Support NeoGAF

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Would you like to defend the logic of Gannd's post?

It's not just that post (though defending someone switching jobs to another fairly safe job and then massively dramatizing is weird), but every post you have in this topic. You've accused other game sites of jealously and fear when they've never shown any hostility towards other game journalists (guys on G4, IGN, Giantbomb, GameInformer, and GameTrailers frequently praise each other) and there's no indication that Polygon will be super successful. You pointed this accusation specifically at a member of the fastest growing magazine in the USA IIRC.

You've defended this inane documentary with wild assumptions to pass the blame onto marketing. You've defended pretty bad screwups from them (that were pointed out not too seriously) by saying that other places are bad too. Called them the only hope for future journalism despite coming from the worst game sites on the internet. Shown disbelief at the fact that people could be offended by self-fellatio. You've defended every action they have made and done it in a hyperbolic, nonsensical fashion.

 

[BruiserBear]

It's not just that post (though defending someone switching jobs to another fairly safe job and then massively dramatizing is weird), but every post you have in this topic. You've accused other game sites of jealously and fear when they've never shown any hostility towards other game journalists (guys on G4, IGN, Giantbomb, GameInformer, and GameTrailers frequently praise each other) and there's no indication that Polygon will be super successful. You pointed this accusation specifically at a member of the fastest growing magazine in the USA IIRC.

You've defended this inane documentary with wild assumptions to pass the blame onto marketing. You've defended pretty bad screwups from them (that were pointed out not too seriously) by saying that other places are bad too. Called them the only hope for future journalism despite coming from the worst game sites on the internet. Shown disbelief at the fact that people could be offended by self-fellatio. You've defended every action they have made and done it in a hyperbolic, nonsensical fashion.

I see someone has their creativity hat on today. You've greatly exaggerated, and straight up made up some things I've said there. "Call them the only hope for future journalism?" lolz

So what was is that you didn't like about my critique of Gannd's post? Surely you had a reason to suggest I was out of line in what I said to him.

 

[Gannd]

You're right man. They should have considered your situation before talking about their own situations on a film about the website they were starting up. It's not like they have lives, or mortgages, or kids to feed. I'm sure if Polygon goes down in a ball of flames things will carry on just fine for all of them, because you know, start up money and all that should take care of them for life. /sarcasm

The next time you're really upset about something in your life, consider that there are starving people in Africa right now, and then you should stop being upset about whatever you were upset about, because you know, someone else has it harder than you.

I'm not upset about things in my life. I am not going around tooting my own horn because I left a cushy job to go work for a very well funded start up with an equity agreement that if the start up succeeds, I can make a lot of money from. What part of this don't you understand?

If Polygon goes down they'll do fine. You know why? They now have start up experience and that looks really damn good on a resume. Why don't you get off their dong and think about what you're saying once and a while?

 

[Gannd]

Would you like to defend the logic of Gannd's post?

I'll defend the logic, it's the same logic that Jeff Green was posting about: You're not brave because you left your job for a very well funded start up that has received tens of millions of dollars in VC. You're not reinventing the wheel. It's not brave. It's a risk but the risk has been mitigated. It isn't like these guys all left their cushy jobs to start a brand new website, by themselves, using their own savings and trying to do things their own way. It's like if I left my job to start my own company but I'm using my Uncle's money to make sure that I am earning a salary, getting moving expenses reimbursed/paid for and all of that. There is a HUGE difference between entrepreneurship and what these guys are doing. These guys left to go work at a cushy start up.

 

[conman]

I have no problem with the criticism of poor metaphors and analogies, but I find it very common in journalism as a whole, not just Geis or game's journalism.

Indeed. Rampant metaphors suggest a lack of imagination and an unfocused mind. They're a "cheat" in review writing and should be used sparingly. Video game reviewers use them all the time, probably because most game reviewers are either very young or very bad writers.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

I see someone has their creativity hat on today. You've greatly exaggerated, and straight up made up some things I've said there. "Call them the only hope for future journalism?" lolz

So what was is that you didn't like about my critique of Gannd's post? Surely you had a reason to suggest I was out of line in what I said to him.

