I'm not going to say that there was any sort of "shady deal" or that the score would have been any different if Edge didn't get the game earlier. My point is just that no publication should get beneficial treatment over another as it inherently raises an issue of bias, whether that bias is actually there or not.

That they recieved beneficial treatment is evident by the edge editors comment. They got the code earlier than other reviewers.

"You want to know how we got code early? We spent two decades building a thing that's respected the world over. Then we asked for it."

Imagine edge had given the game 7/10, now everyone on here would be talking about "Oh no Odyssey is doooomed!" and Edge's relationship with Nintendo will have been damaged by the negative discussions and outlook that would now be surrounding their future title. They wouldn't be getting the game earlier than other publications after that.

Edge wouldn't want to damage a business relationship that benefits them financially by recieving beneficial treatment over other reviewers.

That's a very cynical viewpoint. Couldn't it just be that SMO is an outstanding game and deserving of a 10? I guess we will see once the other reviews come in once the embargo has ended.  

You are seeming to imply that EDGE is up to something underhand with their score. I'm sure not many here would agree with that. Not only are EDGE extremely well respected, i'm pretty sure they also wouldn't risk their reputation through their scoring of what is literally 1 game. I'm sure they value their integrity they have spent years building up, more than to just get a months' worth of raised revenue, by bogus scoring a game. Personally i find that notion ridiculous.

Yes it certainly could be, or is infact very likely, that SMO is an outstanding game deserving of a 10, hence the first line of my post you quoted. "I'm not going to say that there was any sort of "shady deal" or that the score would have been any different if Edge didn't get the game earlier."

I'm not implying that there is anything underhanded happening, I'm simply stating that reviewers recieving any sort of beneficial treatment inherently raises an issue of bias, and that it is not in their best interest to do anything to damage a strong relationship, such as rating a game low.

This isn't an issue limited to SMO/Nintendo, it affects almost every publisher/developer in the industry. It's an issue that is seemingly unavoidable. Games Journalists typically turn down gifts (or should) to avoid situations where their integrity is called into question, however could recieveing beneficial treatment, such as an early code be classed as a "gift", it's certainly a more minor instance but it still raises questions.