Topic: Gerstmann fired?

[MysterD]

Hmmmm....I remember when last year, gamers and Atari were not too happy w/ Matt Peckham's review on 1Up for NWN2 -- which he gave a 5.0.

It was a pretty vicious review from Peckham, but at least Gertsmann explained his reasons for such a score. Gertsmann cited a lot of nasty technical issues in his Kane & Lynch review, while Peckham really didn't cite any technical issues in his NWN2 review (which many other NWN2 reviews dissected).

Even when Jeff Green put up his 1Up Review of NWN2 which scored a 6.0, (it didn't score much better than Peckham's review), he at least cited some major flaws in the game to reflect his score -- namely, that the game needed serious patching to fix its interface issues, performance issues, and some bugs.

[K-man]

My feelings on Gerstmann are decidedly mixed, but he's been a part of that site for a very long time and I hate to see him canned.

[Quemaqua]

gpw speaks truth here, at least to a degree.  Like anything else, people that are seriously into something can look a bit deeper into it than people who aren't, but with games... does it matter?  The further we seem to go down this road, the more I'm inclined to agree that no, it doesn't.  It certainly doesn't affecting my purchasing decisions in any way (I'm loving the IGN-lambasted Assassin's Creed right now, I also thoroughly enjoyed the ultra-hated Dawn of Mana and Clive Barker's Jericho, and while I'm enjoying The Witcher, which has done well with critics, I was planning on buying that one before it was even released.  And after reading a lot of glowing Mass Effect reviews, I'm still not quite sure it's the RPG for me right now.

So... yeah.  I think it totally sucks to have someone fired for stating their opinion when that's essentially their job, but gpw is probably closer to the truth here than the rest of us.  Everything has sort of always been this way, and the downslide of one particular site doesn't really reflect anything other than that said site is on a downslide.  And considering they lost a guy who was more or less at the helm (Kas), who for all the simplicities of his job, was really a visionary in terms of... well, just being an example of exactly what game journalism should be, it shouldn't come as much surprise to see that bad things are happening there now.

Eh.  Whatever.  I have much bigger problems in my life right now.

[MysterD]

gpw speaks truth here, at least to a degree.  Like anything else, people that are seriously into something can look a bit deeper into it than people who aren't, but with games... does it matter?  The further we seem to go down this road, the more I'm inclined to agree that no, it doesn't.  It certainly doesn't affecting my purchasing decisions in any way (I'm loving the IGN-lambasted Assassin's Creed right now

GameSpot loved it.

I also thoroughly enjoyed the ultra-hated Dawn of Mana and Clive Barker's Jericho

Despite Jericho getting panned bt most critics, I dunno -- I still want to play it, when it gets that nice price drop.

...and while I'm enjoying The Witcher, which has done well with critics, I was planning on buying that one before it was even released.

Witcher was great.

Loved the game.
And the ending is quite thought-provoking....

And after reading a lot of glowing Mass Effect reviews, I'm still not quite sure it's the RPG for me right now.

The Witcher is easily my PC RPG of The Year for me.

So... yeah.  I think it totally sucks to have someone fired for stating their opinion when that's essentially their job

Exactly.

but gpw is probably closer to the truth here than the rest of us.  Everything has sort of always been this way, and the downslide of one particular site doesn't really reflect anything other than that said site is on a downslide.

The thing is though, if Eidos complains about a review on GameSpot and Eidos gets their way, what will stop them from going to IGN? And then the next site???

Then, say if Eidos succeeds, what if another publisher decides to follow suit??? What won't stop say EA complaining from G4 slam-dunking their HG: London game in their review to try and get the game re-reviewed at a higher score? Or from EA giving a magazine so much coverage and advertisement, that it influences the PC Gamer to score a high 89%??? 

Hmmm....you know, Que might've been onto something when he said he didn't like games being branded w/ a score, grade, etc....
 

And considering they lost a guy who was more or less at the helm (Kas), who for all the simplicities of his job, was really a visionary in terms of... well, just being an example of exactly what game journalism should be, it shouldn't come as much surprise to see that bad things are happening there now.

