Support NeoGAF

[Lo_Fi]

The video looks like someone who moved around the sticks on a controller while DOOM was booted up. This is like saying that someone who is running with a football is ernestly playing football simply because they're on a football field.

Now imagine you're only interested in seeing what a football looks like, what the uniforms of a football player look like, and what a football field looks like. Mission accomplished!

Like I said before, for some viewers, the bare minimum competency they want is that the player progresses in the video. That's it.

 

[gunslikewhoa]

The question was directed to anyone criticizing them for not showing the game in the best light or how it plays proper

If your a polygon reader then fair enough if this upsets you. Highly doubt anyone in here is so the uproar over this seems weird

Like people are upset that they make the game look bad which is kinda weird, you guys don't work for ID or Bethesda so why would you care if this doesn't make it look great

Nobody really gives a fuck about the video. More than anything, the video simply serves no purpose. The entire argument here is over the ridiculous lengths to which people are going to defend the stupid thing.

 

[Lo_Fi]

Uh, this whole thread is filled with people who understand how ridiculous that video is, they had to disable the comments and dislikes and now they're even poking fun at themselves on Twitter.

No, you're the minority here. It's weird how you cannot see this.

How many people have told you that you're wrong so far? And how many agree with you? 2 people at most? Yeah, I'm sure you're the majority.

On neogaf, yes, I'm in the minority. In Polygon's target audience and game players at large? Not likely. If I'm wrong then Polygon will lose viewers and lose business.

 

[Zomba13]

Now imagine you're only interested in seeing what a football looks like, what the uniforms of a football player look like, and what a football field looks like. Mission accomplished!

Like I said before, for some viewers, the bare minimum competency they want is that the player progresses in the video. That's it.

So the video is good if you just want some moving pictures and sounds but not to know anything about the actual game?

 

[Einchy]

Now imagine you're only interested in seeing what a football looks like, what the uniforms of a football player look like, and what a football field looks like. Mission accomplished!

Like I said before, for some viewers, the bare minimum competency they want is that the player progresses in the video. That's it.

You do realize you can do all of that and still properly show the gameplay, right? What you're describing are what screenshots are for, by the way. Gameplay videos are to, and this is going to shock you, show actual gameplay.

 

[Lo_Fi]

So the video is good if you just want some moving pictures and sounds but not to know anything about the actual game?

Hmmm....

You do realize you can do all of that and still properly show the gameplay, right? What you're describing are what screenshots are for, by the way. Gameplay videos are to, and this is going to shock you, show actual gameplay.

I saw 30 minutes of gameplay. And yes you can, but it requires more effort to "play well". Enough effort that Polygon clearly didn't care enough to put in.

 

[Kinyou]

On neogaf, yes. In Polygon's target audience and game players at large? Not likely. If I'm wrong then Polygon will lose viewers and lose business.

Polygon usually doesn't upload gameplay videos with incompetent players. This whole target audience explanation makes no sense to me

 

[Einchy]

Hmmm....



I saw 30 minutes of gameplay.

You admitted that when you started this defense force you had only seen the gif. So, you didn't see squat.

On neogaf, yes. In Polygon's target audience and game players at large? Not likely. If I'm wrong then Polygon will lose viewers and lose business.

Polygon's viewer base are video game enthusiasts. Polygon isn't some mainstream website that has a tiny video game section, their whole business are video games.

 

[Lautaro]

Haha that video was just sad. Sorry I have nothing else to contribute XD

 

[Lo_Fi]

Polygon usually doesn't upload gameplay videos with incompetent players. This whole target audience explanation makes no sense to me

My guess is that Polygon's target audience is people who don't care enough about a person playing bad to not watch a video, not people who only watch videos where someone plays bad.

You admitted that when you started this defense force you had only seen the gif. So, you didn't see squat.

I went back and watched more of the video after one of my first posts in the thread.

 

[JasoNsider]

...Really?

I honestly don't believe you.

Why not? I thought the exact same. Until I saw this thread I thought absolutely nothing of it.

 

[gunslikewhoa]

Polygon usually doesn't upload gameplay videos with incompetent players. This whole target audience explanation makes no sense to me

Clearly they have done a survey recently and decided to cater to the vast 'began gaming in recent months' audience. Very profitable demographic.

 

[Mechazawa]

I fucking lost it when the person playing shot a triangle pattern at the demon and missed every shot.

"I'll hex this Imp to death"

 

[Zanzura]

Why does polygon owe it to ID or Bethesda to make this game look good?

