Tonight at 8PM, Jeff Gerstmann, the ex-GameSpot editor who’s climbed further into renown following the infamous “Gerstmann-Gate” debacle, will be making a television appearance via G4’s X-Play program.

Why’s he there? Apparently, to discuss the absence of innovation recently in Japanese gaming - oh, and to discuss the whole firing incident. Color us surprised at that one. This should be an interesting segment, and those with the means should consider taking a moment to check it out. The Watch will provide analysis following the airing, so stick around for more.

Source: Kotaku

Amid the lockdown of information coming out of CNET and Jeff Gerstmann himself, one site has admirably managed to break through - Joystiq. Gerstmann spoke out to that publication on a handful of issues surrounding his GameSpot termination, including, in very vague terms, the nature of it:

Losing a job you’ve held for over 11 years in an abrupt manner is shocking, yes.

Bound by legal constraints, Gerstmann still can’t divulge much else, but if as some suggest there’s work going on behind the scenes at CNET to get him back, there’s no evidence thus far.

I’m not really sure what I want to do next. This whole situation has left me with a lot to think about. While this sort of clean break would be an acceptable time to think about trying game development, I feel like I still have more to say and do on the editorial side of the fence, too.

CNET/GameSpot is scheduled to make an official announcement tomorrow, but either way we trust it’ll only be a matter of time before more substantial revelations leak out. We’ll keep digging.

Competition doesn’t necessarily breed contempt, as Ziff Davis employees showed yesterday. The company’s staffers - some of whom work for 1Up, one of GameSpot’s most direct and arguably largest competitors - marched a couple blocks to take up a spot outside GameSpot headquarters, hoisting a large sign that read “We SUPPORT Fellow Game Reviewers”.

In the climate of negativity spawned by the Gerstmann situation, this show of solidarity among fellow journalists is something that’s inspiring to see. Good to see that no matter the alleged actions of this industry’s “suits”, there are daily reminders of the integrity of many of its writers.

Long-time readers of Video Game Media Watch are likely unsurprised over the Gerstmann/GameSpot uproar that hit the Internet over the past day (witty pontificators have been referring to it as “Gerstmann-Gate”). VGMW has warned our readers over the proliferation of questionable overlap between the marketing/advertising and editorial departments at major game publications, both online and off. As the NY Times reported in November, this is an issue our site is deeply concerned about.

At the Valleywag forums today, a poster known only as “gamespot” professed him/herself to be an employee in the editorial department at GameSpot, and launched a litany of accusations against the suits at CNET. In the post, the individual states:

There has been an increasing amount of pressure to allow the advertising teams to have more of a say in the editorial process; we’ve started having to give our sales team heads-ups when a game is getting a low score, for instance, so that they can let the advertisers know that before a review goes up. Other publishers have started giving us notes involving when our reviews can go up; if a game’s getting a 9 or above, it can go up early; if not, it’ll have to wait until after the game is on the shelves.

We can’t say whether the poster is authentic or not, but the accusations he/she makes are eerily similar to tips we’ve been receiving from game industry insiders for months now. One such source, a veteran industry journalist, had this to say on the subject of press outlet/publisher relations a couple months ago:

So…the word around town is, negotiating for exclusive reviews is a pretty common occurrence. Apparently, what press outlets do, so they feel good about it still, is tell a game company that they’ll review a game, see what the score will be, then go back and negotiate an exclusive if the score is high enough. For example…I’m a reviewer, and you make games. I tell you, “Dave, let me play your game. If I give it a 9 or higher, *then* you give me the exclusive on the review. If not, then you can shop it around elsewhere.” [….] Can you imagine if Roger Ebert tried to negotiate movie review coverage that way?

Such policy fairly closely mirrors what GameSpot is being accused– notice the emphasis we put there – of incorporating into their company practices.

So how broad may such practices extend in the industry? Based on what we continue to see here at VGMWatch.com, the prognosis is not acceptable. VGMWatch will continue to investigate this story as well as others like it. If you have any informational tips to contribute, please email us at davidg@vgmwatch.com.

