about. Halo could be a game about nothing but a dog pooping on screen for 10 hours, and people would still buy it in droves and it would still score strings of 10s in the review sites everywhere.

I don't even know where you're going with this line of thought. So if Halo 3 has the same "AI Problems" COD4 has, it would be roasted by reviewers everywhere? Yet Call of Duty 4, which allegedly *has* these AI problems, gets a free pass? LOL whatever.

If any games ever had flaws that got candy coated, it's the Halo series. Long ass boring corridors, slow action, anemic graphics, poorly conceived story but still aces the grade.

These "flaws" you mention about Call of Duty are design decisions that go against your stubborn desire to have a tactical shooter in a game that ISN'T a tactical shooter but is instead a cinematic warfare game.


If I need them to flank an enemy, I want to make sure they will do it. That's called tactics, not mindless lazy arse programming

What programming? You're the one giving the orders, not the developers. The developers didn't do any AI programming there, you are! It's the opposite -- IW actually worked to give you AI that reacts to the situations as opposed to GRAW AI which does nothing unless you tell them to do something! Quite a paradigm shift there, no?

FYI the friendly AI in COD4 can hit enemy troops, but u can't rely on them to supress an enemy, to cover and seal off a flank, etc.

That's because it's not a tactical shooter with you as the commanding officer, how many times do I have to say this? You're not even the squad leader in COD4! You're not meant to tell them where to go, what to do, etc. IT IS NOT A TACTICAL SHOOTER.

Like I have said countless times, your problems with COD4 stem from you wanting it to be something that it is not, and has never pretended or even aimed to be.


Plus it doesn't matter any way, they are just there for show. What ever enemy they kill, will be replaced by three more before u can even blink! And then it all magically ends when u reach a checkpoint. And then like u say, at other points like the chopper pilot rescue, u don't have to do ANYTHING except reach the pilot, get the pilot and drag them back.

Except you have to get their without getting killed... you seem to have missed that important point. And that's where your teammates come into play -- they help you survive. If they didn't kill that guy they just shot, he could have shot you. Are they still useless? Or are you still going to say the game is so easy, you can just take a casual stroll from one checkpoint to another without taking a shot or ever getting shot at?

But then again, u think Jericho is good.

And you haven't even played it. Do you want to say something?

[Mochan]

By the way... there are <a href="http://www.gametap.com/home/read/article/8a250901160f94bf011611450f3d042e">reviews out there</a> that mention flaws in the AI but still gave the game flying colors. That's because these reviewers realize that the AI isn't "the best in the world" but that is beside the point of what the game is trying to accomplish -- and has. They "get it." You don't.

[Jaa Phaanom]

By the way... there are <a href="http://www.gametap.com/home/read/article/8a250901160f94bf011611450f3d042e">reviews out there</a> that mention flaws in the AI but still gave the game flying colors. That's because these reviewers realize that the AI isn't "the best in the world" but that is beside the point of what the game is trying to accomplish -- and has. They "get it." You don't.

I guess just like the reviewers "get it" regarding Halo 3.

[ThaMaskedGamer]

I've never understood this sentiment. You mean to tell me you never replayed games on your FamiCom/NES like Double Dragon, Ninja Ryuukenden/Gaiden, or Castlevania or Rockman/Megaman?
Oh i'm not saying a game with scripted missions or levels is necessarily bad, i'm just saying I don't see why he was saying these levels were the most incredible thing. They weren't.

But I do tend to have the feeling heavily scripted games offer less replayability. In a game that's not scripted after u play it, u might know what is going to happen the second time through, but u don't know how it is going to happen. With a scripted game, u know why and how.

<b>
R6 Vegas was eyecandy when it first came out. COD1 was not an eye-candy fest when it first came out. </b>No it wasn't, R6 was very average looking, especially compared to GRAW. The character models were good, but everything else was average.

<b>
ENNNK first mission in the tanker they would go ahead of you -- and not always in the same paths. Enemies weren't always in one place I played through that mission more than once and I got surprised my an enemy camping in one spot I didn't expect and headshotting me to oblivion.

In the mission with the barn Tappy likes to whine about (and some other missions as well) they do not follow you in a straight line either, and you will often end up facing each other as they flank with you and quite a few people here (*ahemtmgahem*) have complained about shooting their buds and getting Game Over for friendly fire. So they always follow a direct path to you huh? How quick you are to forget your experiences with "Friendly Fire."</b> The problem with the AI in this game was their unpredictible nature, not the necessarily the fact you couldn't control them. I've played games before where you couldn't control your squad and if u do that then you better do a good job with your scripting routine and their actions, COD4 did zip here. Your guys were all over the place popping in front of you, not doing anything tactically useful, they were just there for show. Sure on the first mission they do most of the work, but the game goes from extreme to extreme. The first mission they do all of the work, the last mission(hidden mission) they do absolutely NOTHING!


