Free Jeff Gerstmann!
Free Jeff Gerstmann!
November 30, 2007
The online gaming community is buzzing today over reports that longtime GameSpot editor Jeff Gerstmann was fired for tagging Eidos' crime game Kane & Lynch with a mediocre review. From Gerstmann's write-up:While [Kane & Lynch] 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.
Joystiq reports that the GameSpot Forums are bubbling over with posts on the topic, with one thread attracting more than four thousand entries.
GP: If this story is as it now seems - a journalist fired over advertiser pressure - then it won't be taken lightly. Game companies simply can't be allowed to push writers around.
UPDATE: Perhaps there is more to the story. Over at Wired, Susan Arendt has this from an anonymous "insider":
The [Kane & Lynch] ads went up and the Eidos brouhaha was settled over two weeks ago. Jeff got fired yesterday. Furthermore, I'd heard a few people tell that he'd already been skating on thin ice for "unprofessional reviews and review practices." I don't know much about that, though, so I can't say one way or the other.
My gut tells me that he got canned for larger reasons. Maybe the Eidos debacle was part of it -- I don't know. But I sincerely doubt that Eidos made Gamespot fire him. CNET doesn't kowtow to its advertisers, and I've more than once seen the higher-ups turn away big advertising dollars for the sake of the company's integrity. I think the whole thing is likely a combination of factors, the biggest being poor timing
UPDATE 2: Joystiq is reporting that Cnet, which owns GameSpot, has issued a statement on the matter:
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.
[As to Gerstmann,] it is CNET Networks' policy not to comment on the status of its employees, current of former.
UPDATE 3: My buddy Duke Ferris over at GameRevolution writes that pressure from Eidos did indeed prove Gerstmann's undoing:
As some of you may have heard, Gamespot has terminated their long-time reviewer Jeff Gerstmann, ostensibly over his Kane & Lynch review, and Eidos subsequently pulling their advertising dollars.
It's impossible for a company as large as C-Net (Gamespot's corporate overlords) to keep such a thing completely quiet, and I have sources that confirm that this is in fact true.
A PUBLICATION OF THE ECA
SUBSCRIBE
LOGINGamePolitics ShoutBox
Posted 07/24/08 at 07:39am
sortableturnip: Best...comments...ever: http://jaablog.jaablaw.com/2008/07/06/jack-needs-your-help.aspx?pg=5&view=threaded
sortableturnip: Best...comments...ever: http://jaablog.jaablaw.com/2008/07/06/jack-needs-your-help.aspx?pg=5&view=threaded
Posted 07/24/08 at 05:42am
sortableturnip: Alteffor: I 2nd that motion. GP you should have a special section for all of JT's correspondence to you
sortableturnip: Alteffor: I 2nd that motion. GP you should have a special section for all of JT's correspondence to you
Posted 07/23/08 at 10:13pm
GRIZZAM PRIME: Lunatic: Nope. Ever fading if I'm not mistaken.
GRIZZAM PRIME: Lunatic: Nope. Ever fading if I'm not mistaken.
Posted 07/23/08 at 08:05pm
LuNaTiC: is there a way to view old shouts? sorry if its a noob question.
LuNaTiC: is there a way to view old shouts? sorry if its a noob question.
Posted 07/23/08 at 07:07pm
gamepolitics: momma didn't raise no sock puppet
gamepolitics: momma didn't raise no sock puppet
Posted 07/23/08 at 06:15pm
Rodrigo Ybáñez García: Jack is a repressed man. Don´t be surprised...
Rodrigo Ybáñez García: Jack is a repressed man. Don´t be surprised...
Posted 07/23/08 at 06:07pm
GryphonOsiris: So Jack admitted paying for gay porn... all I can say is wow... just wow...
GryphonOsiris: So Jack admitted paying for gay porn... all I can say is wow... just wow...
Posted 07/23/08 at 05:09pm
lumi: to the case, and he's been on 60 minutes once!
lumi: to the case, and he's been on 60 minutes once!
Posted 07/23/08 at 05:09pm
lumi: GP, you should mention you'll be filing a legal injunction against him if he doesn't comply. Phoenix Wright will be attached
lumi: GP, you should mention you'll be filing a legal injunction against him if he doesn't comply. Phoenix Wright will be attached
Posted 07/23/08 at 03:32pm
Alteffor: You should add a section to the site for anything Jack CC's to you. It's always entertaining to read the stuff he writes.
