Jeff Green has an interview with Mike Morhaime, the CEO and president of Blizzard Entertainment on the recent merger between his company and Activision.
I love Jeff Green. I've been reading his stuff in Computer Gaming World and Games for Windows for years. He's a funny, insightful writer, and he asked Mr. Morhaime the most immediate question I had about this merger: what does Blizzard get out of it? The last part of Morhaime's response was the most interesting, saying of the merger: "I think this actually takes a little pressure off of us. Because when you have multiple pistons firing, you're not just dependent on one thing happening on schedule, something else can release, which can buy you a little time."
Huh?
Blizzard practically invented the mantra "the game is done when it's done." They've always missed release dates. Lately, they barely even bother speculating when a game will be ready. Instead, they wait until a few months before they're ready to release, and then kick up the hype. So I guess I'm a little unclear to what scheduling pressure Mr. Morhaime is referring. I've always perceived Blizzard dictating their own schedule, with consistently spectacular results.
By the way, in the wake of Gertsgate, I'm abandoning GameSpot in search of another quality gaming news site. I subscribe to Games for Windows magazine and am happy with the crew that produces it. So I'll be checking out http://pc.1up.com/ in the coming weeks to gauge if it's a suitable replacement.
Thursday, December 6, 2007
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
It Was the Mic . . . Yeah, That's It. It Was the Mic That Made Us Do It
Gamespot has released a second statement on the Gerstmann firing in as many days. It's qualified as a "SPECIAL REPORT" and is once again authored by "Staff."
The article is long on repeating what the earlier blurb denied, but short on any revelations. And it absolutely bleeds desperation.
It does report GameSpot's timeline on when the review was posted, pulled, and then re-posted. I'm not giving GameSpot any credit for putting the review back on their site; it's been on YouTube since the controversy emerged, so slapping it back on GameSpot isn't exactly illuminating the shooting gun.
The real kicker is the explanation of why the video review was removed in the first place. The article lamely claims they pulled it, ". . . due to concerns of quality. Specifically, its audio was deemed inferior due to a faulty microphone. There were also concerns about the limited amount of footage, which was unrepresentative of the game in the review." I'm going to give them an "A" for effort, but this statement has the corporate spin doctor stamp of approval all over it. It almost makes me laugh, if my intelligence wasn't so insulted.
The rest of the article continues to deny that Gerstmann was fired from the Eidos ad revenue being pulled while also refusing to come clean with the specific "internal reason" that lead to the sudden firing. Deny, deny, deny might come straight out of the Corporate Handlers' rulebook, but it's not playing well out here in the real world.
They can sell it, but I ain't buying.
The article is long on repeating what the earlier blurb denied, but short on any revelations. And it absolutely bleeds desperation.
It does report GameSpot's timeline on when the review was posted, pulled, and then re-posted. I'm not giving GameSpot any credit for putting the review back on their site; it's been on YouTube since the controversy emerged, so slapping it back on GameSpot isn't exactly illuminating the shooting gun.
The real kicker is the explanation of why the video review was removed in the first place. The article lamely claims they pulled it, ". . . due to concerns of quality. Specifically, its audio was deemed inferior due to a faulty microphone. There were also concerns about the limited amount of footage, which was unrepresentative of the game in the review." I'm going to give them an "A" for effort, but this statement has the corporate spin doctor stamp of approval all over it. It almost makes me laugh, if my intelligence wasn't so insulted.
The rest of the article continues to deny that Gerstmann was fired from the Eidos ad revenue being pulled while also refusing to come clean with the specific "internal reason" that lead to the sudden firing. Deny, deny, deny might come straight out of the Corporate Handlers' rulebook, but it's not playing well out here in the real world.
They can sell it, but I ain't buying.
