Polygon gives high scores to games despite their anti-consumer aspects / DRM strategy
- Thread starter Vire
- Start date
I think my biggest problem is that they don't review the final product. They review games under the assumption that EA or Blizzard's online systems won't affect the games. That is a HUGE assumption to make. As an outlet with editorial integrity, you shouldn't put out reviews if you are sure the experience of the game that a consumer will have may be completely different at a fundamental level because of the fragile nature of always-online services.
Polygon shouldn't give publishers the benefit of the doubt. Changing reviews later is not good enough. It's an example of bending to the whims of publishers. It's bending to the money involved in putting up early reviews. When did it become about being first, rather than being accurate?
Jive Turkey
Unconfirmed Member
I don't know about your other reviews but I think your Ni no Kuni review was probably a bit too high.
What annoys me about most of these reviews is the hyperbole, especially in the diablo 3 and simcity reviews. A simple description of some of the game mechanics and the rest is hyperbolic comments about how "amazing" it is. No real "review" in there, no analysis, no insightful discussions.
Arthur tends to overrate polish in games and has little tolerance for mechanics/ideas that are innovative, but not quite rock solid. That makes his reviews pretty irrelevant for me.
I have also noticed quite a bit of... hyping up games in their reviews. Along with extravagant layouts, it kind of looks odd, even if i'm sure there is nothing shady going on.
I have also noticed quite a bit of... hyping up games in their reviews. Along with extravagant layouts, it kind of looks odd, even if i'm sure there is nothing shady going on.
I'm not talking about always online DRM. Look at how accepted it is, though. People don't even care anymore that you can't trade your Steam games in, let another person legally borrow them, etc.
I'm not a huge fan of Ni No Kuni either, but with the amount of mediocre games that coast by on high production values in other genres like Dead Space getting scores 9.5+, it does make me wonder why a JRPG gets scored so much lower. Even if you don't like parts of it, everything in the game works with no major issues and it has gorgeous production values.
The text is often even more ridiculous than their scores. Someone already mentioned it:
It really seems like Polygon is desperate to get their quotes on the back of game boxes.
MiniBossBattle
Member
I honestly ME3 score would be changed because of this. Both ME3 and DS3 were my least favorite of the series.
I haven't paid much attention to the site ever since the Doritos/Halo 4 fiasco (http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=43776056)
But their Sim City review is pretty bad, and not just from glossing over the DRM stuff but from the actual content itself. As someone who wasn't really following the game closely, I found the review lacking in actual useful informative content. It felt more like a glowing advertisement.
But their Sim City review is pretty bad, and not just from glossing over the DRM stuff but from the actual content itself. As someone who wasn't really following the game closely, I found the review lacking in actual useful informative content. It felt more like a glowing advertisement.
funkystudent
Member
Just another example of game reviewers becoming increasingly out of touch with most consumers.
When you have a endless supply of games and rush through everything to hit a review date and then never play that game again you are having a completely different experience then Joe Consumer who spends his $60 and plays the game over a few weeks.
Having crazy DRM and micro-transactions everywhere can be a huge turn off for a lot of consumers who want there moneys worth but its not a problem for a single game reviewer apparently.....
When you have a endless supply of games and rush through everything to hit a review date and then never play that game again you are having a completely different experience then Joe Consumer who spends his $60 and plays the game over a few weeks.
Having crazy DRM and micro-transactions everywhere can be a huge turn off for a lot of consumers who want there moneys worth but its not a problem for a single game reviewer apparently.....
mullet2000
Member
Would you rather the review be written so it only applied for the rough spots in the first few days of release, referencing issues that won't make a difference a few days after launch?
I get what you're saying, but they need to review the game, not the temporary connection issues.
In the two single player games that required you to be signed in at all times, it has negatively affected both games, for everyone.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
The more direct analogy would be whether or not a restaurant with, for example, a service charge for using a particular form of payment, or a mandatory gratuity charge, would be mentioned. Something that is negative for the consumer, positive for the restaurant, exists and is accepted by some, is disputed by others. The smell of pee benefits nobody, so it's not really a direct comparison.
Yeah, I think it's clear that acknowledging it in an infobox would be appropriate (IE Price: $59.99. Availability: June 1st. DRM: Always-online.) but the trickier part becomes the degree to which you assume it's relevant for your readers and thus incorporate it into the qualitative aspect of the review. I don't think there's a right answer, and I think it's part of the general debate between whether reviews are for a general audience, or an informed audience; whether they're meant to be a critical reaction or a buyer's guide--and other questions we ask.
Vire
Member
I will not buy Sim City because of it.
Voting with my dollar and all of that jazz...
Once you post the score, it's hard to change it. Once you post an arbitrary number, you have already swayed preorders and most purchases. The publishers win when Polygon gives them the benefit of doubt for no reason other than money and exposure.
But they are saying their reviews are updated all the time. Boasting as much as "The era of the game as a static product is essentially over." and that reviews shouldn't be static either.
You're pretty much wrong based on their own Review interpretation.
To Far Away Times
Member
You don't have to come down to their level and try to justify it.
Gaming journalism has an incredibly far way to go before it can be worth anything of value.
Gaming journalism has an incredibly far way to go before it can be worth anything of value.
They probably do notice when they launch a game that is essentially single player and then can't play it because servers are busy.
some other guy said:
It seems awfully charitable to write in a review "hey these issues will probably be fixed down the road!" Lag in D3 was never fixed. It seems like you should review the product the way consumers will experience it, not how they might experience it at some point in the future.