Don't know why you're quoting him because he said nothing along the lines of that. He's arguing the video provides little value to anyone watching it. For a game like Doom, a certain level of competency should be demonstrated to better represent the gameplay, a huge chunk of the experience.

While Polygon isn't required by any means to be masterful or skillful in any of their gameplay videos, it's just weird for a video game focused site to put out a video of such low standards for what's supposed to be a preview/demonstration of a game. The Gone Home equivalent would be if they just put up a video where they didn't look at any notes or objects and just hugged a wall constantly and maybe opened a door once or twice. I suppose that kind of video can give you a nice look at what the walls look like, but it's pretty bad in every other regard and basically wastes your time as you could get all that and more from a far better video.

Then again, this video has way more views than any other gameplay video they put up, so clearly they should keep putting up bad videos for all "dem views." Screw the reputation hit!

Spoiler

Then again, some people already think Polygon is shit.

 

[Zen_Arcade]

Now imagine you're only interested in seeing what a football looks like, what the uniforms of a football player look like, and what a football field looks like. Mission accomplished!

Like I said before, for some viewers, the bare minimum competency they want is that the player progresses in the video. That's it.

Holy shit. Ive already mentioned this to you multiple times. If you wanted that, a critical analysis of football would provide all of that AND MORE. IMAGINE THAT. Going above the bare minimum would not only net you the people who want those aesthetic references, but you would have a whole new group of viewers on top of that.

I swear, if you respond to me with one more pointless argument that I've already adressed to you I'm just going to put you on ignore, because so far literally nothing you've said hasn't been addressed by something I've already said. Yet you keep drudging up the same points even though I've already explained how a putting a competent person behind the controller would still provide those people with the information they want.

 

[FoxSpirit]

Now imagine you're only interested in seeing what a football looks like, what the uniforms of a football player look like, and what a football field looks like. Mission accomplished!

Like I said before, for some viewers, the bare minimum competency they want is that the player progresses in the video. That's it.

Yes, but do you want someone like that to write a review? No effing way.

 

[orthodoxy1095]

Clearly they have done a survey recently and decided to cater to the vast 'began gaming in recent months' audience. Very profitable demographic.

Lmao

Why does polygon owe it to ID or Bethesda to make this game look good?

Do you not think that Polygon has something of a responsibility to accurately display games?

 

[Lo_Fi]

Polygon's viewer base are video game enthusiasts. Polygon isn't some mainstream website that has a tiny video game section, their whole business are video games.

You're assuming that "video game enthusiast" = "person who gets mad about someone playing a video game poorly in a preview".

We have no proof either way, I'm merely guessing that these two groups are not the same, and the former is much larger than the latter. Enough so to keep Polygon in business.

Holy shit. Ive already mentioned this to you multiple times. If you wanted that, a critical analysis of football would provide all of that AND MORE. IMAGINE THAT. Going above the bare minimum would not only net you the people who want those aesthetic references, but you would have a whole new group of viewers on top of that.

I swear, if you respond to me with one more pointless argument that I've already adressed to you I'm just going to put you on ignore, because so far literally nothing you've said hasn't been addressed by something I've already said. Yet you keep drudging up the same points even though I've already explained how a putting a competent person behind the controller would still provide those people with the information they want.

And I've brought up time and time that I agree, but that it also requires more effort to do so. You take a risk when putting in more effort. It is not free. Is that effort going to bring in an equivalent amount of viewers/profit? Polygon could try that if they wanted to, but clearly they didn't want to.

Yes, but do you want someone like that to write a review? No effing way.

That's an entirely hypothetical scenario in this case. Arthur Gies already confirmed that that wasn't him, and he's reviewing it.

 

[Zomba13]

Hmmm....

I'm confused. You said

Now imagine you're only interested in seeing what a football looks like, what the uniforms of a football player look like, and what a football field looks like. Mission accomplished!

In response to someone using the example of someone on a field with a football just running around. In that example that isn't a good representation of someone playing football to which you said it doesn't matter if you just want to look at a ball and uniforms and a player. Which would be the same as watching a video about a game but not caring about the game and just watching moving pictures and hearing sound, stuff that is part of the game but doesn't accurately represent the game being played properly.

I don't understand the "hmmm" highlighting my response. While yes, the video does in fact show the actual game Doom, it doesn't show it being played competently or how you would expect, much like if you saw a guy in uniform running on a field with a ball but doing it wrong wouldn't show you a correctly played game of American Football.

 

[Ibuki]

You're assuming that "video game enthusiast" = "person who gets mad about someone playing a video game poorly in a preview".

We have no proof either way, I'm merely guessing that these two groups are not the same, and the former is much larger than the latter. Enough so to keep Polygon in business.