I just see an awful lot of haters on this topic right now. So they're making a documentary about starting a site.

Why is this such a mind blowing concept to some people?


I've watched all the episodes so far, and I've found them mildly enjoyable. No more, no less.



I'm sure he didn't like his Magazine/site being labeled a "co partnership with retail" in the first episode. Do you really think someone intrenched in the current gaming media, wishes success upon the new well funded upstart?

What's more likely? That Game Informer is the future of the gaming media, or a site like Polygon?


Sure, but they left their old jobs for this new one. So again, do you think that a magazine/site like Game Informer wishes success for Polygon?

Come on, I know you know the answer to this question.


So with that in mind, should we be surprised and impressed when Andy McNamara starts taking shots at Polygon on Twitter?



Just trying to keep up with the theme of the thread.

But seriously, do you think I'm wrong? Do you think that anyone spewing the hate in this thread didn't already have some pre-disposed opinion about some of the players involved in this site? Do you really think this little documentary just got them that riled up?


Well, for starters I'm willing to bet the idea for the "documentary" wasn't conceived by the people hired to produce content for the site. It was likely an idea of the higher ups, or the marketing team, looking for an interesting way to introduce a new website to people, and frankly it seems like a pretty damn good idea IMO.

As we've already seen in this thread, people are watching. Reality TV is huge, and documentaries often get attention as well, so it sure seems to make sense to me why someone might think of this idea. Frankly, I'm not even sure why I just had to explain that to someone.


There are a variety of reasons for this reaction. Pure, unadulterated jealousy might be the biggest one. Some people do youtube video reviews, or have a little site they work on, so it makes them so upset when they see people getting paid well, living well, and launching a huge new site with any fanfare.

Then there are just those who don't like seeing anyone else happy, and successful, so they hope this fails badly, because then they'll feel better about themselves.

Then there are people who just don't like Arthur Gies, and because of that this particular episode just sent them over the edge. I'm not even his biggest fan myself, but I still have some objectivity remaining, so I don't feel the need to jump on every word he says.


Well, if people really care about good journalism in videogames they should be happy someone is even trying to change that, because right now it's pretty abysmal overall.

Also, your comments about people here writing about games for no money, just reinforces my thought that a lot of this is just pure jealousy.

Man, I've sure got you wrong. Those claims of jealously and fear from one of the most successful magazines in America, in an industry that praises literally any one of its members regardless of their site or business model, sure makes sense with your exact posts there.

But yes, continue to criticize people who point out that this drama about themselves comes off as ridiculous to those who are in more danger of financial issues than them. When Gannd makes a documentary about about hard his life is and about how much risk there is in it, then you can criticize him with the starving African children attack.

 

[Gannd]

When Gannd makes a documentary about about hard his life is and about how much risk there is in it, then you can criticize him with the starving African children attack.

If Microsoft wants to give me a lot of money to make a documentary about starting my own one-man CPA shop, I'm totally down! And I even use Microsoft products!!!

 

[Felix Lighter]

I see someone has their creativity hat on today. You've greatly exaggerated, and straight up made up some things I've said there. "Call them the only hope for future journalism?" lolz

So what was is that you didn't like about my critique of Gannd's post? Surely you had a reason to suggest I was out of line in what I said to him.

They have mortgages and kids to feed? Oh dear, that really does set them apart. I'm glad I have guaranteed employment and no fiscal responsibilities. I don't know how they can function in such a uniquely stressful life situation. Now I understand why this story needed to get out there.

 

[BruiserBear]

I'm not upset about things in my life. I am not going around tooting my own horn because I left a cushy job to go work for a very well funded start up with an equity agreement that if the start up succeeds, I can make a lot of money from. What part of this don't you understand?

If Polygon goes down they'll do fine. You know why? They now have start up experience and that looks really damn good on a resume. Why don't you get off their dong and think about what you're saying once and a while?