Alteffor: You should add a section to the site for anything Jack CC's to you. It's always entertaining to read the stuff he writes.
Posted 07/23/08 at 03:31pm
Matriculated: Does anyone know when the Supreme Court reaches their decission?
Matriculated: Does anyone know when the Supreme Court reaches their decission?
Posted 07/23/08 at 03:04pm
Freyar: I demand to see this letter! (Not that I have any grounds to demand on.)
Freyar: I demand to see this letter! (Not that I have any grounds to demand on.)
Posted 07/23/08 at 02:53pm
gamepolitics: JT called me a "sock puppet" in an e-mail to Hal Halpin... i gave him 24 hours to retract it, LOL
gamepolitics: JT called me a "sock puppet" in an e-mail to Hal Halpin... i gave him 24 hours to retract it, LOL
Posted 07/23/08 at 02:46pm
Haggard: Might want to take a look at what Anthony Horowitz wrote about GTA IV in the Telegraph, article seems to have been taken down
Haggard: Might want to take a look at what Anthony Horowitz wrote about GTA IV in the Telegraph, article seems to have been taken down
Posted 07/23/08 at 01:05pm
Silencets: Beutiful. I always did wonder about Jacko Wacko
Silencets: Beutiful. I always did wonder about Jacko Wacko
Posted 07/23/08 at 10:24am
Matriculated: So Jack (an anti-gay activist) PAYED for gay porn
Matriculated: So Jack (an anti-gay activist) PAYED for gay porn
Posted 07/23/08 at 10:22am
Matriculated: [i]...and purchased membership.[/i]
Matriculated: [i]...and purchased membership.[/i]
Posted 07/23/08 at 10:21am
Matriculated: [i] few months later, as part of his ongoing campaign against Kent, Thompson followed links to gay porn on Kent's website[/i]
Matriculated: [i] few months later, as part of his ongoing campaign against Kent, Thompson followed links to gay porn on Kent's website[/i]
Posted 07/23/08 at 07:40am
sortableturnip: Jack's at it again: http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/riptide/2008/07/jack_thompson_faces_permanent.php
sortableturnip: Jack's at it again: http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/riptide/2008/07/jack_thompson_faces_permanent.php
Posted 07/22/08 at 11:22pm
PHOENIXZERO: Ugh, that CNBC program "Play to Win" is it? Is on again...
PHOENIXZERO: Ugh, that CNBC program "Play to Win" is it? Is on again...
Copyright © 2007 ECA. All rights reserved.
Game Politics and Game Politics logo are trademarks of the ECA.
Game Politics and Game Politics logo are trademarks of the ECA.
Comments
Many consumers are also guillible enough to buy franchised sequels until their eyes explode; hell, a good plot writer can't be found for the love of God these days. I doubt this industry could survive long if games were judged solely by the quality of the content and depth of their plot. I'm glad that Jeff places a small amount of intrest in the quality of a plot. One reasons games can't get any damn respect is because the plots/setting/context do not approach moderate quality literature and film.
A shame this happened to Jeff. But buisness is buisness, and gamers are more than happy to keep visiting Gamespot and fueling the low standards the industry sets.
I remember way back when, Acclaim threatened to pull advertising from EGM because EGM gave Total Recall deservedly poor reviews, and EGM basically told them, "Go ahead, we're not changing the reviews".
This is just a sign of the times as the stakes in game publishing get bigger.
Basically, if Eidos are admitting that they manipulate the reviews of their products, then I certainly don't want them.
I had read an article about this same sort of thing on IGDA in the June 2007 Culture Clash article. (I think the links are causing the post to be eaten)
Something similar happened with Lair as well. Lair was getting marginal reviews at best so Sony sent "Reviewer Guides" to game reviewers so that they could play the game properly.
I have always been wary of game reviews. They make money off the ads and yet review the same games that are paying their wages. There is always the possibility of a conflict of interest.
It is nice to know that there are game reviewers with integrity and I hope that Gerstmann gets another job (judging by his experience, it won't be a problem.)