Yes, it has went downhill since Kas left.

And yes, it looks like w/ Gerstmann gone, it'll probably only get worse there. I was never on the side of thinking he was a great reviewer -- though, nor did I think he was horrible, either. He was somewhere in-between. He was often very blunt in his reviews and I always thought his reviews always were entertaining. I didn't always agree w/ him -- but hey, you're not going to agree w/ everyone; but I thought most times, he sited his reasons for his score often quite well.

[Pugnate]

Huh?  That's not a retraction.  That's a full-fledged broadside assault.  If anything, they've cemented the journalistic horror story with further anecdotal evidence (which unreliable though it may be, looks pretty damning to me).  More damage has been willingly inflicted.

Edit:  In all seriousness, after Kasavin's departure, the recent lack of review reliability, and now this, does anyone here still trust Gamespot at all?

I didn't say it was a retraction. I can actually see how it was read like that. Poorly written on my part.

It's not that I don't trust them anymore; it's that I now consider them just another review site.  Before that, with Kasavin (and yes, I liked Gerstmann), they seemed more professional somehow.  That appears to be no longer the case.  It's when they changed their scoring scheme, however, that I lost most of my respect.

Exactly. That's pretty much when things got too fishy for me. It seemed like such a move to appease the masses.

If you think about it... a game scored 8.7 and a game scored 9.2 are going to be rounded down to the same number. It was just something to avoid controversy, but it showed the lack of testicles.

Yes, it's shitty that gamespot is aparently now owned by the guy who runs Maxim and Stuff, but it's not like it was some beacon of journalistic integrity before.

A couple of years ago, it was the only the website that got as close to journalistic integrity as it got in the game industry. I see what you are saying though.

[Pugnate]

Greg Kasavin writes his first article on gamespot since January:

http://www.gamespot.com/users/GregK/show_blog_entry.php?topic_id=m-100-25235127

Gerstmann Goes Off

Jeff Gerstmann and I got to work together at GameSpot for 10 years. It seems he didn't get a chance to properly say goodbye here this week. This is simply the opinion of a longtime fan of this site: As the longest-tenured GameSpot editor, Jeff Gerstmann deserved a respectful send-off.

My last day at GameSpot was pretty good. It was on a Tuesday early this year. I had already packed up my stuff, had already told my team I was leaving and where I was going and what I was going to do next, and that I believed in them. What I really wanted to do was put in one last day's work at the site. I shot a video review, submitted and prepared a few pieces of content including a final review of mine, met with my closest colleagues, made my rounds with some of the others I'd always wished I got to talk to more, and tied up what seemed like a last few loose ends. I had a brief exit interview as well. It was an oddly liberating experience. As great as it was to work at GameSpot, I rarely felt a sense of closure at the job, because there was always lots more work to be done and more I could have been doing. The game industry never stops, and there are always more games I could be playing. It occurred to me that most of the closure I'd been feeling over the past decade came from finishing games.

I shouldn't lump myself into the same category as Jeff because we're pretty different people in spite of us having the same feelings about games and similar perspectives on a lot of subjects related to games. But I think guys like him and me see closure as a nice-to-have. We'd rather be moving on to our next assignment. So I said my goodbyes here in January not to provoke and get off on the generous flattery provided by a subset of people who took the time to respond, but to provide what I considered to be a basic, human courtesy to all those people who were familiar with my work over time. Some of those people hated my guts for all I knew--they had a right to know I was leaving same as anyone else. So then, to those of you familiar with Jeff's work: You should rest assured he'd take the opportunity to do what I did, not because we presume to think it's the"right" thing to do, but because we saw eye to eye on a lot of things and basically trust our instincts. It's not hard to imagine him saying something just like what I did, in his own way. And I have every faith that we'll be hearing from him again soon. I look forward to that moment.