<b>Something I am sure you are familiar with after playing GRAW. </b>No, i've played GRAW several times and I didn't experience the same problems u say u did. If I did, i'd be complaining about it. First of all it is kind of hard for them to run in front of you or shoot over you since u control where they go! Most of the time I used them for cover or for flanking so we wouldn't be in the same spot. I guess that's why u hate tactical games, u don't know how to play them it seems. And they definitely hit their targets if they were exposed. But that's the thing about R6 and GRAW, the enemy didn't just run 10 feet in front of you so u could shoot them down like ducks. They used cover and u had to flank and dig them out, perhaps that's why u thought your AI couldn't hit anything, because the enemy AI was just as good.

But that's the funny thing about COD4. The AI in general is bad. But its spotty as all heck. On the first mission your guys hit everything, on other missions, like when u are attacking the silo, they can't hit a guy 5 feet in front of them down the corridor. The game is unbalanced in more than one way.

<b>
I don't know what you're talking about. Halo could be a game about nothing but a dog pooping on screen for 10 hours, and people would still buy it in droves and it would still score strings of 10s in the review sites everywhere.</b>But the game is not about a dog pooping on screen is it, its a great game. That suffers from NONE of the problems COD4 does and has tons more gameplay than that 5 hour scripted light-gun game.

<b>
I don't even know where you're going with this line of thought. So if Halo 3 has the same "AI Problems" COD4 has, it would be roasted by reviewers everywhere? Yet Call of Duty 4, which allegedly *has* these AI problems, gets a free pass? LOL whatever. </b>Its true, go read the reviews of COD4, you would think the game is flawless. There is no mention practically of the many flaws the game has, like I think Tashi said, normally they will give a game a great score but hammer it in the text, most of the reviews I read never even took the game to task in the text, except for how short it is.

<b>
If any games ever had flaws that got candy coated, it's the Halo series. Long ass boring corridors, slow action, anemic graphics, poorly conceived story but still aces the grade.</b>See these are all subjective BS complaints. The complaints against COD4 are concrete and real. Long boring corridors, so Halo1 had a lot of corridors, so did most shooters before then and back then, but it was never a problem. So in Halo2 you had much fewer corridors and in Halo3 much much fewer. Slow action? I don't know what u are talking about, when was the last time u played a Halo game, have u ever played a Halo game? Have u ever played one on anything but normal mode, and yes u can scale Halo games up and the games don't "break" because it is on Legendary, they are harder but manageable they don't cheat. Anemic graphics, this is why when Halo1 was released most reviews said it looked better than anything on the PC at that time, this is why when Halo2 was released most reviews said the same thing. In fact Halo3 has been the only Halo launch where that statement has not been true. And a poorly conceived story, again, subjective, I guess the story is so bad they decided to make comics after it, the story is so bad it interested Peter Jackson who is making his own game based on the Universe. The story is so bad they were going to make a movie out of it. The story is so bad the novels sell very well. The story is so bad many has said it rivals the Star Wars universe.


<b>
These "flaws" you mention about Call of Duty are design decisions that go against your stubborn desire to have a tactical shooter in a game that ISN'T a tactical shooter but is instead a cinematic warfare game. </b>No there are two different elements to my complaints. One is the lack of certain gameplay devices, like selecting weapon fire mode, having a cover button, controlling your squad, selecting weapon load outs, that's all gameplay design, and I can understand u firing back and saying the game is NOT TACTICAL, cool. The other aspect of the problem is just busted game design, stupid timers which u don't know about and which reset without u knowing, stupid AI on both sides, dumb mission objectives, like two guys holding off an army with sniper rifles, missions in which u practically just a spectator, or completely boring vehicle missions like the AC-130 Gunship mission or the boring helicopter missions that are weak as hell compared to the helicopter missions in GRAW.


<b>
What programming? You're the one giving the orders, not the developers. The developers didn't do any AI programming there, you are! It's the opposite -- IW actually worked to give you AI that reacts to the situations as opposed to GRAW AI which does nothing unless you tell them to do something! Quite a paradigm shift there, no? </b>Wrong, in GRAW if u give an order to hold at a certain point, u can further refine that order to return fire if u see the enemy. If u watch your guys, one will emerge from cover and shoot, when he reloads, another will take his place while he goes back behind cover etc. If a guy is firing an anti-tank rocket, all of your guys will clear out and give him space. Also they will take cover if under fire, in COD4 they just get shot and keep on going. In R6 your guys will breach doors and do a range of different things that require good programming. And not to mention, the enemy AI is pretty slick too.


