So because MGS4 is getting great reviews, everybody is assuming Konami has paid off EVERY reviewer in the world, all because one magazine started whining because Konami told them not to reveal the 90 minute cutscenes or 4gb install

 well, Heard about that before.... oh wait, yeah, people said the exact same thing about GTAIV not 2 month ago. ;)

The topic isn't even about MGS4. It's about the "limitation" on the reviews. MGS4 just happen to be an example.

It's not the first time this happened. I just didn't get around to question it. 

This is the big catch.

Reviewers aren't entitled to early copies of anything.  Those copies are provided by developers/publishers at their discretion.  If the reviewer wants an early copy of a game, they must abide by the stipulations of the provider.  It's essentially a contract between reviewers and providers.

It serves both parties too.  Providers can dictate terms of the review and reviewers can get reviews out before their competition. 

Exactly, I don't see why this is a big deal when it comes to bitching about it. Yea, it sucks that you can't see these things in the early reviews, but reviewers want to get a review out early when they otherwise couldn't so what do you expect?

But you have to admit that it is very slimy of Konami to hide two facts that specifically are likely to turn off potential gamers from buying the game.

[edit] It looks like the actual list of things largely unknown, although we do know that the length of the cutscenes is one of them.  The total list is very long according to IGN UK. 

It's about the chance to review the game earlier. Once the game has been released they don't have to obey the 'rules' anymore. They just get a chance to review the game before the release date if they agree on some things. I think it's perfectly acceptable although Konami has gone too far. I'm sure it's not only Konami though.

Then you are just dreaming.

Konami can set as many restrictions as they want when distributing early copies of the game for review...

It's up to the reviewer to accept those conditions or wait for the public release of the product..

At the end of the day it's their choice. It's an unfortunate but necessary part of freedom and I wouldn't want to see laws enacted to stop it. Reviewers have the power to stop it without running to the law. Any arbitrary rules a company sets for reviewers to follow are not legally enforcable unless a specific contract is signed to that end. All it would take is the top sites to come to an agreement and tell companies where to stuff their rules. No company is going to try to enforce rules if it means no one will cover their product. The power lies with the reviewers, it's up to them to grow a pair of bollocks and exercise it.

Movies where studios expect to get bad reviews often do NOT have the typical pre-screening for reviewers. So the tactic is not new.

But this can backfire in the video game world. Nintendo evidently did not give "Game Informer" permission to talk about some Wii features/games prior to its release. The magazine has not been kind to the console since.

Mike from Morgantown