Yes, we know the pressure exists, but when a company feels it has the right to behave in such a blatantly disgusting manner, then it is something new, they don't normally push their luck that far, so no, Dennis isn't acting like an unintelligible sentence as you suggest, he's acting like a reporter reporting on games and the politics involved in them.
It seems to me that corporate interests are as dangerous to freedom of the press and freedom of information as any government legislation would be. But it's not like "indie media" is all that viable an alternative. Enough people start reading an indie media source, it gets big and then it gets acquired by a major news conglomerate. I don't know how, beyond companies and executives willing to sacrifice money for integrity, this can ever turn around. And maybe I'm just cynical, but I don't think there's that many people out there who have the fortitude to do so.
-P
P.S. And yes, I mean CGW. Back when it was called CGW and Johnny ran the show.
Interesting, this certainly seems to be polarising in opinions at the moment, there are those that are certain that this was caused by Eidos, and others who are not, at the moment I'm still undecided until I get more evidence either way.
As I said before, if this is true, I'm bloody furious, and I suspect Eidos will suffer from consumer pressure, but I'm willing to wait until I find out if it is true or not.
His wording heavily sugjust he is surprised stateing that it is not to be taken lightly, if you do your homework you will find this has been going on for years.
Two weeks doesn't seem like enough time to completely disassociate the firing with the "brouhaha". This just doesn't feel right to me.
"It is a review site, we are honest in our reviews. Feel free to pull funding, when people hear about us standing up they will come to us asking to advertise here and our reader base will go up because they know we stand up to greedy producers."
I honestly was not a fan of his reviews, low quality and I think the only number on his board was an 8. (He gave a lot of games 8.8). The real problem lies in the review system. It is not a system of 1-10, it is a system of 6-10. Crap games get 6 or 7, wonderful games get 10. I'm sorry but nothing is perfect on release, there are always flaws. If you don't give anything below a 6, just change the system to 1-5.
I miss the old days of "grade" reviewed games or scales of 100.
If a game was an A+ it was as good as it gets, A was great go get it now, B, you know it was "Good enough to pick up and enjoy for a while." C was might want to avoid it, D was this is pretty bad, and F was don't touch this.
Of course if we had that system everything would be getting A+. So maybe we just need to fire every reviewer and get some people who are honest and tell it how it is. Perhaps have a school on "How to review things intelligently." You know, find people who have degrees, know how to think. Instead of idiots who just spew driven because they want to be popular.
What kind of world are we living in where people are fired for giving thier opinons? (esspecilly when they are paid to do so.)
I doubt any of the other review sites want to be synomous with Mr.8.8.
The uproar everyone is having is a good thing still. It's setting some kind of preseedent that we are not just ingorant conumsers. Aren't Reviews also some form and type of guide to help us get to know a game a little bit that we have not played yet?....I been known to buy games with bad reviews and still enjoy them myself...
I don't base my perchases off reviews...
But seeing as how everyone is in a uproar might scare the Corporate bullies that they can't do this.
I've done lots of homework ;)
And 'everyone does it' is not an excuse.
exactly, it is not an excuse for not knowing that it is common practice
anyways lets drop it.
Stop with the condescension, or at least spell check if you're going to act like that. This is a big deal, involving a major gaming news source, a major gaming company and a well-known reviewer. Since you've obviously done your homework, since you're telling other people to do theirs, tell me of another time that a website fired a reporter for doing his job under what appears to be advertiser pressure. Give me an example of this happening like this. If you're suggesting that there's been a payola scam, and this is the first time someone went against it and got fired, that's one thing. But I don't think that's what you're getting at.
Hasn't this guy worked for Gamespot for a VERY long time? Like, since they were rather young and didn't have as much pull/power as they do now? It seems odd that all of a sudden, after several years, he's getting fired because of “unprofessional reviews and review practices.”
"This shocking event, which must be a first or at the very least uncommon, is terrible."
You are correct to assume that most people know that game review sites face the issue of corrupted reviewers (sounds a lot more serious than it really is).
The article merely placed an event and face on an action.
So GameSpot messed up bigtime in their handling. Hurray, just another step towards less money-boosted reviews.
GameSpot turned money-happy. Jeff didn't. He got fired for not being in tone with the rest of GameSpot.