As for the rest of the team that makes GameSpot's content: What you do next is more important than what you've done already. Every day you should be reminding yourselves that, because of the magic of the Internet, someone could just flip a switch that causes everything you've ever done here to just vanish. But the influence of your actions never disappears, and whatever integrity or credibility this site has gathered over the years is due to your hard work. I have no right to telling you what to do. But as a user of this site, I've come to expect a lot, and I know you listen.

Master Chief says it best: "We'll be fine."

And that's all I wanted to say here and I don't have anything more to add.

[MysterD]

Former GameSpot staff members Adam Bunchen and also Bob Calyco -- also Bob just recently got one his blog posts REMOVED by GameSpot -- sound off on their respective blogs on the entire ordeal.

[Pugnate]

The Worst Part of All of this

Sure, I got a blog deleted, that was all in good fun. I'd imagine the mods are just as on edge as everyone else. Nope, that didn't bug me. Deleting the blog post can't uncancel all those subscriptions.

This is a crazy time. It's the biggest controversy to hit the games journalism industry in a long time, and rightfully so. But you know what bothers me? What really, really bugs me?

How all of a sudden so many people are saying "Aha! See, we caught it this time!" They're suggesting that the selling of reviews is commonplace. I can't speak for other publications, but that's NEVER, EVER before been the modus operandi of GameSpot's editorial department. If it was, then why would Jeff be so freaking obstinant about it? You'd have to imagine that people would be getting fired left and right! But no, they don't.

I know Jeff and Alex and Brad and Ryan and Kevin. These guys are hardcore into their job. They play the rules by the book, and then some. They never take any of the free crap that publishers are giving out. None of them got the HDTV when Microsoft was givng those out. Hell, they don't even keep their review copies of games. Those games go into the library. I remember Greg telling me that he thought that was important so editors had to actually buy the games they wanted to have -- if they got it for free, their sense of value could be altered.

In this industry, there are always conflicts between sales and editorial. It's just a fact of life. It's hard to keep a a contract with a client whose games you continually trash. It'd be real easy to give them a break once in awhile. But that didn't happen. Not only was editorial separated from that group in terms of tasks and mission, but they were actually physically separated in different parts of the building. The Chief Editor sometimes had to deal with the unhappy sales people whose deal just fell through when a review went live or something. But editorial never made compromises on reviews. It probably would be possible to get away with it once or twice or a few times, but compromising integrity is obviously a slippery slope; and maybe more cynically, if you get caught, you get in big trouble. The epic catastrophic scandal. Sales knew better than to try pushing too much. A site that lacks credibility will hurt sales in the long run because readership would probably go down. It was always a delicate balance.

And yet here we have it, the incident, the anomaly, the straw that broke the camel's back. Someone decided the balance wasn't adequate and thought it'd be really profitable to... readjust a few extra "unprofessional" words here and there. (Where "unprofessional" is a range of negative words, scope directly proportional to the publisher's advertising budget). If your editor won't oblige, you pull a Richard Nixon-esqeu Saturday Night Massacre and keep firing editors until you find an agreeable one. You can get away with firing them by saying they have an unprofessional tone, which is code for "negative tone." It's okay to say "OMG, this game is AWESOME!!" Not professional, but also not negative. The sponsor will love it and run it as a pullquote on all their ads. And someone thought this would work without it blowing up in their face.

Wow.

I bet whoever made that decision makes a lot more money than I do. Can I be a person who decides what a BAD FREAKING IDEA something like that is? I'll do it for half of whatever the current guy is getting paid. Oh, and I won't fail at it. Additionally, I won't expose a casual indifference to concepts like editorial integrity or respect for the reader. I'd have my engineering department focus on building stuff that the users actually ask for. Just because Duracell wants to create a promotional flash game called "Which battery do I use?" and will pay us a bunch for it, I'd say no, because it'd be lame for our users and a waste of our resouces. And sure, it's nice to get instant revenue, but it'd dilute our vision and purpose.

Armchair logic and armchair integrity do not shareholders please, though! Well, again, I'm pretty sure that I could do as well as anynoe else, and I wouldn't even get involved in an options scandal.

