Did Take Two intentionally foster inaccurate reviews for GTA IV to boost its Metacritic average on opening day? That seems to be the upshot of a post over at Gamasutra.

In the piece, Simon Parkin remarks on how his first review of GTAIV was absolutely extravagant, going so far to say that the game portrayed immigrants in a way that was even better than the critically acclaimed TV drama The Wire. Problem was, that was written based off his first review session -- one that covered only the game's initial hours-- and that after playing through his own retail copy of the game, through to the ending, he realized that his claim really had no merit. I can understand where Parkin's coming from: The beginning of GTA IV is nuanced, methodical, and emotionally charged, the rest of it -- not so much.

For writers like Parkin, reviewing GTA meant going to pre-release review sessions set up by the publisher, asked to play through the game in a limited amount of time and then writing up a review based on limited impressions. Sound more like a preview than a review? Well, it's becoming common enough practice among publishers putting out big titles, according to MTV Multiplayer.

The question then is whether or not Take Two set up GTA to be reviewed like this on purpose, knowing the game's first few hours would leave a much better impression than the bigger picture. Could a publisher possibly be so nefarious? I certainly wouldn't put it past them. Does it even matter? Stephen Totilo has gone so far as to say maybe not.

Perhaps, though, as Parkin says, what we want to (and are) seeing is a shift from the present state of reviews to a more analytic, complete, critical style which exhumes expediency for exhaustiveness. The popularity of Zero Punctuation certainly attests to that. But on day one, when it comes down to the question of to buy or not to buy, people, indecisive creatures that they are, still need guidance. So do games reviewers need to bite the bullet and go with publisher demands, or can a compromise be achieved?