Let's at least wait until we get the facts before invading a foreign country because someone says they are an imminent threat.... err blaming the site and publisher for maybe getting a guy firing based on money. Sorry, easy to confuse the two and make a mistake that makes you look dumb in the future.
The guy posts on a forum I hang out at (the linked Forumopolis). He's not actually an employee with Gamespot. He works at C.net, and has heard various rumblings through the company grapevine. He shouldn't be considered an official source, and Susan's quoting of him strikes me as a reckless use of hearsay as an official source. The fact that PA linked the article and linked it by implying that "management has a different story" is hilarious, and reminds me of the old "telephone" game we played in grade school. Before you know it, this guy (who works in IT) will be the CEO of C.net.
The point is not whether we need GameSpot, it's whether reviewers should have the freedom to openly express their opinions, even on "professional review sites." I hardly visit GameSpot myself, but I am all fired up about this because it is an attack on journalism as an institution; it's a much larger issue.
Although, if you're suggesting an Internet-wide ban on Gamespot in order to shame them into fessing up and/or rectifying the situation, I will be the first to follow you.
also, of course Edios didn't "make" Gamespot fire Gerstmann, they simply voiced their "displeasure" to the website and "suggested" they take steps to appease the game-makers.
The can't reverse their decision. Jeff won't want to go back. There is nothing they can do but continue to say that it was for unrelated reasons.
Considering also that most Eidos games have been poorly rated, this doesn't surprise me.
You're right, this is a larger issue about the integrity of video game journalism. If this rumor is true in any way, and right now there's at least smoke suggestive of a fire, then this is something that needs to outrage us.
The job of any game critic is to be honest. If Kane & Lynch was as bad as Jeff said it was (I didn't play it), then he should NEVER have been terminated. This is an example of commercial and corporate greed. This will hurt, very badly, Gamespot's credibility and sadly the credibility of the reviewers in other game outlets.
And this is a radical notion, I know, but bear with me
What if he got fired for being a terrible reviewer?
Because this dude was terrible at his job, and has been for years. Criticism isn't just about making lists of good and bad points, there's a craft to it - a craft of which Gerstmann had no understanding or in which he had no interest.
Look at his other reviews and try to tell me with a straight face that he isn't just a cocky nerd who thinks he's better than everyone. I don't necessarily disagree with all his scoring, but the way he constantly talks down both to the people who make the products he reviews and to his own audience is amazingly unprofessional and adds nothing to the discussion.
Maybe some backroom deal with the advertisers did lead to him getting the ax - I'm not saying that is out of the question. If so, that is the weakest of sauces. But what if he just got fired for being terrible? What if it's just an unlucky coincidence in terms of timing?
I'd buy it, but I don't think that the quality of his review was much better or worse than other reviewers on the site. And if he's been a bad reviewer for all of these years, and they've been meaning to fire him, then this was about the worst timing I could imagine. There's no proof of collusion, but it sure looks that way. And canned corporate PR drivel like they put out today isn't going to do in terms of a refutation of these rumors.
Sorry, even if you Had an Edit button, you'd still look dumb.
As is plainly visible, Eidos poured a lot of dough into marketing for their latest title, especially to GameSpot. Then one of GameSpots reviewers gives Eidos' latest new title a bad rep.
That's not good for GameSpot as they're getting paid by Eidos to promote the product.
So Yes, it IS all about the mighty dollar.
Is it a deplorable tactic? Yes. Is it a new one? Heck no. GameSpy, IGN and a few other big ones have been exposed as doing the same on more than a few occasions.
Were the reviewer right about the game though? Probably. Can't say the same for a few other reviews from him.
Assumptions will make an idiot out of you. Eidos tossed a lot of money for advertising, as does every publisher, it is their job, market to make money. Microsoft has done it, Sony has done it, EA, and so on all have done it.
No one is happy getting a bad review and will often express that dissatisfaction instead of just lying there and taking it. So I am sure that Eidos expressed the same dissatisfaction when the latest Hitman game was panned. Was anyone fired then? No. Did they put a lot of money into the advertising? Yes.
