Each check, mailed in wooden boxes decorated with twin skeletons and the words Dante's Inferno, was affixed to a velvet pillow inside a box. Inside the top of the box is a welcome to the fourth circle of hell which reads:

In Dante's Inferno, Greed is a two-headed beast. Hoarding wealth feeds on beast and squandering it satiates the other. By cashing this check you succumb to avarice by harding filthy lucre, but by not cashing it, you waste it, and thereby surrender to prodigality. Make your choice and suffer the consequence for your sin. And scoff not, for consequences are imminent.

Not wanting to give in to temptation by cashing the check or using it to market Kotaku, or waste the money, we came up with a different solution. Balls in your court EA.

“That’s right. We’re trying to manage the review scores at the request of Eidos.”

When asked why, the spokesperson said: “Just that we’re trying to get the Metacritic rating to be high, and the brand manager in the US that’s handling all of Tomb Raider has asked that we just manage the scores before the game is out, really, just to ensure that we don’t put people off buying the game, basically.”

Well that certainly makes sense. We wouldn't want low review scores putting people off.

What the holy hell? A request like this is not only insulting, it's downright unethical. Basically they are asking review sites to withhold information from the public in order to fool them into buying a game with an artificially inflated Metacritic score...and they are doing it without batting an eyelid, as if this were just everyday business.

As Videogaming247 writes, British site Eurogamer has already gone live with their 7 out of 10 review, which the representative said had caused "problems", and the Official Xbox Magazine in the UK has also posted a 7.0. Checking Metacritic now, I can see IGN and 1UP with scores of 75, with GamePro adding to the 70 set, for a combined average of 78, which is still considered generally favorable.

In this day and age, where everything eventually winds up on the internet, it really makes you wonder how they figured they could get away with something like this without being ratted out by the more ethical gaming press. Extremely bad form, Eidos.

We've contacted an Eidos to see if the same reviewing rules apply in the US.

UK Tomb Raider: Underworld reviews under 8/10 silenced until Monday [Videogaming247]

UPDATE: Videogaming247 has posted a follow up to the original story, having received the following statement from Simon Byron, one of the directors of the PR firm Barrington Harvey:

Barrington Harvey is not in the position of telling reviewers what they can and cannot say. We love Tomb Raider and believe it merits a score of at least 8/10, but if someone disagrees that’s entirely their prerogative. No problem at all. Seriously: no problem.

Our original NDA stated that in order to receive an advance copy of the game, reviewers agreed not to post reviews ahead of 5:00pm, Wednesday 19th November 2008. Nothing else. No further obligations whatsoever.

As you can clearly see from the scores posted so far, Barrington Harvey has no issue with scores of below eight out of 10 being posted online. The Eurogamer review in questions caused “problems” in so much as it originally contained a couple of minor factual inaccuracies which, to its credit, the site has quickly rectified and addressed (without, quite rightly, changing the context of the review).

Any site, be it Gamespot or whoever, is entirely within their rights to post whatever score they want and no-one is under any sort of obligation to delay any review.

As an ex-journalist myself, I firmly believe in editorial integrity and the right to express an individual opinion. As an agency, we never - ever - make demands of the press in terms of awarding scores; at the end of the day, they are free to score as they wish.

Barrington Harvey has been working hard to ensure the launch scores of Tomb Raider Underworld are in line with our internal review predictions over the launch weekend - but to suggest that we can in some way “silence” reviews of the game is slightly overstating our influence.

If there is one thing PR firms know, it's damage control.

Eidos UK PR firm: We are “not in the position of telling reviewers what they can and cannot say” [VG247]

Gus Mastrapa posits in his column at GameDaily that writing really well is the game reviewer's highest calling, and he goes on to point out what he feels are the reviewer's seven deadly sins - Measure, Dullness, Doubt, Diplomacy, Forgiveness, Purposelessness and Obsession.

For example, the sin of "Measure" indicates when a reviewer has to apply a score or rating, and factors in the aggregate as he or she does so:

It's tempting to aim for the middle and grant a score that'll best conform to popular opinion, but to do so is tantamount to handing your guns over to a corrupt sheriff. It's better to score like you mean it and use the numbers, letters or stars to make a point.

I often feel like I'd prefer to do away with scores altogether, as we've done here at Kotaku, but I can also see the merit in needing a quick-hit evaluatory number, after we're so habituated to it.

