At the end of the day, Konami have spent millions upon millions of dollars to create a game, they are releasing it, its theirs, and if they dont want certain elements of their game being revealed in reviews, so what? They made the game, the reviewers should be grateful they get to play these games before the paying public, and if konami want them to withhold certain details, then they should do it!

It would be like me making a short film, and telling people not to spoil the ending, which would be within my right as i made it.

I think there are two main problems with your post.

One is the use of blackmail. That's an ultra extreme (and inaccurate) view of what is happening. You can release a review under the same conditions as you always could. They just asked that particular information about the game not be discussed. This is done all the time. The difference here is the kind of information held back is unusual. I agree his actions are questionable. But "capitalist blackmail" is extreme.

Second, and the most important one, is why did you post it at all? It contributes nothing to the conversion, and was obviously a dig in a thread for MGS fans posted in the Sony forum, by a MS fanboy with the sole intent to incite anger and contempt. 

That's the part that follows your form, and got you banded in the past.

 Damn.. What is it with you people today.. Another posted thought..... I was thinking of posting it and there it was.

EVERY developer tells reviewers not to spoil the ending.  Thats accepted and reasonable.  Konami have asked told  reviewers not to comment on Kojima's eccentric obsession with cutscenes, and install times, a technical issue.

A better comparison would be if Bioware told reviewers it couldn't write that there were framerate issues in the 360 version of Mass Effect.  

1. Oh but it IS blackmail. Any reviewers that got an early copy of the game were made to sign a contract indicating they would not mention cutscene length or install times/size PRIOR to the game's release. Given sites and magazines receive traffic (and therefore revenue) based on the punctuality of their reports and reviews, Konami forced the gaming media to choose between its integrity and its profits.

2. My post was a satirical jab at the aforementioned blackmailing tactics adopted by Konami, it is relevant to any MGS4 review discussion. On the other hand, your first post in this thread was an unjustified, unsourced attack on two posters that had said and done nothing to you. So I ask you, whos contribution was more relevant?

P.S. It was established in a large thread (from which you apparently were absent) that there is significant sceptisism amongst the non-Sony fan (and indeed much of the Sony fan) population of this site that my so called fanboyism is an actual reality rather than social construction.

That's not the same thing at all. It's a given that reviewers are not supposed to give away plot points in a review. Everyone knows that.

What Konami is asking would be more akin to George Lucas demanding that Peter Travers say nothing about the bad dialogue in the Star Wars prequels. It's a major point of any Star Wars review and any reviewer who agrees to those terms is, frankly, a whore to his industry and should be ashamed of himself. He's doing a disservice to himself by agreeing to those terms, giving power to the publisher and enabling them to continue this kind of nonsense in the future. More importantly, he's doing a disservice to his fanbase who rely on his reviews for accuracy and honesty.

After all, if Konami didn't think the cutscenes and install were a bad thing, they never would have put this information embargo on reviewers in the first place. In essence, they're bribing publications to turn their reviews into free advertising in exchange for a few more site clicks and magazine sales.

Sad.

1. Find me a definition where what you described is called blackmail? Allowing people access to your products with absurd constraints is stupid, but it's in no way blackmail.

That's like saying Halo won't come out on the PS3 unless Sony pays us 500 million, is blackmail.

2. I responded to a post in this thread with complete relevance to that post. I agree it was off topic of the main post, but it had relevance to what I was replying to.

To the PS. I saw that thread, and realized anything I put in there would just turn it into a bitch sessions, so chose to take the more mature route. You have never admitted to ever doing a single thing wrong on this site, so pointing them out to you is nothing more than an exercise in futility. It will convince you of nothing, and start a debate about how it was appropriate dialog. (just like this has become).

Why would I want to continue a conversion with someone who takes nothing away from it, other then the person they are talking to is wrong? That's your stance every time. You probably feel every one of your bans were unjustified.

I have no interest in that. The mods seem to be doing a good job of things. I will just let the past and future bans speak for themselves.

The main reason why it is such low ratings is because 90 minutes of the game is video. This is not a bad thing, i just don't think many people know how to take such a long videoplay time when the whole purpose of buying a videogame is to play the game. If people want videoplay, they would buy a movie, so many videogame reviewers don't know how to take such a different game. It is revolutionary no doubt, and it is probably underrated. But the main thing is how is the gameplay on the game