Whither Accountability?

By: Justin Cooper

Not long ago, Chuck Klosterman wrote an editorial for Esquire which explored gaming’s noticeable dearth of a true critical voice.  Certainly there are review sections in gaming magazines and websites, but more often than not they focus on tech jargon and system specs, serving more of a consumer advice function than of true criticism of a game’s place in the world into which it was born.  The great films can be discussed in that context; the American Film Institute has made a cottage industry of just such discussions, in numbered lists meant to engender debate.  Why does gaming not have that shorthand available to it?  How come I can make an oblique reference to Citizen Kane in this sentence and have every one of you (even those of you who’ve never seen a frame of the film) know of the cultural touchstone implied beneath its title, but if I make much the same contextual reference to Bioshock or Ico or Grim Fandango or Metal Gear Solid, I’m met more often than not with a blank stare?

It’s because gaming doesn’t have that bedrock of critical appraisal with which to determine those cultural touchstones.  There isn’t that almost oligarchic monolith of a critic with the trust of the public as a true taste-maker, with both the ability and want to dissect a game’s place in society as much as its multiplayer capture-the-flag options, its sociological impact alongside its frames-per-second, its allegorical messages and deeper truths sharing ink with its utilization of dual-wielding and sidequests.  As Mr. Klosterman wrote, “There is no Pauline Kael of video-game writing. There is no Lester Bangs of video-game writing. And I’m starting to suspect there will never be that kind of authoritative critical voice within the world of video games…”

It’s getting easier to agree with him lately.  Jeff Gerstmann, longtime editor at game review/preview site Gamespot, was recently let go under what could generously be called shady circumstances.  The higher-ups at Gamespot, via its parent company C|Net, deny what many gamers believe to be the cause of his dismissal, but the stench of corruption is yet to relent from the outward appearance that a well-regarded, tenured editor was unceremoniously let go following an unfavorable review of a game supported through ad revenue at the same website.

Why would a nascent Lester Bangs or Pauline Kael ever venture into game critique, knowing what we now know or are left to believe?  What is to be gained by attempting to be that first authoritative, fearless voice, beyond paving a road for others to perhaps follow once you’ve been driven from the field and into other, more scrupulous journalistic endeavors?

There is plenty of conjecture, but there are also certain facts we know for sure.

We know that Gamespot had, in the days leading up to Gerstmann’s firing, been engaging in heavy banner advertising for the Eidos title from late last year, Kane & Lynch: Dead Men.  This advertising extended beyond the usual banner and side-banner ads and into user-manipulated content, letting the site’s visitors choose which Kane & Lynch “skin” they wanted overlaid on the site during their perusal.  Essentially, it was impossible to navigate Gamespot in mid-to-late November without being bombarded with the knowledge that this game was coming soon.

We also know that Eidos had committed to thousands of dollars’ worth of future advertising on Gamespot, beyond its gaudy and intrusive Kane & Lynch campaign.

We know that Jeff Gerstmann wrote a disparaging review of Kane & Lynch for Gamespot, in which he gave the game an above-average 6.0 out of 10 but also voiced several misgivings about the title, which could be seen as overtly snarky depending on one’s perspective.  This written review was bolstered by a video review, since taken down by Gamespot (and then put BACK up following waves of public outcry), which was arguably even less kind in its savaging of the game’s various shortcomings.

We know that Jeff Gerstmann posted that written review and its attendant video review, then finished the pre-Thanksgiving weekend crunch with his fellow editors before heading home for the holiday… and returned from said holiday to find his office locked and his personal effects in a box in the lobby for him to pick up on his way out.

We know that, as the story broke, Gamespot posted an editorial notice that somehow failed to mention that Gerstmann had even been fired; instead euphemisms abounded for how he’d “moved on,” et al.  To the uninitiated eye, the two entities could be seen as parting amicably instead of the employee being kept on and used long enough to get through the tough pre-holiday weekend and then sacked while away and with no notification.

Finally, we know that Jeff Gerstmann confirmed his firing, but due to the always nebulous, always sinister-sounding “legal reasons” he was unable to elaborate on the reasoning thereof.  We also know, but are asked not to correlate, that Eidos contacted Gamespot and C|Net to voice their disapproval of the content and tone of Gerstmann’s review once it was uploaded for public consumption.

From here we saunter rather haphazardly into conjecture, though one can argue that it is, at the very least, not far-fetched conjecture.  The dots connect themselves, to a degree: Eidos sees the negative review, appearing on the very page as Kane’s and Lynch’s leering mugs in the ubiquitous advertising, and raises concern to Gamespot and C|Net.  Talk is made of Eidos’ substantial ad stake in Gamespot’s revenues.  Jeff Gerstmann is sacrificed to suture that potential fissure in the ad stream.

Advertiser Dictates Content—Content Provider Scrambles To Make Peace Once Public Finds Out. It’s a wordy headline, but it’s also a very worthy one, if merited.