Another one of Gus' points that jumps out at me is the sin of Diplomacy - worrying about the reaction, the reviewer is often tempted to try to please everyone:

In a post about Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots Tycho from Penny Arcade pointed out a bit of game review weaseling that I myself have been guilty of. "Most reviews I have read," he said, "can be simmered down to 'If you like Metal Gear, you'll like it.'" This kind of wishy-washy language is, itself, unforgivable. It's a way of avoiding the fight that should be at the core of your review. If you don't like Metal Gear you should be illustrating the series' weaknesses and the way they materialize Metal Gear Solid 4. Reviews are no place for peacemaking. Make your arguments and back them up.

A fight at the core of a review, huh? Often, it seems reviews cause fights even when you try to be as genteel as possible.

So, Kotaku readers, what do you think are the worst things reviewers do - and how can we do better?

Media Coverage: The Seven Deadly Sins of Video Game Reviewing [GameDaily via GameSetWatch]

If the review is 9.0 or higher you can post immediately. Lower than 9.0, could you please hold until launch day, November 19th? Thanks.

Based on communications I've had with PR people over the years, yeah...I could definitely see this happening. In this case the GameSpot folks opted to just buy the game at a store and review it, but it makes you wonder, doesn't it?

Video Game Company To Wii Reviewer: Save The Panning For Later, Okay? [MTV Multiplayer]

The fact of the matter is, game genres by their very nature become established because games borrow mechanics, structural elements, and conventions from earlier games. To have a videogame genre is to recognise a recurrent pattern of plagiarism that draws upon the successes of earlier games as its bedrock. This is a good thing for players: few but the most grizzled gamer hobbyists can face learning entirely original game rules every time they play, most prefer to play something that (in broad strokes, at least) strongly resembles an earlier game they have enjoyed. It means they have less to learn, and it increases the chance that they will enjoy the later game.

As he later points out, "what would be considered plagiarism in other media is the backbone and lifeblood of the videogame industry" — clearly that's not such a bad thing, but it does make for some wild accusations at times.

Plagiarism in Videogames? [Only a Game]

The reviewer in question, Hilary Goldstein, editor-in-chief at IGN's Xbox 360 channel, talked to GameDaily about the GTA IV review mini-hubbub, chalking up Fritz's concerns to a possible grudge.

Goldstein theorizes that "if Variety didn't get the game early then you're looking at somebody, I don't know, who had a grudge on his shoulder because he didn't even have the game yet and we'd already put out the review." He thinks that to break an agreed upon embargo, similar to the one we agreed to with Rockstar for our own GTA IV review, would be a bigger ethics violation.

While I don't think that sums up Variety's particular concern and IGN editors swear everything's kosher, that no money or promises were exchanged, I think it's simply a matter of frustration with how coverage in the video game media industry is handled, how it's doled out to established video game outlets like IGN and not to those not known for their video game coverage. What may be simply a sign of an immature, capitulating industry, one populated with zealous fans, may not be as ethically troubling as it is indicative of one that needs to grow.

Media Coverage: IGN Says Variety May Have 'Grudge' [GameDaily]

Here's what it comes down to, for me: we argue a lot about what game critics "should" or "shouldn't" do to be worthy of writing their review. But the most important thing in judging a game is to figure out what makes it fun, and then try to enjoy it for what it sets out to do .... Sometimes, you have to stop rushing and just not finish the game in order to actually enjoy the time you spend with it. Other times, if you're driving yourself nuts over one stupid puzzle, it's worth cheating your way around it - which is what a lot of your readers would probably do anyway. In trying to decide if it's "okay to cheat," I'm basically down to my core philosophy: you should just figure out how to have fun with the damn thing. And if you can take that fun and distill it down to a letter grade, you've got yourself a review.

I don't really care if a reviewer cheats on a puzzle or two, but if the game is maddeningly frustrating, it would be nice to have that noted.

Can Game Critics Cheat? [Save the Robot]

When the occasional company does turn the screws, Hsu relies on advice from those that came before him. "The thing that always guides me is something my first editorial director [Joe Funk] told me on the day I interviewed at EGM [in 1996]," he said. "I brought up an old EGM editorial where the editor said that Capcom has pulled advertising, but EGM wouldn't change its ways to win them back. I asked the editorial director about that, and how can EGM survive without advertising...how does the magazine deal with that pressure? He told me, 'As long as you write for the readers and not the companies, the readership will come, and the advertisers will have no choice but to advertise with you.'"