Today has brought a firestorm of controversy, speculation and conjecture about the recent termination of GameSpot editorial director Jeff Gerstmann. Before we go further, we should remind readers that it’s all just that, and that none of the information presented below has been confirmed by an inside source to VGMWatch.

Yesterday, Penny Arcade brought high attention to the Gerstmann termination with their comic satirizing the context of the firing as it was reported to Penny Arcade by a trusted source. PA’s source contends that Gerstmann was fired because of his harsh review of Kane and Lynch: Dead Men, and cited GameSpot and parent company CNET’s continued concern over Gerstmann’s review “tone”. Gerstmann gave the game a 6.0 out of 10 and was particularly unflattering toward Kane and Lynch in his video review, which has since been removed from the site. Penny Arcade sees the problem thusly:

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.

Penny Arcade’s full commentary is here.

Former VGMWatch editor Kyle Orland picked up the story over at Joystiq today, and did his usual ground work. After noticing all the circumstantial evidence - the removal of the heavy Kane and Lynch advertising, the dropping of the video interview - Orland contacted GameSpot for comment. After initially receiving a canned “no-comment” comment, Orland received a little elucidation from CNET spokesperson Sarah Cain. “We do not terminate employees based on external pressure from advertisers.” However, when asked specifically on the pulled video review, Cain later provided this gem:

This review [Kane and Lynch] has been updated to include differences between the Xbox 360 and PS3 versions and a clarification on the game’s multiplayer mode. […] At the bottom of the post of the [text] review we made a note that we have updated the review, and we made those decisions based on our own editorial standards. It was our decision to take down the [video] review.

When posed with the follow-up as to why they didn’t just edit the video review, too, Cain only repeated her first statement. Of all the circumstantial evidence present, VGMWatch feels that this statement is one of the most indicative that something may be afoot.

VGMWatch has contacted Jeff Gerstmann, but he has yet to provide comment. We’ll keep our readers updated as the story develops, as VGMWatch takes very seriously any suspicion of the game review process being tainted by the campaign for advertising revenue.

Last week, Greg Kasavin announced he would be leaving Gamespot to pursue a “once-in-a-lifetime opportunity” in the world of game development. Talk about a shocker. Much like people expect Joe Paterno and Bobby Bowden to die on their respective football fields rather than retire, I can’t think of a Gamespot without Kasavin. Though, that’s probably because I didn’t read Gamespot heavily until 1996, which is the same time Kasavin began campaign for domination as a lowly intern.

While a lot of people are interested in seeing how Kasavin influences the development of a single game/series (and Greg, we here at VGMW wish you nothing but the best at your new gig), I’m much more interested in seeing how Gamespot’s content evolves or devolves now that the EiC has left. I don’t think there will be an immediate change in the way its constructed, but it’s quite possible that the passing of the torch brings about a leader with a remarkably different editorial stance.

In his farwell blog post, I was really touched by this (very class) paragraph written towards budding writers in particular:

What’s always driven me while working at GameSpot is the knowledge that there are many other people out there who’d practically kill to do what we do. It’s people like you, whom I’ve been writing to all this time. I’ve been in the fortunate position to hire people like you, and I know all that separates me from you is that I got here first. In turn, I urge you, if you have the ambition to do this type of work for a living, to keep pushing yourself to make it become a reality. There’s no reason that a guy like me, who’s always intended to wind up doing something else (even if it’s something in the same vein), should get to do this instead of you.

How do you think this change will end up effecting GameSpot? I’d be interested in hearing your comments on this matter.

Nintendo UK Boss Reitterates: No Nintendo DS Redesign (10:43 AM, Wednesday, January 25, 2006)

Nintendo DS Lite Announced! (2:31 AM, Thursday, January 26, 2006 )

-Headlines of adjacent stories on DSHacker.com

(Thanks to the smart, benevolent and above all funny Nathan Smart for pointing me to this)

It was awfully nice of Spike TV to spare us the effort of having to actually watch their Video Game Awards show by releasing a list of the winners weeks before the show’s Dec. 10 broadcast date.

