PS3 fans seem to not be invited to this party. We haven't gotten any word that a demo will find its way to the PlayStation Network.
Tomb Raider: Underworld goes on sale November 18.
[majornelson.com]
Showing 1 through 10 of 15 stories found.
Too much clutter? Try Quick Search
.
Tomb Raider: Underworld Demo Now Available On XBLPosted 11:58am Tue Oct 28, 2008 by Aaron Dunlap
Tags: tomb raider underworld, demo, xbox 360, xbox live, eidos
PS3 fans seem to not be invited to this party. We haven't gotten any word that a demo will find its way to the PlayStation Network.
Tomb Raider: Underworld goes on sale November 18.
[majornelson.com]
PS3 fans seem to not be invited to this party. We haven't gotten any word that a demo will find its way to the PlayStation Network.
Tomb Raider: Underworld goes on sale November 18.
[majornelson.com]
Email This 
GameSpot (Finally) Responds to 'GerstmannGate' QuestionsPosted 12:39pm Thu Dec 06, 2007 by Aaron Dunlap
Tags: jeff gerstmann, gamespot, kane and lynch, eidos, cnet
At long last, GameSpot has issued a full Q&A regarding Jeff Gerstmann's firing and the swarms of conspiracy-theory rumors surrounding it, his Kane & Lynch review, the many edits to it, Eidos's reaction to it, and what really motivated the firing.
Unlike the last statement, this post contains significantly less legal stonewalling and seeming coverup.
[gamespot.com]
At long last, GameSpot has issued a full Q&A regarding Jeff Gerstmann's firing and the swarms of conspiracy-theory rumors surrounding it, his Kane & Lynch review, the many edits to it, Eidos's reaction to it, and what really motivated the firing.
Unlike the last statement, this post contains significantly less legal stonewalling and seeming coverup.
Q: Why was the Kane & Lynch review text altered?
A: Jeff's supervisors and select members of the edit team felt the
review's negativity did not match its "fair" 6.0 rating. The copy was
adjusted several days after its publication so that it better meshed
with its score, which remained unchanged. The achievements and demerits
it received were also left unaltered. Additionally, clarifications were
made concerning the game's multiplayer mode and to include differences
between the Xbox 360 and PS3 versions of the game.
Q: Why was the Kane & Lynch video review taken down?
A: Both the text and video reviews of Kane & Lynch went up on Tuesday, November 13. The morning of Wednesday, November 14, the video was taken down due to concerns of quality. Specifically, its audio was deemed inferior due to a faulty microphone. There were also concerns about the limited amount of footage, which was unrepresentative of the game in the review.
Q: Why wasn't the video immediately reposted?
A: Due to the crush of high-profile games being released the following week, there were insufficient resources to reshoot and re-edit the video review.
And...Q: Was Eidos Interactive upset by the game's review?
A: It has been confirmed that Eidos representatives expressed their displeasure to their appropriate contacts at GameSpot, but not to editorial directly. It was not the first time a publisher has voiced disappointment with a game review, and it won't be the last. However, it is strict GameSpot policy never to let any such feelings result in a review score to be altered or a video review to be pulled.
Q: Did Eidos' disappointment cause Jeff to be terminated?
A: Absolutely not.
Q: Did Eidos' disappointment cause the alteration of the review text?
A: Absolutely not.
Q: Did Eidos' disappointment lead to the video review being pulled down?
A: Absolutely not.
Q: Why was GameSpot "skinned" with Kane & Lynch ads when Jeff was terminated?
A: Due to design and development considerations, media buys on GameSpot are made weeks in advance. The timing of said ads was extremely unfortunate but was purely coincidental and determined solely by the game's release date of November 13, 2007.
It seems like a rather thorough squelching of the fires. It was just a fantastic series of coincidences all happening at just the right time in just the right order to completely throw several companies' credibility into question. Happens all the time.[gamespot.com]
Deus Ex 3 Teaser Analyzed, And Then SomePosted 11:35am Thu Dec 06, 2007 by Aaron Dunlap
Tags: deus ex 3, video, trailer analysis, eidos
[youtube.com]
Reader Nick Marinelli sent in this tip:
There's a flash of photos in the [Deus Ex 3] teaser that this guy looks through and comments on. Pretty interesting stuff.