Companies giveth, companies taketh away, but soldiering forward with some modicum of integrity will at least leave your reputation (and readership) intact. It's an interesting look at some of the behind the scenes aspects of game journalism and the industry as the whole.

Media Coverage: Frozen Out [GameDaily]

In the growing wake of the controversy surrounding GameSpot's alleged firing of editorial director Jeff Gerstmann comes a little bit of surprising solidarity.

A bunch of Ziff Davis staffers (including 1Up) made a banner to show their support for fellow game reviewers and marched it the two blocks to the GameSpot building on Friday. The banner, and impromptu march, shows that despite being competition, what may have happened at GameSpot could have wide-spread implications in the game publication industry.

We're also told that the Kane & Lynch user reviews on Gamespot have been, at least temporarily, disabled and there are rumors that people are canceling their Gamespot accounts "en masse."

I'm not sure how Gamespot is going to deal with all of this since I'm pretty sure they're not legally able to talk about why Gerstmann is no longer there. I'd assume that at some point Gerstmann might talk, but I'd guess right now he's trying to figure out what to do in the way of a job.

What about you? Do you work as a game reviewer? Have you been forced to rewrite a review due to advertising pressure? Feel free to email us at tips if you have or to editor. Remember, you can remain anonymous.

The 1Up Show [Flickr]

Ethical Parables in Tabula Rasa

Players of most massively multiplayer online role-playing games today usually aren't faced with any great variety of missions that really impact your character or how you play. The most you're faced with is what kind of reward you'll get or, at most, which of the two factions you'll support against the other. It doesn't really have any effect on you in the grand scheme of things and you'll probably forget about the whole thing in a month or so. Instead of that static, boring type of storytelling, we wanted to create a more immersive story with Tabula Rasa, one that the players could interact with, where their actions could have long reaching consequences. We call this form of story-telling interaction the ethical parable and it is one of the hallmarks of a Richard Garriott game.

Ethical and moral dilemmas are something we definitely wanted to incorporate into the design of Tabula Rasa from the very start. The entire goal is to give you pause and allow you to think about the choices that they make in order to accomplish a mission. This way, at times, you will not be limited to one single path but may have multiple paths. We want you to think about the larger story and how your actions can affect this story down the road. Now you have the ability to play the game the way you want to play it. This in essence is the parable—a type of story that allows you to explore moral lessons or decisions.

We won't be throwing these ethical parables at the players in every mission, but we definitely want players to get a taste for them early on in the game. We've placed a few on, the first major landmass that players will encounter in Tabula Rasa. One of these early missions involves the delivery of pharmaceuticals to soldiers on the front lines. While the supply commander, a rather straight-laced and stand-up kind of individual, would rather these pharmaceuticals be distributed to the soldiers in a formal, organized system, there's a man who stole a whole bunch and has been selling them to the soldiers for a nice profit. Your decision to either turn in the thief, or help him distribute the stolen goods, not only affects the mission outcome but determines how the NPC soldiers will interact with you from then on.

Another mission of note is for players with levels in the mid-teens. As you progress though the game and are redeployed to Foreas Base, you're told that the AFS has a Bane prisoner who is currently undergoing interrogation. This will start a chain of missions as the Bane prisoner reveals more and more information, allowing you to attack the local Bane base, kill a key Bane soldier, deal with some traitors, and possibly even defend the prison from attack.

At the end of this mission chain, you're now left with the choice of what to do with the prisoner. On one hand, he's one of the evil Bane, who wiped out most of humanity and forced people like yourself to fight for survival on a few scattered alien worlds. It doesn't deserve to live... or does it? As a mere soldier, the Bane was just doing what it was supposed to do, no more and no less, and cannot really be held responsible for what the leadership of the Bane did to Earth. What would be the harm in letting him live, and more importantly, what more could you learn from him? If you were a prisoner, wouldn't you want to be treated humanely, instead of being executed for telling you what you wanted to know?

