Aeropause recently delved into the April 2008 issue of Nintendo Power, with the thought in mind: does the recent switch in publishers lend for more credibility? Nintendo has been contracting the work to Future US for awhile now by the way, though apparently much of the staff remains the same and helps out with the publishing.

For those not in the know, gamers have been criticizing and/or shunning the magazine for years now, the reason primarily being that its published by Nintendo, so, it must be biased, right? Or maybe they just never got over the publication's decision following the second issue, which featured Simon Belmont holding the head of Dracula. After receiving complaints from parents claiming their children were "having nightmares" because of it, NP steered clear of such "controversial" material, a relatively recent example of proof being the complete non-coverage of Conker's Bad Fur Day. This reminds me of when I had a copy of EGM out years ago around my family, including my kid sister. The cover featured a zombie from the Resident Evil series, and my parents at the time seemed horrified and forbid me to leave it upstairs, where my sister spent most of her time. Well, I didn't agree with them one bit, but hey, it makes more sense than what those parents did. I mean, if you don't like your kids seeing it, don't let them see it, right? It's a better reaction than complaining anyway and ruining some tasteful art for everyone else.

In any case, I used to read Nintendo Power a lot, and had a subscription one year, and though I was young at the time, I don't particularly recall any instance where I played a game and thought "those Nintendo Power people didn't know what the hell they were talking about," or reading a review and thinking "well this is clearly biased." Though, admittedly, I was significantly less discerning and cynical then.

But back to the point. Is it biased? Maybe. Possibly. Who knows? I'd need to go Metal Gear/EGM style and sneak into the offices under the cover of a cardboard box to really tell you the truth. Either way, there is an advantage here, and that is undeniable. Example (another ancient one, promise I'll update my archaic game magazine knowledge soon, okay?): I recall reading a diary of sorts in the magazine by a translator working on The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask under Nintendo back when. This to me was exciting, fresh and surprising. When had I seen anything like this in a magazine before? Never. And how likely would it have been had he not been working for Nintendo? Pretty slim. Point is, a game development company publishing a magazine about its own systems (and some games) arouses suspicion, but it also gives us a lot of exclusive and unique content (not saying it's all good, judging from Aeropause's description of the Smash Bros. Brawl feature, it sounds pretty wacky).

Yeah, Nintendo is a bit of a bitch (they were guilty of censoring NES games heavily in translations years ago, of course standards are somewhat more open now), but the magazine somehow retains a certain charm and lots of memories for me.

Oh, in the January 2007 issue's "PlayBack" column, which spotlighted Simon's Quest, staff member Chris Shepperd said the second issue's cover was "one of our favorite cover images of all time."

It ain't all bad, but I'd pick the ever-unrelenting Electronic Gaming Monthly over it any day.