He also analyzes the fetus in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qD4xq7HpW-k
I watched that trailer at least 4 times and didn't even notice these images. I guess I need to upgrade my vision augs.
[youtube.com]
Gerstmann's K&L Review Was Heavily 'Toned Down' Post-FiringPosted 10:31am Wed Dec 05, 2007 by Aaron Dunlap
Tags: jeff gerstmann, gamespot, kane and lynch, eidos, cnet
Going off of a Google cache of an EB Games page that featured the original review, Joystiq was able to piece together all of the edits made to the original version.
Basically, it was heavily toned down in attitude. The wording of several complaints goes from active to passive neutral, such as the line:
...being changed to...
...to...
The whole thing seems watered down to remove some of the "bite." It makes you wonder, if GameSpot actually had a problem with it, wouldn't they have changed these things during the pre-publishing process where nearly everybody on the review team looks over and makes changes to a review? The fact that the changes were made after publishing makes it seem like the changes were done at the request of an outside party.
If Jeff was fired for submitting an angrily-worded review instead of a nice, casual, everbody's-a-winner one, the review either wouldn't have been published or the changes would have been made before publishing. Making the changes after publishing means somebody saw it and decided it needed to be changed, be them from CNet management, a GameSpot manager who didn't see the review pre-publication, or someone from some outside party like a game developer or something.
The full body of the review with modifications highlighted by Joystiq is included after the jump.
[joystiq.com]
Going off of a Google cache of an EB Games page that featured the original review, Joystiq was able to piece together all of the edits made to the original version.
Basically, it was heavily toned down in attitude. The wording of several complaints goes from active to passive neutral, such as the line:
"it's extremely difficult to care about anything that's happening to them." [the main characters]
...being changed to...
"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."
And..."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."
...to...
"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."
The whole thing seems watered down to remove some of the "bite." It makes you wonder, if GameSpot actually had a problem with it, wouldn't they have changed these things during the pre-publishing process where nearly everybody on the review team looks over and makes changes to a review? The fact that the changes were made after publishing makes it seem like the changes were done at the request of an outside party.
If Jeff was fired for submitting an angrily-worded review instead of a nice, casual, everbody's-a-winner one, the review either wouldn't have been published or the changes would have been made before publishing. Making the changes after publishing means somebody saw it and decided it needed to be changed, be them from CNet management, a GameSpot manager who didn't see the review pre-publication, or someone from some outside party like a game developer or something.
The full body of the review with modifications highlighted by Joystiq is included after the jump.
[joystiq.com]
Eidos Reduces K&L Fake Rating Complaints to 'Eidos Bashing'Posted 1:57pm Tue Dec 04, 2007 by Shiva Stella
Tags: editorial, eidos interactive, scores, kane and lynch, jeff gerstmann
Hey, at least our star is real.
While gamers and gaming journalists everywhere are currently in an uproar regarding GameSpot's firing of Jeff Gerstmann over a poor review score for Eidos Interactive's Kane & Lynch: Dead Men (you can check out our own review here), what's interesting is that Eidos itself has refrained from commenting on the K&L fiasco.
In particular, the company's blatant graphical lie about the game's review scores, which we noticed were preview quotes paired with star rankings that didn't exist (GameSpy was recorded as having given the title a five star rating when the actual review issued three stars; similarily, Game Informer was recorded as issuing a five star rating when it scored the title a 7/10, which is funny because Game Informer doesn't even use a star system).
While Eidos Interactive has remained quiet on the issue, the company's PR trolls have been hard at work handling the damage control on various Kane & Lynch "fan" sites, including this one, which contains a post in which an "Eidos Official" comments that, indeed, those cheeky five stars weren't meant to be viewed as scores because obviously it's common practice to issue star ratings for game previews. Here's the full quote:
In the words of our own Aaron Dunlap, who broke the original story, "Silly us for thinking that a star near a review had something to do with reviews giving stars."
What's infuriating about this "graphical misrepresentation" of game scores that don't exist is that Eidos would "forget" to remove the intentionally misleading star graphics and then explain away the fans' negative reaction to being outright lied to as simple Eidos bashing - "bashing" Eidos apparently being the hip thing to do.
