Since breaking the news on Friday that Konami was asking some reviewers of “Metal Gear Solid 4” to refrain from mentioning some technical details about the game in their reviews, I’ve been told that these requests were not made to all reviewers.

The editors of Game Informer and PlayStation: The Official Magazine have contacted me to say the Konami requested no restrictions of their reviewers.In both cases, an absence of any note mentioning these restrictions should be seen simply as a sign that no constraints were requested or agreed to.

Rob Smith, editor in chief of P:TOM told me some people have been skeptical about his outlet, since they ran the first “MGS4″ review, but he assured me they encountered no Konami constraints.

On the other hand, the editors of Electronic Gaming Monthly have revealed that they were asked to avoid mention of some details and have held back their review until they can base one off of their own unrestricted copy of the game. Provisos in the IGN UK and Eurogamer reviews indicate that those outlets also faced restrictions.

From the latest issue of EGM:

“So why don’t we have a full review this issue? Simply put: We weren’t happy with the limitations Konami wanted to impose on our comments, and rather than publish compromised reviews in the interest of being the first to rate the game, we’d rather wait until next issue, where we can be completely open and thorough with our thoughts.”

Before filing my first report, I had lines of Konami’s NDA requesting no mention of the game’s installation and cut-scene length read to me. I’ve had those lines read to me again since the report.

As a result of last week’s report, gamers appear to be demanding more transparency from their review outlets than before. Meanwhile, gamers looking for a completely un-restrained take on “MGS 4″ now have the names of a few outlets to which they can look.