And from Bob Calyco:

I really need to stop...

...reading comments from readers on the various news stories reporting on this disasterbacle. I'm losing IQ points as I do so, and I don't have that many to begin with.

1. The schadenfreude of Nintendrones screaming about 8.8. Are you kidding me? A year later and you're all still bitter about that? What sad, pathetic lives you lead. If you haven't accepted by now that 8.8 might've actually been too HIGH for that game, then please, pass whatever you're smoking. Regardless of what you think about that score or review, chuckling over someone losing his livelihood because of your petty fanboyism says a lot more about you than it does about the person you're laughing at.

2. The money-hat conspiracy theorists screaming "I KNEW IT" at the top of their lungs. Pleeze. Buy a clue. One, you don't know even the first thing about what goes on or how things go down in this business. If money hats were common or even existed, I'd be driving a lot better than an 9-year old Accord with 130,000 miles on it and paint peeling off the top panels. No one goes into this line of work thinking about bling and ice. You do it for the love because that's really all you get back out of it. And as Adam said, why do you think there's so much drama and hand-wringing over this? Because it's so far OFF the norm!

3. Those waxing pseudo-intellectually about the supposed crime of advertising-supported editorial. I guarantee you these same, self-righteous zealots don't think twice about all the car ads in the issues of Motor Trend, or all the movie ads in their Entertainment Weekly, or all the clothing/gadget/dating service ads in their Maxim. Get the picture? If you're not all up in arms about that stuff, but you are about ads in gaming mags or websites, then why the disparity?

4. "I never liked his opinions anyway, he deserved to get fired." Right. Nobody likes your sass when you man the drive-through either. Maybe Mickey Ds should kick you to the curb for that ;p

5, 5, 5 for my lonely

6, 6, 6 for my sorrow

7, 7, n-n-n no tomorrow

8, 8 I forget what 8 was for...

I found that Calyco blog hilarious.

So there is absolutely no doubt now, the reviewer was fired for being overly negative.

What pisses me off is the whole "I knew they sold out because they gave Crysis/Bioshock/Witcher/Halo 3 etc a good score." The funny thing is that whenever someone makes a ridiculous comment like that, someone always responds with something like,"Hey of those you mentioned, XYZ was a good game, but you are right, ABC and EFG were way overrated, and surely because of the reviewers accepting bribes."

And then some other genius will respond with,"HEY YOU KNOW WHAT? ABC WAS A GOOD GAME! But you guys are right, XYZ and EFG actually sucked and the reviewer definitely was on the publisher's payroll.

This will go on, until you realize that all these conspiracy theory nut jobs are unable to agree on the scores themselves. Yet they won't even consider that, and the only thing that will make sense to them is any review that they differ with, is naturally written by someone on the payroll. These guys really need to wake up.

For every moron who thinks Bioshock bought its way into the high scores, there is a guy who loved that game, but instead thinks it was Halo 3 that got a good score because of bribes, and vice versa.

My point is that it is human to have a different opinion. I just don't understand that why it is OK for their fellow posters to differ greatly in opinions, yet isn't for reviewers. Why is it that any time some reviewer has a different opinion, it is because of the worst possible reason. Most of these so called writers may write with an ability that makes a fourth grade teacher cry (stares at IGN), but I bet most of these very "writers" take pride in their honesty.

Just take a look at what happens when their bosses try to bend the rules. Gerstmann has been fired, and two of his coworkers have apparently resigned with him.  His ex co workers are rallying around him, and making their disapproval known.

[nickclone]

I'm sick of these reviewers complaining about what they drive and how much they get paid. You shouldn't get paid a lot of money, if you want to get paid real money, get a real job...obviously you're all expendable.

They act like they have it so bad, all they do is sit on their asses and either play or write about video games. When they're not on their asses, they're traveling all over the world still playing and writing about video games. They act like they're sacrificing themselves for us, they don't even work on the weekends and they get to leave at 5pm.