What's even more hilarious is that while the stars have since been removed from the official site's splash introduction, the site still parades preview quotes around as though they were the official "review" word on the title.
In other Eidos news, the game's official Eidos forum has been unlocked and is now available for posting. At one point an Eidos admin actually responds to a fan's statement that "they [the stars] are MEANT to be misinterpreted so that people will be misled into thinking K&L is a better game than it is and [buy] it" with:
Read: it is peachy to outright lie about your game's review scores if you can get away with labeling them as "design decisions". Thanks for the heads up, Eidos.
While gamers and gaming journalists everywhere are currently in an uproar regarding GameSpot's firing of Jeff Gerstmann over a poor review score for Eidos Interactive's Kane & Lynch: Dead Men (you can check out our own review here), what's interesting is that Eidos itself has refrained from commenting on the K&L fiasco.
In particular, the company's blatant graphical lie about the game's review scores, which we noticed were preview quotes paired with star rankings that didn't exist (GameSpy was recorded as having given the title a five star rating when the actual review issued three stars; similarily, Game Informer was recorded as issuing a five star rating when it scored the title a 7/10, which is funny because Game Informer doesn't even use a star system).
While Eidos Interactive has remained quiet on the issue, the company's PR trolls have been hard at work handling the damage control on various Kane & Lynch "fan" sites, including this one, which contains a post in which an "Eidos Official" comments that, indeed, those cheeky five stars weren't meant to be viewed as scores because obviously it's common practice to issue star ratings for game previews. Here's the full quote:
One of the sites quoted gave us a score of 7, however it still showed 5 stars. Reason why? they were not actually supposed to be seen as a score. Yes i know you are all gonna say `pull the other one`. However look at the facts (which people seem to ignore), those quotes and stars have been there since the page launched, before ANY review code or scores were received. So the only reason they are being picked on now is cos its fashionable right now to hate us and bash us and everyone is scaling the wall trying to find something new to bash us for.
FYI this is my personal thoughts and opinions and should not be seen as an official comment in any way shape or form.
FYI this is my personal thoughts and opinions and should not be seen as an official comment in any way shape or form.
In the words of our own Aaron Dunlap, who broke the original story, "Silly us for thinking that a star near a review had something to do with reviews giving stars."
What's infuriating about this "graphical misrepresentation" of game scores that don't exist is that Eidos would "forget" to remove the intentionally misleading star graphics and then explain away the fans' negative reaction to being outright lied to as simple Eidos bashing - "bashing" Eidos apparently being the hip thing to do.
What's even more hilarious is that while the stars have since been removed from the official site's splash introduction, the site still parades preview quotes around as though they were the official "review" word on the title.
In other Eidos news, the game's official Eidos forum has been unlocked and is now available for posting. At one point an Eidos admin actually responds to a fan's statement that "they [the stars] are MEANT to be misinterpreted so that people will be misled into thinking K&L is a better game than it is and [buy] it" with:
You mean this is an [advertisement] that is not quite scientifically based? Wow, I never thought I would see the day an advertisement tried to sell me something.
Read: it is peachy to outright lie about your game's review scores if you can get away with labeling them as "design decisions". Thanks for the heads up, Eidos.
GB Review: Kane & Lynch: Dead Men (360)Posted 1:22pm Mon Dec 03, 2007 by Aaron Dunlap
Tags: review, kane and lynch, eidos, aaron dunlap, io interactive, 1 star, Xbox 360
I do not dislike this game. Dislike is a passive sentiment. I actively hate this game. This game drove me completely bonkers, entirely independent of any scandals or controversies floating around lately. Kane & Lynch: Dead Men is a very poorly designed product, with a story that tries way too hard to be gritty and comes off as adolescent; a completely useless aiming and control scheme; lazily designed levels, and a downright infuriating save and checkpoint system. When a game pisses me off, I stop playing it; but when I'm reviewing it, I have to soldier on and take the continual emotional beatings it provides. After playing Kane & Lynch, I hate my life, myself, and my Xbox 360.
Click here for an explanation of our review and scoring format.
