This rumor is like one of those things that you heard from a friend who heard it from their friend who heard if from their cousin, but it’s too juicy not to share. According to a Gamespot article, Mass Effect 2 is going to feature a five-man squad, along with five player co-op.

Here’s where it gets complicated. This info comes from a post on Colony of Gamers, where the poster claims to have gotten the information from a Norwegian message board. Also, the Gamespot link is totally dead. It just seems fishy all around and I wouldn’t get too excited if I were you.

For shits and giggles, the info also claimed that ME 2 would feature the ability to import your Mass Effect character (which would be awesome), a 120 level cap, and the ability to customize weapons. Also, the game is supposedly going to have a six month timed exclusivity deal with Microsoft for the Xbox 360.

We’re currently trying to get a hold of Gamespot to get their take on it and we’ll let you know when we hear back from them.

Source: CoG via Co-Optimus

A new GameStop commercial, which recently appeared on FX, has revealed some additional LittleBigPlanet pre-order specials.

In addition to the Kratos costume we reported on a two months ago, the spot unveils a new Medusa and Minotaur costume for Sackboy, as well as a God of War map pack.

Hit the jump to watch the commercial yourself.

Source: N4G

Though we will get juicy new info and possibly footage of Killzone 2 today, Sony’s Playstation Day also brings the sad news that Killzone 2’s release has been pushed forward into 2009.

David Reeves, who is currently presenting to a crowd of hungry journalists, has revealed that Killzone 2 will not release until February of next year.  At least, that’s the release date for Europe.

The thought that Resistance 2 and Killzone 2 would compete was always worrying, but it’s now amusing to think that Insomniac will have put out three Playstation 3 games by the time Guerilla release their first.

Source: Gamespot

*Update* -  15 minutes of gameplay footage is on the way, so sit tight.  For now, enjoy this new image posted by Gamersyde.

(Click the image to enlarge)

Former Gamespot editor Jeff Gerstmann, who inadvertently set gaming circles of the Internet ablaze late last year when he was let go from Gamespot, has announced his new project—Giant Bomb.

Currently existing basically as a blog, Giant Bomb is set to launch fully this summer. Saying that a lot of coverage has gotten too bogged down in the business side of the industry, Gerstmann told X-Play that he and fellow ex-Gamespotter Ryan Davis wanted to create a fun site devoted to what gamers are most interested in—games.

For a few months now Gerstmann has been active on his “Jeff Gerstmann Is Still Alive” blog, and it looks like Giant Bomb will be similar in content for the time being. So far Giant Bomb hosts just a few reviews and posts along with a rather odd introductory video as they get started.

All jokes about government attention giving them plenty of site traffic thanks to their name aside, it’s a good bet that a site catering specifically to independent reviews (as at least one main focus) headed by a couple guys well known on the enthusiast side of the industry will likely do fairly well. The opportunity is certainly there for them to capitalize on follow their high-profile exits from Gamespot.

Expect to hear more as they move toward their full site launch.

Over the past few weeks, I’ve been noticing quite a few themes that have been making their way through the industry. Throughout GDC, many of these took center stage in a variety of forms. Today, we review the reviews.

I left this one for last, as I know it may very possibly be my most controversial topic. I know that I may be wrong in the text that lies ahead, and I know I and Ripten as a whole are guilty of some of what I’m about to discuss, but I still want to make my point.

Reviews shouldn’t come with points attached to them.

What do these points mean anymore? Most publications are now working off the 7-10 scale, meaning that all titles worth playing are within that range, and anything that lies below shouldn’t deserve to exist. If you’re going to use a scale, use it responsibly.

Don’t give a mediocre game a 6 and an average game a 7.5. The scale is there for a reason. Obviously, reviews are mostly subjective and there are always going to be some exceptions that have earned themselves a bit of wiggle room.

A thought that’s been making its way through my mind lately is the possibility of evolving reviews to the point that they’re exclusive to just audio or video.

Picture this: A reviewer is assigned a game. Said reviewer plays through the game as normal, except when it’s time for he or she to type the review, they instead throw on the podcast headsets and in essence review the game on-air with some of the staff, who offer questions that readers of that game may potentially have. Just an idea.

Should reviews eternally stay as text, it should be just that: text. Explain the merits, downfalls, and caveats. With, at most, a thumbs up or down.

