So the title of this post holds water on two fronts. First, as an apology. Despite the obvious and undeniable quality of the articles and podcasts on completionist.com, we are not, in fact, professional journalists. No one returns our calls or gives us any respect and frankly, I prefer it that way. It allows me to grow sardonic in my writing which suits me just fine.

However, it also means that we can occasionally drop the ball when it comes to keeping up with games and updating the site. Since this is the first post in 12 days, I feel I must apologize to you guys who read us on a regular basis. Hopefully we haven’t lost you permanently. Please know that things are a little busy around the ol’ Completionist Ranch these days. Also, a downed laptop has resulted in a reduced capacity to produce. The rest of June doesn’t hold a great deal of hope for more regular posts but we promise to do our best. So for all that I must say sorry. Enough of this self-centered rambling.

The other context of the title is the fact that, as non-professional journalists, we can also lay our own course. This week saw the release of Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots, the apparent tide-turner for the Playstation 3. I’m going to level with all of you…right here, right now. I have never played a Metal Gear Solid game. None of them…ever. With my street cred now in shambles I can assure you that this post has little to do with the actual MGS games themselves. It instead deals with the internet broohaha that has taken place over the story on the MTV Multiplayer Blog about Konami issuing Non-Disclosure Agreements to reviewers of the game.

I feel semi-invested in this story, not because I like the Metal Gear Solid games and feel the need to defend Konami, but more because the whole thing apparently revolves around 1Up.com & Gamespite.net’s Jeremy Parrish, a gaming journalist whose work I rather enjoy (just take a look at the sidebar). The story seems to go like this: the 1Up review crew, Parrish included, needed to review the game in three days to reach Electronic Gaming Monthly Magazine’s print deadline. Konami produced a Non-Disclosure Agreement at the very last second which the 1Uppers signed without going through the normal step of having their legal department look at it. The NDA contained clauses stating that the reviews could not contain details about two things: the size of the install required on the PS3 hard drive and the length of the cut-scenes in the game. After realizing these clauses existed, EGM chose to not to run the review. That’s a very brief overview of the story but you can read it in its entirety here.

I guess in one way I’m not surprised that this type of thing happens but actually instead a little intrigued that these details ever made it out. What it does shed light on is the seemingly shady side of games journalism where gaming publications bow to the pressures of game publishers for any number of reasons. Getting an exclusive first look at a game seems like a pretty enticing way to beat your competition to the punch, only if it doesn’t compromise the integrity of the article.

1Up.com seems to be holding their own in the realm of independent reviews, recently with the MGS fiasco but also previously with Ubisoft’s Assassin’s Creed. Their unwillingness to waiver on their low scores for the game ultimately lead to a rocky relationship between the two companies. So, I guess kudos to them…but will every reviewer act with the same integrity?

Do we expect integrity from niche media like games journalism? Perhaps instead we just want someone to tell us how cool the graphics are, how well the controls handle and the like. Basically, they can act like a mouthpiece for the publishers and as long as we get to see the product, we’re happy. Then again, we’re spending $50 or more a pop so misleading scores can end up costing us money we never would have otherwise spent.

What it all leads to is this: how much can we actually trust game journalism? Since most sites need to make money to pay for the people who work them, it seems too easy to compromise the integrity of the game review system. “We’ll place an advertisement on your site if you keep the review score of our game above 8.0”, as an overblown but perhaps plausible example. Higher scores do mean higher sales, after all. “Give our game at least a 9.0 and we’ll give you an exclusive review before the game is released.” You can see how these possibilities seem as limitless as they do disgusting.

Maybe this kind of coercion never takes place. Maybe I’m just dreaming…probably not.

Honestly, the fact that this non-disclosure business actually happened doesn’t surprise me at all. What does surprise me is the fact that people found out about it. You would think the non-disclosure would have some sort of clause about not disclosing the agreement itself, but hey, I’m not a lawyer.

Anybody remember when Jeff Gerstmann got fired from Gamespot after giving Kane & Lynch a bad review? Gamespot claimed that wasn’t the reason, but afterwards several other reviewers for the site resigned over Gerstmann’s firing.

It’s hard to say who is at fault here. You can’t blame the advertisers for wanting their products to fare well, and you can’t really blame the gaming sites for wanting to make money. It just seems like everyone benefits except the consumers, who are misled, and sometimes outright lied to.

Never fear, though. Completionist.com will always remain objective and honest, no matter how much money is thrown at us. We will not bow to corporate pressures. We will never compromise our impartiality and integrity at the expensive of you, dear readers.