<b>
That's because it's not a tactical shooter with you as the commanding officer, how many times do I have to say this? You're not even the squad leader in COD4! You're not meant to tell them where to go, what to do, etc.IT IS NOT A TACTICAL SHOOTER.</b>That's fine, it doesn't mean it should be a dumb shooter. It doesn't mean your guys should stand in the open and get bombed to hell and not die. Doesn't mean the enemy should come running right into your squads face. Why do u need to get within spitting distance if u have a gun. Its dumb if u take time to look at the barn mission, the enemy will run right into the center area, and then start firing. And your guys will run around them, the whole thing looks comical. If u are going to have NPC then give them some decent AI, this is next generation, there is no excuse aside from poor programming and laziness.



Let's bring the focus back to what this thread is about. Reviews. The problem here is the fact that reviews do have an economic affect and bad reviews can kill your game. If your game is bad, that's good, the public can use a review to avoid a bad gaming experience. But to the degree that some games and some companies get preferential treatment, I think a game company might want to speak up and try and get a guy canned. The biggest problem with game reviews is lack of consistency. A big complaint thus far with K&L is the bad AI, that's also a big damn problem in COD4. A big complaint in K&L is lack of online co-op play, well they give u split screen at least, COD4 gives u nothing. A big problem with K&L is the multiplayer game is creative but subject to the same limitations of the overall game, well COD4 is just more of the same capture the flag stuff. I'm not saying these games are the same or one is better than the other. All i'm saying is I'm glad to hear about the flaws of the game, it would have been real nice to hear about the flaws in COD4. When u aren't consistent, that's not fair. Go read the Gamespot review of COD4, they gloss over the problems in the game in about two sentences. I'll be fair to Gamespot at least they do slightly mention them, in other reviews of COD4, they don't even mention them.

[Glockstar]

On Monday, GameSpot addressed the issue. Link to article. (http://www.gamespot.com/news/6183603.html?action=convert&om_clk=latestnews&tag=latestnews;title;1)

Excerpt:
"Neither CNET Networks nor GameSpot has ever allowed its advertising business to affect its editorial content," said Greg Brannan, CNET Networks Entertainment's vice president of programming. "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."

If you go to read the article you will see that it was updated yesterday with a link to a GameSpot podcast called "HotSpot", wherein GameSpot editors Alex Navarro, Ryan Davis, Ricardo Torres, and Ryan MacDonald discuss Jeff Gerstmann's departure. They spend over half of the hour long show talking about the situation.

The gist of what they had to say:
- The firing was handled in a #@$%ed up manner.
- There were an incredible amount of circumstances and coincidences that happened all at once - thus leading to the internet furor.
- Gerstmann was not fired because of Kane & Lynch
- The video review was taken down by one of these guys, strictly because they felt the quality wasn't there.
- The editors care a lot about GameSpot and really want to see the site do well - at all times
- They insist their editorial integrity is intact.

Direct link to the HotSpot podcast. (http://www.gamespot.com/video/0/6183660/videoplayerpop?)

[Dancer O_o]

On Monday, GameSpot addressed the issue. Link to article. (http://www.gamespot.com/news/6183603.html?action=convert&om_clk=latestnews&tag=latestnews;title;1)

Excerpt:
"Neither CNET Networks nor GameSpot has ever allowed its advertising business to affect its editorial content," said Greg Brannan, CNET Networks Entertainment's vice president of programming. "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."

If you go to read the article you will see that it was updated yesterday with a link to a GameSpot podcast called "HotSpot", wherein GameSpot editors Alex Navarro, Ryan Davis, Ricardo Torres, and Ryan MacDonald discuss Jeff Gerstmann's departure. They spend over half of the hour long show talking about the situation.

The gist of what they had to say:
- The firing was handled in a #@$%ed up manner.
- There were an incredible amount of circumstances and coincidences that happened all at once - thus leading to the internet furor.
- Gerstmann was not fired because of Kane & Lynch
- The video review was taken down by one of these guys, strictly because they felt the quality wasn't there.
- The editors care a lot about GameSpot and really want to see the site do well - at all times
- They insist their editorial integrity is intact.

Direct link to the HotSpot podcast. (http://www.gamespot.com/video/0/6183660/videoplayerpop?)

They want to keep their jobs too, "the quality wasn't there"...bullsh!t

[Glockstar]

Hey, forget the article and forget the podcast, GameSpot just put up a psuedo-Q&A regarding the matter. A lot of the things that they wouldn't comment on before they do now.

