Controversy has been swarming in the video game community since last Friday, as the news leaked out that Jeff Gerstmann had been fired by Gamespot, a video games news and review site I rely on extensively. I first heard the news from this Penny Arcade comic, and upon learning the details (Joystiq seems to be keeping this post up-to-date with the latest news on the subject), immediately lost a lot of respect for Gamespot, and deleted their bookmark, vowing not to return (though I have, to read various posts about this very scandal).

To summarize, Gerstmann gave Kane & Lynch a bad review. Said text review was reedited, the video review was removed from the site, and Gerstmann was fired shortly thereafter. Coincidentally, the Gamespot home page was inundated with ads for Kane & Lynch at the time. The rumors quickly spread that Eidos, maker of Kane & Lynch, pulled their advertising, and pressured Cnet, parent company of Gamespot, to fire Gerstmann. Whether true or not, Gamespot's reputation has taken a major blow.

I hadn't posted about this previously, since there's plenty to be read about the issue online, and I really have no way of knowing if Gamespot really succumbed to advertiser pressure to fire Gerstmann, or if he was fired for legitimate reasons. But Joystiq has now presented a comparison of the original and edited review, and as this will probably be the only objective evidence the general public will have to determine if Gerstmann's editorial freedom was compromised, it's a major discovery. Having read the article, I am now convinced that Gamespot has no journalistic integrity.

The edited review had a disclaimer: "Editor's Note: This review has been updated to include differences between the Xbox 360 and PS3 versions and a clarification on the game's multiplayer mode." So tell me, how does changing the sentence, "So whether you're doing the shooting yourself or hanging back and letting your men do the dirty work, the game is a real letdown," to instead read, "So whether you're doing the shooting yourself or hanging back and letting your men do the dirty work, the game is a real disappointment, especially when you consider how well this same sort of stuff worked in the developer's previous squad-based game, Freedom Fighters." That to me reads more like shoehorning in praise for another of the advertiser's games than clarifying anything.

Several edits involve Gerstmann's criticism of the game for its ugliness, its gratuitous profanity, using lazy cursing for shock value and to avoid crafting gripping dialog. I had much the same reaction to Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, which makes me wonder if Gamespot's corporate overlords feared similar complaints might be raised against GTA: 4, which will no doubt spend a pretty penny on Gamespot advertising. I imagine Jack Thompson would have a field day, with this evidence that the gaming community will not tolerate dissent on the issue of violence or profanity, were he not too busy being disbarred.

I will say, I don't think Eidos pressured Gamespot directly to fire Gerstmann. They pulled their ads because they didn't want to advertise on a site that says the game is crap. That's reasonable enough. I believe Gamespot themselves made the decision to fire Gerstmann, to avoid future controversy. I don't know for a fact that's what happened. But reading the changes to the review, I can only conclude that their editor's note attached the the amended review was a lie, and thus I cannot believe another word they say.

Aqua Teen Hunger Force promotion causes bomb scare. Very amusing to hear stodgy media reports trying to describe the concept of the Mooninites. Good times...

Slamdance Guerrilla Gamemaking Competition finished with a whimper, after over half the entrants pulled their games in solidarity with Super Columbine Massacre RPG!, after the controversial game was pulled from competition. In contrast, Elephant received the Palme d'Or at Cannes. I would not say that films and video games are equivalent, but if you're going to go to the trouble to hold a game festival as an adjunct to a film festival, you should at the very least extend the same creative freedom to those on both sides. I can guarantee you if it was a film in question, it would have screened at the festival. But apparently there are special rules for video games, because video games are for kids.

Those who succeeded in getting the film pulled, of course, only undermined their objectives, giving the video game a fresh wave of publicity, and new players. I never bothered to play the game, until last week, when, in light of the controversy, I decided to give it a try. I didn't enjoy the game, but then, that's not the point. But I didn't find anything like what the critics of the game describe. Eventually, yes, you start killing students using an NES-era Final Fantasy-esque interface, but I really don't know how even a true sociopath could enjoy that part of the game. Basically, you enter your command, target the student, and they die, within a round or two. No challenge, because the students are completely outgunned. Which really makes it hard to claim that the murderers are somehow made to look heroic.

Overall, I'd say the game is an interesting attempt to tackle very serious issues in a video game format. I don't know if the primitive graphics and dull game play, compared to the first-person shooters the actual killers preferred, was a conscious choice on the game designer's part, or if it was dictated by the medium (the designer used preexisting RPG design software to create his game). But the creator of the game uses the medium to present a cogent point of view regarding a major cultural touchstone, and encourages reflection in his audience. And that's what art is supposed to do.

