Dear Future Gamer

I remember the days when a game was always reviewed at least a month before any of the punters got their hands on it, but recently (last year especially) I've noticed fewer and fewer games being reviewed before coming out on general release. There are countless examples that spring to mind, including Tomb Raider IV, Theme Park World, The Infernal Machine and Donkey Kong 64. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not dismissing any of the aforementioned games as pump, but it does make you wonder, doesn't it?

Take Quake III, for example. We'd been waiting for it for ages and ages and there was talk of a delay until after Christmas, and then, before I knew it, the game was being delivered to my front door! I hadn't seen any reviews of it, with the exception of PC Gamer, and what did they give it? 98 per cent? Hmm. I find that a suspect mark, and I think even Future Gamer got a bit carried away with Quake III. I've been talking to a lot of people on the Future Gamer Forum and almost everyone agrees Unreal Tournament (reviewed months before it actually got released) is a better game overall.

The conclusion I've come to is that publishers are getting worried now. With such fierce and tight competition out there, companies aren't willing to let review copies out to the editorial magazines as generously as we expect.

Another game I'm keeping my eye on is Messiah; one exclusive review in a magazine but no mention of it anywhere else. I hope it's good, though. Can you shed any light on this? Are publishers becoming scrooge-like?

Rob Wilson

FG: It's a trend we've noticed too, Rob. There are numerous reasons for this and not all of them are nefarious, but we, like you, are always wary of publishers who release a game before sending out review copies. We always reserve final judgement until we've actually played the game, but it does rouse our suspicions.