I'll defend the logic, it's the same logic that Jeff Green was posting about: You're not brave because you left your job for a very well funded start up that has received tens of millions of dollars in VC. You're not reinventing the wheel. It's not brave. It's a risk but the risk has been mitigated. It isn't like these guys all left their cushy jobs to start a brand new website, by themselves, using their own savings and trying to do things their own way. It's like if I left my job to start my own company but I'm using my Uncle's money to make sure that I am earning a salary, getting moving expenses reimbursed/paid for and all of that. There is a HUGE difference between entrepreneurship and what these guys are doing. These guys left to go work at a cushy start up.

The problem with this entire thread is the leaps of logic people are making with everything about this series of videos.

People acting like the people IN the videos are in charge of MAKING the videos. Who do you think is in control of the tone of these videos? The people in front of the camera, or the people behind them?

The people behind the camera are guiding the tone of these videos to make them as dramatic and entertaining as possible, and I say that not even feeling like they're as dramatic as a lot of people here are making them out to be.
I've seen enough reality TV over the years to know that the subjects of the reality TV show always will tell you the edited version of the show can paint things a certain way, in this case playing up the hard work that goes into making a new gaming site.

The amazing irony of this thread is seeing people railing against the seriousness of these videos, while taking everything so seriously themselves and critiquing every little thing about them. I'm no more sold on Polygon being awesome than anyone else here. I just can't help but point out the irrationality of some of the posts about these videos.

I'm pretty sure the people who work at Polygon are not convinced their website is the most important thing to happen to the internet. Like most people they take their job seriously, and want to make it the best thing they can make it, and thus when the bosses tell you some cameras are going to follow you around filming, you're not going to say "no", and "let me tell you how to edit this", and "I'm not going to answer that question because it could make me sound pretentious".

Man, I've sure got you wrong. Those claims of jealously and fear from one of the most successful magazines in America, in an industry that praises literally any one of its members regardless of their site or business model, sure makes sense with your exact posts there.

But yes, continue to criticize people who point out that this drama about themselves comes off as ridiculous to those who are in more danger of financial issues than them. When Gannd makes a documentary about about hard his life is and about how much risk there is in it, then you can criticize him with the starving African children attack.

In those quotes of mine you'll notice I'm never praising the site as the new hotness. Never suggesting they're doing great work. Yet people like yourself have continued to suggest I'm being paid by them, and need to "get off their dick". Hmm.

But just like everyone else, you suggest the people in these videos decided to make them, which is ridiculous. As if they were just going to tell their new bosses to pound sand when he told them some cameras were going to document the process of creating the site.

 

[Gannd]

The problem with this entire thread is the leaps of logic people are making with everything about this series of videos.

People acting like the people IN the videos are in charge of MAKING the videos. Who do you think is in control of the tone of these videos? The people in front of the camera, or the people behind them?

The people behind the camera are guiding the tone of these videos to make them as dramatic and entertaining as possible, and I say that not even feeling like they're as dramatic as a lot of people here are making them out to be.
I've seen enough reality TV over the years to know that the subjects of the reality TV show always will tell you the edited version of the show can paint things a certain way, in this case playing up the hard work that goes into making a new gaming site.

The amazing irony of this thread is seeing people railing against the seriousness of these videos, while taking everything so seriously themselves and critiquing every little thing about them. I'm no more sold on Polygon being awesome than anyone else here. I just can't help but point out the irrationality of some of the posts about these videos.

I'm pretty sure the people who work at Polygon are not convinced their website is the most important thing to happen to the internet. Like most people they take their job seriously, and want to make it the best thing they can make it, and thus when the bosses tell you some cameras are going to follow you around filming, you're not going to say "no", and "let me tell you how to edit this", and "I'm not going to answer that question because it could make me sound pretentious".

Have you read their twitter retorts? It seems like they do think they are doing God's work with this website. The video team is apart of the editorial team. They work together. I'm sure if the people featured in the documentary were really upset with how they are being portrayed, they'd be able to get it changed in future episodes and/or they'd be willing to say so on Twitter and this thread instead of trying to defend what they are saying.