[Cobra951]

I was just about to post Adam B's blog, fearing it won't last where it is.  You beat me to it Pug.  If even the insiders are on board with the scandal, what else is there to say, really?  He says this has not been the status quo at GS, and about halfway through, I thought his post was meant as a defense of the publication.  Oh no.  There's what was, and there's what is.  He's saying they're very different, which agrees with my sentiments over the past month, at least.

[Pugnate]

I agree with you on one thing Nicklone. If I were a reviewer, I'd take it as a part time blessing, and something to do along a full time job. I know that's probably tough to do, with these guys having to rush through titles.

Anyway you've gotta read this, though it isn't verified to be true.

I have to say that normally, I'd be skeptical about those blogs, but they seem to add in with all the other stuff I've read.

I found at a couple of sources that he was indeed locked out of his office, and that too with little warning. Furthermore if you read Kasavin's blog that I posted earlier, you will note that similar sentiments are echoed, so I am more inclined to believe this than not. 

The main problem here is that no one in the entire editorial team was aware that this was about to occur, least of all Gerstmann. We're very clear in our review policies that all reviews are vetted by the entire team before they go live - everything that goes up is the product of an entire team's output. Our freelancers are especially guilty of making snide comments, but those are always yanked before the review goes live, because everyone in the office reads these reviews and makes sure they're up to our standards before they get put up.

If there was a problem with his reviews, then it would've been a problem with the entire team. Firing him without telling anyone implies that anyone else on this team can be fired at the drop of a hat as well, because none of us are writing any differently or meaner or less professionally than we were two years ago before the management changed. I'm sure management wants to spin this as the G-Man being unprofessional to take away from the egg on their face that results after a ten-year employee gets locked out of his office and told to leave the premises and then no one communicates anything to us about it until the next day.

Also, despite the fact that this occured two weeks ago, there was no way they were going to fire him then; the last big games didn't come out until just before Thanksgiving, and there was no doubt that management knew that the rest of the reviewers would refuse to write any reviews after his termination, which is indeed what is happening. After thanksgiving nothing major comes out in games; everything is either before thanksgiving or comes out in January. They waited to fire him until they knew that any strike or walkout by the rest of the staff wouldn't have much of an effect.

Also, keep in mind that these salespeople do have axes to grind with editorial. I know a lot of people busted their asses to get not only this large deal with Eidos done, but also other huge ad deals. The salespeople and the marketers are the ones who have to deal with the publishers when a heavily-advertised game gets a bad review, so obviously they like it if every game that comes out is peachy keen and gets a 9.0 or above. If a salesperson knows anything about unprofessional review practices, then that says a lot about the management team that we have in place because not a single other member of the editorial team had heard word one about this until Jeff was fired. Surely site management would want to let us know about their concerns before firing the most senior staff member and one of the most respected game critics in the industry? If they're sharing their concerns with the salespeople and not with us then that says a lot about their priorities.

No one wants to be named because no one wants to get fucking fired! This management team has shown what they're willing to do. Jeff had ten years in and was fucking locked out of his office and told to leave the building.

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 shitcanned. Everyone's fucking 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.

This is like a huge car wreck. I can't stop watching...

[Cobra951]

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'll repeat my earlier question.  Does anyone here still trust Gamespot at all?  Other publications may be suspect in similar shenanigans, but we don't really know.  This one is all but convicted.

Edit:

Please note that this post is tagged "rumor" for a reason. We have no way to confirm that commenter "gamespot" is actually employed at Gamespot or CNet or has access to information about the current situation.

My post assumes that the source is credible, so I'll throw in this caveat.

[Pugnate]

Well after taking down the video review, gamespot have apparently gone ahead and changed the review to be a little softer:

Original review:

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

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.

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. 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.

There's only one multiplayer mode in Kane & Lynch, but it's a great idea. 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 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 stupid 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, Kane & Lynch 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, 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 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 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.

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 the nearly ridiculous number of extremely high-quality shooters available recently, there's not much room for something like Kane & Lynch. But the multiplayer is a really great idea that's worth seeing, even if playing it makes you wish that it was used in another, better game.