Kane & Lynch: Dead Men is a game that wants to be a lot of things and fails at them all. Surely foremost in their attempts is to be a "bad guy game." Either Eidos or IO Interactive probably took the popularity of their Hitman franchise as a sign that people like games where you play as a "bad guy" and decided to take that to an extreme. What they overlooked is that why we love Agent 47 so much isn't that he's technically bad, but that he's a sympathetic character and a master at what he does. He's cold and collected: all he knows is assassination and he does it better than anybody on the planet. He's not after money, glory, or fame. Usually, he's after the truth or vengeance. Kane & Lynch, on the other hand, contains two of the most contemptible characters of all time who do absolutely nothing to redeem themselves.
The same feeling I had playing the game.
I do not dislike this game. Dislike is a passive sentiment. I actively hate this game. This game drove me completely bonkers, entirely independent of any scandals or controversies floating around lately. Kane & Lynch: Dead Men is a very poorly designed product, with a story that tries way too hard to be gritty and comes off as adolescent; a completely useless aiming and control scheme; lazily designed levels, and a downright infuriating save and checkpoint system. When a game pisses me off, I stop playing it; but when I'm reviewing it, I have to soldier on and take the continual emotional beatings it provides. After playing Kane & Lynch, I hate my life, myself, and my Xbox 360.
Click here for an explanation of our review and scoring format.
Kane & Lynch: Dead Men is a game that wants to be a lot of things and fails at them all. Surely foremost in their attempts is to be a "bad guy game." Either Eidos or IO Interactive probably took the popularity of their Hitman franchise as a sign that people like games where you play as a "bad guy" and decided to take that to an extreme. What they overlooked is that why we love Agent 47 so much isn't that he's technically bad, but that he's a sympathetic character and a master at what he does. He's cold and collected: all he knows is assassination and he does it better than anybody on the planet. He's not after money, glory, or fame. Usually, he's after the truth or vengeance. Kane & Lynch, on the other hand, contains two of the most contemptible characters of all time who do absolutely nothing to redeem themselves.
Official Kane & Lynch Website Lies About Its ScoresPosted 5:26pm Sun Dec 02, 2007 by Aaron Dunlap
Tags: Kane and Lynch, Jeff Gerstmann, Eidos, GameSpy, Game Informer, delusion
At the heart of this Jeff Gerstmann controversy is the unconfirmed notion that Eidos was upset with GameSpot's 6/10 review of the game. While we have no way of knowing if that is actually what happened, it seems that Eidos might just be completely delusional about the media reception for the game.
If you go to the official Kane & Lynch website and watch the flash intro that plays before the main content appears, you'll see two excerpts from reviews flash by with a 5-star rating for each. The problem is, those reviews did not issue a 5-star, or 100% rating.
It lists a GameSpy review with the quote, "It's the best emulation of being in the midst of a Michael Mann movie we've ever seen." This quote doesn't exist from GameSpy's review. It's pulled from some early E3 2007 coverage that would have been published at least 5 months ago. The preview issues no kind of score or rating that could be perceived as a 5-star rating.
In fact, GameSpy's actual review gave Kane & Lynch a 3-star rating. Three stars, on a 5-star scale, equates to a 60%, or 6-out-of-10 score, which is exactly what Gerstmann gave the game.
The Kane & Lynch webpage also lists a quote from Game Informer: "A mercenary, a psychopath, & a bundle of cash... what could go wrong?" and also lists it with a 5-star rating. That quote also does not appear in Game Informer's review, it seems to be pulled from an early preview. And if you guessed that Game Informer's actual review gave the game a 5-star score, you'd be both wrong and stupid. They gave it a 7/10.
It's common for game PR to include preview quotes on early advertisements, as those are the only kind of quotes available before the game's release. Never before, however, have I seen preview quotes being paraded around as reviews, and also given completely imaginary scores to boot.
Delusion. Complete delusion.
Screenshots of the website are included after the jump.
UPDATE: GameBump (that's us) gave Kane & Lynch a 1-star review. And no, it's not a joke.
UPDATE UPDATE: Apparently people are mad at Eidos because "Eidos Bashing" is the thing to do.
[kaneandlynch.com]
At the heart of this Jeff Gerstmann controversy is the unconfirmed notion that Eidos was upset with GameSpot's 6/10 review of the game. While we have no way of knowing if that is actually what happened, it seems that Eidos might just be completely delusional about the media reception for the game.