These are a couple of examples of the parables we will present in Tabula Rasa. Some of them will have little or no long-term impact, and others may influence the way you experience the game. We want to give you the choice to play the game the way you want to, without hemming you into one specific path. This way, we've created a better, richer, more immersive game experience for you to enjoy.

Everyone's favorite crazy attorney is once more facing a hearing for his bizarre and unethical behavior in the court room.

A complaint filed by the Miami judge who oversaw the Bully suit by Jack Thompson has been upheld by the Florida Bar and then assigned by the state supreme court for trial, Game Politics.

Judge Dava Tunis, of the 11th Judicial Circuit, will be hearing the case and is expected to file a report by Sept. 17.

I'm going to have to add this latest little run-in to our growing lists of imbroglios . Brian Crecente

BREAKING: Florida Bar Gives Jack Thompson a Wedgie Over Bully Case [Game Politics]

By: Brian Crecente (Art by Fahey)

Last week's flurry of activity surrounding Jack and the Florida Bar isn't something new. It seems that the two have had quite a number of run-ins over the years.

Way back in 2005, intrigued by Jack's petulant attitude and seemingly unprofessional behavior in the court room and in front of television cameras, I contacted the bar to see what sorts of things that had on file about MR. T.

I only received two complaints back because under their interpretation of state law they argued they only had to provide me with closed cases. I've never really had a reason to post about them, but in light of this latest investigation I feel they could make for good reading material. Hit the jump for summaries of both cases as well as all of the scanned documents from the cases, for your reading pleasure. I've also gotten my paws on a PDF of the most recent complaint, all 40 pages of it. Brian Crecente

The Florida Bar v. John Bruce Thompson

Case No: SC07-80
Florida Bar File Nos: 2005-70,305; 2005-71,125; 2006-70,570;2006-70,766;2006-70,909
Date: 2006
Outcome: Still proceeding.
Summary: This case is about a number of alleged infractions on Thompson's part, in a number of different cases, but most of them dealt with his deft touch in an Alabama civil case.
After being allowed to represent the plaintiffs in an Alabama civil case surrounding the murder of two police officers and a radio dispatcher in Fayette, the court found that Thompson filed a complaint before getting that permission. The judge also found that Thompson spoke about the case outside of the court, sent letters to the court and "engaged in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law." That included harassment, lying and intimidation, according to the judge.
Best Thompsonism: In a letter to the judge: "I was in your courtroom Judge, and I felt like Alice in Wonderland must have felt. It's okay for Mr. Smith to act like a Mafia thug, but it's unethical for me to point out the thuggery. What in Hell, literally, is going on here? This is utter, utter nonsense, and you're watching it, Judge."
Names the judge was called: knucklhead, bizarre, childish, improper, a player, a witness, an out-of-control tyrant
Names he called himself: A slithering snake, a pig slop
The full record: Download PDF here.

The Florida Bar v. John Bruce Thompson

Case No: None
Florida Bar File Nos: 2005-71,051
Date: May, 5, 2005
Outcome: No probable cause found because the Supreme Court of Ohio issued a finding that there was no evidence that Thompson engaged in the practice of law in their state.
Summary: In March, 2005, an Adams County, Ohio Special Assistant Prosecuting Attorney filed a complaint with the Florida Bar alleging that Thompson tried to inject himself in a case there despite not having an Ohio-license and being told by the judge he couldn't. He also continued to tell people he was representing the family in the case, despite the order, according to the allegation.
The Ohio attorney goes on to detail a laundry list of accusations including seeking publicity in the trial, lying, being disrespectful, being unprofessional and sending improper letters to others involved in the case.
Despite the fact that the Ohio State Supreme Court, and the judge presiding over the case, found that Thompson never practiced any law in the case, many publications, including Game Politics, Gamespot and the Columbus Dispatch reported that he would represent the family of Gail Knisley, shot and killed in November 2003 by Charles A. McCoy Jr., an avid gamer, while she drove on an interstate in the Columbus area.
Best Thompsonism: In a letter to the the Florida Bar's chief branch discipline counsel: "You can see in the correspondence the three cases in Ohio that prove I was no more practicing law in Ohio than I was playing centerfield for the Cleveland Indians."
...
"Maybe he can conjure up some kind of cause of action against Ohio-based Bob Evans Farm Sausage for my illicit use of ham on my fists. This is the first time I can recall a Bar complaint that brings pigs into the discussion."
Names he calls others: a liar, thin-skinned, big fish in a little pond, blind, unprofessional, childish, ham-fisted.
Names he called himself: A center fielder for the Cleveland Indians, illegal user of... hams... on his... fists?
The full record: Click on images for the full-sized page.

