Earlier this week, Variety's Ben Fritz expressed concern over IGN's exclusive first review of Grand Theft Auto IV, asking rhetorically, "How can we trust a videogame review when the outlet running it has been given a major commercial favor ... from the publisher of the game?" Well, GameDaily Media Coverage Columnist Gus Mastrapa went the extra mile and asked that very question to some people at IGN. And he even got an answer!

"We in no way trade scores for an exclusive," said IGN VP Tal Blevins, adding that publishers have no access to or say in the text of a review before it goes live. That doesn't mean IGN didn't make any concessions to secure the exclusive, though. IGN Xbox editor Hilary Goldstein admitted the site used promotional placement on the site's top feature bar to secure the exclusive. "Our bargaining chip is to basically say, 'I will put it here if you let me have this,'" Goldstein said. Mastrapa likened the practice to an "exclusive cover story" in a game magazine.

As for Variety and Fritz, Goldstein seemed unimpressed with with his journalism bona fides. "Nobody from Variety called us and said, 'Hey, would you like to comment about this?'" he said. "He says in blog post, 'If I had the game right now I would have broken the embargo.' To me that goes against your ethics." Nothing like an I'm-more-ethical-than-thou battle to get your heart racing in the morning.

Is it too early to say that we're beginning to see a pattern develop here? We know that a mere handful of reviews for Rockstar's latest opus have been published, but should the current trend continue, Grand Theft Auto IV could be the subject of more perfect scores than 1976 Olympic gymnast Nadia Comaneci. Yes, IGN recently dropped the suspiciously non-embargoed first online review for the title, giving it a 10 out of 10 (on both platforms) and evoking the wrath of the Nintendo Defense Force, calling GTA IV "the best game since Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time."

The seven-page, five-thousand word review (and accompanying video review, after the jump) praises the game's art style, the immersive backdrop of Liberty City, the "Oscar quality" story and the "refined" gameplay. The enamored reviewer even commends some of the quirky extra features included by Rockstar, such as Niko's multipuropse cellphone, or the in-game use of alcohol: "You don't have to drive drunk," the reviewer exclaims, "but it's fun to give it a try." Great, now we can look forward to public backlash towards the game's DUI-endorsing write-ups, as well.

The editor's note at the bottom of Jeff Gerstmann's controversial review of Kane & Lynch: Dead Men notes that "this review has been updated to include differences between the Xbox 360 and PS3 versions and a clarification on the game's multiplayer mode." While this is true, a comparison between the original and edited versions of the review shows that the edits went significantly further than that.

An archived version of the review found in a Google cache of an EBGames page shows that, while the review's overall determination remained the same, significant changes were made to its tone and focus. Nowhere is this more apparent than the very first paragraph, which was changed whole cloth to remove references calling the game "ugly" and the artificial intelligence "clunky." While the new introduction still says the game "squanders much of its potential and just doesn't come together as well as it probably should have," the new version is unquestionably less harsh than the original.

Some edits to the text seem shoehorned in to point out potential positives for the game. Consider a post-edit addition that specifically notes the game "does a good job of moving the action around, and you'll see a variety of different environments ..." and another that suggests, "if you've been waiting patiently for a game to really dive into the whole 'crew-based heist tale' concept, you might be able to look past some of the story flaws."

Then again, there are other additions that specifically point out negatives, such as one that says the multiplayer mode "doesn't translate into a great or long-lasting experience," and another that calls the disappointing multiplayer a "bummer." But there are further edits that circumstantially seem designed specifically to placate Eidos, such as one clause that points out "how well this same sort of stuff worked in the developer's previous squad-based game, Freedom Fighters," and another that asks readers to consider "the somewhat unique nature of its story."

While the edits are interesting in and of themselves, it should be noted that they are not proof of any wrongdoing on either CNET or Eidos' parts. Many questions remain, such as whether or not Gerstmann himself was involved with the edits, whether Eidos specifically requested any of the edits, and whether or not CNET executives intervened in the editing process. Neither Gerstmann, nor CNET or Eidos representatives were immediately available to respond to requests for comment on this matter, but we will let you know if and when they do (A CNET spokesperson made an oblique reference to the edits in a previous public comment).

A full accounting of the differences between the original review and the edited version appears after the break. Read it over and decide for yourself whether the changes were justified and suitably covered by the editor's note that appears at the end.

