I know that Nintendo has some issue with EGM, as they cancelled the Reggie interview. Could have something to do with the way they were throwing hardballs at Moore and Harrison, but Shoe's editorial implied it was a bit more personal than that. I occasionally read the 1up reviews, always read the EGM reviews, and I'd go as far as saying there is some("some" being the key word) anti-Nintendo sentiment among the staff(but obviously not all). The Wii review of Medal of Honour always comes to mind; it seemed to place a good bit of the shortcomings of the game on the Wii itself, rather than the devs and the fact that EA is just milking the game into irrelevance. Of course, after inferring this there are the obligatory "the Wii deserves better" comments, but the tone of the review speaks for itself. You can also look at EGM's previews and upcoming release coverage and find it is slap full of PS3 and 360 coverage, with little room left for serious Wii and DS coverage. It's no secret that Nintendo is way stingey with showing it's stuff, but you can't tell me that the people behind games like No More Heroes, Z&W, Dewey's Adventure, and RE: Umbrella Chronicles wouldn't open up if they were given the spotlight. It's gotten to the point that I, a longtime EGM supporter and subscriber, wait with zero enthusiasm for the latest issue's blowout coverage of the latest dark and dreary, high-octane, zero personality 360/PS3 game. I've saw plenty of 360/PS3 games that are interesting, but it just seems that EGM is locked into a system that caters to a specific type of game and little else. I guess you could say they are run by(what many consider)hardcore gamers, but the reviewers seem to enjoy a nice variety of games(a sharp contrast to the coverage of the mag). I'd much rather they cover more of the games they apparently enjoy, than to have to look at another 10 page piece on the latest Halo 3/GTA 4 trailer or tidbits of information.
"I feel like I could take on the whole Empire myself."