If you go to the official Kane & Lynch website and watch the flash intro that plays before the main content appears, you'll see two excerpts from reviews flash by with a 5-star rating for each. The problem is, those reviews did not issue a 5-star, or 100% rating.
It lists a GameSpy review with the quote, "It's the best emulation of being in the midst of a Michael Mann movie we've ever seen." This quote doesn't exist from GameSpy's review. It's pulled from some early E3 2007 coverage that would have been published at least 5 months ago. The preview issues no kind of score or rating that could be perceived as a 5-star rating.
In fact, GameSpy's actual review gave Kane & Lynch a 3-star rating. Three stars, on a 5-star scale, equates to a 60%, or 6-out-of-10 score, which is exactly what Gerstmann gave the game.
The Kane & Lynch webpage also lists a quote from Game Informer: "A mercenary, a psychopath, & a bundle of cash... what could go wrong?" and also lists it with a 5-star rating. That quote also does not appear in Game Informer's review, it seems to be pulled from an early preview. And if you guessed that Game Informer's actual review gave the game a 5-star score, you'd be both wrong and stupid. They gave it a 7/10.
It's common for game PR to include preview quotes on early advertisements, as those are the only kind of quotes available before the game's release. Never before, however, have I seen preview quotes being paraded around as reviews, and also given completely imaginary scores to boot.
Delusion. Complete delusion.
Screenshots of the website are included after the jump.
UPDATE: GameBump (that's us) gave Kane & Lynch a 1-star review. And no, it's not a joke.
UPDATE UPDATE: Apparently people are mad at Eidos because "Eidos Bashing" is the thing to do.
[kaneandlynch.com]
Idea: Maybe GameSpot Needs A Writers StrikePosted 11:55am Fri Nov 30, 2007 by Aaron Dunlap
Tags: Jeff Gerstmann, GameSpot, EIDOS, firing, politics, Kane and Lynch, strike, WGA
If you've been following entertainment news lately you're probably aware that the Writers Guild of America (the people who write our TV shows and movies) are on strike because studio executives refuse to increase the percentages of online and DVD sales distributed to the writers.
Writers fear they are being treated unfairly, so they strike. They stop working, showing management how important they are.
If you've been following video game journalism news lately, you're probably aware that Jeff Gerstmann, an editor from GameSpot was apparently fired because Eidos put financial pressure on them of CNet, their owners, over a negative review Gerstmann gave to Kane & Lynch.
If I were a writer at GameSpot now, I would be terrified to submit any writing in fear that my job could be at stake for simply crafting an opinion: what their job requires. I couldn't do my job if it became apparent that credibility was for sale.
I'd go on strike. I'd stop submitting reviews or news. I'd stop working.
That's what I'd do, maybe it's what GameSpot writers should do.
Interesting to note, there haven't been any reviews posted at GameSpot today or yesterday. Maybe they're already refusing to submit reviews.
If you've been following entertainment news lately you're probably aware that the Writers Guild of America (the people who write our TV shows and movies) are on strike because studio executives refuse to increase the percentages of online and DVD sales distributed to the writers.Writers fear they are being treated unfairly, so they strike. They stop working, showing management how important they are.
If you've been following video game journalism news lately, you're probably aware that Jeff Gerstmann, an editor from GameSpot was apparently fired because Eidos put financial pressure on them of CNet, their owners, over a negative review Gerstmann gave to Kane & Lynch.
If I were a writer at GameSpot now, I would be terrified to submit any writing in fear that my job could be at stake for simply crafting an opinion: what their job requires. I couldn't do my job if it became apparent that credibility was for sale.
I'd go on strike. I'd stop submitting reviews or news. I'd stop working.
That's what I'd do, maybe it's what GameSpot writers should do.
Interesting to note, there haven't been any reviews posted at GameSpot today or yesterday. Maybe they're already refusing to submit reviews.
Gerstmann Firing Not GameSpot's Fault, Says ModPosted 10:34am Fri Nov 30, 2007 by Aaron Dunlap
Tags: Jeff Gerstmann, GameSpot, EIDOS, firing, politics, Kane and Lynch, CNET
According to a post by a moderator at the linked page of the GameSpot forums, if anybody at the GameSpot (not Eidos) side of this issue is to be blamed, it's CNET, not GameSpot itself. CNET handles advertising for GameSpot and all other property sites, and they handle hiring/firing.
