Content deleted Content added
→Controversy: Grammar and clarification. |
→Controversy: Grammar and further clarification. |
||
Line 373:
Editor-in-chief Dan Hsu created a controversy in issue #199, where he ran an editorial which accused several of his competitors of selling article opportunities in exchange for advertising contracts. Much of the controversy arose from the fact that he did not give the names of any of the perpetrators, leading some to believe it was all a publicity stunt; although admittedly, much more controversy would have occurred had the editor named names. However, if true, the practice is actually unfortunately not so rare in the industry: a recent [[Games for Windows: The Official Magazine]] podcast has revealed that certain publishers only allow a publication to get the exclusive first review of a game if the game was only guaranteed to receive a particular score. Furthermore, it is quite well-known that upon the release of PC game [[Doom 3]], [[iD Software]]/[[Activision]] was known to fly reviewers in to their own offices with top computers to review the game, as well as an optimal envronment (i.e., with drinks and snacks). Additionally, in the early to mid-90s, games company [[Acclaim Entertainment]] was also known to threaten to pull advertising after bad reviews of their games (particularly the game adaptation of the movie [[Total Recall]]) were printed in magazines.
Another minor controversy began in regards to issue #201, dated March, 2006. Pages 60 and 61 contained a large image of a man sitting on a toilet, pants around his ankles, with his hands on his crotch, which was covered by a magazine featuring characters from the game [[Rumble Roses XX]]. The simulated image of a man [[masturbating]] upset many people and so the magazine received many complaints for this graphic, not only because some thought it was in poor taste, but primarily because the issue's cover featured [[Disney]] characters Goofy and Donald, as well as Squaresoft's character, Sora (all from [[Kingdom Hearts II]]). Some parents felt they could easily be fooled into buying the magazine for their children because of the family-friendly characters and a lack of warning of the magazine's content. EGM defended itself by claiming that these parents were using the magazine as a "substitute parent" and defiantly showed the picture a second time (in effect acknowledging that the image was unsuitable, rendering the argument invalid per se).
Not unlike other multi-platform gaming magazines (and websites), EGM has often been labelled as biased against particular gaming systems. However, the magazine has not been shy in taking on the accusations, and has often printed letters complaining about EGM's bias against ''all'' prominent gaming systems. The magazine's standard response has been "Yes, we are biased - against bad games".
| |||