By no means am I arguing that Jeff Gerstmann was gaming’s Lester Bangs.  But what on earth could possibly draw our hobby’s prospective Lester into the fold, once he or she saw the treatment bestowed on a writer with eleven years experience at his post, all for writing a review at odds with corporations pumping ad money into his employers’ site?  What would our rhetorical Mr. Bangs say about his career choice had he the knowledge that Gamespot, in its desperate sweaty-palmed rush to avoid looking like a comical mustache-twirling villain, has taken to disparaging Gerstmann’s “tone” in his entire body of work as of late as justification for his dismissal, in a move that essentially answers the question, “Have you no decency, sir?” with a very honorable and Joseph McCarthy-esque, “Hey, look over here at this other thing instead, isn’t it SCANDLOUS?!”

The unspoken undercurrent of Mr. Klosterman’s Esquire piece was that gaming journalism would never change until the gamers made it clear that such a change is what they want.

If that’s the case, then maybe there’s room for our Lester Bangs yet.

In the days immediately following the unveiling of what’s now being called “Gerstmann-Gate,” Gamespot has weathered a vehement backlash from all corners of the Internet.  Its credibility as a news organization has been perhaps irreparably slandered, its name made to stand for a huckster’s cash-grabbing avarice.  The site has reportedly hemorrhaged money due to the cancellation, in droves, of its paid subscriber base.  Irate users have attacked the Kane & Lynch page on Gamespot, bombarding the User Reviews section with malignant “1.0 out of 10” reviews to spite Eidos’ attempts to stifle dissenting critique, thus pulling the average user review score down to an abysmal 2.6 before Gamespot actually froze user reviews for just that title to stop the free-fall.  As image repair gestures go, it was tantamount to closing the barn door after the cows have all gotten out, the hay bales set on fire, and the foreclosure papers signed.

Indeed, even Gamespot’s own editorial staff is up in arms, as the rank and file employees at the website have been murmuring about “mass resignations” if parent company C|Net did not open the channels of communication with Gamespot’s users and allow for some transparency in how the site claims to have honestly dealt with Gerstmann.

Gamespot finally posted a more in-depth response almost a week after the firing, in which they finally referred to it as a “termination”; they had little choice, what with the angry digital horde all but on their doorsteps with torches.  It would be easy to demonize anything less than a blanket mea culpa from the website; conversely, it was difficult to swallow the sea of coincidences we were asked to accept in the skein of events immediately preceding and following Gerstmann’s dismissal.

If we’re accepting, despite everything our eyes and ears tell us, that there is no ad-revenue related culpability in Gerstmann’s dismissal, then as part and parcel we are also accepting:

--That Gerstmann’s lengthy tenure was increasingly fraught with sloppy work and a “celebrity attitude,” which included “tone” issues putting him at odds with C|Net management, and that the snarky attitude in the Kane & Lynch review was simply the proverbial last straw.

--That Gerstmann’s video review was quickly yanked from Gamespot due to some sort of audio problem with the microphone used to record the video (although the clip, salvaged for easy reference on YouTube in case Gamespot removes it once more, sounds fine) and due to not enough in-game scenes shown in the clip (I count less than ten total seconds out of the four-and-a-half minute clip which do not have the game at least running above Gerstmann’s shoulder as he discusses the title, with over two minutes devoted to full-screen game footage).

--That the physical text of Gerstmann’s review was altered by Gamespot after his dismissal, but solely because, in Gamespot’s words, “Jeff’s supervisors and select members of the editorial team felt the review’s negativity did not match its ‘fair’ 6.0 rating. The copy was adjusted several days after its publication so that it better meshed with its score, which remained unchanged.”

--That the sudden disappearance of all Kane & Lynch advertising “skins” from Gamespot was due to a preordained ad purchase schedule which just happened to cycle as Gerstmann was fired and outrage began to bloom.

--That Eidos’ complaints, and their sizeable monetary contributions to the site’s bottom line, had nothing at all to do with any of the preceding.

Perhaps gaming doesn’t yet have its Lester Bangs because it’s in more dire need of its Woodward and Bernstein.

It would be too easy at this point to confuse a faceless corporation for the actual faces behind it.  Before we are fully overwhelmed by our zeal for Gamespot’s collective head on a platter, we’d be wise to consider the honest editors left behind by this black mark on gaming journalism, and how it could mean positive change going forward, industry-wide.  Gamespot editor Kevin Van Ord had this to say about Gerstmann’s termination in a personal blog posted soon afterward:

“As much as you may feel in the dark about what is happening, please know that we are too. It is confusing, upsetting, and hurtful. In the blink of an eye, my mentor no longer sits 50 feet from me. When I need advice and encouragement and shielding, my greatest advocate is no longer there to offer that kind of support.”

In this way, Jeff Gerstmann did end up sharing some of the traits of a Lester Bangs.  By his peers he is respected deeply, his impact is felt, and he is missed.  It may be the closest surrogate we can aspire to, for now.