[The Game Doctor has been a legend in the electronic gaming industry since he debuted in the world's first video/computer game publication, "Electronic Games" in 1981. He has answered software-related questions in more than a dozen magazines and gaming sites. As a long-time fan of POSTAL, he has made periodic pilgrimages to the gopostal.com site and now returns to answer questions for The Urinal. Doctor, your patients await… The Gimp]

I have a question this issue that comes from a member of the game development community who wishes to remain anonymous. You'll probably figure out why once you read it. It deals with an issue that has mystified gamers - and even a few journalists - ever since the release of POSTAL 2 and has continued to afflict P2's various SKUs and add-on games to this day.

So go ahead, Mr. Anonymous Member of the Development Community, ask the question:

Q: As a game developer, I've always attempted to avoid that syndrome of being locked into just the games being made by your own dev group. I'm a gamer and I like to play all sorts of games and one of my favorites is POSTAL 2. I've played all the add-ons, and with STP learned the joys of going Postal online.

Now, I don't think POSTAL 2 is a perfect game, but it's damned good. It has guts - not just blood and guts - and it's a lot more sophisticated that it ever gets credit for. So I'm going to ask you, Doc, since you've now allied yourself with the RWS crew and since I've been reading your columns since I was a kid, and I'm counting on you to answer it for me straight on.

I constantly read reviews of P2 and its add-on games on websites and in game magazines and I've noticed the oddest phenomenon. The reviews are generally pretty positive, often favorable and sometimes qualify as raves. But when we get to the ratings, it's all C's and D's or low numbers. I even read one review that gave you a ZERO rating! How does a game that is, at absolute worst, a 7, get a ZERO RATING? That would mean the game was so buggy you couldn't play it, something that has never been the case with the POSTAL games.

C'mon, Doc, I trust you - what's up with that? If it was only in one or two magazines or sites, I'd just figure the editors were assholes. But when it seems to happen in each and every review, something is wrong.

A: Yes, very wrong indeed. I could sit here and spout conspiracy theory with regard to the hypocrisy of the game media all night long, but let's face it, as the questioner observes, I'm now a part of the RWS "crew" (I prefer "staff" or "posse" myself) and perhaps my veracity might be called into question. As we all know, gamers won't stand for a conflict of interest - that's why they spent all those years reading Nintendo Power - so the same company making the hardware and the best selling software could offer impartial analysis on it, right?

Still, I'm disqualifying myself because I happen to have a witness who makes the case better than I ever could. Therefore, I would like to reprint the tail end of a review which appeared recently on InsideMacGames.com. I urge you to read the entire review, but the closing paragraphs (and, in particular, the opening sentence of the second paragraph) should be blown up to a 12 point Font Size (I suggest an Impact typeface) and branded onto the buttocks of the poseurs who run the game sites and magazines and use their bully pulpit to imprint their own "values" on the work of reviewers who are at least attempting to hold onto their integrity.

I quote:
I can see Postal 2 as a guilty pleasure of sorts. Many people will never admit to playing it or liking it, yet every gaming friend I've talked to about it has expressed interest in it, and those that have played it immediately snuck off to buy their own copy.

Of course, people are going to look at the numerical scores I'm forced (and hate) to give on this title, and wonder if I liked it at all. By today's standards, it's not particularly pretty, it doesn't sing like a bird, and it doesn't have the rich plotline of, say, Space Invaders. But Postal 2 is fully what RWS seems to have intended it to be, and in that respect, it delivers.

I guess I could gild the lily here and embark upon a rant the likes of which would make Michael Moore blush, but my reaction to the above paragraphs is better summed up by quoting an old guy who used to write great comic books: "Nuff said."