I feel that that the review standard that we have now has to change, hopefully one that will render aggregators like Metacritic useless. They don’t really do much besides act as an e-penis, or measuring sticks for publishers. If the Metacritic score is not up to par, publishers can put pressure on reviewers to sell out their editorial integrity.

A lot of this came to light in a very big way in the aftermath of the unfortunate firing of Jeff Gerstmann from GameSpot.

Even if the GameSpot situation isn’t what we all portray it to be, it still begs the question — is it possible to function solely off non-endemic advertising or as a whole, is gaming journalism forever going to be tied to some sort of advertisment pertaining to the same subject matter?

Will reviewers ever be able to pan a game without getting a call from a publisher asking why their shit game got a 3.5?

I’d like to believe as much, but it’ll take an equal amount of maturation from us as the press and them as publishers so we may coexist with less friction.

A prime example is the way Ubisoft has blocked Electronic Gaming Monthly magazine from early access to games, over EGM’s less-than-favorable coverage.

It’s the publisher’s responsibility to realize that when they rush out a bug-ridden game with major flaws, just to meet a specified launch date, it may not end up getting such a favorable review.

The once proud videogame website, Gamespot.com, has been the subject of much media scrutiny as of late, and frankly we grew tired covering the continued onslaught of employee exits.

That was until today. Forget Jeff Gerstmann, Frank Provo, Alex Navarro, and Ryan Davis. In fact, forget every five fingered contributor that has parted ways with the company — because this loss outweighs them all in the realm of importance.

Spot himself is calling it quits. The long time silent investor and brand genius responsible for exactly half of the company’s well established name, has decided that there are now better uses for his time. Very few people know, that if not for the last minute interjection of this public icon, Gamespot would have been dubbed “Gameburst” — yeah, let that thought simmer for a minute.

“My involvement with 7up in the 90’s ended when I saw the chance to attach myself to the gaming world, however things really just don’t feel right here anymore, and I think it is time I move on and give someone else a chance to fill my — well, my spot.”

It is truly a sad day for all gamers, but we are asking our readers to help fill the void by suggesting their own replacement for spot. It is the very least we can do for the company soon to be known only as Game—-.

First, Gerstmann was let go, which kicked off “Gerstmanngate.” Not long after, freelance reviewer Frank Provo ended his 8 year run at Gamespot. Who’s next? Long time staffer and lead reviews editor Alex Navarro.

According to Kotaku, Alex Navarro gave his notice January 10th, so his last day in the office will be on January 24th. It’s unknown at this point if Navarro’s departure has anything to do with Jeff Gerstmann getting canned, but Navarro has been showing up in Gerstmann’s blog and webcast as of late, so the two are obviously friends.

I don’t think it would be far-fetched to speculate that Gerstmann’s termination was a factor in Navarro’s decision to leave, but it’s still nothing more than speculation at this point.

When asked about the site’s waning staff, Editorial Director Ricardo Torres replied by saying that they’re going to be realistic about their output and that they’re looking to fill positions as quickly as possible.

Almost six weeks later and we’re still feeling the effects of Gerstmanngate. Do you think this is going to die down any time soon or will it culminate in the destruction of games journalism as we know it? The internet? The world?

Post-apocalyptic dystopia, here I come.

Here we have a new walk-through of LittleBigPlanet, showing the lovable emotions of a dino “Sackboy”, how you can give your creations away as prizes, and the game’s community aspect.

LittleBigPlanet is charming. The ability to create your own physics based levels and share them among the Playstation community is an exciting prospect.

In this following Gamespot video you can see the world map where you can share your levels with the Playstation Community. The ease of finding other’s levels and the ability to narrow the world map so you can share your creations with particular locations is pretty sweet.

Furthermore, Media Molecule explain how you can give away your creations as a prize. The more intricate the object, the harder you’ll want to make your level so only the select few can win it. This takes creating, sharing and playing to another level.

More LittleBigPlanet footage is to come tomorrow, hopefully showing off the “Play” feature of the game.

*Update* From an image straight out of CES we can now see that LittleBigPlanet will have 50 unique levels on release

Moreover, here’s another video from the Official Playstation Blog, showing the creation and playing of a level from start to finish.

Is That a Bull Doing a S*** I Spy?

