What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
203 Comments
- donnydarko, on 12/02/2007, -14/+427I'd Like to Cane & Lynch Gamespot. Haha see what i did there. Comical Genius
- meatball1989, on 12/02/2007, -4/+277Hmm... does this have anything to do with an editor that gave an honest judgement of a blatantly mediocre game and GameSpot fired him?
- logicalnoise, on 12/02/2007, -3/+243They had to be disabled to update them to the current standard: 7-10 scale.
- sotopheavy, on 12/02/2007, -4/+185The only thing that is going to change is people will wait a month before firing bad reviewers.
- NaziHatinChimp, on 12/02/2007, -5/+147Let this be the last time I visit that site. No seriously.
- Destinx, on 12/02/2007, -1/+126If you have a gamespot subscription please cancel it.
- 1337Einstein, on 12/02/2007, -1/+119Maybe if half the money spent on marketing this game were put into making it they wouldn't have to try so hard to make a piece of ***** look like gold.
- mastersquirrel3, on 12/02/2007, -27/+130I gave it a 1/10.(the lowest it goes)
- rebotfc, on 12/02/2007, -7/+94Come now its not that good.
- NatimusRex, on 12/02/2007, -1/+75This is going to continue spiraling out of control of Gamespot and CNET, they just don't know how to handle it.
Frankly, they're getting what they deserve, and we get free entertainment along the way. - buryyourhead, on 12/02/2007, -2/+68We got a Stewie Griffin on our hands people
- wrishel, on 12/02/2007, -1/+58Use the opposite order; it would be like a piñata
- Luigi239, on 12/02/2007, -3/+54Good luck trying to explain your way out of this Gamespot...
- jggr, on 12/02/2007, -1/+41True enough. But we (the internet mob) are pretty good at bringing these sort of things to light.
/Still *really* looking forward to more of an official response than that lame-ass one from CNet. - jayhawk88, on 12/02/2007, -3/+40And this is precisely why Gamespot probably disabled the user reviews.
- virtualball, on 12/02/2007, -1/+30... thats because it's HTML that just says to go back thru your history trail. lol?
- imnojezus, on 12/02/2007, -0/+29Read the title again. Every word this time. See the word "User" there? I know it's complicated, but what the Digger is trying to say is that the "User Reviews" are "Currently Disabled". And if you actually went to the site and clicked on the "User Reviews" you would find that they don't work just fine since they are "Currently Disabled".
Hope that helps. - Radica1Faith, on 12/02/2007, -10/+39I mean come on, 99% of all the user reviews were from people who didn't even play it. The user reviews weren't accurate at all, they were just there to f*ck with gamespot, do you blame them for shutting it down?
- Rodalli, on 12/02/2007, -6/+35Doesn't matter if he did or not at this point. Eidos deserves the bad review on their game after this *****.
- Frazzlet, on 12/02/2007, -5/+33It's not about the game being bad, it's about an honest reviewer being fired.
- Azimuth1, on 12/02/2007, -4/+32Gotta say, that was pretty clever.
- LongShlong, on 12/02/2007, -5/+31Gamespot has truly sold out... It was always an inkling in the back of my mind, but this is a clear confirmation... Well, and apart from firing a veteran reviewer and gamer for voicing a logical and well detailed opinion about a game.
- carmat06, on 12/02/2007, -0/+26Magazines make much more money from advertisers than they do subscription fees...having lower circulation hurts more than getting to pocket your unused sub fees hurts.
- inactive, on 12/02/2007, -1/+26http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/kanelynchdeadmen ...
- screwfanboys1, on 12/02/2007, -3/+27ROFLMAO!!!
no. - relaxeder, on 04/17/2009, -0/+22They're probably thinking that would look even worse at this point. Really, they made a stupid, stupid error in judgment that they can't retract without having predicted the ramifications of it.
- TheSavant, on 12/02/2007, -0/+22It is a perfect reason to do. Both Eidos and Cnet have brought this upon themselves. The whole site and mag have been compromised by greed. All this is is a form of civil disobedience in response to the subscriber being mislead. This is one of the few things we can do to combat corporate manipulation. There was a time when your company made money because they had the best product, the best customer service or offered something useful. That was the case for Gamespot. People trusted their reviews because they honest reviews. That is no longer true. They have succumbed to the same underhanded tactics many, many other corporations use. Companies nowadays make money by tricking the consumer. Look at your PC Gamer. Notice the wireless gaming section? That is an advertisement for AT&T disguised as an actual informational subsection of the magazine. There are plenty of cases of this in the newspapers and television news programs. Ads made up to look like news stories are everywhere. (They caused some commotion here on Digg not too long ago.) Then there are companies like Jamster where their entire business model is based on tricking people into getting their service. Drug companies advertise during medical news programs. They set up televisions in your doctors office and show "health news". Politicians use roadside signs to play on human nature instead of letting their stance on issues to get elected. The list goes on and on; gym memberships, phone service, gas prices ($3.869? Why not $3.87?), the housing market, etc...