It's not uncommon for video games to feature gameplay dependent upon gimmicks and peripherals, from early 8-bit examples like Gyromite to more modern releases such as Guitar Hero and Dance Dance Revolution, each of which changed the gaming experience by altering how we interact with the games we play.

In this way, Sony and SCE Studios Japan's The Eye of Judgment is one of the most ambitious experiments with game design to date, and in leveraging off of the considerable card game experience of Hasbro and its Wizards of the Coast subsidiary, best known for the Magic: The Gathering and Star Wars collectible card games, The Eye of Judgment's pedigree is certainly not one to be taken lightly. Marrying a tabletop card game with the PlayStation 3 has created an experience that is if nothing else unique; unfortunately the lynchpin in this union, the newly launched PlayStation Eye camera, is also the game's Achilles' heel, oftentimes bringing an unwelcome sense of frustration to players gaming in anything but the most ideal settings, something which we covered in much greater detail previously.

GameCareerGuide.com gives Dead Rising a New Yorker Magazine-style treatment and goes all highbrow in reminiscing about the title. Dead Rising occupies a very strange place in gaming. It was obviously a hit and talks of a sequel were already in the works a week after the game premiered. But, putting aside the tiny-text and the punishing save system, those horrors were eclipsed by Otis and that walkie-talkie.

There's plenty of "drinks at the Palm" moments in the piece. Like you'll have to read all three pages to understand what this quote actually means, "Dead Rising has, as you might put it, a profoundly 'old-school' sensibility -- a pre-Miyamoto one, even. Its goal is to recapture what once made video games entertaining, by getting rid of many of the institutionalized assumptions that have made them boring, or frustrating, or arbitrary."

Highbrow analysis aside, Dead Rising certainly was a game where the concept was in the right place, along with the writing, the heart, the brains -- mmmm, brains. It was the structure of the game that hurt, especially the menacing way you failed for missing one of those picky, picky case files. The GCG piece actually explains that one should think of Dead Rising as a classic game where you should expect to play it through on one life. Fail? Well, then you should start over. Yeah, the piece gets weird, but that's because you have "institutionalized assumptions" about what to expect from a game. Read the piece and then come back to let us know what you think -- we know you will.

Bits Bytes Pixels and Sprites is calling out PGNx media and writer Jose Liz for writing reviews based on previews. In the piece, Andrew Hayward of BBPS, says that the Spider-Man 3 "review" is based on a demo he saw with this writer while on an Activision junket. He believes the writer made up the review based on the preview information as evidence by lines like "These interactive cinematics provided some of the demo's (emphasis ours) biggest 'wow' moments such as struggling in the air against the Green Goblin (while playing as Peter) and jumping through lasers as Spider-Man." Oops, helps to double-check that stuff before posting. Coincidentally, the DS review by the same writer ends with, "We're very excited to review the full version when it is released in early May." Double d'oh!

Hayward says, "The writer seemed like a really nice guy, but the more I interact with some of the writers at these independent gaming websites, the more I sense a general lack of knowledge pertaining to ethics and correctness in reporting." Of course, this statement would just be soaking in the juices of irony if Hayward had his airfare, hotel and other incidentals paid for by Activision as part of this junket.

This certainly isn't the most high-ranking screw-up in recent memory (frankly we've never heard of PGNx Media), but it does make an interesting footnote in the world of preview and review game writing. In the eyes of a PR company though, it doesn't matter how the review is written, as long as the writer says good things about the game.

The Harvard Crimson has the story about the recently created Harvard Interactive Media Group, a fancy-sounding club that makes talking about video games into a legitimate extracurricular gathering as only the Ivy League can. Member Alexander Li says the group started simply as a way to find more Civilization IV players on campus, but has since split into four scholarly subgroups that all endeavor "to explore the form and impact of interactive media" according to their mission statement.

There are plans for an academic review and a theory-soaked colloquium, but not everything is super-serious -- the group managed to attract 100 students to a gaming tournament in March. Nice to see these academic types haven't forgotten that games are meant to be played, not just talked about.

Previously: Rhode Island's gaming convention and the college gaming scene

Evaluating high-end gaming mice has always been a somewhat subjective process, relying more on a reviewer's opinion of the mouse's "feel" than any quantifiable measures of performance. Now, a writer at ESReality seems to have solved this problem with an inventive setup that can compare mice objectively on their own merits.