I’m sure you’re all well aware of the controversy at this point, but we haven’t gotten a whole lot out of Jeff Gerstmann’s firing out of ex-employer Gamespot besides a few vague comments out of public relations. Well, now they’re ready to talk. A new “full disclosure” post on the site attempts to address several questions, but their answers feel less like explanations and more like excuses.

First and foremost, it’s important to note that Gamespot insists they have nothing to hide and that you’re getting the whole nine. “In the spirit of full disclosure” has never been more figurative, though. The post consists of questions “authorized” to by management and we suspect the answers are, too. Take what would likely be the most important of them, “Why was Jeff fired?” The reply:

“Legally, the exact reasons behind his dismissal cannot be revealed. However, they stemmed from issues unrelated to any publisher or advertiser–it was due purely to internal reasons.”

In the previous query as to whether or not Gerstmann was actually fired, they do mention that it was after an “internal review process by the managerial team.” Still elusive, doesn’t explain a thing we don’t already know. But it gets better when they get into the reasons for modifying the written review as well as pulling the video, including an open admission of retroactively modifying content.

“Jeff’s supervisors and select members of the edit team felt the review’s negativity did not match its “fair” 6.0 rating. The copy was adjusted several days following its publication so that it better meshed with its score, which remained unchanged.”

“The morning of Wednesday, November 14, the video was taken down 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 that was unrepresentative of the game in the review.”

And why wasn’t it reposted?

“Due to the crush of high-profile titles being released the following week, there were insufficient resources to reshoot and re-edit the video review.”

In order to save face, they decided to repost the original video review (opting out earlier because it would “exacerbate the situation”). It would seem more damning now, considering they also point to the Youtube version as if to say, “Look! See! We’re not trying to pull the wool over your eyes! Really, we aren’t! Believe us? Please? We have cake!” But really, microphone issues? If they even tried to hint at a precedent for pulling reviews on bad audio, it would actually sound reasonable.

The article goes on to talk about the way the Kane and Lynch skinned ads were handled, why fellow staffer Tim Tracy split in the midst of the whole debacle, and other credibility issues.

Unexpectedly, Gamespot continues to stand behind a veil of ethical impunity, but it seems to do more harm than good. It’s hard to believe that this was a series coincidences, especially when the answers feel so scripted.

If you’re interested in seeing the rest of the report (and we suspect you are), hit the link below. Apparently, the discussion will continue on the site’s podcast “The HotSpot,” while “On The Spot” will feature a Gerstmann tribute of it’s own.

Source: Gamespot on “Gerstmanngate”

An insider at GameSpot has come forward today claiming he worked on the Kane and Lynch ads. He put in his two cents regarding the Gerstmann firing. Read his thoughts after the jump.

This is what I came here to say.

I worked on the K&L ads personally, and I had a front-row seat to the whole debacle.

The ads were originally supposed to point to the GS review page, as they sometimes do. When the review came out, Eidos was understandably upset, and yes — they did threaten to pull the whole campaign — but they eventually simmered down and kept the campaign. They had us change the clickthrough URL from the GS review to the official site, but other than that little changed.

The 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. Gerst gets canned just two weeks after the K&L incident, so people blame it on that (especially when backed by PA, the gaming journalism equivalent to The Daily Show).

It’ll be interesting to see how everything pans out, but I’m definitely gonna keep an open mind about it for now.

In addition on the 1up message boards Mr. Sam Kennedy previously of Gamespot, now site director at 1up chimed in claiming he never received pressure due to advertisers.

Jeff’s been overseeing GameSpot’s reviews for over a decade, and publisher complaints (of which there have been many — I would know, I worked there years ago) never affected policy.

Sam Kennedy also shared with us a link showing the Yahoo article where Stephen Colvin was hired to oversee GameSpot, as well as other C|Net publications.

SAN FRANCISCO–(BUSINESS WIRE)–CNET Networks, Inc. (NASDAQ:CNET – News), a leading interactive media company, today announced that Stephen Colvin, former President and CEO of Dennis Publishing, the publisher of Maxim, Blender, Stuff, and The Week magazines, is joining the company as executive vice president. Colvin will be dedicated to overseeing the company’s entertainment and lifestyle brands, which includes leading properties such as GameSpot, TV.com, MP3.com, FilmSpot, CHOW, and UrbanBaby.

