This week I received a late night phone call on the Media Coverage hotline. It was from an old friend who, years ago, made the perilous leap from videogame journalism to videogame development. This week he was not happy.

"I hate videogame reviewers." As usual, he rushed directly to the point. The guy who regularly savaged games in concise, laser-targeted articles was now steaming over a couple 100 word reviews. His transition from game critic to critical-target changed his perspective on this whole enthusiast press thing.

His candor was unusual, at least in the fact that he vented to someone peripherally related to the enthusiast press. After all, PR watchdogs, self preservation and common sense traditionally muzzle most game developers. They know that railing against reviews, even patently unfair ones, offers virtually no benefits besides a cathartic release.

Still, this under-the-surface developer viewpoint was intriguing. So, I dialed up my secret Media Coverage contacts in the development world and asked them what they hated most about game reviewers. The conversations were enlightening to say the least.

While it's important to remember that the enthusiast press owes a primary duty to readers rather than game developers; some of these developers' frustrations expose some key issues that affect our readers as well.

Here are a couple of the favorite complaints that came out of these conversations:

Developers spend months and even years creating games, and nothing quite makes them angrier than realizing a reviewer only played their game for a couple hours before dismissing it. Online reviewers, according to developers I know, are the prime culprits here.

Perhaps it's because of a rush to get a review out the day it ships or because of over-booked editorial schedule or simply because of good old-fashioned procrastination. Whatever the case, these kind of short-played reviews show up far too often.

The signs are everywhere. Screenshots taken only from the first few levels, gameplay discussed in broad strokes, and key elements completely missing from the discussion are all symptoms of a hastily-played and hastily-written review.

In defense of game reviewers, they have a time-pressured job to do and sometimes that means cutting back gameplay time. Game reviewers are supposed to be experts and that expertise should include the ability to quickly assess the quality of a game. Also, some games CAN be fairly evaluated in a few hours of game time, especially if the game is not exceptionally innovative or creative.

The bottom line, however, is that the readers deserve reviews that accurately and completely evaluate their games. In most circumstances this cannot be done in a few quick hours.

How the enthusiast press can improve: Ship more games out to freelancers to free up more time for individual reviewers. If the freelance budget is too small, start expanding the search to bloggers and fansite editors; there is a virtually endless supply of inexpensive writers looking to break into the market.

How game developers can help: Get reviewable copies of the games into the hands of the reviewers earlier. The earlier that publications have the games, the greater chance they'll be able to get it into the hands of a writer with enough time to give the game a fair shake.

Also, games that are more innovative and creative will get more play time by reviewers. Plus, it never hurts to frontload gameplay with some of the best action and the flashiest features. If the reviewers are only going to give you a couple hours, make those the best few hours of the game.

"Game reviewers want every game to be Zelda."

That's what one developer told me. He said that the reality of game development is that most developers make games for a very specific target audience and the developers do their best to find and meet the needs of those specific gamers.

It's a frustration then, when game reviewers complain that the game is too "kiddie" or too "redneck" or too targeted to one group. That, after all, was the entire purpose of the game.

Developers of kid-friendly games pull out their hair over these kinds of reviews. Making games that are easy enough for kids to play without frustration is incredibly difficult. When a 30-year-old reviewer, honed with one-quarter Contra-level skills, calls the game too-easy and too-short, game developers go crazy.

In defense of the game reviewers, developers must understand that reviewers are writing for a target audience as well. They have to target their content accordingly and that occasionally means making fun of kids' games. Their core readers don't care anyway.

Still, good reviewers will always keep a game's target audience in mind when writing the review. This target audience will be one ultimately playing the game, and if a review shortchanges its interests unfairly, this audience will lose a degree respect for that publication.

How the enthusiast press can improve: Follow the Roger Ebert approach and (where appropriate within a publication's voice) look at each review from the eyes of the gamers most likely to buy the title. They're the ones that matter most and they're the ones that care about the review.

How game developers can help: Study a publication to see how they treat games targeted at your specific audience. If they generally treat them unfairly or with disdain, they really don't need a copy from PR. Other publications specifically aimed at your target audience would be far more likely to give the product a fair shot.

Here's a nightmare scenario for a game developer. You've just finished a two-year project and you're exceptionally proud of the many obsessive details that you've poured into your Civil War turn-based strategy. You've revolutionized the genre, you've created something that the fans have been begging for and you're excited about the response.

Then an enthusiast press publication hands your review to their FPS specialist.

She uses 600 words explaining how Civil War games can never be as exciting as shooting alien zombies and gives you a "C". You go home and kick your goldfish.

Developers positively hate it when their game isn't reviewed, but the game genre is. They also despise when a publication assigns a game to a reviewer outside of their specialty, especially if that reviewer does not understand the nuances of the genre.

In defense of the game reviewers, some genres deserve negative comment. Some genres are stagnant compared to others and the readers need to know that. Also, it's sometimes important to use reviewers across genres to keep their eyes open and their content fresh.

However, game reviewers should always evaluate games entirely on their own merits and not their general genre. Of course, games should be freely compared to titles across all genres as long as the comparison is game-to-game not game-to-genre.

How the enthusiast press can improve: Be extra careful when assigning reviews to those who are pre-disposed to dislike a certain genre. Those who are familiar with the genre in question are far more likely to produce a better review.

How game developers can help: Not much you can do here, except to create games that compare favorably with games across many genres.

This developer compliant reveals itself in wild requests or odd complaints that show up in reviews. Game reviewers, according to developers, love to think of themselves as armchair programmers. It's as if they expect, by mere creative flash, that developers can overcome technical, time and economic restraints.

Game reviewers don't understand the obstacles, the expectations and the limits faced by developers. Therefore, when Konami invests 30 million dollars and hundreds of programmers on a single blockbuster title, reviewers all of a sudden expect the same depth and production value from a small boutique developer. If they only understood, perhaps they'd give games a more fair assessment.

In defense of the game reviewers, one doesn't need to be able to make a game to review it. Reviewers and their readers care only about the finished product and not its creation.

Reviewers should, however, manage their own expectations with the reality of game development. Although it's proper to expect quality out of every single game, it's important not to also apply expectations of features and gameplay elements that simply are not possible at this time.

How the enthusiast press can improve: It never hurts to understand the technology behind today's games.

How game developers can help: Most game reviewers are open to developer talk. It's okay to be honest about a game's limitations. For instance, a developer can clearly explain that a title's physics engine strains the gaming platform's technical abilities. This is an effective way to keep a reviewer from complaining that the physics weren't more realistic. Plus, it's true that many game reviewers dream about being game developers, so what's the harm in inviting them into the club for a while?

Are you a game developer or PR soldier who's frustrated with game reviewers?
Did I miss your particular reasons why?

E-mail Media Coverage, with your reasons and we'll print the best.

We'll keep it anonymous, so no remarks, complaints or issues targeted at individuals or individual publications. Think about the issue in general.

Media Coverage is an opinion column. The opinions expressed in this column are solely the opinions of the columnist and are not necessarily the opinions of GameDaily.com.