velociraptor
Junior Member
This is certainly the impression that I have had.
Polygon gives high scores to games despite their anti-consumer aspects / DRM strategy
- Thread starter Vire
- Start date
This is certainly the impression that I have had.
Ken Masters
Banned
PS3 Skyrim review scores
don't trust gaming "journalism"
don't trust gaming "journalism"
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
The multiplayer does have the gambling-style unlocks, but since it's not competitive multiplayer, it's cooperative, it doesn't really function as "pay-to-win" in the traditional sense.
RedNumberFive
Banned
Don't forget about the documentary detailing this revolutionary design!
Wolfgunblood Garopa
Member
It's the ending of Mass Effect 3.
There's also the fact that Polygon has a huge section of the review explicitly devoted to discussing the always-online aspect of the game. And they said that if it negatively affects the overall experience, they'll update the review and re-assess appropriately.
his twitter posts are worse and basicly amount to "my PC is always online, fuck everyone else"
It's also known that Polygon hates Sony exclusive games
http://www.polygon.com/game/ni-no-kuni-wrath-of-the-white-witch/3343
http://www.polygon.com/game/sly-cooper-thieves-in-time/4603
That guy is dead to me
http://www.polygon.com/game/ni-no-kuni-wrath-of-the-white-witch/3343
http://www.polygon.com/game/sly-cooper-thieves-in-time/4603
That guy is dead to me
EmCeeGramr
Member
As for acknowledgments:
-Diablo III's review contained a sidebar defense of the always-online connection by saying it was unstable but that Blizzard deserves the benefit of the doubt that it will eventually be flawless, no mention of the RMAH because it didn't exist yet (though the lack of a mention that it would be eventually coming seems odd) and because the reviewer didn't get far enough to the point where most players began to rely on the Auction House due to the game's design
-Mass Effect 3: no mention of Day 1 DLC or preorder bonuses, sidebar acknowledges that they didn't play the multiplayer yet and so won't talk about it (and presumably the mechanics and gambling microtransactions) because the servers weren't up, but claims that the review would stand without it
-Dead Space 3: goes into the crafting system, praises the way you craft and unlock new parts, does not seem to mention the real money purchases of parts unless I missed it
-SimCity: sidebar acknowledgment of the always-online issues experienced by the reviewer, states that it has yet to be seen how well it'll hold up at launch
-Diablo III's review contained a sidebar defense of the always-online connection by saying it was unstable but that Blizzard deserves the benefit of the doubt that it will eventually be flawless, no mention of the RMAH because it didn't exist yet (though the lack of a mention that it would be eventually coming seems odd) and because the reviewer didn't get far enough to the point where most players began to rely on the Auction House due to the game's design
-Mass Effect 3: no mention of Day 1 DLC or preorder bonuses, sidebar acknowledges that they didn't play the multiplayer yet and so won't talk about it (and presumably the mechanics and gambling microtransactions) because the servers weren't up, but claims that the review would stand without it
-Dead Space 3: goes into the crafting system, praises the way you craft and unlock new parts, does not seem to mention the real money purchases of parts unless I missed it
-SimCity: sidebar acknowledgment of the always-online issues experienced by the reviewer, states that it has yet to be seen how well it'll hold up at launch
PC Gamer felt it was and marked every single review with that DRM as such and gave a sort of buyer beware warning.
This was in the magazine, where space limitations are real. Polygon has endless scrolling, you'd think they could fit in somewhere that EA despises the consumer.
Heavy's Sandvich
Member
Wow, Arthur loves throwing those big scores out for overhyped games.
whatevermort
Member
What the fuck? Games shouldn't be marked down because of marketing/promotion decisions. They should be judged on the quality of the game itself. The other shit, fine, it can be a consideration for you as a consumer. But shouldn't alter the score of a game (especially when the score alters the developers chances of actually, you know, not being shut down).
The text does not back up the KH3D score at all. I was commenting about it and Arthur responded saying that the game plays terribly and the score is justified. In the review it said the gameplay was great. It makes no sense. It's like someone just decided to not like KH and slammed it 3 additional points lower without really caring.
He also said the story was bad. The text literally didn't even mention the story for more than one sentence. Didn't mention any of the music either, or the graphics. It was a very odd review.
You guys don't do this every time, but sometimes it happens. I saw on Press Reset that Arthur cuts a shitload of text out from stories before they're published. Maybe too much.
I really don't like when mods change thread titles in order to make a point that could be made by simply posting in the thread. It comes off as an abuse of power and more often than not is done to reflect the particular opinion of the mod rather than to clarify what the thread is about.
In this case the first title change seemed to actively ignore what the OP posted in favor of minimizing criticism of Polygon. Polygon is a big boy site that can fend for itself, it doesn't need a sympathetic mod running interference for it.
In this case the first title change seemed to actively ignore what the OP posted in favor of minimizing criticism of Polygon. Polygon is a big boy site that can fend for itself, it doesn't need a sympathetic mod running interference for it.
Lol that $750 mil from Microsoft going to good use! No but seriously, 6.5 for Ni No Kuni? Tragically awful opinion confirmed.
Wow. I think someone who thinks like this about other people's bias has one themself.
