Gus Sorola: "Yeah like, 'Thank you Jeff Gerstmann for keeping it real'."
Meg Turney: "They were like, ' It's a technical mess'." (she says this while completely forgetting she just had a whole segment about how buggy the game was earlier in the podcast) Like people were jizzing over Jeff Gerstmann and Giant Bomb because they called out all the problems in the game." Trying to stand out like 'oh we're different, we have a more keen eye than the average reviewer'. its broken up into multiple streams because (I assume like every time he drives the 101) his cell signal drops periodically and he has to re-connect and start the stream again. And that's what people are making a stand on. Mixlr provides an archive, its called 'Showreels' you can find it under jeffs profile.
Gus Sorola: "I feel like the bugs and negativity is really overblown. Meg Turney: "Yeah, no one will come to our site to look at it." Ryan Haywood: "' Look, we have legitimate things to say and if we don't rate it low, you know how legitimate we are.'" You're not different or special because you review a game low!" Because I feel like people do that to be 'eh we're different'. Meg Turney: "Ok, so I have a bone to pick. I know this is a few days old, but it's painfully hilarious.Īpparently these Rooster Teeth people were complaining about how someone could review Fallout 4 so low.
#Jeff gerstmann mixlr archive Patch#
They literally sound like paid shills on this The Patch podcast. It was Jeff Gerstmann's role high in the site's infrastructure that allowed his raw editorial content to pierce the core of the business.having done Fallout 4 ads and wearing Pip Boys and praising it for dozens of minutes ("it's super responsive, I'm really impressed with how well it works") as they go on their rant. A more junior reviewer might have seen their Kane & Lynch review streamlined by this process, divested of its worrisome angles and overall troubling shape. The apparatus is very tight: there are layers of editorial control that can massage the score, even when the text tells a different tale. People believe things like this anyway, but they don't know it, and the shift from intuitive to objective knowledge is startling. I assume it was designed to terrify them.įor Gabriel, this tale proves out his darkest suspicions. No, this was worse: the more nebulous "tone" would be the guide.
#Jeff gerstmann mixlr archive how to#
Would that it were only about the 6.0 - at least then you'd know how to score something if you wanted to keep your Goddamned job. It made for a dramatic public execution that left the editorial staff in disarray. And it had to be Jeff, at least, we believe, precisely because of his stature and longevity. But it's the firm belief internally that Jeff was sacrificed. Management has another story, of course: management always has another story.
After Gerstmann's savage flogging of Kane & Lynch, a game whose marketing investment on Gamespot alone reached into the hundreds of thousands, Eidos (we are told) pulled hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of future advertising from the site. Management claimed to have spoken to Jeff about his "tone" before, and no doubt it was this tone that created tensions between their editorial content, the direction of the site, and the carefully crafted relationships that allowed Gamespot to act as an engine of revenue creation. I will tell you the Gerstmann Story as we heard it. Gerstmann's review of Twilight Princess cemented his reputation as a criminal renegade with no law but his own, even though he gave the game an 8.9 - a nine, essentially - out of ten. It's almost as though there is an algorithm in place there to correct the heady rush associated with cracking open an anticipated new title. In general terms, Gamespot can be relied upon to give high-profile games scores which are slightly lower than their counterparts elsewhere. Jeff Gerstmann is no stranger to controversy. Apparently, even when they do it right they're doing it wrong. No matter what score they give it, high or low, they're reviled equally by the online chorus. The 7-9 scale they toil under is largely the result of an uneasy peace between the business and editorial wings of the venue. It's been a couple weeks discussing reviews and reviewers around here, but somewhere along the way I neglected to mention that their job is essentially impossible.
0 kommentar(er)
