Video Game Reviewgate
Kind of surprised that this hasn't yet been posted about here, as it's been a hot topic of discussion at several video game forums and blogs, not to mention a prime example of Gamer Drama. Anyway, before I start, a special thanks to the guys over at the Cheap Ass Gamer forums for several of these links.

There's a new game by Eidos out called Kane & Lynch: Dead Men, which was heavily advertised on the mega huge gaming site Gamespot (we're talking an ad campaign costing hundreds of thousands of dollars). A Gamespot editor named Jeff Gerstmann gives Kane & Lynch a 6.0, a considerably low score (here's the original review as well as a video version). A rumor reaches Kotaku that Gerstmann was fired over the review.

This rumor was later quasi-verified by Penny Arcade and others—Gertsmann was let go after Eidos threatened to pull several thousands of dollars worth of future advertising from Gamespot. The original review was also altered (some of the changes have been catalogued here).

In the meantime, the official Eidos forums were flooded by furious fanboys, while at Gamespot, members vent their outrage in a more creative way. NeoGAF starts a formal protest, another Gamespot writer seems to be resigning, writers at competing site 1UP show their support, and the rumors generate more rumors.

A user called "gamespot" shows up at Valleywag and gives his account. One of the more revealing bits from that post: Over the last year there has been an increasing amount of pressure to allow the advertising teams to have more of a say in the editorial process; we've started having to give our sales team heads-ups when a game is getting a low score, for instance, so that they can let the advertisers know that before a review goes up. Other publishers have started giving us notes involving when our reviews can go up; if a game's getting a 9 or above, it can go up early; if not, it'll have to wait until after the game is on the shelves.

And of course, a kerfluffle like this is not complete until someone yells out, "Conspiracy theory!": We hear Eidos is "freaking out" over l'affaire Gerstmann; top management there, an insider says, sincerely believes they didn't prompt CNET to fire Gerstmann, but fears they'll get the blame anyway.

The official word from Gamespot, its parent company CNET, and/or Eidos? CNET issued a statement denying any relation between the firing and the negative review of Kane & Lynch. To the best of my knowledge, no official statement has yet been made by either Gamespot (see below) or Eidos.

ETA - The plot thickens; it seems the official Kane & Lynch website hasn't exactly been honest with their review scores (thanks to miraba for the link).

ETA II - Gamespot speaks; Kotaku commenters call "bullshit" (thanks, j_crew_guy and mcity). And speaking of Kotaku, the Kane & Lynch website claims another victim (thanks, princessdot).

ETA III - Destructoid brings the snark.

ETA: Vice City - First the news: mass resignations at Gamespot on the way? If that's too teal deer for you, here's a brief summary of that post.

Also, The Escapist's Russ Pitts weighs in on the whole ugly situation (thanks ghostmaster); no Kane & Lynch review from Yahtzee yet, sadly. Newsweek's N'Gai Croal shares his two pennies as well.

ETA: San Andreas - Gerstmann speaks, plus analysis by Kotaku (thanks, iwanttobeasleep). I love this passage from the first link: Also, see that chart up there? That’s the estimated traffic performance of GameSpot over the most recent seven-day stretch that the figures are available. Remember, this story broke on Nov 29. That’s when people on the Internet started talking about blacking out the site.

Note the lack of a dip.

Go fanboys! Show that big bad Gamespot who's boss!

Meanwhile, Gamespot speaks some more.