The Florida Bar v. John Bruce Thompson

Case No: 78,765 and 79,339
Florida Bar File Nos: 89-71,062;89-71,416
Date: Oct. 1, 1992
Outcome: Guilty plea. Public reprimand for professional misconduct and $3,000 for costs.
Summary: This record was on the verge of being deep-sixed when I rescued it from the Florida Bar. Unfortunately, it is very light on details. All I can gather is that Thompson was accused of, and later admitted to, trying to get someone to hire him as a lawyer after the person already had one. He also admits to not doing an adequate pre-filing investigation in an unnamed case.
Best Thompsonism: Document is just a summary and totally lacking in quotes.
Names the judge was called: Document is just a summary and totally lacking in quotes.
Names he called himself: Document is just a summary and totally lacking in quotes.
The full record: Click on images for the full-sized page.

Merodeando, a spanish gaming site that sorta looks like it's a true blog, was recently uninvited to an Electronic Arts event because they bad-mouthed FIFA, which, I believe, everyone has bad-mouthed.

I've had my run-ins with Electronic Arts, believe me, lots of run ins, but they've always been very professional with me and with Kotaku as a whole despite our often taking them to task for their missteps. So I was surprised to hear they would be so overtly obnoxious about something like this. But the site actually posted the email and, unless it's a fake, it spells out the fact that they were uninvited to the Command and Conquer 3 event because of their coverage.

A poorly translated snippet:

as you will include/understand, you are many webs of game those that quereis to collaborate with us, and we must prioritize to whom, to ours modest to understand, they treat to us better

with articles of this type at the present time he is not plantable that we have
a collaboration flu da with you, is therefore cancelled
invitation to pasaros by our offices to see C&C3

if it seems to you, we let pass the time, and seeing a little like
the things evolve volvemso to raise material enviaros to us e
invitaros to this class of eventos...

Let's hope that someone gets fired over this because I would hope it has not become EA's policy to try and strong-arm websites into granting them positive coverage.

Besides, iIf EA were to blackball everyone who has ever disagreed with them they would have very empty press events. Brian Crecente

Electronic Arts: si me criticas no te ajunto [Merodeando]

The Academy Awards. Hollywood's opportunity to bask in itself and spend loads of money on limos, parties and wooing Academy members to vote for "important" motion pictures. Last week, Gamasutra ran an article, which compared a planned Japanese game award show to the Oscars. The Academy's sue-happy lawyers jumped down Gamasutra's throat:

The headline reads [before it was edited] "Japan Plans 'Game Academy Awards'." It refers to the Japanese Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry plans to create an award for the country's video games industry. Regardless of whether or not this ACADEMY AWARDS reference was derived from an outside news source, it is nonetheless concerning to the Academy. We consider the use of the ACADEMY AWARDS name in Gamasutra's headline as damaging to our rights by tending to dilute the ACADEMY AWARDS mark's unique identification with the Academy or incorrectly implying these awards are in some way connected with or endorsed by the Academy.

Thing is, the "Game Academy Awards" bit came from a Japanese newspaper, The Yomiuri Shinbun, and was simply quoted by the site. So to prevent the Oscars' "unique" identity to be diluted, the Academy strong-armed Gamasutra to remove a quote from a major Japanese newspaper.

Just know Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, that hopefully this Japanese "Game Academy Awards"—I'm quoting here as it's not connected with your dog and pony show—will be nothing like the Oscars. Judging by your track record (take for example, stiffing Martin Scorsese in favor of Kevin Costner for Best Director), I can only hope that the Japanese "Game Academy Awards" will be nothing like the "Movie Academy Awards." Otherwise, fat chance Miyamoto or Kojima will ever get recognized. Brian Ashcraft

More Here [GameSetWatch]

Kotaku graduate and big-headed leader of the 1Up news crew Luke Smith just gave Square-Enix a public dressing down for an absurd email the publisher sent out to some game writers reminding them what not to cover.