In my opinion, a review should be subjective given to whatever the reviewers tastes are. If these things did not bother the reviewer, they should state it, it should be known, and then I as a reader know. I think reviews trying to be objective is a bad thing, though that's my own personal feeling. I like to hear what someone thinks and feels.
Seems to be in line with what a lot of JRPG fans think.
Plus he gave Little King Story on Vita like a 4. The guy hates fun. I don't know why they have such a dudebro mcshoot review those games anyway.
First of all, you'll forgive me for thinking reviews are an opinion.
Secondly, Since when has anti-consumerism dictated quality? There is no clear causal link. Even if you argue that it takes time away from game development, That's no different to the budget being lower or the company having less resources.
Secondly, Since when has anti-consumerism dictated quality? There is no clear causal link. Even if you argue that it takes time away from game development, That's no different to the budget being lower or the company having less resources.
EmCeeGramr
Member
Actually, now I'm curious and I hope Phil can answer if he's not run off terrified yet.
I remember back when Polygon launched, one of the few things that warmed my dead shriveled cynical heart was the idea that they'd update reviews over time as updates, patches, and revisions would render statements contained in the original text irrelevant or outdated. Did they ever end up doing that with any reviews? Mass Effect 3 and Diablo III, for example, are certainly quite different experiences for someone buying them today versus at launch.
I remember back when Polygon launched, one of the few things that warmed my dead shriveled cynical heart was the idea that they'd update reviews over time as updates, patches, and revisions would render statements contained in the original text irrelevant or outdated. Did they ever end up doing that with any reviews? Mass Effect 3 and Diablo III, for example, are certainly quite different experiences for someone buying them today versus at launch.
Seems to be in line with what a lot of JRPG fans think.
Really? I browse the OT all the time, and nearly all the impressions are overwhelmingly positive.
I dunno, since it would mean a large majority of PC games would require low scores because of how CD keys are tied into accounts, etc.
Banana Kid
Member
I really like a lot of the features Polygon does. I don't know about the reviews, but I'll give them props for that.
LightofRohan
Member
Nothing is worse than IGN.
Also, Skyrim PS3. Never forget.
What am I suppose to be looking at?
It's the best DLC pack of all time and one of my favorite experiences of this generation. I'd give that bitch 10's all day.
Yea, I don't think a reviewer should ever base it on things outside of the game (price, marketing, delivery). Those things can always change down the line or being completely changed at launch. Then what is the point of review scores? Is it just to serve those that want to get the games asap? Or do review the game as it is? Maybe they should include a DAY 1 review score as well, that takes all those things into account.
Mass Effect 3 and Dead Space 3 microtransactions did not hurt the game, unlike Diablo 3's auction house.
ME is co-op only and the only money paid items are all for gambling aspects, not to mention is all purchasable with ingame resources. DS3 is the same, you can even buy the large DLC resource packs with ingame rations collected by the bot.
ME is co-op only and the only money paid items are all for gambling aspects, not to mention is all purchasable with ingame resources. DS3 is the same, you can even buy the large DLC resource packs with ingame rations collected by the bot.
mullet2000
Member
Little King's story Vita is pretty bad compared to the Wii Version. I don't know if i'd have given it a 4 but it's was pretty damn disappointing how bad the framerate was/how terribly animu-ed up they made it. I can see why someone would greatly dislike it, especially if they had played the Wii version before. All the charm is lost.
There you go, completely reasonable.
RiccochetJ
Gold Member
If I can't play a single player game because your servers are down for some reason, that has a direct effect on the quality of the game. Probably the most critical part: being able to play the bloody thing.
How is it pay 2 win? You can earn anything without buying any of the packs as well as it's a horde type mode.
I think your showing how bad of points that your making and it's really a hidden why give games I don't like this certain score.
ebullientprism
Member
Uhmm the DRM is part of the "game experience". If you are a food critic and the restaurant you are eating at smells of piss and the waiter is constantly rude to you dont think that would get a mention in the review? Do you think you would do your readers a good service by saying the food is great and the restaurant is highly recommended?
I do agree with the OP but its not just Polygon that give games a pass on what are blatantly anti consumer ideas. Most other websites barely mention stuff like unneeded always online DRM and whenever it is mentioned, its mentioned in passing without really bringing up the negative aspects of it.
This guys are a complete joke.
Steam has offline mode.
In general, I think people who write about games for a living don't care so much about anti-consumer practices because they aren't consumers, or at least not normal consumers.
Good games get good reviews...HOLY SHIT!! Anti consumer? Oh, for fuck's sake. I swear to God, why do so many on this site hate good games? If you talk to regular gamers that don't count polygons or have spreadsheets dedicated to sales, you will find that many people love ME3, Diablo 3, DS, and most likely, Sim City. The games are good and some, including myself, could give a shit if EA or Blizzard offer a way for people to purchase items. I don't want to purchase items and guess what.......I don't have to and it has no impact on my enjoyment of the game. Sure, if you're some crazed gamer that HAS to play through Diablo hundreds of hours to get that special sword then ok, get upset, but based on the HUGE sales for all of these games, it doesn't seem to be getting many upset...only the snooty game snob that can stick his nose up to games that the general public enjoy and point out flaws or reviews that 9 out of 10 people could actually give a shit about.
mullet2000
Member
In this topic? Dumber things have been said.
EmCeeGramr
Member
LightofRohan
Member
A normal consumer would probably never notice DRM or care about it.