Among the nominated sites attending the Friday taping and offering commentary over the weekend were:

Gamespot: “As much as Spike might have refined the show over its past pair of efforts, it was clear the network had not yet found a way to perfectly merge the subject matter, the celebrities, and the audience.”

1up: “Surprisingly, the show wasn’t half bad — in fact, it was by far the best VGA show yet.”

Kotaku Am I the only one who thinks [Game of the Year] should have been WoW? … Anyone else out there who thinks the VGA picked the wrong game?”

and Joystiq: “We’re usually not ones for award shows, (yawn) and this isn’t much different”

These sites even gave away some of the night’s best jokes and scripted banter, removing the last remaining reason for anyone to waste their Saturday night on this thing (My favorite reported line: Jack Black, accepting the award for best human performance by a male, thanking “all the people of the b******* academy over there … Who votes on this thing?” as reported by Gamespot).

Although the general consensus is that the show has taken a step forward in quality, it feels like it has taken two steps back by replacing the drama of last year’s live show with a taped farce.

Speaking of farces, the awards for best blog, gaming website and gaming magazine are still being decided by votes on Spike TV’s web site. Yes, you can still vote as many times as you want with a few clicks and yes, the awards are still squeezed in among detritus like “best boss character” and “best feel like a tough guy moment.” As of this writing, the current leaders are Electronic Gaming Monthly (64%), 1up (70%), and Slashdot Games (40%). Surprisingly, Official Xbox Magazine and GameSpot both have an embarrassingly low 4% of the current vote. Maybe they should emulate Ziff Davis and start begging for votes on the front page of their Web site and in the text of practically every EGM editor’s blog.

Usually, the worlds of online games journalism and televised games journalism remain relatively competitive. Sure, an online outlet may report on the latest televised game awards show and members of the online media may sometimes appear on TV, but usually the two media are competing for the same eyeballs, rather than collaborating to create joint content.

That changed this week, though, when GameSpot and G4 teamed up to produce four half-hour episodes of Cinematech (the shows premiered over the past two days, but this is G4, so there will be at least 50 repeats in the next week).

I talked to Gamespot’s Greg Kasavin about the G4 collaboration, the differences between TV and the Web, and the future of putting video into video game journalism.

Video Game Media Watch: GameSpot has had a video presence for a while now through the “Let’s Gamespot” feature. What were the similarities and differences in creating content for G4?

Greg Kasavin, Executive Editor, GameSpot: We haven’t done an episode of Let’s GameSpot in a while, so I think you were probably referring to On the Spot, our live weekly show [That too, but Let’s Gamespot came first. There’s also Button Mashing -ed]. That’s probably our most heavily promoted piece of original video programming, though we’re also well known for our video reviews and for all our gameplay movies and trailers. GameSpot has been creating original video content since the ’90s.

Working in television is quite a bit different than working in Internet video. Our video production team is more accustomed to producing many smaller pieces of video content than working to cut together 30-minute shows. So it was definitely a good learning experience for us to see how things are done differently in the TV world. It was also unusual for us to work together with another organization to produce content, though I think the collaborative process was a success.

Video Game Media Watch: Video game journalism has traditionally been a print medium, but the past few years have seen an explosion of video and audio content about games, both online and on TV. How do you see this type of content developing in the coming years?

Greg Kasavin: Considering GameSpot is approaching its 10th anniversary in May of next year, I’d say traditions about video game journalism have already changed in many ways–I think most game players now prefer getting their information online. That’s partly because the Internet provides such a great combination of both written information as well as video. If you’re a game player, why just read about the game you’re interested in when you can see it in action to get a better sense of what to expect? And if you’re looking to spend $50 on a game, is 50 or 100 words about the game really going to be enough to convince you one way or another? I think the Internet will continue to be the best resource for game players, but television is certainly a good way to showcase the increasingly impressive production values of games. Simply put, games look good enough to where it’s entertaining to just watch them on TV. Look at the recent trailer for Final Fantasy XII–it’s like something straight out of the last Star Wars movie.