In the email, the company points out that they have released Valkyrie Profile 2: Silmeria in Japan, but not yet in North America and proceeds to outline all of the stuff publications should not write about the game.

The list includes spoilers, movies, music, and entire sections of the game until specific dates. For instance, we're not supposed to even mention, say, the Sukavia Gorge or Royal Underground Path until after July 21 and, under penalty of death we should never ever say anything about Bifrost, Yggdrasil or Hall of Valhalla until after Aug. 4.

You know Square, there's a name for this kind of tactically outlined, well-timed release of information, it's called an advertisement, so go and buy one and get your nose out of legitimate game coverage.

Thanks to Luke for uncovering this bit of publisher crap, and when you get fired know there is always a warm spot for you back at U of Kotaku. Brian Crecente

Dear PR, You Cannot Embargo Public Knowledge [1Up]

Sources tell me this was a little joke cooked up by the editorial folks over at IGN. I'm not sure who they thought they were pranking, but the joke ended up being on what few readers they have left who still thought their site was in any way credible. Thanks IGN, for reminding us that it isn't. Brian Crecente

Did I leave the iron on [IGN]

Update: Casamassina's career move was a prank played by his co-workers. He's actually on vacation.

Simon over at GameSetWatch writes about a nasty little rumor that has been making the rounds since before E3. Word had it that Hudson Entertainment was offering attractive woman as "personal assistants" to the editors of top gaming publications.

I heard about it from another site's editor a week before the show when we were talking about the whole free Caddy offer that I wrote about back then.

According to GSW (which gets its info from Brandon over at Insert Credit), the Hudson rumors are true, though not as nefarious as they sound. Simon describes the whole thing as "an odd E3-related cultural semi-accident from the Japanese headquartered Hudson Entertainment."

What I really want to know is which editors took Hudson up on their offer. That and which editors were driving brand new Caddys two weeks ago. —Brian Crecente

Hudson's E3 Helpers Lost in Translation [GSW]

A Cadillac marketeer sent me more details about the upcoming car pack that Cadillac will be giving to Project Gotham Racer 3 gamers.

The Cadillac V-Series Collection will be free and hits the Xbox 360 on May 22. The idea is that gamers get a free, cool add-on for PGR3 and Cadillac gets some exposure. Sounds like a win/win to me. I'd like to see all in-game advertising be free and optional. Part of me is still expecting the other shoe to drop and for Caddy to announce that there will be a ten minute commercial everytime you get in one of the cars or you'll be charged $5 for it.

I guess we'll find out on May 22.

Interestingly enough, Caddy's largess has extended into the real world. The company offered to loan me a V-Series car while I am in L.A. covering E3. The said they've selected ten editors for the offer, no strings attached.

The idea is that they want to build interest among "influential game editors about the Cadillac V-Series Collection." I've turned them down, but had I said yes they would have given me a car to use from May 8 through May 12 or 13 and paid for all of the expenses.

I wonder who among the ten will say yes?

When I launched Kotaku's Preview Ho column a couple weeks ago, I did so on the assumption that the gaming press hyped up their previews primarily to stay in good stead with the publishers, whose access and ad revenue they depend on. But in the case of the top two gaming sites, at least, I quickly learned that the story is more complicated—and disturbing— than even that.

Shortly after the first Preview Ho, I was contacted by a former media buyer for various game publishers. This person was irked by the game media's pretense that previews were pure editorial. But unlike their readers— or for that matter, me— my source had hard proof they were much more than that.

"I was the media buyer who made the purchase," the source told me, "signed the insertion order, and then followed up to make sure that what we had been promised was in fact delivered."

What was delivered, my source went on, was editorial placement on the two largest game websites for a sizeable fee.

This source sent me some invoices for a game studio client. (For good measure, I faxed copies to my Gawker editors.) Several were from Gamespot, and while most of the items referred to legitimate ads, a couple mentioned something called "Front Door rotation"— or what Gamespot staffers refer to as a "gumball". Gumballs are those thumbnail screenshots you see on the front page of Gamespot, when you visit the site— clicking on these takes you to an article about the game.

In the Gamespot invoice I looked at, a gumball for two weeks cost the media buyer's client over $7000.

"You can purchase messaging plus units that increase the likelihood of an article about your game showing up on their front page," the source said. In other words, if you want your game to get more editorial prominence, you pay extra.

