Honestly I just hate the way gameinformer writes, and presents, anything. They're just awful. Zero questions asked. Give me the guys at "Digital Foundry" or Gamedev.net if you're going to ask about technology stuff. It was boring and I learned maybe 3 actual new things out of 2 page article.
They're looking for publicity for their game, not objective, in-depth reporting. Game Informer is the best for that. When it comes to releasing the first information about your game and getting your huge audience, it's best to go for Game Informer. I think they are really good at doing what they do, which is only releasing what a developer is comfortable with releasing at an early preview stage when it comes to revelation.
I doubt we would get this much out of so little from anyone else, because GI is pretty good at presenting what they do get cleared to talk about and squeezing every bit out without going too far. If they were too probing and specific, big studios wouldn't trust them with an unfinished product and they wouldn't get features like this.
I am more than happy with Game Informer's coverage. We can wait for later sources to get more in-depth information. That is probably a good thing, because if we got too much now we'd get bored or enveloped in a speculation hypersphere in which we'd either decide we can't handle what's different/worse about the new game, or over hype ourselves into being disappointed when it's released. Either would be wrong, because without playing it we don't know anything, and without playing it for at least 10-20 hours we'd know little. GI works with a lot of info and strict guidelines while trying to be fair to fans and developers in what they say.
Anyway, if we had nothing else to find out, and even our hype would abate a bit! Ehh, probably not...