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
Rocket Launcher = Pig Squealing Fun
Kammris, my Blademaster in Hellgate: London, duel wields two swords, has a charge ability that hurls him directly into the fray, and has a devastating whirlwind aoe attack that tears into swarms of mobs. He's also got a single attack move that doesn't do a whole lot of damage, but helps heal him over time. Kammris can take on multiple melee units at once and emerge undamaged. He has considerable more trouble with ranged units, but tactical use of line of sight goes a long way towards his survival. All in all, he's fun to play.
But on a whim last night I rolled a Marksman. Within minutes, I had a fiery rocket launcher in my grubby hands. How do I describe the audible glee I felt at shooting flaming death into mobs of zombies from range. Sometimes, the direct hit from the launcher was enough to kill the zombie outright. Other times, the launcher missed its marked by a few feet. But that's when the fiery aoe kicked in and from a safe distance, I watched handfuls of demons and undead writhe and scream as they unsuccessfully tried to shamble from the burning ring of fire. And they burned, burned, burned in that ring of fire!
Good stuff, that.
I was cackling so hard at the death I was dealing, I had to explain to nearby Wifezilla the new toy I had found. I think she stopped listening at "rocket launcher."
I did quickly discover that the rocket launcher works great on swarms of normal mobs, but not so well on bosses. No problem. HG: L gives three weapon slot combos that you can change on the fly with F1, F2, and F3. I put a newly found rifle in F2 and switched to it when I happened upon a boss. Clearing trash with the rocket launcher, shredding bosses with the rifle, a good time was had by all.
Err, maybe a good time was had just by me. I don't think the demons or Wifezilla particularly enjoyed my rocket launcher/rifle combo. I do need to finish normal mode with Kammris at some point, but I may continue goofing around with my Marksman for a bit.
But on a whim last night I rolled a Marksman. Within minutes, I had a fiery rocket launcher in my grubby hands. How do I describe the audible glee I felt at shooting flaming death into mobs of zombies from range. Sometimes, the direct hit from the launcher was enough to kill the zombie outright. Other times, the launcher missed its marked by a few feet. But that's when the fiery aoe kicked in and from a safe distance, I watched handfuls of demons and undead writhe and scream as they unsuccessfully tried to shamble from the burning ring of fire. And they burned, burned, burned in that ring of fire!
Good stuff, that.
I was cackling so hard at the death I was dealing, I had to explain to nearby Wifezilla the new toy I had found. I think she stopped listening at "rocket launcher."
I did quickly discover that the rocket launcher works great on swarms of normal mobs, but not so well on bosses. No problem. HG: L gives three weapon slot combos that you can change on the fly with F1, F2, and F3. I put a newly found rifle in F2 and switched to it when I happened upon a boss. Clearing trash with the rocket launcher, shredding bosses with the rifle, a good time was had by all.
Err, maybe a good time was had just by me. I don't think the demons or Wifezilla particularly enjoyed my rocket launcher/rifle combo. I do need to finish normal mode with Kammris at some point, but I may continue goofing around with my Marksman for a bit.
Monday, December 3, 2007
Gamespot Comments Officially On Gerstmann Firing
Today, Gamespot officially commented on the recent firing of Jeff Gerstmann, one of their prominent editorial reviewers. Written by anonymous "Staff," the blurb's most interesting statement refutes the widely held notion of the past few days that Gerstmann was fired because Eidos pulled its ad campaign in retaliation for a withering review of Kane and Lynch: Dead Men. It states, "However, contrary to widespread and unproven reports, [Jeff's] exit was not a result of pressure from an advertiser."
The blurb goes on to quote Greg Brannan, vice president of programming for CNET Networks, who states, "Neither CNET Networks nor GameSpot has ever allowed its advertising business to affect its editorial content. The accusations in the media that it has done so are unsubstantiated and untrue. Jeff's departure stemmed from internal reasons unrelated to any buyer of advertising on GameSpot."