Making fun of something is not equivalent to getting mad.

 

[Einchy]

My guess is that Polygon's target audience is people who don't care enough about a person playing bad to not watch a video, not people who only watch videos where someone plays bad.



I went back and watched more of the video after one of my first posts in the thread.

Then you would have seen that this video doesn't work to show gameplay in the way you think it does.

Could someone properly gauge Doom's graphics if they added a shit ton of effects that blocked you from being able to see what Doom's graphics actually looked like? No, you couldn't. So how can you say this video does a good enough job to display Doom's gameplay when the person playing has no grasp of not only Doom's gameplay but of how to correctly use a controller?

I can't tell how a racing game plays like if the person controlling the game is crashing until a wall and driving backwards the whole time. Likewise, I have no idea what Doom's gameplay is like since this person could barely move.

 

[akira28]

Now imagine you're only interested in seeing what a football looks like, what the uniforms of a football player look like, and what a football field looks like. Mission accomplished!

Like I said before, for some viewers, the bare minimum competency they want is that the player progresses in the video. That's it.

then all you need is 3 seconds of video, not 30 hard to contain the laughter minutes of horrible game abuse.


so lofi is basically trying to couch it all in rhetoric "it must work for someone, they're a company, this must be ok"

 

[Einchy]

You're assuming that "video game enthusiast" = "person who gets mad about someone playing a video game poorly in a preview".

We have no proof either way, I'm merely guessing that these two groups are not the same, and the former is much larger than the latter. Enough so to keep Polygon in business.

Who said anything about being mad? A video game enthusiast will want to see a game properly being played because that's the only reason they either watching a preview or review.

They want a proper representation of what the video game is and this video fails in that regard.

You're also assuming that all of Polygon's videos are this bad. That is not the case.

You're assuming a lot but missing the mark each time.

 

[potatohead]

Well, the real heart of the matter is not that one's standards may be too high (or rather, too cruel), it's that they have (openly acknowledged) standards at all. The presented idea goes elitism (having standards) can make people feel excluded or inferior, so abolish elitism (having standards). Whether you are judging random individuals or individuals put in positions where there is higher expectations, it doesn't really matter. In this light, all knowledge and experience is equal, so there is no playing the game right or wrong, no good or bad reviews (opinions), no being experienced or inexperienced; everything is just different - but equal. Like I mentioned, such ideas would be disastrous in things that "matter", so they only exist as outcast niches, like hippies trying to comment on physics, but obviously there's no immediate harm in treating everyone's thoughts equally when it comes videogames (or art in general), so it's more acceptable.

But what proponents of this idealism overlook is that in acquiring more knowledge and experience than others, you begin to understand others as well. The man on the ground only sees what it is in front of him, but the man flying above him not only sees farther, he also sees the man below him and what he sees. So if you are know that someone hates a game and you can see their lack of knowledge compared to yours, then you inevitably make a judgment on their ability (basically, the person themselves) to explain this difference and set a standard (which is mean and cruel, etc).

Having a standard, even a qualitative one, is not inherently elitist.

It may be exclusionary on the basis of X or Y factor, but it is not inherently elitist.

The audience has standards for all the content they consume, each individual judges the games they play or the media they watch, because we all have our own standards of expectation of what we want from our entertainment. Game reviews or gameplay we watch from someone else are also a form of media, and a form of entertainment. They are not above anything else in this medium that are immune to critiquing, just because.

It's no different if someone criticizes the content of a review or preview if they disagree with the premise or the content in another way.

 

[railven]

And I've brought up time and time that I agree, but that it also requires more effort to do so. You take a risk when putting in more effort. It is not free. Is that effort going to bring in an equivalent amount of viewers/profit? Polygon could try that if they wanted to, but clearly they didn't want to.

Hmmmm....he has a point. This low effort attempt by Polygon has gotten a lot of public attention.

It probably generated a lot of hits/clicks too by people want to see the video. And they'll probably go read the review to see if they actually pan the game for mechanics the person playing the game (if they are the reviewer) may have had issues with.

And if the review is as bad as the video it will generate more discussion on Polygon's position in etc etc etc.

Good game Polygon, you're the center of attention!

 

[Lil'DigiOp]

Can we just spawn a meme out of this where we play games terribly because we don't want to cater too much to"elitist" to play them properly?

EDIT: Also what the hell would all you defenders say if someone play like this on an E3 stage? Lmao.

got a point railven, good PR

 

[Fletcher]

No it doesnt.

It looked like someone struggling to play Doom due to its controls, and struggling to kill anything on the screen.

I guess that's how the game plays, right?