I think they do believe what they are doing is brave, amazing and all that. You cannot make something out of nothing. If their overall tone was "We're making this really cool website that will help us do better book reviews of toys!!!" they'd have to make that come across.

 

[Monumental]

So with all this talk of bias, or even the appearance of bias affecting Polygon's credibility...take a look at the reviews for Forza Horizon

IGN- 9/10
Gamespot- 8.5/10
Game Informer- 8.5/10
Giant Bomb- 5/5
Polygon- 6/10
Xboxer360- (9.4/10)
Gamesradar- 4/5
Destructoid- 9/10
VGRevolution- 8.4/10
VentureBeat- 8.3/10
Aussie-Gamer - 5/5
Eurogamer- 9/10
IBTimes- 9/10
Pocket-Lint - 4/5
Gaming Examiner- 9.5/10
Atomicgamer- 9/10
Official Xbox Magazine UK- 9/10
Gamereactor- 9/10

Notice which one is the outlier? This isn't meant to prove that they are biased for or against Microsoft. It's just curious that out of everyone, they are the only ones to give the game a low score. Literally the only ones. It seems as if Polygon is overcompensating for all the flack they've received. Either way, this will result in people not taking you seriously for future Microsoft-related critique.

The other side of the coin is that Phil Kollar is untouched by the pressure to seem unbiased, and just doesn't like Forza Horizon. I admit that is also a possibility. Make of this what you will.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Bruiser, why so much hate towards the camera people behind this documentary? Is it jealously because you never made it as a filmmaker? Is it fear because you think this style of over-dramatization will replace the style used at your industry? This insinuation that the directing team has created a documentary that is extremely unappealing towards people who could potentially go to Polyton and has grossly misrepresented the facts has to be coming from pure jealously, fear, and predisposed hatred. I can think of no other possible reason for the attacks on these people.

 

[antitrop]

So with all this talk of bias, or even the appearance of bias affecting Polygon's credibility...take a look at the reviews for Forza Horizon

Notice which one is the outlier? This isn't meant to prove that they are biased for or against Microsoft. It's just curious that out of everyone, they are the only ones to give the game a low score. Literally the only ones. It seems as if Polygon is overcompensating for all the flack they've received. Either way, this will result in people not taking you seriously for future Microsoft-related critique.

The other side of the coin is that Phil Kollar is untouched by the pressure to seem unbiased, and just doesn't like Forza Horizon. I admit that is also a possibility. Make of this what you will.

A low score comparatively.

 

[mik]

I've also never gotten the impression that Phil is a big fan of driving/racing games, whereas some of the reviewers at those other outlets are. Doesn't devalue his opinion--it's just coming from a different perspective.

 

[Monumental]

A low score comparatively.

You are not wrong. But how does that change anything? And lets be honest, this isn't a 7.5 or 8.8, a 6/10 is a low score all on its own.

 

[KingKong]

You are not wrong. But how does that change anything? And lets be honest, this isn't a 7.5 or 8.8, a 6/10 is a low score all on its own.

Or you could look at his other recent reviews

http://www.theverge.com/gaming/2012/10/1/3430374/resident-evil-6-review (4/10)
http://www.theverge.com/gaming/2012/9/25/3386262/hell-yeah-wrath-of-the-dead-rabbit-review (6/10)
http://www.theverge.com/gaming/2012/9/25/3386262/hell-yeah-wrath-of-the-dead-rabbit-review (8/10)
http://www.theverge.com/gaming/2012/9/6/3295570/guild-wars-2-review (8.5/10)

and see that he doesn't seem to be the kind of reviewer that hands out 9s like candy (only 9 I saw was Darksiders 2, which makes me wonder what game he was playing because it's pretty miserable but that's just opinions)

 

[antitrop]

You are not wrong. But how does that change anything? And lets be honest, this isn't a 7.5 or 8.8, a 6/10 is a low score all on its own.

