I have to wonder a bit at GameSpot's recent statement on Jeff Gerstmann's firing. Why did they wait so long to make an official statement -- and then say pretty much the same thing they said when pressed mightily by Joystiq a few days ago? At first, they wouldn't say anything: "our policy not to comment on the status of employees," et cetera, and would only deny the decision was pressed by Eidos when pursued. Of course, they've been enduring an epic backlash since then -- Destructoid, which usually gets snubbed in the linkage department by its fellow consumer sites, has been getting some recognition for its Cashwh0res stunt, there's a 1UP group devoted to adamant GameSpot expats, and perhaps most devastatingly, the seminal tastemakers of Penny Arcade, who maybe have got more respect and influence in the gaming audience than any of the above, weighed in (actually, they were one of the first to comment out of the gate). Obviously, if I were at GameSpot, I'd want to try and put out the fire -- but why do so by maintaining the bottom line? The initial refusal to address the issue at all on their part makes it look a bit tacky when they address it by not saying much more than what Joystiq had to wrench out of them.
Though they deny Eidos influenced their decision, they wouldn't tell Joystiq's Kyle Orland whether Eidos attempted to. But apparently, some people are reporting that on the official Kane & Lynch site, the company displayed a graphic showing the game had received five stars from GameSpy -- when GameSpy in fact gave the game three stars. Moreover, the five-star graphic was accompanied by a quote that allegedly doesn't exist in the original review (which I admittedly haven't read). Apparently, a similar "spin" was put on Game Informer's review, showing a 5-star graphic (Game Informer gave it 7/10) and accompanied it with a quote from an early preview, not the actual review. I am synthesizing info second-hand here, but if this is as true as the screencap would indicate, it's not too much of a stretch to imagine that Eidos has been willing to pressure the truth a little to make its score look better.
To be fair, I do not personally know anyone on GameSpot's staff, never met Gerstmann, don't know the situation. For all I know, it could have been a sensible firing coupled with some unfortunate timing and/or less-than-ethical (but unfortunately all-too-common) behavior on the part of a game company with some expensive ads. The whole thing just looks bad, though.
Silver lining? At the end of the day, sites and game publications won't make money if no one will advertise there -- and this debacle has demonstrated that losing ad dollars because you pissed off a game company may not be any more disastrous than the PR nightmare and reader exodus that occurs when you so much as appear to sell out. As much as I rail against internet gamer mobs, their backlash works in our favor this time around -- I'm pleased that the community has been so responsive in declaring, in so many ways, that they won't stand even for the appearance of compromised integrity. Would be nice, wouldn't it, if this results in some small sea change going forward?
