Ever wondered how gaming journalism can work? It's been alleged that Gamespot's editor has been forced to leave thanks to Eidos threatening to pull advertising funds due to his score of 6/10 for Kane & Lynch!
To be honest, rumours about this kind of thing have been floating around for decades.
I did, once, back when I was editing a gaming site, have a PR representative of a publisher call me and 'encourage me' to up the score of one game a reviewer scored just one point lower than the average. I promptly refused, and said PR person was fine and dandy with me after that, though review copies did start to arrive later and later...
The story broke through the night at Kotaku, and it's been fully confirmed he's left Gamespot. The Kane & Lynch video review has been removed from Gamespot.
It's making me very worried about just what sources you can trust.
Kane & Lynch has an average score of 7/10 on Metacritic and I scored it 2/5 because it's pretty rubbish. Which means I was one of the harshest on the game full stop. And most people who've played the game agree with how harsh I viewed the game.
Safe to say, you can always trust me, and Mansized, to give you the true low down.
Safe to say, you can always trust me, and Mansized, to give you the true low down.
It did make me wonder about the reviews we get here at MS in all topics, I'm talking about reviewers and NOT MS (or Will) itself. I guessing a score you give for MS members could be seen by the PR guys, and therefore risky.
I think these gamesites should be funded by non game ad's!