So I am glad to see these user reviews. Send a message: "We don't like underhanded tactics to separate us from our money and values," Maybe this will spread from the "Kane and Lynch: Dead Men" review to the rest of the crap corporations try on us. - relaxeder, on 04/17/2009, -1/+221UP is better anyway, and its free.
- Eeqmcsq, on 12/02/2007, -0/+20The only way that could possibly be valid is if the rank is a popularity rank, not a quality rank.
- Synn, on 12/02/2007, -0/+20Uhhhh...because they FIRED someone because he was being honest?
- whatthefu, on 12/02/2007, -1/+20Well, a lot of user reviews are likely in response to the whole fiasco, but they still shouldn't have disabled them.
- N3UR0SIS, on 12/02/2007, -0/+17The game was awful, Jeff was right. And this just shows how weak Gamespot & C|Net really are.
- ToastPop, on 04/17/2009, -0/+17It is a popularity rank, actually. Considering all the controversy, I don't think those statistics are untrue, there are probably plenty of searches for the review lately.
- inactive, on 12/02/2007, -11/+28Because many people started submitting 0/10 reviews in revenge
- nailPuppy, on 12/02/2007, -2/+18I wonder if anyone at Gamespot is watching all of this flak and thinking "Well damn, we messed up. Someone get Jeff on the phone and offer him his job back".
- UNEXPLODEDduck, on 12/02/2007, -0/+14why not?
- Noureddin, on 12/02/2007, -5/+18It looks like an average game I guess. That guy DID give a awesome review... but got fired. Guess cause he said -BLEEP- you. cause they kept saying that all the time on the game. Come on... Making them all cuss ain't going to make it better. -_-
- stoppedcode12, on 12/02/2007, -5/+18GameSpot's bias is reflective of its rank for the game.
http://www.gamespot.com/xbox360/action/kanelynchde ...
Rank: 20 of 42,783 16
Rank on Xbox 360: 8 of 630 - Falldog, on 12/02/2007, -5/+17I have to wonder, if they really did fire the guy for a poor review, due to a potential loss of advertising revenue, why not have someone else review the game real quick and post a higher rating?
I feel that users giving the game such a low rating because of this 'scandal' is just as disingenuous as GameSpot giving the game higher ratings for more money. - arcooke, on 12/02/2007, -0/+12Unfortunately, Gamespot's traffic is probably skyrocketing because of this ordeal.
- Rodalli, on 12/02/2007, -1/+13They really shot themselves in the ass with this one. You would think companies like CNet and Gamespot would know that you don't ***** with gamers or internet folks. We're attentive, are prone to hold grudges and have nothing better to do with our time than make your life a living hell if you cross us.
It makes me smile to think that in their effort to help Eidos squeeze some extra profit out of a mediocre game they're going to make even LESS money than they would if they had just allowed the review staff to do their job. - LongShlong, on 12/02/2007, -0/+12That was cute.
- bentrop, on 12/02/2007, -0/+12I heard that Jeff was playing video games at work! That usually is enough to get you fired from most jobs ...
- jayevans, on 12/02/2007, -0/+11Here's a link to the review if anyone wanted to see it who hasn't.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FuJ81sDR2o
Nothing but honesty, and the thing about it, is he says things with tact, he doesn't just go and bash it and say mean *****. He tries his best to balance his opinions saying the game does have some pretty clever ideas, just were not executed correctly. I am sure he will start his own review site up or get hired by another company, in the end this will just work out in his favor I bet. - ByteGuerilla, on 12/02/2007, -1/+12One phrase comes to mind.
"No no, dig UP, stupid." - Chief Wiggum - freezervv, on 12/02/2007, -0/+10And that's different than the half-assed ratings users *normally* give... how?
"Newegg user says: THIS RAM WOULDN"T FITINMY DELL!!! DONOTBYU! 1/10" - sadilak, on 12/02/2007, -1/+11The game is crappy. Tried it, returned it within hours.
- robbiekhan, on 12/02/2007, -4/+13I had this game on the PC (I didn't buy it) and it's really bad, Think of it as an alternative GTA except less fun and with some shoddy AI. The game world is also less detailed and it had strange framerate issues where one minute it's 70fps then all of a sudden it's 24fps in a scene that has no more rendering going on than GTA San Andreas.
I stand buy the GS reviewers points, it is a good idea fr a game but it's just been implemented half assed. IT's as if they spent more money on the marketing of the game than the actual development. Oh wait they did do that... - GoalieStr1, on 12/02/2007, -0/+9I TOTALLY disagree that EIDOS isn't to blame here. They are part of the advertising that forces these companies that used to give fair, unbias reviews to inflate them because of $$$. Gamespot is equally at fault, but if someone offered you $25,000 and what like, "hey uh, just be kind in your reviews..hint hint" - wouldn't you be tempted? EDIOS is just as bad as Gamespot.
- Vektuz, on 12/02/2007, -0/+9I'm pretty sure sites like Gamefly are being shilled too. There are 10's and 9's there in the User Review sections which are waaaaaaay too professionally written, and samey. There's no way this game is worth a 9, to anyone. I have a feeling that a lot of those 'top' reviewers are plants.
If you have a gamefly account, its time to vote and review what this thing is really worth :P -
Show 51 - 100 of 204 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is