Konami doesn’t want you to know that Metal Gear Solid 4 requires a large (4.5 GB) upfront install on your PS3 and has feature-film-length cutscenes. Be sure to keep that on the DL. Oh, wait. That information has been available on the Internet for quite some time. Disregard my previous request.

Apparently, Konami doesn’t have access to the Internet. The publisher is reportedly requesting that reviewers not include the aforementioned information in their final judgments of the game. The response from editorial staffs has been mixed. Some seem willing to oblige. Others are not so willing. Electronic Gaming Monthly magazine falls into the latter category.

Find out how they are sticking it to Konami after the jump.

Despite the fact that many of its staffers have played a significant chunk of Snake’s last adventure, EGM decided to leave a review for MGS 4 out of the latest issue of the magazine. The popular gaming publication will eventually provide readers with a review, but only after they are given the go-ahead to mention the hard drive installation and lengthy cutscenes.

Fear not EGM subscribers. The latest issue doesn’t ignore MGS 4. Readers can look forward to a “roundtable discussion” in lieu of a score. I can’t speak to the depth of the discussion, but I certainly think this is an interesting way to handle the situation.

I think EGM deserves some credit for refusing to line up like circus seals. However, if you want to stick it to Konami, it seems like there are much more effective ways of doing it. For instance, instead of excluding the information in question, place it front and center in the article. The best way to do that is to put it in the headline. Better yet, make it the headline. Put it in big bold letters so everyone can see it. There EGM, I just provided you with a headline for your review. No need to thank me.

I should say that I am not, nor have I ever been part of an editorial (review) staff at a gaming magazine or web site. Therefore, I have never been subjected the pressure that often comes from public relations departments, publishers and developers. Perhaps I have no right to comment on this story, but I have a forum and feel like sharing my opinion.

The problem with EGM’s plan is that they will eventually review the game. Konami doesn’t care how long it takes for the magazine to put out a score. All they care is that the review, when it comes out, is positive. If the majority of reviews are positive (initial ones suggest high probability) and the game sells extremely well (ridiculous hype suggests yes), then Konami won’t care about EGM postponing its review. Thus, despite the magazine’s efforts, Konami won’t feel any backlash for their ludicrous request.

If the game’s sales were dependent upon positive review scores, then a delay might hurt Konami. However, MGS 4 is not dependent upon reviews. It will sell like crazy no matter what. There are numerous reasons for this, but chief among them is the fact that it is a Metal Gear game releasing at a time when the PS3 has relatively little to offer in the way of new exclusives.

In the end, EGM needs some support. Instead of a few publications bowing to Konami and a few publications vaguely mentioning the issues in their reviews, there needs to be a show of solidarity. Every site and magazine (or at least a large number of them) needs to write about the hard drive installation and the cutscenes.

I am not privy to the punishment for rebuffing Konami’s request. I would guess that the reviewer would be unable to secure a review copy of the game from said publisher. However, I do know that Konami can’t punish every videogame site and magazine. If reviewers want to send a message to publishers, then they need to do it as a group. One site is unlikely to make a difference. Many sites pushing back will most certainly make a lot more noise.

Source: Joystiq