For just a second, I'm going to give Greg the benefit of the doubt and assume that Jeff really was fired for "internal reasons unrelated to any buyer of advertising on GameSpot." It's still the stupidest move on the planet. Like I said earlier, why fire your editorial director on the heels of a game publisher pulling their ad campaign for a bad review that the editorial director wrote? People are going to assume that's the source of the firing, whether Greg says it's "unsubstantiated and untrue" or not. If the two really are unrelated, then wait a month or two and then can him! I mean, the guy worked there for eleven years. I'm thinking those "internal reasons" could have waited another few weeks.
But I think the internal reasons were related to a buyer of advertising on GameSpot, in this case, Eidos. Jeff authored a withering review (magnified more in video format) and pissed Eidos off so much, they took their money and left. How much money exactly? I'm not sure, but Penny Arcade mentioned not thousands or tens of thousands, but hundreds of thousands of dollars. That's a lot of money. Seeing that much money walk off the table must have pissed GameSpot off to the point where they reacted with red-blooded corporate anger and fired Gerstmann, perhaps without thinking ahead to the dots their readers would connect when the news hit.
I think this is what happened. I don't have any proof, and the vice-president of CNET even goes out of his way to say it didn't go down like that. Nevertheless, I think that's what happened and until GameSpot or Jeff announce officially the reasons for his termination, I'll continue to believe that series of events.
By the way, I want to point out that if I were Eidos, I likely would have pulled my ad money too. It's up to GameSpot to do the right thing here, not Eidos. From Eidos' point-of-view, why pour money into ad space for a site that just got done tearing your game to tiny shreds? The answer is, you don't. And they didn't.
The blurb goes on to quote Greg Brannan, vice president of programming for CNET Networks, who states, "Neither CNET Networks nor GameSpot has ever allowed its advertising business to affect its editorial content. The accusations in the media that it has done so are unsubstantiated and untrue. Jeff's departure stemmed from internal reasons unrelated to any buyer of advertising on GameSpot."
For just a second, I'm going to give Greg the benefit of the doubt and assume that Jeff really was fired for "internal reasons unrelated to any buyer of advertising on GameSpot." It's still the stupidest move on the planet. Like I said earlier, why fire your editorial director on the heels of a game publisher pulling their ad campaign for a bad review that the editorial director wrote? People are going to assume that's the source of the firing, whether Greg says it's "unsubstantiated and untrue" or not. If the two really are unrelated, then wait a month or two and then can him! I mean, the guy worked there for eleven years. I'm thinking those "internal reasons" could have waited another few weeks.
But I think the internal reasons were related to a buyer of advertising on GameSpot, in this case, Eidos. Jeff authored a withering review (magnified more in video format) and pissed Eidos off so much, they took their money and left. How much money exactly? I'm not sure, but Penny Arcade mentioned not thousands or tens of thousands, but hundreds of thousands of dollars. That's a lot of money. Seeing that much money walk off the table must have pissed GameSpot off to the point where they reacted with red-blooded corporate anger and fired Gerstmann, perhaps without thinking ahead to the dots their readers would connect when the news hit.
I think this is what happened. I don't have any proof, and the vice-president of CNET even goes out of his way to say it didn't go down like that. Nevertheless, I think that's what happened and until GameSpot or Jeff announce officially the reasons for his termination, I'll continue to believe that series of events.
By the way, I want to point out that if I were Eidos, I likely would have pulled my ad money too. It's up to GameSpot to do the right thing here, not Eidos. From Eidos' point-of-view, why pour money into ad space for a site that just got done tearing your game to tiny shreds? The answer is, you don't. And they didn't.
Blizzard and Activision Merge
Coming on the heels of EA's acquisition of Bioware, WoW's website announced today that Blizzard and Activision are combining to form a new company dubbed, surprisingly enough, Activision Blizzard . Not exactly the most catchy name ever.