Jive Turkey
Unconfirmed Member
I don't want to get off topic but I'd call the atrociously designed and completely broken combat a pretty major issue.
This may come as a shock, but some people really like Dead Space 3 and can have an unfavorable opinion of Ni No Kuni. It doesn't make some sweeping opinion on all JRPGs, and is is with a handful of other reviews near that score as well, and reading the review itself shows that he thought the combat was sloppy and the pacing was poor and gives personal examples backing it up.
Let's see:
- Contains the word "hate" - Check
- Implies GAF is full of snob nerds who hate fun? - Check
- It doesn't affect me so it shouldn't affect you either? - Check
- Sales = game is good, don't complain - Check
I rate this post 10 out of 10.
RiccochetJ
Gold Member
I would have given it a high score initially too. At least for me, the ugly truth about the game didn't surface until a couple weeks or month later.
What's wrong with the combat? Works pretty awesome. Not the deepest, but better than many JRPGs. Takes the pokemon concept to a whole new level.
Pretty sure the game is technically still in beta. Press beta or some such.
I don't understand how we're supposed to judge if scores properly "acknowledge" something. Maybe that 9.5 does acknowledge it, and the game would've been a ten otherwise? Or maybe they don't find the offense to be worth lowering the score over at all? Should there be some kind of score ceiling for games deemed anti consumer? And what should it be? No more than a 7.5 for any game not awarded the Pro-Consumer Seal of Honor? What would the scores have to be to have kept you from making this thread? A point lower? Two points? There's no objective standard for how to penalize a game for something you don't like because there's no objective standard to score them to begin with. Complaining is just wasting your time.
I'm not saying it's not possible, just look at their reviews. Of course it's possible. I still think it's ridiculous. People could tear up Dead Space's combat just as easily if they wanted to. In what world is a shooter fun that encourages you to only shoot limbs? Most tedious and annoying combat ever. Works so poorly that they have to incorporate a slow down time move just to have people get through most basic enemies. 9.5, really?
Deified Data
Banned
How do people play this game with that font. Is everything in that crappy font?
What reviewer cares about the DRM? Most of these sites don't even give a thorough look at multiplayer, balance, or netcode. That's much more important than any mention of DRM. If the DRM is actually hurting the experience of playing a game (like Uplay might for Trials Evolution on PC) then I see why you might want that information. Otherwise, I don't feel as if DRM scheme should count in the review score. It should be brought up as part of a general discussion not a review of the campaign, story, and graphics.
There is text that generally goes along with scores. The entire purpose of the text is to provide the reasoning behind the score.
BRocknRolla
Member
I'm not a fan of Polygon either. There are many reasons why. None of them are because they don't mark down games due to "anti-consumer" actions.
EmCeeGramr
Member
How do people play this game with that font. Is everything in that crappy font?
No.
The rest of it is Arial.
Vire
Member
No it really isn't.
Games should be judged on their merits, and unfortunately, always on DRM, micro-transactions, and other anti-consumer practices are part of the game. It's not something that should just be cast aside as a separate aside. Even if they weren't up to the developer.
If reviewers deducted points towards these practices, it would go a very long way in making publishers think twice about implementing them into the games. This industry is a scores-based one, bonuses are based on Meta-critic scores etc. Sales depend on these scores.
Fixed.
Just look at the scores that Tomb raider got for example and you'll see that polished games that have a consistent flow and barely anything to overcome (lack of challenge, automatic platforming, frequent checkpoints) get rewarded by the reviewers even though their mechanics are swallow.
Other reasonable sites waited until the game went live for the public I think.
It is very hard to give a 100% critical analysis of games like this. If they feel the combat scenarios worked well and were engaging in DS3 they aren't going to speak poorly of it. Another review may find it to be sloppy and hard to follow, personal experience with any game can lead to extremely varied viewpoints. It's also weird to hear you say this considering a big complaint people seem to have with 3 specifically is the dismemberment importance is toned down dramatically, have you actually played it?
They made an agreement with EA.
Anyone who has an issue with the microtransactions in ME3 has never put serious time into the multiplayer.
It's beyond a non-issue and is purely there for those with either money to burn or no time to spare.
It didn't affect the design in any negative way and the random loots drops don't feel cheap at all. I poured many, many hours into the co-op and never felt short changed.
To call it anti-consumer is pushing the boat out a little.
It's beyond a non-issue and is purely there for those with either money to burn or no time to spare.
It didn't affect the design in any negative way and the random loots drops don't feel cheap at all. I poured many, many hours into the co-op and never felt short changed.
To call it anti-consumer is pushing the boat out a little.
What this is about is you complaining about things that you don't agree with. I have no problem with the Mass Effect example you cited since the feature you're complaining about is completely optional. You don't have to pay for those packs and you can easily get enough points without needing to play a crazy amount of games.
Holy fuck this thread is insane.
Only thing I'll comment on is reviewing pre-release content. What should they do? Wait a month? What value does that serve to you? I'm certainly interested in criticism that is thought through over a long time, but these are intended to give you an opinion as to quality on release. The anti consumer practices are out there. You know of them. The review should not change based on price or other issues unless they impact the game directly.
Only thing I'll comment on is reviewing pre-release content. What should they do? Wait a month? What value does that serve to you? I'm certainly interested in criticism that is thought through over a long time, but these are intended to give you an opinion as to quality on release. The anti consumer practices are out there. You know of them. The review should not change based on price or other issues unless they impact the game directly.