Video Game Media Watch: Have you noticed any difference in how your visitors use your original text and video content? In how they respond to it?

Greg Kasavin: I think some of the inherent novelty of our video content is gone–video is more of a commodity than a unique feature now. So whereas our audience used to be very excited at the mere idea of GameSpot offering a video review, now our audience is much more critical of the actual content and production of that piece of content. That’s good, because it helps us make sure that the video piece is as good for what it is as the written portion. As for our text content, I think our audience appreciates that we’ve held onto our standard of focusing on being informative while also making our writing noticeably livelier on the whole. There was a time when I used to be very draconian about editing out attempts at humor and anything of that nature, but I’m more lenient now, since I recognize that our written content effectively has to compete with our video.

Video Game Media Watch: In addition to original video content, you also offer gameplay movies and trailers for download. How do the audiences for these two types of video content compare? Do visitors appreciate the added value of the original content, or do they just want to see the games in action?

Greg Kasavin: It’s the same audience as far as I’m concerned. Trailers and gameplay videos are meant to be taken at face value. In the case of trailers, they tend to be carefully contrived by the publisher to show off a game in the best possible light. In the case of gameplay movies, they tend to give a glimpse into the reality of how a game actually looks and moves. I think all of GameSpot’s content is complementary, but it’s also there to give people different options as they consume as little or as much information as they care to handle about games.

Video Game Media Watch: What are some advantages and disadvantages of creating content for video as opposed to print?

Greg Kasavin: I’ve had maybe two or three articles published on paper in total, so I’m not a good person to talk to about the advantages of print–though, despite how I’ve been sounding here, I have the utmost respect for print publications, and credit Next Generation, EGM, GameFan, and Video Games & Computer Entertainment for getting me interested in writing about games. But as for the advantages of using video versus writing to convey information about games [this is what I was getting at -ed], I think the two still cater to slightly different preferences and needs. One important point of comparison is that written content is easier and cheaper to produce than video. It’s also still more accessible to some audiences than video, though more and more people are getting access to good computers and fast Internet connections. Video content can certainly be more compelling or evocative than written content, but in the end, I think both require skill and expertise to be put to good use. Together, I think video and written content can add up to more than the sum of the parts.

Video Game Media Watch: Do the guys at the Gamespot offices watch G4? If so, what are some of your favorite shows?

Greg Kasavin: I can’t speak for everyone, but I can honestly say that we don’t regularly watch G4 (at least we didn’t use to), probably for the same reason we don’t read a lot of print publications about games. We don’t need to go that far to get all the information we want. At any rate, the show Icons seems to have earned G4 the most clout, though X-Play, Attack of the Show, and Cinematech also seem to be well-liked with good reason. My own television viewing consists mostly of Seinfeld reruns, though. (Actually I just buckled down and ordered HBO because I’ve stopped going to the movies almost completely and eventually that’ll cause me to become culturally ignorant.)

Video Game Media Watch: A recent G4 e-mail newsletter jokingly said that “hell would freeze over and you’d turn into a frog before you ever saw any mention of GameSpot on G4.” At this point, do you see G4 as a competitor, or more of a partner?

Greg Kasavin: We partnered with G4 to produce these Cinematech episodes and the door seems to be open to the possibility of our two organizations working together again in the future. A lot will probably depend on how successful these Cinematech episodes actually turn out to be (i.e., how many people watch them), but regardless of what happens with that, I think our two teams enjoyed working together, and there’s a lot to be said just for that. In other words, by collaborating on a project with another organization, I think that organization ceases to be a competitor by definition, at least for the duration of the project.

Video Game Media Watch: Can we expect further collaboration between G4 and Gamespot in the future? Will G4 be providing content for Gamespot or is this a one-way relationship?

Greg Kasavin: Our collaboration on Cinematech should not be taken as proof that we’ll be working together again in the future. A lot naturally depends on how well the content we produced will be received by our respective audiences.