Please take a moment to contact your elected representatives, and share your opinion regarding the PERFORM Act, if you enjoy listening to streaming radio on the internet. The RIAA's battle with satellite radio is threatening all online MP3 streams.

I always feel a little weird writing to my Senator to protest a bill, when they are a sponsor of the legislation. I swear, if the Republicans would nominate someone to run against them who wasn't a crackpot, I'd consider switching sides, just to get some fresh blood.

I was considering giving some business to GoDaddy recently, but in light of their treatment of their own customers, I believe I'll pass.

I enjoy zoos. I have some moral qualms about some aspects of zoos, particularly in regard to the presence of primates, but tend to be willing to overlook the more problematic elements, as merely a concentration of larger social ills. Primates in captivity may be depressing (I try to avoid those exhibits as much as possible), but seem morally defensible to me as a necessary stopgap, in the face of habitat decimation and the bush meat crisis, to ensure the existence of endangered species. So I don't have a problem with the existence of zoos, but I certainly believe that their practices should be monitored and debated, and that debates like the recent debate over the presence of elephants in zoos are good for the animals and, ultimately, the zoos themselves.

I tend to side somewhat on the animal rights activists' side on the elephant issue. The present conditions at the San Diego Zoo and Wild Animal Park strike me as woefully inadequate. The Zoological Society seems to agree, as they are improving the Zoo accommodations. But, while I tended to begrudgingly accept the recent importation of several elephants from an African wildlife refuge as a lesser-evil type of situation, the concomitant need to ship off several elephants to die in Chicago and Utah was less defensible. But I certainly felt there was room for debate on the matter, and was willing to give the Zoo the benefit of the doubt, or at least agree to disagree.

I received the current issue of Zoonooz in the mail today, and the topic of the issue was elephants, promoting their new and improved elephant exhibit, currently under construction. The opening letter from the president of the Zoological Society even addressed the controversy directly, which I was happy to finally see done in the organization's official organ. Unfortunately, all the letter did was show that the San Diego Zoological Society is not as willing to tolerate dissenting opinions on the elephant issue as I am. In her letter, Berit N. Durler helpfully explains the nuances within the arguments on either side of the issue: opponents of the zoo "would rather see elephants go extinct that live in the care of humans," while zoo supporters are the only people favoring the existence of elephants. I found this false dichotomy infuriating, and quickly wrote an angry letter to President Durler, which I repost here for your own edification: Dear President Durler: I was pleased to see that the February issue of Zoonooz, which I received in the mail today, was devoted to the topic of elephants, and my interest was raised when you made reference, in your opening message, to "the controversies surrounding the management and protection of elephants in today's world." Given the press given to critics of your institution on the matter, I was eager to hear your side of the matter. Especially as, I must say, I have some misgivings regarding the conditions of elephants in your care myself. Imagine my surprise when I was informed, by you, that those who criticize your position on the matter "would rather see elephants go extinct than live in the care of humans." Really? That's our only choice, support your position or rejoice in the extinction of elephants? I didn't realize that, because I tend to think a few paltry acres is inadequate for the care of elephants, I actually was a first-class elephant-hater. Thanks for clarifying the stark contrasts in the elephant debate, and making it clear that either I'm with you, or I'm against the elephant. I thought this was an issue where we could agree to disagree, where I could support the good work of your institution, with some discomfort about some aspects of your surely well-intentioned work. But apparently there's no room for dissent at the Zoological Society of San Diego. I would hope that someone working to save animals from extinction would use the word "extinct" to raise awareness of the stakes of animal conservation, and not as a slur to fling at those who disagree with you. When animal rights activists dump manure in front of the Zoo, they look like idiots. When you start dumping the same b.s. in your Zoonooz column, you hardly come off looking better. Until more reasoned discourse prevails, I shall not be renewing my membership.

---

I currently have a Curator's Club membership at the Zoo, so I would hope they would take my opinion at least somewhat seriously, and at the very least reply with more than a form letter. Time will tell.

NETeller closes its U.S. operations. As the existence of NETeller was one of the major obstacles to the enforcement of the recent anti-gambling act passed in this country, its absence should be the death knell to online gambling in the U.S., unless the ban is recinded. Sad times, these.

Iva Ikuko Toguri, AKA "Tokyo Rose", dead at 90.

Top poker players suing the World Poker Tour over IP, anti-trust concerns. I think they might have a case on the anti-trust aspect, but it seems to me the image concerns are a stretch. The WPT might want to make a deal with these big players, since I'm sure their presence helps with the ratings, but it seems like the agreement they sign is pretty standard, and certainly less onerous than what you sign to be on American Idol and such shows (until I read the American Idol contract, I didn't realize that the phrase "in perpetuity throughout the universe" is actually a term found in legal documents).