I can see what Activision has to gain from this combo, but I'm less clear on how Blizzard benefits. Activision seems to publish as many flops as it does hits, while Blizzard follows a tried-and-true formula of releasing a handful of games that are as polished and fun to play as any in the entire industry. I'm not sure why Blizzard would want to tie its future to that of Activision's, but I'm sure they did the math and it must somehow work in their favor.
The site's blurb mentions that nothing is really changing within Blizzard itself, so I'm guessing the entire company's workforce is breathing a collective sigh of relief. I bet Activision's crew gets no such reassurances.
I can see what Activision has to gain from this combo, but I'm less clear on how Blizzard benefits. Activision seems to publish as many flops as it does hits, while Blizzard follows a tried-and-true formula of releasing a handful of games that are as polished and fun to play as any in the entire industry. I'm not sure why Blizzard would want to tie its future to that of Activision's, but I'm sure they did the math and it must somehow work in their favor.
The site's blurb mentions that nothing is really changing within Blizzard itself, so I'm guessing the entire company's workforce is breathing a collective sigh of relief. I bet Activision's crew gets no such reassurances.
I Want You to Hit Me as Hard as You Can
Back in '99, when I saw the preview for Fight Club, I marveled at Brad Pitt uttering that line and vowed to see the movie. Wifezilla, who viewed the same preview I did, groaned and tried to get out of not going. But I dragged her anyway. Fight Club was on HBO this weekend so I had an opportunity to see if I still enjoyed it as much as I did eight years ago.
Fight Club does not disappoint. It's about as perfect as any movie I've seen. Great beginning, flawless middle, grand slam ending. The acting, top-notch. This was the first movie featuring Brad Pitt where he didn't annoy the hell out of me. I remember seeing Legends of the Fall and hoping throughout the movie he'd fall off his horse or have his flowing locks shaved off. But in Fight Club, he nailed the role of hedonistic Durden. I also happen to think that Ed Norton is overrated in most every movie he's been it, but he's the perfect counter to Pitt in this flick. It's a shame they haven't done a few more projects together.
What I like most about Fight Club is that it's a splinter movie: people either love it or hate it. And most people hate it. I like being in the minority that like it. The people that hate the movie usually shut it off well before the surprise twist. Their loss to be sure, but the twist isn't my favorite part. What I like most about Fight Club is what it has to say about men living in the world today. I relish the beginning of the movie where Tyler (the Ed Norton one) frequents self-help groups to fill the emptiness inside him. He's a pathetic shell of man, a consumer of IKEA products, a mindless zombie at work, a "tourist" to use his own vernacular against him. The testicular cancer group is the most damning testament of men in the movie, a circle of emotional, vulnerable men discussing their feelings, weeping uncontrollably as they hold each other closely. Wallowing in the detris of modern life and disconnected from his own masculinity, Tyler Durden suddenly just . . . snaps in the middle of all this, creates an alter-ego who operates outside of his emasculated slumber. The duality he imposes on himself abandons his self-loathing and ricochets the completely opposite direction, forming a club whose sole purpose is to punch and hit and kick fellow men until teeth fly and blood sprays. To what end? Maybe no end. Or maybe to feel alive. To awaken too.
Awaken what? I guess the barbarian all men have inside them from thousands of years of evolution. Or maybe just that urge to push back once a certain philosophical line has been crossed, the "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore" tact. It may seem that I admire the violence the movie presents. And maybe I do, at some basic instinctual level (to be clear, I haven't thrown a punch in anger since middle school). But I think it's too simple to theorize that men require violence to make their lives complete. The movie takes that stance to make a point, but I don't necessarily think it seriously advocates it. Instead, the movie is about fulfillment if it's about anything, carving out meaning within life.
This is what makes the movie so great. It spawns a necessary conversation about what it means to be a man nowadays. The movie doesn't necessarily put forth that men have to give in to a primal rage and beat each other weekly. Instead, to make a point, it exaggerates what happens when men bottle the rage fueled by the pressures of everyday life. Through the miserable Tyler Durden, Fight Club theorizes that the Information Age has blunted within men what once used to be sharp, that we sometimes resemble a shadow of men that came before us, that we walk around our daily lives asleep, adrift. There can be no better metaphor for this than the idea of Tyler waking up from his own stupor by punching himself in the face.
