"GameSpot takes its editorial integrity extremely seriously. 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."

Jeff Gerstmann's statement as said to Joystiq doesn't shed much light on the situation due to the need for him to stay silent on the matter for legal reasons. Speculations continue to run rampant as Gamespot has disabled all Kayne & Lynch reviews and new allegations surface by the minute.

The latest controversy surrounds Eidos as they are accused of completely making up the review scores they are proudly displaying on their site (which have since been pulled). They claim Kayne & Lynch received two full five star reviews when one site actually gave it three out of five stars and the second site gave it seven out of ten stars.

Reading the big sites reviews of titles has never been a factor in whether or not I purchase a game. I look more to friends who have the game and know my tastes (assuming I don't get it the second it launches, I am not the most patient person ever). So while that part doesn't directly affect me, it does affect the industry as a whole as consumers lose confidence when situations like this arise. While Gamespot comes under heavy fire, so does every large site that relies on advertising dollars to stay afloat.

Do reviews play a part in your decision making process when purchasing a game? Have the issues with Gamespot, Kayne & Lynch, Eidos, and reviews in general personally affected you in any way? Do you, as a loyal and passionate gamer, even give a shit about any of this?

Comments (10)

...
written by MC, December 05, 2007

I do care about reviews... in fact, I've been pushing for video game reviewing to start moving towards an increasing level of professionalism and scholarship like other forms of mass media have (books, film, television, music).

Back in February, Jim linked to a post I did at my own blog about how I felt that reviews, especially those involving numeric ratings, should be reevaluated every so often to account for titles on that same system and in that same genre of gaming. Ironically enough, the centerpiece of that argument was Jeff Gerstmann's review of the first PS2 Tony Hawk Game which got a 10 rating... a rating which I think should have been reevaluated given the breadth of current titles for the system. Both Kevin and Dan disagreed with me to some degree at the time, though during the podcast discussion of the Gamespot firing and scoring was much in keeping with my arguments.

But as someone who doesn't have a lot of friends who are into gaming, written reviews(and not just numbers) are an important tool for deciding if a title is worth consideration, and I generally consult multiple sources... because I want to know not only what works with a game, but I want to be aware of the problems with a title as well, and I want a variety of opinions before I make a purchase, and this process generally eliminates both the fanboy and hater reviews as well. And I've gotten the best bang for my buck by doing so. Put it this way, I've bought very few duds in the past few years because I've become a little more vigilant in my research instead of buying into the hype or just following a particular company/series.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by bs angel, December 05, 2007

Your response was insightful and it is good to know that reviews are helping you make good decisions about where to spend your money.

While I find your idea interesting and valuable (about reassessing reviews later on down the line), the main disadvantage I see is mainly the time it would take for the reviewers. Great concept though, and one I haven't thought of before. I would love to see that implemented somewhere.

I'd be interested in hearing how you think this whole fiasco will affect you personally later on down the road. Is the trust you put into these reviews wavering now because of this situation? Are you more weary of sites with heavy advertising pressure? I wonder if we will ever get to the truth of what is going on in regards to this.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by MC, December 05, 2007

My idea is more a numeric adjustment akin to what happens with movie reviews when they are placed into a book of reviews and not full scale re-reviews. In general, if two games released two or more years apart have the same numerical rating, I've found the newer game is likely to be better purchase.

I am somewhat fortunate that since I am technically a last generation player, a lot of the reviews that I use to make decisions are likely relatively clean. And even though Gamespot's credibility may be damaged and their future reviews will be suspect, some of their criticisms on past titles may still be valid, especially when supplemented by a few other sources. Of course, when I do make the jump up to the next level so to speak, I probably won't consult them too often.

And as a fan of the Hitman series, Urban Chaos and other Eidos properties, I think they are ultimately going to be the recipient of my wrath and none of my dollars from here on out.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by bs angel, December 06, 2007

It will be interesting watching how many people boycott the companies and sites related to this scandal. The damage right now is huge, but things always calm down. I am more curious about the long term effects to not only them but the industry as a whole.

As far as reviews go, I prefer ones from people I feel closer to and more to the sense of "if you like that, you will like this" vs. using numbers or stars. Just my personal preference for whatever reason.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Dan Zuccarelli, December 06, 2007

I was actually quasi-curious about Kane & Lynch even after the varying reviews, it seemed fun.

But there's no way in hell I'll buy the game now... they're officially off my list.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by bdwilcox, December 06, 2007

I usually look at Metacritic to get a feel for a game's qaulity. One thing I've noticed is that the reviewer with the lowest average score seems to be GameSpot. That doesn't mean they don't take payola for certain games/review, but overall. their reviews tend to call a spade a spade.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Responses to the Gamespot / Ge, December 06, 2007

[...] There are lots of interesting responses to these events, debating the state of ethics in game journalism and the state of game reviews in general. [...]

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by MC, December 06, 2007

Dan, I thought it looked like my kind of game too and something I may have picked up when I made the leap to the next-gen.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by MC, December 07, 2007

Wow... the Gamespot podcast talking about this incident is crazy. They all sound pissed about this whole thing, especially since they didn't know it was happening either.

http://www.gamespot.com/video/0/6183660/videoplayerpop?

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by MC, December 12, 2007

I also just realized that one of my favorite gaming sites (sportsgamer.com) is also part of the CNET family.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Name

Email

Website

Title

Comment

smaller | bigger

Subscribe via email (registered users only)

Add Comment