When I review “Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots” in two weeks, rest assured: I will take note of its total cut scene length and installation time.

Some video game critics say they have been bound by contract to hold back on these details. Konami, the game's publisher, has allegedly restricted reviewers from revealing the above information in their coverage.

Such prior restraint would run counter to the spirit of truthfulness that should prevail in not only video game journalism, but all affairs of the pen. A critic should be entitled to consider any and all facets of a subject in his criticism, be it of film, music, literature or games.

Late last year I commented on the poor state of game journalism when GameSpot ousted editor Jeff Gerstmann over his negative review of “Kane & Lynch: Dead Men.” This news invites another look at the subject. But this time, I'd like to focus on what characteristics of game criticism separate it from other forms. As a result, I hope you'll finish this article a more informed reader of video game writing.

The first problem is access. Video games cost a lot of money, so critics are dependent on PR specialists to provide them with review copies in order to avoid racking up enormous debt. In film, this is less of an issue. When a studio refuses to screen a movie for critics, they can spend $8 to see it anyways. But $40 to $60 games add up, so a steady flow of freebies is essential to balancing sufficient coverage with healthy business.

The access issue is intrinsic to the games themselves as well. An album can be heard in an hour, a film seen in two. But some games take days to complete. To do so - in the name of providing a truly comprehensive review - requires enough advance access from the PR machine to match full coverage as close to a game's release date as possible.

So due to cost and completion time, game critics are doubly dependent on the game industry's PR component to provide access. But the second major issue - the fervor game critics bring to this relationship - opens them up to questionable conduct on the part of the industry.

To say that game journalists are fans of their subject matter proves nothing; I'm sure Roger Ebert loves movies and Lester Bangs adored rock music. But somehow - whether it's the youth of the medium or its Internet-heavy manifestation - the inner fan of game writers is indulged more often in their line of work. The way they “geek out” over new trailers or previews indicates not only pronounced bias, but a vulnerability to being manipulated by the people who provide that inside look.

This manipulation can take the form of PR specialists sitting over the shoulder of a critic while they play through a game - an all-too-common scenario for game critics. Or it can come when a publisher's representative asks a critic to postpone a negative review - a request GameSpot reviewer Alex Navarro claims to have fielded. Critics risk compromising the integrity of their coverage when they comply with such tactics. And while we know of these actions from the journalists who refuse to put up with them, there is no way of charting how many silently consent.

Then there are controversies like IGN's exclusive review of “Grand Theft Auto IV,” which came with effusive praise for the game in the form of hyperbolic, adjective-heavy platitudes and hollow critical insight. As Variety game writer Ben Fritz noted, the fact that IGN was given permission to run their review prior to any other outlet is troubling, given the deal making or favor currying that likely tied into IGN winning this traffic-boosting distinction.

Addressing these issues is crucial to infusing video game journalism with ethical news values that will win the trust of its readers. Until that happens, the critics who think with their thumbs are not worth your eyes and ears.

Staff writer David Wilcox reviews video games for The Citizen. He can be reached at 253-5311 ext. 245 or david.wilcox@lee.net