Until you have all the facts you have no ground to make anything but assumptions. The absence of evidence does not mean the evidence of absence. Mr. 8.8 had been complained about for years, this latest dissatisfaction at his performance could have very well been the straw that broke the camels back. I would wager more on that than the "Money did it!" conspiracy.
As far as the game? Not the best, I like the gritty feel to it though. It is full of bugs to the point of unplayable for a week until it was discovered that AMD dual cores had an issue and a fix was found. I have found plenty of other bugs. This is a game in the 6.5-7 range on a 1-10 scale, not on the current 6-10 scale. It is amusing and challenging.
However the media should be all over this one instead of manhunt. You kill good cops in this game... LOTS of them, intentionally, repeatedly. Jack should have waited for this game to come out to start on his crusade. He might have had a decent excuse for the "You kill cops!" bit.
But this game was not developed by Rockstar nor was it published by Take Two. That is his criteria for attacking a game. Although he has taken a shine to Microsoft lately.
Chances are Jeff Gerstmann had accumulated a number of issues that finally resulted in his termination.
As far as journalistic integrity goes in this industry ... I laugh. All reviews are biased, even the ones where the reviewer actually takes the time to play the game (you think the ESRB are the only ones not playing the games they review?).
Innocent until proven guilty, remember?
Don't misunderstand me, all I'm trying to say is that the evidence is largely circumstancial (sp?).
Now that I've been devil's advocate, I will admit that if Gamespot doesn't come up with something one heck of allot more convincing then that press release, they WILL be removed from my bookmarks. It's not that I care so much about reviews, come on, you cannot play games for any real length of time and not learn that reviews cannot be taken at face value. I've been applying grains of salt to the ones I read for decades.
HOWEVER, if this in any way true, I'm not particularly interested in supporting a business that would be that spineless.
There are a number of possible explanations for this, some which would exonerate the man and others which raise serious issues. Still, I thought I'd put this out here.
Yeah....Mort is a bit right though about that "Media" part....this game at least to me was released quietly...there was no outrage....and you are right about the whole Take-Two and Rockstar.
I find it funny if you guys say this is a game where you kill good cops....and yet no one makes a peep.....it's more proof that Rockstar is just the whipping boy of the industry.
It supposedly comes from the art designer of the ad that as of yesterday was blanketing gamespots front page. The person at wired didn't get any special information, they ripped right off a message board. I wouldn't quote it, as nobody actually knows if this person really works at gamespot.
As I stated above, I'm from that forum. I've known the "source" in question for several years. He doesn't work at Gamespot, and has never claimed to actually work for them. That was made up by Wired, presumably to make it seem like their source was more knowledgable than he is. If anything, it's well-informed hearsay.
Where does it say that it comes from the art designer of the ad? That's not true, and he's never claimed that. PA's newspost falsely indicated he was part of management, which is equally confusing. The amount of internet rumor-mongering going on about that quote is astounding, and I'm hoping it doesn't get twisted so far out of context that it costs him his job. It's certainly a sign of flaws with the blogosphere, and why any news story you see should be taken with a grain of salt.
GAMES PAYOLA! We're back to the corrupted style of the music industry.
But.. the thing that really strikes me as being odd is the fact that CNet issues a statement saying "At CNET Networks, we stand behind the editorial content that our teams produce on a daily basis." while at the same time they pull Jeff Gerstmann's video review of K&L.
Am I the only one who thinks this is contradictory and smelling of a cover-up?
http://www.gamespot.com/users/TimT/show_blog_entry.php?topic_id=m-100-25...
He won't actually tell us why he quit (the link just has a picture of him with lots of boxes packed up), but I think we can all put two and two together. Co-workers don't just resign if there's nothing underhanded going on.
I'd have to also agree with that number.. maybe a little too favorable to the game though. LoZ:TP was great, fun and beutiful, but way too easy. Maybe its like the new stuff.
No one would be familiar with a letter based system, because its odd and consfusing. I mean those letters could stand for other things like A could be awful, B could be bad, C is crap, and D is dumb and F is fantastic.
I mean really what could possibly allow us to know really what those funny little letters mean?
Now it's up to Alex, Ryan and others. They are also fine game review authors, but that won't bring back their most prominent staffers. There used to be video game reviews without techno music in them. There used to be game reviews that were lengthy and showed off a great deal of the games, like for example - the one for Divine Divinity. Heck, Jeff's video reviews of the Grand Theft Auto games are some of the greatest on the site.