If that is how the person plays, then yes.

 

[Kinyou]

Can we just spawn a meme out of this where we play games terribly because we don't want to cater too much to"elitist" to play them properly?

EDIT: Also what the hell would all you defenders say if someone play like this on an E3 stage? Lmao.

I'm about to start my own website where I only hire people who don't follow those elitist grammar rules.

 

[Lo_Fi]

I don't understand the "hmmm" highlighting my response. While yes, the video does in fact show the actual game Doom, it doesn't show it being played competently or how you would expect, much like if you saw a guy in uniform running on a field with a ball but doing it wrong wouldn't show you a correctly played game of American Football.

Your post:

So the video is good if you just want some moving pictures and sounds but not to know anything about the actual game?

Everything in a game is the actual game, including the "moving pictures and sounds" part of it. You can get a preview of different parts of the game, depending on the preview. In this case you did not get what you were looking for in the preview, but other people did.

so lofi is basically trying to couch it all in rhetoric "it must work for someone, they're a company, this must be ok"

You're acting as if it hurts someone. Who does it hurt?

 

[Einchy]

Lo_Fi got a gold medal for mental gymnastics. Tens across the board.

 

[SlipperyFishes]

This thread = all about ethics in video previews I guess.

I guess when the main point of conversation is "Fuck Polygon" (because that's what most people are saying forever on GAF) it gets a pass.

Maybe one day people can stop being like *gestures* this.

 

[Zen_Arcade]

You're assuming that "video game enthusiast" = "person who gets mad about someone playing a video game poorly in a preview".

We have no proof either way, I'm merely guessing that these two groups are not the same, and the former is much larger than the latter. Enough so to keep Polygon in business.



And I've brought up time and time that I agree, but that it also requires more effort to do so. You take a risk when putting in more effort. It is not free. Is that effort going to bring in an equivalent amount of viewers/profit? Polygon could try that if they wanted to, but clearly they didn't want to.



That's an entirely hypothetical scenario in this case. Arthur Gies already confirmed that that wasn't him, and he's reviewing it.

No, someone playing the game on Easy competently is not any more of a risk than putting someone who has no idea what they're doing there. In both situations you're putting an employee behind the controller. If you're going to do that, you might as well put someone who knows what they're doing behind that controller.

This argument at least doesn't repeat something you've argued before, but man, it still doesn't make any sense.

 

[akira28]

Can we just spawn a meme out of this where we play games terribly because we don't want to cater too much to"elitist" to play them properly?

EDIT: Also what the hell would all you defenders say if someone play like this on an E3 stage? Lmao.

got a point railven, good PR

I think this meme already exists...tic tac toe or something.

 

[potatohead]

I'm about to start my own website where I only hire people who don't follow those elitist grammar rules.

Lol.

I wonder how people feel when they get their essays or school work graded. Must be some very, very upset people

"You gave me a B+? How elitist of you!" Lmao.

"I didn't get this question wrong, this objective math question is just discriminating against my ability to read and learn and do my own homework!"

Everyone is fking elitist, let's just call it a day

 

[Lo_Fi]

So how can you say this video does a good enough job to display Doom's gameplay when the person playing has no grasp of not only Doom's gameplay but of how to correctly use a controller?

It doesn't. It does an adequate job of displaying the other parts of Doom, which I am trying to get across is enough for some viewers.

 

[SirMossyBloke]

If that is how the person plays, then yes.

So you're saying it only represents how terrible that person plays then and not the game as a whole?

Then that means it doesn't actually represent the game properly. Gotcha.

It doesn't. It does an adequate job of displaying the other parts of Doom, which I am trying to get across is enough for some viewers.

People clicking on gameplay videos don't care about the gameplay. News at 11.

 

[Zones]

Not exactly Polygon, but here's a blast from past...

http://venturebeat.com/2013/12/06/gran-turismo-6-review/

As a nonracing fan, there’s a lot about it (Gran Turismo 6) I still don’t understand. What are performance points and why are they important? I have no idea what torque is. I have no idea what an exhaust manifold is or why it improves my car’s racing ability. Admittedly, some of this information is available in the game, but it’s densely packed into the user-interface and might prove intimidating to newcomers. I didn’t care enough to look for it.

65/100

 

[Ibuki]

How does Polygon have a defense force? Why would you want to be a part of it?

 

[gunslikewhoa]

Everything in a game is the actual game, including the "moving pictures and sounds" part of it. You can get a preview of different parts of the game, depending on the preview. In this case you did not get what you were looking for in the preview, but other people did.

What other people? I would love to meet one of the people wbo watched this video and felt that they came away reasonably informed as far as game previews generally go.