Link to (http://www.gamespot.com/news/6183666.html?action=convert&om_clk=latestnews&tag=latestnews;title;0)

Excerpt:
Q: GameSpot's credibility has been called into question as a result of this incident. What is being done to repair and rebuild it?

A: This article is one of the first steps toward restoring users' faith in GameSpot, and an internal review of the incident and controversy is under way. However, at no point in its history has GameSpot ever deviated from its review guidelines, which are publicly listed on the site. Great pains are taken to keep sales and editorial separated to prevent any impression of impropriety.

For years, GameSpot has been known for maintaining the highest ethical standards and having the most reliable and informative game reviews, previews, and news on the Web. The colleagues and friends that Jeff leaves behind here at GameSpot intend to keep it that way.

*Cough* *Cough* *Freedom Fighters...9.3!* :rolleyes:

[ilnadmy]

Yeah I read that article. It doesn't say anything at all. There's a lot of words, sure, but they don't amount to much.

[Glockstar]

Long-time freelancer leaves Gamespot over Gerstmann-gate

by Kyle Orland Jan 7th 2008 7:30PM

While the major developments over last month's Gerstmann-gate fracas kind of petered out in the midst of vehement official denials, the reverberations are still being felt around Gamespot. Frank Provo, a freelancer and major contributor to the site for nearly eight years, recently announced he would no longer be contributing to the site.

Provo made no bones about the reason for his departure. "I believe CNet management let Jeff go for all the wrong reasons," he wrote. "I believe CNet intends to soften the site's tone and push for higher scores to make advertisers happy." And Provo is in a position to know, according to an earlier post on his LiveJournal. "All the proof I need is in the way the staff reacted to Jeff's dismissal and to what went on in the closed door meeting that took place on November 30th," he said. "Any staffer that continues to work there once this fervor dies down does so with the fear that, one day, management will ask them to soften up their tone and scores... and they will either have to swallow their integrity and abide, or risk taking a stand and being let go," he added back in December.

All that remains to be seen now is whether Provo's will be alone in his action or whether others will follow his lead and depart what Provo calls "the ultimate soul-crushing work environment."

http://www.joystiq.com/2008/01/07/long-time-freelancer-leaves-gamespot-over-gerstmann-gate/

[Mochan]

Pfft "Ultimate Soul-Crushing Work Environment" these game journalists have a penchant for dramatics. I could name a lot of far more soul-crushing environments to work in. But yes it's stupid.

[Glockstar]

Kane & Lynch sells a million copies; [obligatory reviewer firing joke goes here]

by Alexander Sliwinski Jan 11th 2008 5:00PM

http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.joystiq.com/media/2008/01/kane-lynch-take-that-490.jpg

Kane & Lynch: Dead Men has hit the million-sold milestone – and somewhere a journalism fairy just died. Unfortunately, the achievement has been overshadowed by parent company SCi's current woes. Despite strong Kane & Lynch sales, SCi still plans to declare an operating loss for fiscal year 2008.

SCi said in a statement that it expects Kane & Lynch to "firmly establish itself as another key franchise" in the company's arsenal. In other words: Sequel confirmed! Start practicing those superlative adjectives game reviewers because Kane & Lynch got no problems rubbing your career out – allegedly.

http://www.joystiq.com/2008/01/11/kane-and-lynch-sells-a-million-copies-obligatory-reviewer-firing/

[Glockstar]

Gerstmanngate in Reverse: Maxim Fires "Must See" Film Critic
by Russ Pitts, 8 Jan 2008 5:17 pm

You may not have heard of film reviewer Peter Hammond, but you've undoubtedly read some of his eye-catching blurbs.

According to consumer blog The Consumerist, Hammond has been responsible for praising decidedly un-praiseworthy movies with such entertaining, non-stop thrill ride catch-blurbs as "Must see!" in spite of generally poor overall reviews, specifically to get his name pasted in advertisements touting the films. Criticwatch, naming Hammond their "bag of douche" of the year, cites his remarkable "24 straight weeks with a quote on a new release." What's interesting here is not that someone could be such a tool, but that the cast of characters should seem so eerily familiar.

Hammond, until very recently, worked for Maxim, a magazine that appears to have tolerated his tomtoolery gladly, even allowing him to alter the text of his reviews to placate movie executives. Sounding more familiar? This would have been under the reign of Steven Colvin, former President of Dennis Publishing, the publishers of Maxim. Colvin traded his President and CEO stripes at Dennis for an Executive Vice President's chair at CNet Networks in October of last year, where he was tasked with heading up their entertainment division, including the videogame review site Gamespot.

