Announcement

**Asher** · December 3, 2007, 15:03

It's looking more like he was fired for not playing the game all the way through, actually. Legally Gamespot can't say why he was fired, but if you look at Jeff's XBL profile (GameSpotting), you can see he only played about 20% of the way through the game.

Combined with recent suspicious reviews like GameSpot's Assassin's Creed review (where it looked like they didn't play the game the full way through, hence saying the PS3 version didn't have framerate problems which only occur near the end), I don't think it's unlikely that they made an example out of him.

**Wiglaf** · December 3, 2007, 15:10

You're incredible. The profile doesn't prove he didn't play it. The review shows he played at least halfway through, and he has since stated that he's gotten to both endings.

Anyway, the review is accurate even if he didn't finish it. You don't need to finish to make a good review.

More likely is that a company that pumped hundreds of thousands of dollars into ads got upset, and CNET made an example out of him.

**Asher** · December 3, 2007, 15:12

Originally posted by Wiglaf
You're incredible. The profile doesn't prove he didn't play it. The review shows he played at least halfway through, and he has since stated that he's gotten to both endings.

Anyway, the review is accurate even if he didn't finish it. You don't need to finish to make a good review.

More likely is that a company that pumped hundreds of thousands of dollars into ads got upset, and CNET made an example out of someone.

That's possible, but I find it suspicious that Jeff has not publicly said why he was fired if he was innocent in this whole thing. If he was fired for something he's done no wrong in (and in fact, for something that would increase his value to other gaming review sites and increase his popularity), then he'd be sure to let us know that. The fact that he's absolutely silent on the issue speaks volumes to me.

Something tells me there's a lot more to this than what people are saying publicly.

**Wiglaf** · December 3, 2007, 15:15

If he's smart, he won't go blabbing about this. If he wants to sue, anything he says could hurt him at trial. If he wants another job in the industry, anything he says will hurt him when he goes to apply. Stop pinning this on him.

What's suspicious is that Gamespot, a supposedly neutral site that gives games 9.5's at the drop of a hat, allows users to skin its entire site to show Kane and Lynch characters. And then immediately fires the editor who blasts the game.

**Wiglaf** · December 3, 2007, 15:17

If he was fired for something he's done no wrong in (and in fact, for something that would increase his value to other gaming review sites and increase his popularity),

Review sites sell ad revenue.

They do not benefit from having a fat man giving 6.0s to the publishers who give them hundreds of thousands of dollars.

**Asher** · December 3, 2007, 15:18

Originally posted by Wiglaf
If he's smart, he won't go blabbing about this. If he wants to sue, anything he says could hurt him at trial. If he wants another job in the industry, anything he says will hurt him when he goes to apply. Stop pinning this on him.

How the hell would it hurt him for him to say why he was fired, if he was fired for being an objective reviewer. If he confirms this is the case, he doesn't jeopardize a lawsuit or future job prospects. In actuality, his job prospects would increase due to his visibility.

What's suspicious is that Gamespot, a supposedly neutral site that gives games 9.5's at the drop of a hat, allows users to skin its entire site to show Kane and Lynch characters. And then immediately fires the editor who blasts the game.

Actually Gamespot is usually a lot harder than most sites. For instance, they gave a recent Zelda game a mid-8 review much to the HORROR of Nintendo fans.

**Wiglaf** · December 3, 2007, 15:18

How the hell would it hurt him for him to say why he was fired, if he was fired for being an objective reviewer. If he confirms this is the case, he doesn't jeopardize a lawsuit or future job prospects. In actuality, his job prospects would increase due to his visibility.

See above.

Actually Gamespot is usually a lot harder than most sites. For instance, they gave a recent Zelda game a mid-8 review much to the HORROR of Nintendo fans.

I guess they weren't bought off? Didn't think I saw any Zelda ads. Take note Nintendo.

**Asher** · December 3, 2007, 15:18

Originally posted by Wiglaf

Review sites sell ad revenue.

They do not benefit from having a fat man giving 6.0s to the publishers who give them hundreds of thousands of dollars.

They sure do benefit from a high-profile guy who games can trust for real reviews, and even got fired for "sticking it to the man". You don't see an asset in that at all? Seriously?

**Wiglaf** · December 3, 2007, 15:19

No.

Where would he apply? There's only a handful of serious game review sites that make any money. And those sites do not want his hot potato unless he falls in line. He would be valuable, however, if he agreed to play their game under the guise of being someone who stuck it to Eidos.

**Asher** · December 3, 2007, 15:20

Originally posted by Wiglaf
I guess they weren't bought off? Didn't think I saw any Zelda ads. Take note Nintendo.

Your argument is so stupid it's not even worth the time.

Gamespot -- of the big gaming site -- consistently gives the lowest scores.

I can point to dozens of games Gamespot reviewed lower than the competition (sometimes remarkably so), and all you can do is say "they were not bought off". Meanwhile, for high scores, you say "they were bought off".

You have no substance, you have no reasoning, you have no argument.

**Asher** · December 3, 2007, 15:21

Originally posted by Wiglaf
No.

Where would he apply? There's only a handful of serious game review sites that make any money. And those sites do not want his hot potato unless he falls in line. He would be valuable, however, if he agreed to play their game under the guise of being someone who stuck it to Eidos.

1up would be a good start, seeing as 1up has publicly supported him in this whole thing? Just a start.

**Wiglaf** · December 3, 2007, 15:23

You have no substance, you have no reasoning, you have no argument.

It's pretty simple. Reviewers get to eat because game companies advertise with them. Fact. Reviewers don't get to eat when publishers pull ads. Fact. Publishers threaten to withhold ads when reviews go down. Corollary, and now proven fact.

Gamespot -- of the big gaming site -- consistently gives the lowest scores.

But they don't knock their advertisers. This has two effects: makes the advertisers keep paying them, and makes others want to advertise with them.

**DrSpike** · December 3, 2007, 15:32

Based on following Gamespot's reviews over a long period of time (they do generally call things as they see them, even if it means lower scores than most sites give a big game) I doubt he was fired for panning the game

But the fact he hasn't publicly defended himself yet isn't a strong argument that he was fired for something else either.

**Asher** · December 3, 2007, 15:41

All evidence right now seems to point to him being fired for something more complex than panning the game, is all I'm saying.

Announcement

Proof that game reviews are balls

Proof that game reviews are balls

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment