On February 11, 1960, Jack Paar, then host of The Tonight Show, four minutes into the night's program, angry at NBC censors, said, "I am leaving The Tonight Show. There must be a better way of making a living than this. You have been peachy to me always," and walked off the set, forcing announcer and sidekick Hugh Downs to finish hosting the night's show.

On March 7, 1960, Paar returned to The Tonight Show and began the night's show by saying,"As I was saying before I was interrupted, I believe my last words were that there must be a better way of making a living than this. Well I have looked, and there isn't."

I feel like Jack Paar must have felt on March 7, 1960.

In spite of GameSpot's ethical issues, both known and alleged, there is no better Web site for video game coverage. I have looked, and there isn't.

Blatant opinions (not just bias) in news stories, a lack of fact-checking, reviews that do not give readers enough information to decide if a game is for them, snarky comments and generally unprofessional writing and attitudes.

These things are to be expected from almost every video game Web site.

But not GameSpot.

This is why I have returned.

Regarding GameSpot's alleged ethical issues, I do not know what to believe anymore. I am not an insider, but I have heard stories from credible sources claiming that Jeff Gerstmann's firing was deserved and that the aftermath was nothing but a public relations disaster.

But a public relations disaster is still a disaster. People believe what they want to believe, regardless of the truth. If a public relations crisis is not resolved quickly and in a satisfying manner, perception becomes reality.

There was never a satisfying resolution to this pubic relations disaster. GameSpot parent division CNET never gave people a good reason to believe that Jeff Gerstmann's firing was not due to pressure from advertisers. No executive took the fall (CNET Entertainment Executive Editor Josh Larson was let go as part of a downsizing months later, but by then it was too late to change opinions), a commitment to editorial independance and integrity was never proclaimed and half of GameSpot's editorial staff quit, some mentioning Gerstmann's dismissal as the reason.

I have trouble trusting all I see and hear on GameSpot as a result.

Take the changing of Grand Theft Auto IV's review score, for example. When the score first appeared on this site, it was 9.5 out of 10. When the review was posted, the score changed to 10 out of 10. If not for the Gerstmann fiasco, I might have believed, without question, GameSpot Editor in Chief Ricardo Torres' claim that 9.5 was never intended to be the game's final score and that its appearance on the site was an accident, but due to the Gerstmann fiasco (and rumors I have heard of Grand Theft Auto series publisher Rockstar Games and parent company Take-Two Interactive pressuring media outlets to give Grand Theft Auto games the highest review scores possible), I will forever wonder why the score changed.

Prior to Grand Theft Auto IV, GameSpot had given 10 out of 10's to four games, the last in 2001. Since then, GameSpot had gotten tougher in its reviews, and review scores overall had dropped.

GameSpot awarding Metal Gear Solid 4 a 10 out of 10 so soon after Grand Theft Auto IV's 10 out of 10 does not help. Maybe their reviewers and GameSpot's editorial staff genuinely believe that these games deserve 10's. Maybe they don't. I would have trouble believing anything that someone from GameSpot or CNET had to say about them, whether defending the scores or claiming that they (the scores) were inflated due to pressure from management, publishers and/or advertisers.

In short, I am back, but I am not enthusiastic about it. Do not expect to see much, if any, content from me on this site unless GameSpot offers to pay me to write it. If you are interested in seeing my writings, about video games and other subjects, you will find them on my personal blog, pentagen.org. (Yes, "pentagen" is intentionally misspelled.)