From the thread:
So who should we blame here? Eidos for pressuring CNet into firing Gerstmann over a bad review of a game they've been paying CNet to promote, or CNet for caving to pressure and firing a journalist for doing his job?
UPDATE: However, there would of course be people within GameSpot's management that can fire people. Complete control wouldn't be handed over to CNet.
[gamespot.com]
According to a post by a moderator at the linked page of the GameSpot forums, if anybody at the GameSpot (not Eidos) side of this issue is to be blamed, it's CNET, not GameSpot itself. CNET handles advertising for GameSpot and all other property sites, and they handle hiring/firing.From the thread:
People, don't direct your anger at Gamespot. This is CNet's meddling.
Gamespot consists just of the editorial, news, community, and
development teams. It's CNet's marketing that puts the ads up. CNet's
marketing that complained. CNet is who can fire their EIC.
This makes sense to me. CNet, as owners of GameSpot and damn near a thousand other websites, would be the ones handling HR and marketing rather than having each individual property doing it themselves; that would be redundant. So who should we blame here? Eidos for pressuring CNet into firing Gerstmann over a bad review of a game they've been paying CNet to promote, or CNet for caving to pressure and firing a journalist for doing his job?
UPDATE: However, there would of course be people within GameSpot's management that can fire people. Complete control wouldn't be handed over to CNet.
[gamespot.com]
[UPDATED] Eidos Backlash Begins: Eidos.com is Down Posted 10:05am Fri Nov 30, 2007 by Aaron Dunlap
Tags: eidos, jeff gerstmann, backlash
I'd heard that the forums over at Eidos.com were going completely crazy over the firing of GameSpot's Jeff Gerstmann over a negative Kane & Lynch review so I was on my way to the site to collect some quotes or screenshots and, well, the site was down.
Needless to say, the entire internets are in an uproar over this (now confirmed) firing. Gerstmann's Wikipedia article has been locked from changes by new users due to vandalism.
If it turns out to be true that Eidos forced GameSpot to fire Gerstmann over a negative review, there will soon be unleashed a holy hellstorm of outrage that this industry has never before witnessed.
UPDATE: The GameSpot homepage now includes no mention of Kane & Lynch, but yesterday there were many images and links to the review. The GameSpot forums don't seem too pleased. This thread alone has over 4,000 replies so far.
UPDATE UPDATE: We've received word that Tim Tracey, another GameSpot employee, has left his job today. As we understand it, he left voluntarily. We can't confirm whether this is related to the Gerstmann firing. Tracey worked in the video production team for GameSpot LIVE then moved to MP3.com.
UPDATE THE THIRD: Eidos.com and Eidosinteractive.com are back online. The US Eidos forums are also back, though every forum is locked and nearly all threads related to Gerstmann have been purged. There is this one, but it ends rather tersely.
I'd heard that the forums over at Eidos.com were going completely crazy over the firing of GameSpot's Jeff Gerstmann over a negative Kane & Lynch review so I was on my way to the site to collect some quotes or screenshots and, well, the site was down.Needless to say, the entire internets are in an uproar over this (now confirmed) firing. Gerstmann's Wikipedia article has been locked from changes by new users due to vandalism.
If it turns out to be true that Eidos forced GameSpot to fire Gerstmann over a negative review, there will soon be unleashed a holy hellstorm of outrage that this industry has never before witnessed.
UPDATE: The GameSpot homepage now includes no mention of Kane & Lynch, but yesterday there were many images and links to the review. The GameSpot forums don't seem too pleased. This thread alone has over 4,000 replies so far.
UPDATE UPDATE: We've received word that Tim Tracey, another GameSpot employee, has left his job today. As we understand it, he left voluntarily. We can't confirm whether this is related to the Gerstmann firing. Tracey worked in the video production team for GameSpot LIVE then moved to MP3.com.
UPDATE THE THIRD: Eidos.com and Eidosinteractive.com are back online. The US Eidos forums are also back, though every forum is locked and nearly all threads related to Gerstmann have been purged. There is this one, but it ends rather tersely.
|
Go to page |
Reviews