Is violence really the answer to the civilized man's plight of stress and pain?
I am Jack's psychoanalytical review of Fight Club.
Fight Club does not disappoint. It's about as perfect as any movie I've seen. Great beginning, flawless middle, grand slam ending. The acting, top-notch. This was the first movie featuring Brad Pitt where he didn't annoy the hell out of me. I remember seeing Legends of the Fall and hoping throughout the movie he'd fall off his horse or have his flowing locks shaved off. But in Fight Club, he nailed the role of hedonistic Durden. I also happen to think that Ed Norton is overrated in most every movie he's been it, but he's the perfect counter to Pitt in this flick. It's a shame they haven't done a few more projects together.
What I like most about Fight Club is that it's a splinter movie: people either love it or hate it. And most people hate it. I like being in the minority that like it. The people that hate the movie usually shut it off well before the surprise twist. Their loss to be sure, but the twist isn't my favorite part. What I like most about Fight Club is what it has to say about men living in the world today. I relish the beginning of the movie where Tyler (the Ed Norton one) frequents self-help groups to fill the emptiness inside him. He's a pathetic shell of man, a consumer of IKEA products, a mindless zombie at work, a "tourist" to use his own vernacular against him. The testicular cancer group is the most damning testament of men in the movie, a circle of emotional, vulnerable men discussing their feelings, weeping uncontrollably as they hold each other closely. Wallowing in the detris of modern life and disconnected from his own masculinity, Tyler Durden suddenly just . . . snaps in the middle of all this, creates an alter-ego who operates outside of his emasculated slumber. The duality he imposes on himself abandons his self-loathing and ricochets the completely opposite direction, forming a club whose sole purpose is to punch and hit and kick fellow men until teeth fly and blood sprays. To what end? Maybe no end. Or maybe to feel alive. To awaken too.
Awaken what? I guess the barbarian all men have inside them from thousands of years of evolution. Or maybe just that urge to push back once a certain philosophical line has been crossed, the "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore" tact. It may seem that I admire the violence the movie presents. And maybe I do, at some basic instinctual level (to be clear, I haven't thrown a punch in anger since middle school). But I think it's too simple to theorize that men require violence to make their lives complete. The movie takes that stance to make a point, but I don't necessarily think it seriously advocates it. Instead, the movie is about fulfillment if it's about anything, carving out meaning within life.
This is what makes the movie so great. It spawns a necessary conversation about what it means to be a man nowadays. The movie doesn't necessarily put forth that men have to give in to a primal rage and beat each other weekly. Instead, to make a point, it exaggerates what happens when men bottle the rage fueled by the pressures of everyday life. Through the miserable Tyler Durden, Fight Club theorizes that the Information Age has blunted within men what once used to be sharp, that we sometimes resemble a shadow of men that came before us, that we walk around our daily lives asleep, adrift. There can be no better metaphor for this than the idea of Tyler waking up from his own stupor by punching himself in the face.
Is violence really the answer to the civilized man's plight of stress and pain?
I am Jack's psychoanalytical review of Fight Club.
Gamespot Chooses Cash Over Journalistic Integrity?
I've always wondered about GameSpot and that huge banner ad space they rent out to companies plying their latest gaming release. I wonder, how much does GameSpot get for the space and how do they juggle reviewing games that they also sell ad space to?
Well, it turns out they earn thousands of dollars for that space and that maybe they don't do a particularly good job of juggling the management of it. Friday's Penny Arcade reported that GameSpot fired Jeff Gerstmann, one of its editorial staff reviewers, for panning Kane & Lynch: Dead Men. Eidos published the game and allegedly threatened to pull thousands of dollars in ad revenue from GameSpot in retaliation for the review. Though there is no official response from GameSpot, numerous third party sources report that GameSpot insists Gertsmann wasn't fired for his most recent review, but instead for the overall tone of his reviews over the long haul.