These times are all but gone, and I have to sadly admit that they have lost my subscription for good.
If they aren't on the front page of the gaming news-zines, come monday; they're just done. Even if they struggle along for a while, they'll be rebuilding cred for YEARS.l
Because you can OBVIOUSLY tell someone's sexual orientation based on the game reviews they write.
On the other hand, I can definitely tell someone is an idiot based on what they wrote.
Why are you happy that someone you don't like lost his job because of Eidos pressuring Gamespot and CNET?
@the article
I don't care how anyone spins the story, this is a piss-poor way of handling a bad review. Gamespot, CNET, and Eidos should be ashamed of themselves. Sony's reaction to the Lair reviews thinks that this is jacked-up (if you listen to Jim Rome's radio show or watch his TV show, you will understand what I meant in the last scentence).
I will NEVER read Gamespot again, I will never go to any CNET site again, and I will NEVER play any Eidos game again.
If he generaly all around fails at doing his job and his fireing shines a light on coc*gets censored* bribe takeing reviewers
Hells ya!
1UP is one of the more credible games journalism outlets. I would never lump them in with the likes of IGN, or now, apparently, Gamespot.
The developers of said took issue with this and did a little digging into their server logs. They found out that the reviewer played the game for less than two hours before writing the review. After this got out, they pulled his review and replaced it with another that was more favorable.
And remember when Atari was caught paying people for high review scores of Driv3r?
Gamestop has gone down hill since Kasavin (think that's how you spell his name) left anyway. I used to expect quality when reading a Gamespot review or watching their weekly show. Now IGN, 1up and Gamespy are superior in every way. I don't know what happened. Still not as un-objective as Game Informer (owned by Gamestop) though.
Second, and most importantly, I'd encourage everyone to READ their Constitution once in awhile.
First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Note that it prohibits Congress (which has been interpreted as the governing bodies) from abridging the freedom of speech. This does not apply to private parties.
If I go to my local 7-11 and start shouting curses, they have every right to make me leave, just as I have the right to kick out a drunk friend who's over at my place and making lewd passes at my girlfriend.
First Amendment is not the issue here, but certainly integrity is. There's no law that says GameSpot can't take money for scores, but it definitely would hurt their credibility, which would decrease their readership and thus be very bad overall.
Also, GameSpot may have received the video review, but the written (aka, the one that actually matters) review remains on the site.
Even if he was on thin Ice it still should not have been part of the reason to get fired, because it's still saying that the advertisements have more power than anything. This still sticks up to high heaven and the more I read about it the more I feel like something just isn't right...
Just like the papers... they're not for the news but for the advertisements.
- He was let go for reasons unknown.
- This happened after he wrote a skeptical game review of a major client.
- CNET is well known for losing money to retain their unbiased rep.
Possible scenarios that MIGHT have happened:
- somebody at GameSpot made a pro-ad revenue decision to fire him, resulting in compromised integrity for GameSpot and CNET in a very public way.
- he was let go for other reasons yet undisclosed.
At this point everyone involved has big ??'s over their heads, I hope that verifiable information comes out soon so that any good names are cleared and speculation can end. And an end to pointless "I will NEVER..." type postings...til the next teacup tempest.
And this is a radical notion, I know, but bear with me
What if he got fired for being a terrible reviewer?
Because this dude was terrible at his job, and has been for years. Criticism isn’t just about making lists of good and bad points, there’s a craft to it - a craft of which Gerstmann had no understanding or in which he had no interest.
Look at his other reviews and try to tell me with a straight face that he isn’t just a cocky nerd who thinks he’s better than everyone. I don’t necessarily disagree with all his scoring, but the way he constantly talks down both to the people who make the products he reviews and to his own audience is amazingly unprofessional and adds nothing to the discussion.
Maybe some backroom deal with the advertisers did lead to him getting the ax - I’m not saying that is out of the question. If so, that is the weakest of sauces. But what if he just got fired for being terrible? What if it’s just an unlucky coincidence in terms of timing?"
I'm with Drew Habits. I've been sick of Gerstmann since his review of Metal Gear Solid.
Post new comment