I visited the site for the first time in a long time today. I'm thinking about coming back to contribute a bit... along with doing some cross-posting from my stand-alone blog. It's good to see that there are some familiar faces here, along with some new blood.

I took the first step and added the site back to my bookmarks. Let's go from there.

I deleted my previous blog entry because I still have a lot to say regarding the events surrounding Jeff's termination. Seeing straight-from-the-heart posts from staffers that have been nothing but kind to me in my time here at GS motivated me to rewrite my feelings from last night.

For starters, Alex, Aaron, Kevin and the rest of the remaining editorial staff must be going through hell right now. I can't imagine such upheaval-- especially in the closing moments of the busiest part of what's been arguably the best year in gaming in a long time. Reading their blog entries is difficult. These folks certainly would like to tell us what went down. They feel like they do owe the readership an explanation. Unfortunately, they're also working for a living. Writing jobs don't grow on trees, and who's to say that the competition would hire them or pay them enough to get by? It's painful, but it's loyalty. You just have to suck it up and keep at it, either until you can rebuild what's been devastated or until another opportunity comes along. I am as angry as the rest of you when it comes to this incident, but I understand who isn't responsible: The GS staffers who have busted their collective asses to provide the best content they can.

As I've mentioned in the past, I've worked with Aaron before. We've had our differences in the past, but when I found out that he'd been hired at GS, I was ecstatic for him. Making such a move, from PSX Extreme to GameSpot-- former stomping grounds of talent like Greg Kasavin, Joe Fielder, and many others-- is a dream come true for those in the gaming media. He's weathered some difficult storms here during his tenure (I had even gone to bat for him although he didn't need it), but this... this is tragedy.

Alex has been here considerably longer, and I've always enjoyed reading his work. The man deserved a medal for dealing with Big Rigs for as long as he did, but he's shown knowledge in all areas and has a great personality.

The bottom line is that we're not likely to ever find out the true circumstances of what transpired. I will admit that I tend to believe that Jeff was forced out after the negative reaction to his last review. I think that was all that CNET could stand, and they got rid of him at that point. I believe that publisher complaints about Jeff did exist. At the same time, I also believe that GameSpot's former EICs were able to stand up for Jeff's right to his opinion... but once Jeff was in a position where nobody could go to bat for him (since he was, in effect, GameSpot's EIC), he wound up being cut loose with no defense.

I could be wrong, or maybe my details are a bit off.

The more severe effect of this incident is that game reviewers have collectively suffered heavy damage to their credibility. How can any of us prove that our opinions are not influenced by publishers who may threaten to withhold ad revenue for whatever site we work for? We can't... so the stigma will be attached to reviews for a long time to come. Look for a lot of questions from the readership at all of the big websites once a score that's deemed too high comes in for a game. Charges of "bias" and "moneyhatting" will abound, and we have no defense against these allegations.

Since I rarely visit GS anymore, it's ridiculous for me to say that I'm leaving for good. I'm certainly less motivated to come here now, but I admit that I will be checking in to see what other reactions are out there. I will say for the record that I will not pay for GS Complete for quite some time. This is not a slight on the folks who bust their asses to keep this site filled with content; however, it is all I can really do to show my dissatisfaction with CNET and the top brass and their opening of a Pandora's Box that will have lasting and devastating effects on gaming journalism for a long time to come.

Finally, not that Jeff will read this blog, but he was one of my inspirations... along with Andy Eddy and Dan Amrich, among others. I felt that I had a lot in common with Jeff's viewpoints and the games that he liked. He was never anything less than personable during the few times that we communicated online. I never told him how much I thought of him... but once he gets back on his feet somewhere else, I'm not going to hesitate to let him know.

You people amaze me.

12 hours later, and the day shift is at it now, littering the PS3 forum with conspiracy theories and new charges of bias. Moderators have tried valiantly to remind these people of Aaron's past and how one site's review score doesn't mean much in terms of a game's overall success, but to no avail.

Blind loyalty makes these people look like morons. Whining morons, at that.

Let's take a look at a couple of these more recent complaints, hm? This'll be fun, I promise.

First up, KoolEmpty writes, "Some reviewers appear to be given to much freedom over how a game is reviewed..." So, what... you expect reviewers to have some sort of canned review style? Of course! Why should gaming journalists-- some of which have been playing games for more years than you've been alive-- have the freedom to write what they think about a game? Screw it. Let's just give perfect 10s to everything. Big Rigs might have been frustrating and felt broken, but those bugs are pretty damned funny and that makes the game awesome! There's no such thing as "too much freedom" when reviewing a game; it's your opinion, and you have to rely on your experience and reputation to win the day for you when writing what you believe are accurate impressions of a game. Not everyone will agree, and some others will have their minds made up, but you're bring paid to write your own opinion of the game... and if they disagree, then so be it.

Here's some alleged insight by elfranger007: "The PS3 did get low balled from all directions. It got low balled when GameSpot gave it to a person who doesn't review these games. It got low balled again when the reviewer decided to bash the game because he couldn't comprehend the enjoyment of the series..." OK, OK... stop right there. Wow. If we take a look at Aaron's past reviewing experience (He did work as a professional journalist before GameSpot hired him... try using Google), you'd see that he covered a lot more than sports games. Aaron's covered action games, racing games, FPS games, music/rhythm games, and more... so this guy is dead wrong on the first point. As to the second point, he didn't dig the story. Is that a crime now? Apparently only reviewers who have played a Ratchet & Clank game in the past and "comprehend the enjoyment of the series" can cover new games in the series? So this also means that gamers who have never played a Ratchet & Clank game before should buy Tools of Destruction, right? Wrong again. The fact is that you're weeping bitter tears with no base for your allegations. "I am pissed because he didn't like a game that I liked." There. Fixed. Move on. That reminds me... I still have to put the screws to Jeff Gerstmann because I thought Irritating Stick was much better than a lowly 3.0 score. GameSpot sucks!

For these people, and the rest of you who can't seem to comprehend the notion of a difference of opinion: All you've done with this pointless crying and baseless theorizing is to pump up GameSpot's hit counter and earn the site moe money. Aaron's review is now more successful than it would have been by being the mindless and conformist piece that you all wanted it to be. He's pushed your buttons and is now sitting back and laughing at all of this hate mail, along with those of us who actually understand reason.

So, congratulations to you. Job well done. I guess.