Friendlier version:

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'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 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 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.


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 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 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!" 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, 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, 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.

[MysterD]

You sure?

The video review was a little bit different -- more vicious, outright, and blunt and whatnot -- than the written review was. The written review was a lot more detailed than his video review.

The written review looks the same as it was, except for the addition of the comparisons b/t the X360 and PS3 versions.

[Cobra951]

Part of the video review can still be seen here.

[nickclone]

I've never trusted Gamespot, they like to nitpick the games way too much. I know a lot of people praised them for that, but I've always thought it was just petty. I trust IGN more than I do GS.

[Quemaqua]

I can't say I ever really "trusted" any one site in particular anyway.  There were certain reviewers I felt that generally liked the same kind of stuff I did, so I'd listen to them, but that's about where it stopped.  GSpot just seemed like it had more general integrity, but that's changed for the worse recently in terms of... well, a lot of things.  I just don't like the way the site is being handled now, period.  Not the ads, the editorials, the changes in focus... nothing.  IGN I've always hated and still do, because they're pretty much what GSpot is slowly becoming, plus all the people who work there are idiots who wouldn't write their way out of a fucking grade school essay.

[gpw11]

Excellent editorial which puts forth of a somewhat less harsh view of the 'games journalism industry' than my own

[MysterD]

I can't say I ever really "trusted" any one site in particular anyway.

There's always Overwritten...
...well, as long as Maxim's owner or any other bloated conglomerate company don't buy us out and begin putting !

There were certain reviewers I felt that generally liked the same kind of stuff I did, so I'd listen to them, but that's about where it stopped.  GSpot just seemed like it had more general integrity, but that's changed for the worse recently in terms of... well, a lot of things.  I just don't like the way the site is being handled now, period.  Not the ads, the editorials, the changes in focus... nothing.  IGN I've always hated and still do, because they're pretty much what GSpot is slowly becoming, plus all the people who work there are idiots who wouldn't write their way out of a fucking grade school essay.

Been lots of change, over the years, once big companies bought little ones.

Like when IGN got bought, they suddenly boards began to be "pay-to-post."

IGN took over GameSpy, 5 stars system replaced the old 100% system.
No half-stars, at first.
Though, that changed, in due time -- thankfully.

Now w/ ads all over GameSpot, scoring system changed a bit -- 10.0 system now has only either a full interval (i.e 9.0) or half (i.e 9.5).

[gpw11]

Honestly, the scoring systems are so dumb anyways, it doesn't really matter.

[Cobra951]

Excellent editorial which puts forth of a somewhat less harsh view of the 'games journalism industry' than my own

I have a different view of that editorial.  For one thing, he can't write very well.  That by itself won't invalidate what he says, but it doesn't help either.  For another, he's dismissing a lot of smoke here, and concluding that it's unfair to suspect that there's fire.  Correlations are not causality.  But correlations do require investigation, particularly from journalists.

[MysterD]

Gerstmann interview w/ Joystiq

Exclusive: Gertsmann speaks about K&L review, future
74 Comments by Kyle Orland Dec 3rd 2007 4:00AM
Filed under: Culture, Hacks
"Losing a job you've held for over 11 years in an abrupt manner is shocking, yes."

While the above quote should perhaps win Jeff Gerstmann the 'understatement of the year' award, the former Gamespot editorial director is still staying silent about the specifics surrounding his recent firing (citing the previously mentioned "legal reasons," among others). He has, however, told Joystiq that he still stands behind his controversial review of Kane & Lynch.

"I stand behind my work, regardless of where I do it," Gerstmann told Joystiq in an e-mail. "If there was content that I felt I couldn't support, it wouldn't see the light of day." Gerstmann did not comment specifically on the edits made to his text review of Kane & Lynch, or the site's removal of the video review, but he did support the editing process in general. "If factual errors are made, I have no problem owning up to that error, correcting it, noting that a correction has been made, and feeling like an idiot for making the mistake in the first place," he said.