You're right, it doesn't change anything.

But, still, this isn't Jim Sterling levels of "pants on head retarded" game scoring where they just make shit up to get page views without any sort of journalistic integrity or restraint.

 

[Tadale]

So with all this talk of bias, or even the appearance of bias affecting Polygon's credibility...take a look at the reviews for Forza Horizon

IGN- 9/10
Gamespot- 8.5/10
Game Informer- 8.5/10
Giant Bomb- 5/5
Polygon- 6/10
Xboxer360- (9.4/10)
Gamesradar- 4/5
Destructoid- 9/10
VGRevolution- 8.4/10
VentureBeat- 8.3/10
Aussie-Gamer - 5/5
Eurogamer- 9/10
IBTimes- 9/10
Pocket-Lint - 4/5
Gaming Examiner- 9.5/10
Atomicgamer- 9/10
Official Xbox Magazine UK- 9/10
Gamereactor- 9/10

Notice which one is the outlier? This isn't meant to prove that they are biased for or against Microsoft. It's just curious that out of everyone, they are the only ones to give the game a low score. Literally the only ones. It seems as if Polygon is overcompensating for all the flack they've received. Either way, this will result in people not taking you seriously for future Microsoft-related critique.

The other side of the coin is that Phil Kollar is untouched by the pressure to seem unbiased, and just doesn't like Forza Horizon. I admit that is also a possibility. Make of this what you will.

I don't understand this. Why not just welcome a differing opinion?

 

[Wario64]

It's nice to have differing opinions, even if you don't agree with them or if you think they're wrong.

 

[Brera]

This documentary has been a success then? Everyone knows Polygon and when it comes to games sites, there really is no such thing as bad publicity?

But damn...selling themselves as rebels up against an epic journey....yet are getting dollars and resources thrown at them left right and centre?

Anyone know what this new way and new technology is then?

 

[antitrop]

and when it comes to games sites, there really is no such thing as bad publicity?

No, there definitely is such a thing as bad publicity and Polygon has been receiving it as often as humanly possible.

 

[Felix Lighter]

I don't think it's fair to make any judgements on the score alone. If there was blatant mistakes in the text or the text and score weren't consistent, there would be a room to attack the review but the score being a bit of an outlier isn't evidence of anything wrong.

 

[Deleted member 47027]

No, there definitely is such a thing as bad publicity and Polygon has been receiving it as often as humanly possible.

It really depends on what your goals are. If you want to have a site that simply gets clicks, they're doing well with this approach.

If you're looking to build a site based on credibility and actually trying to advance "journalism" then this is a bad approach.

 

[YianGaruga]

This documentary has been a success then? Everyone knows Polygon and when it comes to games sites, there really is no such thing as bad publicity?

But damn...selling themselves as rebels up against an epic journey....yet are getting dollars and resources thrown at them left right and centre?

Anyone know what this new way and new technology is then?

I don't think this is true. The documentary was meant to get to know the people behind the site. We know pretty much nothing else about Polygons revolutionary new site but who works there. And as you can see from this thread, they're generally not liked very much.

I'd call that bad publicity.

 

[Monumental]

I don't understand this. Why not just welcome a differing opinion?

It's nice to have differing opinions, even if you don't agree with them or if you think they're wrong.

I don't think it's fair to make any judgements on the score alone. If there was blatant mistakes in the text or the text and score weren't consistent, there would be a room to attack the review but the score being a bit of an outlier isn't evidence of anything wrong.

Listen, I'm not an idiot. I read the review. And I'm not harping on about a bad score. If everyone had given the game a score lower than 7 and Polygon was the only one who gave them a 9, it would be just as questionable. The point is that source of that "differing opinion" is questionable, as is their motivation to be a differing opinion. Especially when that differing opinion doesn't even seem well supported.