Then the source showed me an invoice for the same game, this one from
IGN/Gamespy. What Gamespot calls a gumball, Gamespy calls, less charmingly, a "Gamespy Spotlight". But the content and the principle is basically the same: the Spotlights are those thumbnail screenshot links that you see on the site's front page. "What you're looking at on the front page is not what the editors decided is the best game," the media buyer informed me.

Reached for comment, both the editors of Gamespot and Gamespy, unsurprisingly, have a much different way of looking at their policies.

"I can confirm that GameSpot does offer publishers programs that promote their content on our site using a variety of means," Gamespot Executive Editor Greg Kasavin acknowledged. "The promotion causes gumballs linking to specific content to appear more often than other gumballs (which are auto-generated for all new content and displayed randomly and dynamically upon page load)." But for the "vast majority of cases", he goes on, the gumball doesn't feature Gamespot editorial, but an official asset like the game's trailer or a playable demo. "Our editors have the authority and responsibility to decide which content gets top billing," Kasavin added.

I asked Kasavin about this "vast majority" of gumballs— what was an exception, where a paid gumball linked straight to Gamespot editorial?

As it happened, he said, such a gumball is currently in play, for Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter for the Xbox 360. "I wouldn't want you to jump to the incorrect conclusion that the extra push being given to the review must mean that the game's publisher somehow influenced the review in the first place," Kasavin added hastily. "My guess is this promotional deal was negotiated after we decided to give the game a positive review, but since I'm not privy to the details of these types of deals, I don't know for sure." He insisted that Gamespot maintains a strict separation between editorial and ad sales.

IGN/Gamespy had a similar explanation for the selling of their editorial space.

First noting that the practice is "pretty common both in print and online", Peer Schneider, IGN's VP of Content Publishing, described their Spotlights as "'sponsored' slotting, sometimes called 'digital reprint.' This is a practice where advertisers want to make sure coverage of their titles is seen. For example, some magazines sell their cover image (or part of it) to the highest bidder." Schneider insisted IGN and GameSpy don't sell their "top story" placement to anyone. "We have, however, designated spots that can be 'sponsored.' What this means is that a publisher interested in exposing more users to a title (including games, movies, etc.) can book a one-day sponsorship in what we call 'spotlights.'" Like Kasavin, Schneider enunciated a principle of strict separation between editorial and ad sales.

"In the time I have been here (six years now)," Gamespy editorial director John "Warrior" Keefer added, "there has never been any deliberate intent to deceive our readers. If anything, we try to err in the other direction. I am a strong proponent of editorial integrity. My staff knows that the quickest way to get on my bad side is to mess with GameSpy's name or reputation. We have made a few mistakes (Donkey Konga, anyone?), but those we have never shied away from or tried to sweep under the carpet (I spent three days after Donkey Konga answering questions and posting on boards)."

Hos, or honest brokers? We leave that to the readers of Gamespot and Gamespy to decide. To us, however, their answers raise more questions than they answer. Can any indy game studio really compete for attention against publishers who can afford to stack the deck? With so much money at stake, how separate can editorial and ad sales truly be? And what would happen if it were discovered that, say, the websites of Premiere and Entertainment Weekly charged the studios extra to put their trailers (no matter how mediocre) in a prominent place on their page?

We leave readers with those questions to ponder, as well. For now, consider this a glimpse inside the sausage factory, where games often reach the public awareness not because of their quality, but because of the billing that goes with them.

And the search for Hos continues.

Send samples of egregiously fawning game previews and information on backroom deals that influence them to au@kotaku.com. Tips from editors and writers in the game press especially welcom—all correspondence kept strictly confidential.

The author of the script for 25 to Life, the poorly reviewed and controversially violent shooter, claims that he experienced a moral dilemma after writing the game. P. Frank Williams talked to the London Free Press about it, but the article doesn't really go into any details about what moral dilemma, exactly, he experienced.

Setting aside whether the game is any good or not and that the story takes place in a video game, why should an author experience a moral dilemma for writing a story? I don't get it. He says the story was meant to be a reflection of the world as he sees it. I can't imagine that's really the case, but does he need an excuse to write a violent story.

Violent movies come out weekly and you don't see the writers defending them.

Violent game's creator admits to 'moral dilemma' [LFP, via Cathode Tan]