Gerstmann also directly addressed the somewhat pernicious rumor that he did not complete Kane & Lynch before he finished his review. "A reviewer's Xbox Live Gamercard is rarely a good place to look for answers about how much that reviewer has (or hasn't) played a game," he said. "For the record, I saw both endings in Kane & Lynch before writing about it."

As for his future plans, Gerstmann seems to be keeping his options open. "I'm not really sure what I want to do next," he said. "This whole situation has left me with a lot to think about. While this sort of clean break would be an acceptable time to think about trying game development, I feel like I still have more to say and do on the editorial side of the fence, too."

Surprisingly, the experience doesn't seem to have soured Gerstmann on video game journalism as a whole. "Despite the number of people who are taking these rumors ... to mean that game writing is ethically bankrupt, I don't feel that's the case," he said. "Either way, I'm currently keeping my options open and have been in contact with interesting people on both sides."

[Cobra951]

And that's exactly how a terminated employee needs to react.  Your former employer is fabulous, the best place in the world to work.  Later in life, when you are independently wealthy, and don't need a career to survive, you may write in your memoirs what bastards they were.

[MysterD]

I wonder if they agreed that they gave him the option to either be fired w/out sev-pay or if he'd resign he could collect sev' pay...

[Cobra951]

The way it works never changes much when both parties act in a responsible manner.  The employer wants no badmouthing or lawsuits.  The employee wants severance and a future in the same career.  They mutually agree to keep unpleasantries covered up.  They clam up or lie their asses off when asked if things got ugly.

[gpw11]

I have a different view of that editorial.  For one thing, he can't write very well.  That by itself won't invalidate what he says, but it doesn't help either.  For another, he's dismissing a lot of smoke here, and concluding that it's unfair to suspect that there's fire.  Correlations are not causality.  But correlations do require investigation, particularly from journalists.

Oh, I don't think he's really dismissing all the smoke here.  I don't actually really think he's making a stand on the actual issue at all, but rather analyzing the immediate reaction.  Correlations require investigation by all means, but not lynch mobs.

I think what it comes down to is whether or not you can expect integrity without accountability.

[MysterD]

Some "spin" from Eidos' K&L site

Kane & Lynch Review Spin [December 03, 2007, 10:25 am ET] - Viewing Comments

Here's a little more controversy about Kane & Lynch reviews, already the subject of a firestorm over the GameSpot situation that surfaced last week (story). GameBump points out the Flash introduction on the Kane & Lynch: Dead Men features some finessed review quotes and scores that do not reflect the actual reception for IO Interactive's new action game.

The intro lists the following blurbs, each preceded by five prominent stars: "'…it's the best emulation of being in the midst of a Michael Mann movie we've ever seen.' GameSpy," and 'A mercenary, a psychopath & a bundle of cash… what could go wrong? Game Informer'." The trouble is GameSpy gave the game three stars and Game Informer scored the game seven out of ten, and neither related quote is from the reviews, the GameSpy quote is from a E3 preview of the game, and it's not clear where the GameInformer quote/marketing blurb is from (presumably the print magazine).

[gpw11]

Yeah, while it is borderline unethical, It's not like this is isolated or even new.  Shady marketing tactics for games, movies, cds, and pretty much every other not heavily regulated industry are pretty common.

[Quemaqua]

This is true, but I say nail them for it anyway.  I fucking hate that.

[gpw11]

Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm in no way defending the practice or the publisher, but at the same time think it's a bit ridiculous to pick and choose who should get lambasted for it because of some anti-Kane and Lynch trend on the internet.  Well, that's not even true.  If anything I find it funny how people ignore shit most of the time like it's no big deal, and then treat it like a crime against nature when it suits whatever fad or trend is going on at the moment.