You may recall the events of late last year when game reviewer Jeff Gerstmann was fired from Gamespot, presumably by Colvin, for writing a review of Eidos' terrible game, Kane & Lynch, which honestly (and painfully) reflected just how disappointed he was with the game. The bad news for Gerstmann was Eidos had invested a great deal of money in advertising on Gamespot, which they then pulled after reading his review. It has been alleged Gerstmann's firing came as a result of this move.

So what can we make of all this? Maxim employed a shill of a film reviewer in Peter Hammond, who wrote meaningless drivel to get his name (and Maxim's) plastered on every movie poster in Hollywood, and acceded to distributor demands to alter the content of his reviews. In October, the head guy over Maxim moved to Gamespot, where a game reviewer, Jeff Gerstmann, was fired, allegedly for not being willing to act like Peter Hammond.

Radar online notes Maxim's new EIC's first official moves were to hire a no-nonsense editor to clean up the West Coast office, and firing Peter Hammond, ostensibly to do the same for their movie review desk. It would now seem Colvin intended to make similar moves at Gamespot, in reverse. Score one for the appearance of impropriety.

I hate to point fingers, but it looks to me we've found the real villain of Gerstmanngate. Mr. Colvin, will you release the tapes?

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/editorials/op-ed/2790-Gerstmanngate-in-Reverse-Maxim-Fires-Must-See-Film-Critic

[Glockstar]

GameSpot EIC: Gerstmann Firing Was a 'Big Factor' in Latest Resignation
GameSpot's Ricardo Torres talks to us about Ryan Davis' decision to leave. He admits Jeff Gerstmann was a "big factor." He also said that CNet's Josh Larson "stays out of their way now."
Posted by James Brightman on Monday, February 04, 2008

We just got off the phone with GameSpot Editor-in-Chief Ricardo Torres who gave us some more clarity on the "exodus" situation and the latest member to leave: Ryan Davis. Torres said that Davis' last day is ironically Valentine's Day (Feb. 14). His reason for leaving? "He started thinking it was time to move on," said Torres. "He sees that there's a group of us here that are going to stay and move things forward and he just felt it was probably best for us if he just took off, so he wouldn't kind of bring everybody down."

Davis and Gerstmann have been very close friends, and Davis was markedly down after Gerstmann was let go. We pressed Torres on how much the Jeff Gerstmann situation had to do with Davis leaving, and he admitted, "I think it was definitely a big factor for him. You know, he's a person and people react to things. ... You've got somebody you've seen everyday just kind of go, so I'm sure it was definitely a factor for him."

So is Davis the last of the Gerstmann fallout, or is Torres expecting to announce further resignations? "Everybody asked me this when I talked about Alex [Navarro], but it's a hard thing – I can't say one way or another. People are people and they're going to react... I've already told everybody that I just want them to do what's right for them. ... Most everybody that I've talked to has told me that they're in for this for the long haul."

With seemingly one staffer after another walking out the door, it makes putting "Gerstmann-gate" in the rear-view mirror a bit tougher, as it perpetuates an aura of negativity among readers. "Ultimately, all I can really do is focus on the content because you can't argue semantics. To one person it is an exodus, and to another person it is basically three people total so far. It's a half empty, half full kind of situation," he said. "I knew this wasn't going to be easy regardless, and this is living up to not being easy. That said, we still are focused and we want to make this work and we will."

Finally we asked Torres if there's been a change in attitude from parent company CNet towards GameSpot or if CNet has affected the staff or its policies in any way. "No, [CNet exec] Josh Larson stays out of our way now. With an EIC position I'm in charge of editorial – editorial stuff I have to sweat now. Last year, because we didn't have that position, he was kind of like straddling – he was trying to do business and kind of support editorial. Clearly there needed to be a better line drawn, so that's why the EIC position came up and that's what I'm doing. ... I'm here to ensure that editorial is kept siloed away. Let us do our thing... and make sure the editorial integrity sticks. Although if you read the Internet, it went up in a pile of smoke, but we believe that's not the case."

http://www.gamedaily.com/articles/news/gamespot-eic-gerstmann-firing-was-a-big-factor-in-latest-resignation/19304/?biz=1


Frank Provo and Alex Navarro were the other two editors to leave GameSpot after the Gerstmann firing.

I knew who Alex Navarro was (and who Jeff Gerstmann was), I don't know who Frank Provo and Ryan Davis were.

Oh yeah, Valentines Day... That's the day my Xbox Live subscription renews. Don't know if that's ironic... or something else.