Let me give you an example from the review:

Though the cars look and control great, Horizon’s visuals take a huge step back from Forza Motorsport 4’s stunning graphics. The Forza series has always prided itself on being amongst the best-looking games on any console, but Horizon takes a hit by virtue of its human presence. Plastic characters in cutscenes are forgivable, but they also fill out the sidelines for many of the races, detracting from the vast, beautiful landscapes of Horizon’s virtual Colorado.

I noticed the visual hit immediately, but it takes longer to pick up on the concessions that Forza Horizon makes to feel like an arcade racer.

They reviewer just stated that the cars look great, the vast landscapes are beautiful, but it's a huge step back by virtue of human characters on the sidelines. Seriously? He just talked about a huge step back in graphics in a racing game but attributed that to human spectators looking bad? And that's it. No mention of cars, tracks, lighting, framerate, or any other indication for why the graphics are a huge step back.

If they are going to be purveyors of differing opinions, they also have a to do a better job, a more convincing job of explaining their opinions.

 

[antitrop]

If you're looking to build a site based on credibility and actually trying to advance "journalism" then this is a bad approach.

Isn't that exactly what they're trying to do?

 

[Empty]

Notice which one is the outlier? This isn't meant to prove that they are biased for or against Microsoft. It's just curious that out of everyone, they are the only ones to give the game a low score. Literally the only ones. It seems as if Polygon is overcompensating for all the flack they've received. Either way, this will result in people not taking you seriously for future Microsoft-related critique.

The other side of the coin is that Phil Kollar is untouched by the pressure to seem unbiased, and just doesn't like Forza Horizon. I admit that is also a possibility. Make of this what you will.

not everything is politics and i really doubt phil cares about that stuff but if you're going down that road i think them trying to attain credibility by using edge's harsher scoring system is a much more plausible explanation for a markedly lower score than them giving a shit about how people think they feel about microsoft.

 

[mik]

I'm more upset by the use of "amongst," like it's a fucking Song of Ice and Fire novel.

 

[Torgo]

This thread is GOLD!!

My two cents, if MS indeed did fund this at all, Polygon should have declined the money. Perception is a huge thing, especially on the Internet, and to achieve and image of "Unbiased" or "Fair" etc, you have to stay far away from anything that may give the idea that you're being funded, in ANY way, by the companies that release the very products that you professionally review.

Even if none of this is actually happening, it should still be avoided as much as possible.

 

[AkuMifune]

not everything is politics and i really doubt phil cares about that stuff but if you're going down that road i think them trying to attain credibility by using edge's harsher scoring system is a much more plausible explanation for a markedly lower score than them giving a shit about how people think they feel about microsoft.

I know Arthur has said that his emphasis is to use the proper 1-10 scale, which to me just means generally harsher review scores as compared to the rest. It's a noble goal that I think is ultimately another misguided example of how arrogant and out of touch they are. Hey, I think it's a shame the 7-10 scale has become the norm too, but you're not going to redefine it by brute force all by yourselves and you'll only end up being perceived as trolling for hits instead of looking more credible. I'm interested to see how this Forza example turns out as that 6 is jarring amongst the field.

Spoiler

I through in the amongst just for you mik!

 

[foogles]

The other side of the coin is that Phil Kollar is untouched by the pressure to seem unbiased, and just doesn't like Forza Horizon. I admit that is also a possibility.

The notion that the default thinking is otherwise - that this "possibility" is the less likely thing in so many people's minds - is irksome.

 

[see5harp]

This thread is GOLD!!

My two cents, if MS indeed did fund this at all, Polygon should have declined the money. Perception is a huge thing, especially on the Internet, and to achieve and image of "Unbiased" or "Fair" etc, you have to stay far away from anything that may give the idea that you're being funded, in ANY way, by the companies that release the very products that you professionally review.

Even if none of this is actually happening, it should still be avoided as much as possible.

I don't necessarily agree with the idea of a documentary but I don't see how this is any different from Sony or Ford paying to sponsor the Engadget Show. Internet Explorer is barely connected to gaming and most websites are collecting money for actual video game advertisements .