[Quemaqua]

Because you're only going to nail them for it when there's crowd momentum.  You'll never get enough shit flying out of nowhere, you have to wait until everyone's paying attention because they have nothing better to do.  That makes it the perfect time to strike.  Of course, all that really does is send the message that it's okay to do it as much as you want as long as you keep a low profile and don't do something stupid to get your bullshit noticed, but... whatever.  I just like watching corporations go up in smoke, and it happens so rarely.  At least rarely in fun ways that you get advance notice of like this.

[MysterD]

GameSpot responds to the backlash of Gerstmann Ordeal.

Oh, Tribute to Jeff this week on GameSpot, on their On The Spot portion this week

Gerstmann, GameSpot part ways
After nearly 11 years of news, reviews, and previews, editorial director's tenure ends; GameSpot editors address controversy surrounding his departure.
By Staff, GameSpot
Posted Dec 3, 2007 5:06 pm PT

The past week marked the end of an era at GameSpot. After over a decade in a variety of editorial roles, Jeff Gerstmann's tenure as editorial director has ended.

"Jeff was a central figure in the creation and evolution of GameSpot, having written hundreds of previews and reviews, and anchoring much of our multimedia content," said Ricardo Torres, editorial director of previews and events. "The award-winning editorial team he leaves behind wish him nothing but good luck in his future endeavors."

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.

"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."

"Though he will be missed by his colleagues, Jeff's leaving does not affect GameSpot's core mission of delivering the most timely news, video content, in-depth previews, and unbiased reviews in games journalism," said Ryan MacDonald, executive producer of GameSpot Live. "GameSpot is an institution, and its code of ethics and duty to its users remains unchanged."

Tune in later in the week to hear editors' tributes to Gerstmann on the HotSpot podcast and GameSpot's weekly Webcast, On the Spot.

[MysterD]

I wonder if GameSpot's reviewers will keep giving out 6.0's, purposely now!

Heh, that'd be funny...

I hope CDV doesn't bitch to GameSpot about...
6.0 on Escape from Paradise City from G-Spot reviewer Brett Todd

[scottws]

Gamespot's response is BS.  If that were the case then why was the video review deleted and the content of the text review changed?  I didn't really expect them to come out and say they were a bunch of sellouts, but do they really expect people to buy that load of crap?

[MysterD]

Yeah, GameSpot's response is...well, basically telling us unfortunately nothing...

I wouldn't be surprised if GameSpot gets the most hits ever b/c of "Gerstmann-gate" and everyone will watch the tributes to him on the Podcast and OnTheSpot later this week -- and then suddenly, the site never gets many hits anymore ever again...

[Quemaqua]

I think what they're trying to say is, "Nobody at Eidos was pressuring us.  We just let our sales staff pressure the editorial staff.  That's all."

[MysterD]

Let's all never forget the great response to the Josie Miran FMV in his NFS: Most Wanted video review...

It's just hilarious...heh.

[gpw11]

Yeah, that's a pretty bad example of damage control.

[Pugnate]

it's a bit ridiculous to pick and choose who should get lambasted for it because of some anti-Kane and Lynch trend on the internet.

Absolutely agree with that.

It seems to me that any dubious marketing tactic which is standard among publishers, is now being used as a tool for anti Eidos stuff. Yea screw Eidos, still I find it funny.

I just like watching corporations go up in smoke, and it happens so rarely.  At least rarely in fun ways that you get advance notice of like this.

I have to say, I feel a little sorry for Eidos. While K&L may not have been a great game, they don't deserve this. From all accounts, it seems they didn't pressure anyone to get fired. They just pulled advertising, which was the logical thing to do.

They are unfairly getting the brunt of the stick.

Yeah, that's a pretty bad example of damage control.

Yup, the horse has kinda bolted.

[Cobra951]

Hey, I don't blame Eidos one bit.  If they can manipulate the market into thinking their product is wonderful--isn't that exactly what their ad department is supposed to do?  The alleged problem is that Gamespot caved in to financial pressure and sold out its editorial integrity.  This is very different from Eidos wanting to present K&L in the best possible light.  Everyone expects the company line to be rosy.  No one will accept the game press if they look like parrots snagging crackers thrown by advertisers.