Even if Gerstmann really did get fired for something unrelated to his Kane & Lynch review, the GameSpot management team are the stupidest people on the planet. If he really deserved firing, then wait a few weeks. Don't fire him in the midst of allegations that Eidos pulled their ad money for a bad review of their game. Even the monkey scratching his ass in the zoo would have enough foresight to head off that kind of public relations disaster.
Now, that's IF he deserved to get fired for something unrelated to the review. It seems all too likely that GameSpot really did cut Gertsmann loose in a last ditch effort to appease Eidos and grub their ad money.
Bad move. If I perceive that GameSpot is nothing more than a corporate mouthpiece, then I'll take it about as seriously as I do that lame light blue section in the back of Game for Windows, the one written and produced by Microsoft hacks. Short term, I can see GameSpots motivation: the bottom line. But long term, this could bite them in the ass. Game publishers want to advertise on sites like GameSpot because gamers read them. But if gamers can't trust GameSpot content to be independent of its corporate sponsors, then they won't read. At least I won't. And then game publishers won't want to advertise. Rather than firing Gerstmann, GameSpot should have let Eidos walk. Instead, they whored themselves and jettisoned their editorial integrity when they escorted Gerstmann out the door. Good luck getting that back any time soon.
It's a long shot, but GameSpot could salvage something from this mess by bringing Jeff back and telling Eido to piss off. By all accounts, the review Jeff gave the game was largely in line with other reviews of the game, if not a bit harsh. You can read his original review here on YouTube (GameSpot pulled it from their site as part of their effort to shill).
Well, it turns out they earn thousands of dollars for that space and that maybe they don't do a particularly good job of juggling the management of it. Friday's Penny Arcade reported that GameSpot fired Jeff Gerstmann, one of its editorial staff reviewers, for panning Kane & Lynch: Dead Men. Eidos published the game and allegedly threatened to pull thousands of dollars in ad revenue from GameSpot in retaliation for the review. Though there is no official response from GameSpot, numerous third party sources report that GameSpot insists Gertsmann wasn't fired for his most recent review, but instead for the overall tone of his reviews over the long haul.
Even if Gerstmann really did get fired for something unrelated to his Kane & Lynch review, the GameSpot management team are the stupidest people on the planet. If he really deserved firing, then wait a few weeks. Don't fire him in the midst of allegations that Eidos pulled their ad money for a bad review of their game. Even the monkey scratching his ass in the zoo would have enough foresight to head off that kind of public relations disaster.
Now, that's IF he deserved to get fired for something unrelated to the review. It seems all too likely that GameSpot really did cut Gertsmann loose in a last ditch effort to appease Eidos and grub their ad money.
Bad move. If I perceive that GameSpot is nothing more than a corporate mouthpiece, then I'll take it about as seriously as I do that lame light blue section in the back of Game for Windows, the one written and produced by Microsoft hacks. Short term, I can see GameSpots motivation: the bottom line. But long term, this could bite them in the ass. Game publishers want to advertise on sites like GameSpot because gamers read them. But if gamers can't trust GameSpot content to be independent of its corporate sponsors, then they won't read. At least I won't. And then game publishers won't want to advertise. Rather than firing Gerstmann, GameSpot should have let Eidos walk. Instead, they whored themselves and jettisoned their editorial integrity when they escorted Gerstmann out the door. Good luck getting that back any time soon.
It's a long shot, but GameSpot could salvage something from this mess by bringing Jeff back and telling Eido to piss off. By all accounts, the review Jeff gave the game was largely in line with other reviews of the game, if not a bit harsh. You can read his original review here on YouTube (GameSpot pulled it from their site as part of their effort to shill).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