 

[outunderthestars]

I wonder how many of the staffers at Polygon already regret agreeing to the video doc...

 

[antitrop]

I wonder how many of the staffers at Polygon already regret agreeing to the video doc...

Hopefully all of them.

Making a mockery out of your chosen profession is nothing to be proud of.

 

[Tadale]

Listen, I'm not an idiot. I read the review. And I'm not harping on about a bad score. If everyone had given the game a score lower than 7 and Polygon was the only one who gave them a 9, it would be just as questionable. The point is that source of that "differing opinion" is questionable, as is their motivation to be a differing opinion. Especially when that differing opinion doesn't even seem well supported.


They reviewer just stated that the cars look great, the vast landscapes are beautiful, but it's a huge step back by virtue of human characters on the sidelines. Seriously? He just talked about a huge step back in graphics in a racing game but attributed that to human spectators looking bad? And that's it. No mention of cars, tracks, lighting, framerate, or any other indication for why the graphics are a huge step back.

If they are going to be purveyors of differing opinions, they also have a to do a better job, a more convincing job of explaining their opinions.

I kinda get where you're coming from, but reviews are extremely subjective. Maybe you don't think that cruddy looking spectators are a big deal, but maybe that detail particularly stood out to the reviewer. Also, I guarantee that one little detail is not what made the reviewer score the game 2-3 points lower than most other reviewers. Just because you don't agree with the text doesn't make it wrong, it just means that maybe you shouldn't consider that review when it comes time to decide if you want to buy the game or not.

 

[stewy]

After reading the review I can totally see how the 6 is a fair score if the difficulty spike is really as bad as Phil claims. NFS Hot Pursuit was a similar experience, IIRC. I really enjoyed that game right up to the point that every event became so extremely difficult that I shut it off and never played it again.

Score seems harsh, but until I actually play it and get to the point Phil mentions, I can't really say it's unfair.

 

[frequency]

This is late but...

I think it is a little weird people are pre-judging Polygon's credibility because of the Internet Explorer thing.

I think it is weird because these same people love Giant Bomb who uses developers to sell subscriptions. And had a weekly feature for a long time about the development of Bastion... which they reviewed very highly after it released and gave it a year-end reward (I think?).

And almost every game website has game advertisements (so they're being paid money by the publishers they review games for). But Polygon having Internet Explorer, which has nothing to do with gaming, suddenly means they're not credible or trustworthy.

But I am stupid. Am I just missing or misunderstanding something?

 

[Curufinwe]

This is late but...

I think it is a little weird people are pre-judging Polygon's credibility because of the Internet Explorer thing.

I think it is weird because these same people love Giant Bomb who uses developers to sell subscriptions. And had a weekly feature for a long time about the development of Bastion... which they reviewed very highly after it released and gave it a year-end reward (I think?)

Giant Bomb never reviewed Bastion, and while they did praise it in the game of the year awards, they came five months later.

I know Arthur has said that his emphasis is to use the proper 1-10 scale, which to me just means generally harsher review scores as compared to the rest.

He gave the new Transformers game 9/10 at Polygon and he gave the last one 9/10 when he was at IGN. Doesn't seem very harsh to me.

 

[Tadale]

This is late but...

I think it is a little weird people are pre-judging Polygon's credibility because of the Internet Explorer thing.

I think it is weird because these same people love Giant Bomb who uses developers to sell subscriptions. And had a weekly feature for a long time about the development of Bastion... which they reviewed very highly after it released and gave it a year-end reward (I think?).

And almost every game website has game advertisements (so they're being paid money by the publishers they review games for). But Polygon having Internet Explorer, which has nothing to do with gaming, suddenly means they're not credible or trustworthy.

But I am stupid. Am I just missing or misunderstanding something?

Giant Bomb didn't review Bastion for that reason, though I think it did make it into their GotY discussions.

 

[frequency]

Giant Bomb never reviewed Bastion, and while they did praise it in the game of the year awards, they came five months later.

