It was a scandal that rocked the industry: the firing of Gamespot’s Editorial Director, Jeff Gerstmann, created a wave of negative publicity and raised numerous questions about the ethics and policies of Gamespot and many other publications and web sites in regards to their treatment of editorial content and advertising. Although Gamespot and parent company CNet continue to attest that the firing had nothing to do with Gerstmann’s review of “Kane & Lynch: Dead Men”, the rumors persisted that Eidos Interactive had pressured Gamespot to reprimand Gerstmann accordingly by threatening to withdraw advertising money. Regardless of the tenacity of these rumors, the facts remain: Jeff Gerstmann, after eleven years of employment at Gamespot, was dismissed from his position on November 28, 2007, sometime after publishing his review of “Kane & Lynch: Dead Men” in which he scored the game a 6 out of 10. A video review also recorded by Gerstmann was pulled, community reviews of the game were removed, and advertising for the game had disappeared — the site was “skinned” with ads for the game in an elaborate campaign that just so happened to end around the same time as Gerstmann’s dismissal. Further complicating things was the fact that neither Gamespot nor Gerstmann could discuss the details of his departure under California law. This lack of communication between Gamespot and its readers quickly grew a state of chaos and confusion that was too large to be ignored.

Eventually, Gamespot published an article on December 5, 2007 stating their side of the story. The list of questions and answers covered such topics as: Why was Jeff fired? Purely internal reasons. Why was the “Kane & Lynch: Dead Men” video review taken down? Concerns of quality; specifically, poor audio due to a faulty microphone and a limited amount of footage which the producers felt was unrepresentative of the game. Was Eidos Interactive upset about the game review? While Eidos did express displeasure, it was not the first time a publisher has done so. Gamespot insists that it doesn’t alter game scores or editorial content based on publishers feelings — although, it did alter the text of the review in order to make it more representative of the score the game received. Of course, such an article was meant to help restore readers’ faith in the wake of the events, but unfortunately, it seems that much of the damage is already done.

Many readers have canceled their subscriptions and have sworn to boycott “Kane & Lynch: Dead Men”. Gaming community site, Destructoid, temporarily changed its name to “Cashwore” in a satirical publicity stunt and offered “9 out of 10″ reviews based on the amount of money publishers were willing to pay them. Many other sites, while unwilling to speculate on what they perceived to have happened, found their own way of damning Gamespot by updating their policies and stating that they never, nor will they ever, alter or boost scores based on advertising money. Communities, blogs, and forums continue to bash Gamespot. Surely, the event will be a sore topic for a long time to come. “Gerstmanngate”, as it quickly became known, is an event of historical significance.

Although Gamespot has published its final words on the matter and most media outlets have moved on, it does seem as though there’s a lot not being said. Gerstmann, for example, still hasn’t said anything about the matter — which is smart, considering he can’t legally say anything. Anonymous Internet postings, seeming to come from within Gamespot, however, claim that a number of Gamespot employees have left and that, among the remaining employees, a general, overwhelming feeling that termination is only a low game score review away has taken over. Gamespot maintains that the chain of events leading up to Gerstmann’s dismissal is purely coincidental. The public, however, deems this to be prima facie evidence that Gerstmann was a pawn being sacrificed as an example to other Gamespot employees and freelance writers who would dare to criticize a game that is, essentially, providing their paycheck. Because of Gerstmann’s stature within the industry and his title at Gamespot, his termination was enough to send a chilling effect through every open channel as it caught the attention of a large number of people and continued to spread. Was this, indeed, a warning?

As the industry attempts to pick up the pieces, the most telling aspect of gaming journalism is how plausible it seemed that such events could occur and just how little — if any — integrity these sites and publications had to begin with. If anything, this only confirms what a lot of people already believe: that review sites boost scores in order to get more advertising dollars. While it’s true that publishers don’t generally like to see their games get negative reviews, it’s simply a fact of life. There have been countless horror stories from gaming journalists who would bump into representatives of certain developers and publishers after a negative review and be verbally accosted as a direct result. Although this happens, generally it’s accepted that not all games are created equal and that some will get higher scores than others. But are there sites and publications that actively give in to publishers’ demands? Do they intentionally boost scores for a shot at a cover story or an exclusive, hands-on preview? In the wake of Gerstmanngate, such back-room deals seem to more believable than ever.

It seems clear that if what is postulated is what actually occurred, we are living in truly dark times. We now know that there are real repercussions for biting the hand that feeds. A shadow has fallen across the industry in such a way that mars and prevents it from having the integrity it needs to be taken seriously. As the video game industry grows, it’s more important than ever to have a healthy, functioning media that doesn’t simply thrive on rumor and speculation. Gamespot didn’t just hurt themselves, they hurt an entire industry.