Fired gamespot review Gertsmann speaks about K&L review (joystiq.com)

[8th lutz]

http://www.joystiq.com/2007/12/03/exclusiv...-review-future/

 

"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."

[Gabriel]

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."

 

There are some games which require a little extra play to determine their merit. Sometimes they're like Space Giraffe, and a little perserverence will reveal something better than it first seemed. Sometimes they're like Starfox Armada, where a little restraint before proclaiming the second coming of gaming after a solid beginning reveals a horribly broken shell of a game, glazed with a layer of turd.

 

Yet, I'd dare say there has never been nor will there ever be a game which requires anyone to complete it in order to decide the game sucks or rulez. If the game isn't a RPG, you'll definitely know one way or the other after 2 hours of play, at most. And even with an RPG, you're either going to be sucked in or pissed off after about 4-6 hours.

 

In short, if a game sucks for 20 hours, it doesn't matter if it has the most awesome last level of all time. It's not fun. It does not deserve redemption for becoming a passable game in the 11th hour. A great game doesn't deserve condemnation for being lame in the last 5 minutes, although the greater chance of someone actually wanting to play it long enough to reach those substandard bits means they must be factored into the whole.

 

And that's really what the people screaming "reviewers must complete games" are screaming about. They're not actually after any kind of honesty. They're looking for validation of the games they've already gotten or already decided they liked without ever playing.

Edited December 3, 2007 by Gabriel