The launch of the Penny Arcade strip all but confirmed to us that these accusations were real. Here is what the comic writers had to say about the situation as a whole.

It’s been a couple weeks discussing reviews and reviewers around here, but somewhere along the way I neglected to mention that their job is essentially impossible. The 7-9 scale they toil under is largely the result of an uneasy peace between the business and editorial wings of the venue. No matter what score they give it, high or low, they’re reviled equally by the online chorus. Apparently, even when they do it right they’re doing it wrong.

Jeff Gerstmann is no stranger to controversy. In general terms, Gamespot can be relied upon to give high-profile games scores which are slightly lower than their counterparts elsewhere. It’s almost as though there is an algorithm in place there to correct the heady rush associated with cracking open an anticipated new title. Gerstmann’s 8.8 review of Twilight Princess cemented his reputation as a criminal renegade with no law but his own, even though he gave the game an 8.9 – a nine, essentially – out of ten.

I will tell you the Gerstmann Story as we heard it. Management claimed to have spoken to Jeff about his “tone” before, and no doubt it was this tone that created tensions between their editorial content, the direction of the site, and the carefully crafted relationships that allowed Gamespot to act as an engine of revenue creation. 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.

Management has another story, of course: management always has another story. But it’s the firm belief internally that Jeff was sacrificed. And it had to be Jeff, at least, we believe, precisely because of his stature and longevity. It made for a dramatic public execution that left the editorial staff in disarray. Would that it were only about the 6.0 – at least then you’d know how to score something if you wanted to keep your Goddamned job. No, this was worse: the more nebulous “tone” would be the guide. I assume it was designed to terrify them.

For Gabriel, this tale proves out his darkest suspicions. People believe things like this anyway, but they don’t know it, and the shift from intuitive to objective knowledge is startling. I think it rarely gets to this point. The apparatus is very tight: there are layers of editorial control that can massage the score, even when the text tells a different tale. A more junior reviewer might have seen their Kane & Lynch review streamlined by this process, divested of its worrisome angles and overall troubling shape. It was Jeff Gerstmann’s role high in the site’s infrastructure that allowed his raw editorial content to pierce the core of the business.

Could all of this be a case of money hungry CEOs wanting to bathe themselves in swaths of money? Or could the Kane and Lynch review serve as a figurative last straw for Jeff at Gamespot? Regardless, this is all part of a larger trend of review scores becoming hostage to the same negative focal point that games were held to for so many years. Let Mr. Gerstmann become a catalyst for change, because this industry doesn’t belong to overzealous publishers, it belongs to us– the gamers.

via 1up, PennyArcade, Forumopolis, Yahoo News

For over ten years, Jeff Gerstmann ruffled the feathers of sensitive fanboys with his controversial reviews on Gamespot, which is why it’s ironic that he’s been fired for giving a mediocre game a score it deserves. At least, that’s what we’ve heard. You’re going to read this here and you’re going to read this at other sites in the coming days. The fact of the matter is that we have no real “facts” yet, but information taken from several sources seem to be converging on the idea that something rotten is going on.

The news that’s been making the rounds is that Gerstmann was fired by Gamespot’s parent company C|Net for an unfavorable review of buddy actioner Kane & Lynch, a game whose anti-heroes have been part of an on-going advertisement campaign on the website. Go look at it right now. It’s so oversaturated with the kowtowing that it almost overwhelms the actual content.

Apparently, the pressure to sack Gerstmann came from the marketers themselves. Whether it was an issue with the score or the tone of his review, we aren’t sure, but the absence of the “On The Spot” podcast (which Jeff normally hosts) this week is suspicious in and of itself. Add to that fairly credible reports from both Kotaku and Shacknews, as well as a highly suggestive Penny Arcade comic (shown below), and you’ve got a churning pot of truth.

This sets a dangerous precedent for gaming journalists themselves, as well as trust issues with their audiences. It’s something we talk about happening a lot, but rarely does an occurrence like this come to light or go this far up the ladder. It’s the kind of thing that we, as people who bring you the news and information, try to avoid.

For the time being, I’d keep a packet of salt handy. Nothing has been absolutely confirmed from a named source, let alone the full scope of the motives behind Gerstmann’s leave, but we’ll bring you any more details as we get them.