Giant Bomb didn't review Bastion for that reason, though I think it did make it into their GotY discussions.

Oh ok. I thought they did. I tried to checked the website but I am too dumb to use it. It's very confusing and I do not know how to find anything on it.
I made a mistake. Sorry!

Oh and in case there is misunderstanding: I am not trying to say Giant Bomb has no credibility. I do not really ever go to the website. I would never be able to make such accusations.
And I am not defending Polygon. I will not be able to decide on Polygon until the website is launched.

I am just truly confused why Polygon's credibility is being questioned because of Internet Explorer when other websites have much closer relations to actual game companies.

 

[railGUN]

I am just truly confused why Polygon's credibility is being questioned because of Internet Explorer when other websites have much closer relations to actual game companies.

Microsoft is an actual game company... what with XBOX and all.

 

[brotkasten]

Microsoft is an actual game company... what with XBOX and all.

They're advertising Internet Explorer, not the Xbox or any Microsoft Studios product. Chances are pretty high that most people of those teams have never seen each other. There's no synergy or something like that, that's not how Microsoft works.

 

[frequency]

Microsoft is an actual game company... what with XBOX and all.

I think companies do not work this way. Yes, both Internet Explorer and Xbox are under Microsoft but I think the relationship between the divisions is not so connected.

Internet Explorer wasn't (isn't?) even on the Xbox.

But maybe I am wrong. I am often wrong.


Even if Internet Explorer and Xbox are close, I do not understand why this is more questionable than having developers help sell your website subscriptions or having advertisements of games you are going to review.

 

[brotkasten]

I think companies do not work this way. Yes, both Internet Explorer and Xbox are under Microsoft, but I think the connection between the divisions is not so connected.

Internet Explorer wasn't (isn't?) even on the Xbox.

But maybe I am wrong. I am often wrong.


Even if Internet Explorer and Xbox is close, I do not understand why this is more questionable than having developers help sell your website subscriptions or having advertisements of games you are going to review.

IE9 is coming to the Xbox in the upcoming dashboard update.

 

[railGUN]

They're advertising Internet Explorer, not the Xbox or any Microsoft Studios product. Chances are pretty high that most people of those teams have never seen each other. There's no synergy or something like that, that's not how Microsoft works.

Maybe, in fact probably this is true, but it's all still Microsoft, who are not just a game company, but in fact a huge game company (which was what I was responding to).

 

[drizzle]

Even if Internet Explorer and Xbox are close, I do not understand why this is more questionable than having developers help sell your website subscriptions or having advertisements of games you are going to review.

They're just as shady. I don't see your point.

 

[frequency]

They're just as shady. I don't see your point.

Only that some people condemn Polygon while praising Giant Bomb or some other website that also have what can be seen as questionable practices. If you feel that all of them are untrustworthy, my posts are not directed at you.

But I do not really have a point. I am asking a question because I am truly confused and want to know why people think the way they do.

 

[twobear]

Polygon gives MSFT game good score: 'omg they're biased'
Polygon gives MSFT game bad score: 'omg they're marking harshly to avoid accusation of bias'

Was perhaps kind of silly to take the money, could've predicted it would happen.

 

[SickBoy]

I was a little taken aback to discover how big an issue people made of the sponsorship. Your local newspaper almost certainly has advertiser-sponsored features or content from time to time. It won't be masquerading as real news with your top stories of the day (or it shouldn't), but maybe people would be surprised.

I always see contests co-sponsored by my local paper and businesses that it covers (seriously) in its business pages. That's a partnership, a relationship... not just taking out an ad. Does that mean its business section is tainted? Based on the coverage I read, I trust my local paper has a sufficient division between its ad and editorial departments.

I think there are probably a ton of reasons to question the value of Polygon... surprised this one makes the list, to be honest.

 

[Jake Tower]

Only that some people condemn Polygon while praising Giant Bomb or some other website that also have what can be seen as questionable practices.

The difference is the staff of Giant Bomb doesn't give off douche chills in the things they do.