By clamping a mouse over a controlled-speed turntable, the author has created a system to accurately gauge the exact speed at which a mouse goes from "perfect control" to malfunctioning randomness. How much sensitivity is necessary depends largely on your play style, but it goes without saying that a higher top-speed is generally preferable to a lower one.

When the final results were tabulated and weighted the overclocked Logitech MX500 reigned supreme, giving perfect control even when zipped along the surface at a blazing meter per second. If you're moving your mouse any faster than that, may we suggest looking into some sort of program for caffeine addiction.

[Via Digg]

The New Gamer has posted a provocative take on Clover's Okami that's worth considering. The review suggests that the game is built on a seesaw of excess, teetering between gorgeously overworked themes and useless redundancies, concluding:

"[When] the excess doesn't add to the characters, when it doesn't showcase the story or the world design, when it just causes me to mindlessly increase quantities of items I'll never need, then I can't help but remark that not all of Okami is as rich as it could have been."

Okami easily stretches 30 hours of gameplay, but a huge chunk of New Gamer's time was spent hoarding unnecessary items. Would Clover's game have benefited from trimming the fat?

[Via Game Set Watch]

Arstechnica has posted a comprehensive five page review of the DS Lite, with a large portion dedicated to comparisons with the DS Phat. This isn't the first review of the DS Lite, but it could possibly be the most well thought out. Here are the key points of the review:

The screens

• Greater viewing angle - "it's now possible to watch someone else playing the system and actually see the screen"
• Brighter - "the upgraded screen may be worth the price of an upgrade alone"
• Dead pixels - "my unit has a stuck pixel on the top screen"
• Flimsy? - "the bottom screen seems to be floating in the system case, not held down tight like the DS [Phat]"

The feel

• Lighter - "the system is lighter, making it easier for me to cradle it using the tips of my fingers"
• Buttons - "The D-pad is a touch smaller... and a bit less satisfying in the click department" although "the buttons on both DS products are a little bit on the small side"
• Central microphone "makes games that use voice recognition easier to play."

The battery

• Six hours usually, although "it's not hard to get eight hours of battery life as long as you don't continually keep the system on its brightest setting."

The overall feeling from the review is that if you're a DS virgin and have been mulling a purchase, now is the time to jump in. If, however, you're a DS Phat owner and haven't decided whether it's worth trading in for the updated hardware, the suggestion from this review is go for it. "If you're a casual gamer or a hardcore fan who takes your portable everywhere, you'll like the way your games play and look on the DS Lite".

There are moments in our gaming pasts that stand out with clarity from the mass of bygone levels, saves, high scores and kill counts. One of mine is a first date of epic proportions, one which launched a thousand clones and broke a million hearts. It was my first date with Lara.

Lady Croft and I have a lot in common. The novelty of playing as a girl who looks great and sounds normal grabbed me back in 1996 and hasn't let me go since.

A decade later, in Tomb Raider: Legend, Lara still looks the part; she hasn't put on a pound, though her poly count's up. As I put the disc in, her iconic face stares at me. This revamped Lara looks more human, more real, less like a creature from some stylised midnight fantasy. Her face is soft, her lips slightly curled in a welcoming smile -- her eyes measure me up. It's been a while.

I just got back from checking out Silent Hill, the latest game-to-film adaptation, and I have to say ... it wasn't that great. Sure, it is pretty and has some great audio, but the story and acting are lame. Here is quick and dirty of the film (warning: a few minor spoilers lie ahead):

Best line: "Look at me, I'm burning!"

According to Something Awful, 2005 was not a good year for gaming journalism. In fact, they reckon it was a terrible year, and they've picked the five worst gaming articles to exemplify just how abysmal game journalism has become. Not limiting themselves to 2005, the two worst articles in their lineup are both by the same author and neither is actually from 2005; in Something Awful's words, the reviews are so "horrible that they have transcended the limitations of linear time".

Among the lineup is Kieron Gillen, who's responded to the article on his own site. The traits identified by Something Awful that make these particular reviews so bad include, but are not limited to: rampant fanboyism, an awful sense of humour, pretentiousness, spending much of the review not talking about the actual game, spending the entire review failing to describe the game, and being Tim Rogers. A useful checklist of things to avoid when reviewing games.

[Thanks, anonymous]