 

[Einchy]

It doesn't. It does an adequate job of displaying the other parts of Doom, which I am trying to get across is enough for some viewers.

And if that was true, this thread wouldn't exist and they would have never had to disable their dislikes.

Your mythical person who only watched a gameplay video to see Doom's graphics doesn't exist. And even if they did, why does this excuse Polygon's video? How is this an argument against having video that properly represent everything about a game and not just the graphics?

 

[Lo_Fi]

People clicking on gameplay videos don't care about the gameplay. News at 11.

Correct. People come to games for the visuals, the audio, exploration, challenge, socializing, mastery, achievement, escapism, immersion, goofy fun, narrative, as a diversion, etc. Some of these things can be previewed in a preview video. No need to put a negative connotation on it.

What other people? I would love to meet one of the people wbo watched this video and felt that they came away reasonably informed as far as game previews generally go.

Time will tell. If their reputation is tarnished by this, then they won't have a fanbase anymore. If they continue to have a fanbase, then you can ask one of them.

 

[SlipperyFishes]

How does Polygon have a defense force? Why would you want to be a part of it?

I'll take a stab at this. They're good people who do good work and have a good community of commenters on site.

What's your reason for hating?

 

[Quadraphonic]

I'll take a stab at this. They're good people who do good work and have a good community of commenters on site.

What's your reason for hating?

More like "what's your reason for being objective?"

 

[Zen_Arcade]

Correct. People come to games for the visuals, the audio, exploration, challenge, socializing, mastery, achievement, escapism, immersion, goofy fun, narrative, as a diversion, etc. Some of these things can be previewed in a preview video. No need to put a negative connotation on it.

All of which would be highlighted in a video with a competent player. Whereas this video misses a lot of those bullet points. Which makes this video pretty pointless in the grand scope of things.

I'll take a stab at this. They're good people who do good work and have a good community of commenters on site.

What's your reason for hating?

But this is not good work. That's peoples reason for hating. Which is why it's being criticized. So even if they do good work sometimes, why would you feel the need to defend them at a time when their content is clearly not good or beneficial for the people watching?

 

[SlipperyFishes]

More like "what's your reason for being objective?"

Go on. Explain?

 

[akira28]

Your post:



Everything in a game is the actual game, including the "moving pictures and sounds" part of it. You can get a preview of different parts of the game, depending on the preview. In this case you did not get what you were looking for in the preview, but other people did.



You're acting as if it hurts someone. Who does it hurt?

you, planetsmasher, polygon, I guess? I dunno. It does hurt the image of the game, but that's not our problem. Some people seem to think everyone is just ganging up on poor polygon, so I guess hypothetically its possible harm could be directed towards Polygon.

I think its ridiculous. It does hurt perception of anyone watching this game and expect it to look anything other than slow, confused, clumsy, and not fun. But that's just the way its being played? If it was deliberate you'd almost say there was an ethical issue, but instead this is just apathetic execution of occupational drudge work. So I guess that makes it technically ok, but from a business sense its still kind of not.

 

[Plum]

Everything in a game is the actual game, including the "moving pictures and sounds" part of it. You can get a preview of different parts of the game, depending on the preview. In this case you did not get what you were looking for in the preview, but other people did.

If someone wants to specifically look at graphics people can go to someone like Digital Foundry, NX Gamer or ACG, not a first 30 minutes video on Polygon. There are so many better alternatives out there for every single aspect of the game than watching this video, what does this offer that other videos don't?

 

[rdytoroll]

It doesn't. It does an adequate job of displaying the other parts of Doom, which I am trying to get across is enough for some viewers.

But, but... the speed and overall frantic feel of the combat is the most important thing in this Doom. This preview doesn't even show a hint of it, so it misrepresents the game. There's no way around it. I don't know how a viewer could be satisfied without showing the most important part

 

[gunslikewhoa]

Correct. People come to games for the visuals, the audio, exploration, challenge, socializing, mastery, achievement, escapism, immersion, goofy fun, narrative, as a diversion, etc. Some of these things can be previewed in a preview video. No need to put a negative connotation on it.

They can come to games for every single one of those things and still care about the gameplay. In fact, they could even care about every one of things a whole bunch and still find room to care about gameplay more than all of them combined!

 

[Quadraphonic]

If the purpose of the video is to forget that you aren't playing yourself, and immersing yourself in the ongoing action to see how it plays, they're obviously doing a poor job for their target audience because all you can do while watching that video is focus on how the hell the person is using the controller and it takes you out because you start contemplating a world where they think uploading this is a good representation of their work.