Kill Your Masters
Member
I won't support this garbage.
"Purchase a server slot now" is missing, so not as bad as I thought.
Polygon gives high scores to games despite their anti-consumer aspects / DRM strategy
- Thread starter Vire
- Start date
"Purchase a server slot now" is missing, so not as bad as I thought.
Depends on the DRM though. A "normal consumer" is less likely to put up with cumbersome barriers, unlike hardcore gamers. There's a reason why they tend to gravitate toward services that are less restrictive and imposing.
I get that sense as well.
Other outlets were also allowed to play on these private servers and did. Polygon just decided their clicks were worth more than the correct assessment of the game in conditions the customer experiences it in.
And if they decide to score the game a bit down because the game is shittily playable for a few days, it won't matter. EA will be happy because Metacritic doesn't update scores of publications when there was a re-assessment.
So every publication: Score high until you're on Metacritic. People make reasonable objections, change the score to appease them but you get to keep the good publisher relation because on Metacritic you're still listed with the previous score while also appearing to be the guys that can "update the score to reflect the reality of the situation." Easy.
voodoopanda
Member
I thought this was a pretty interesting article about Polygon's Dead Space 3 review specifically: http://www.mammon-machine.com/post/42805935533/review-criticism-a-dead-space-3-review-reignites-the
Doesn't have to do with the score or DRM issue entirely, but has some insights into the writing itself.
Doesn't have to do with the score or DRM issue entirely, but has some insights into the writing itself.
GraveRobberX
Platinum Trophy: Learned to Shit While Upright Again.
I'm waiting for jschrier (Kotaku dude) to come in, link to his website, and uphold the Journalistic Integrity!
They could have held off reviewing it until it was in a more playable state, maybe do a "what I think so far" article that mentioned the connection issues and say something like "we feel that it is unfair to render a review score considering the game's current state". Alternately they could've at least docked a point because, even if temporarily, the game you just bought for 60 bucks doesn't work.
I don't feel this particular policy is different from other sites, either. I don't think ME3 or DS3 deserve flack for the transactions considering they had no negative effect on the game itself.
Diablo 3 is a much hotter target considering the always online thing is a poor practice and was shown quite often with the constant server downtimes blocking access to the game. However, polygon is hardly an outlier here. IGN, Giant Bomb, Eurogamer, Gameinformer, Polygon, etc. etc. all gave glowing reviews. I'm not sure why this topic is targeting Polygon specifically.
Posts like these make me sooo pissed that they cancelled my pre-order. I have this super nice hardcover strategy guide and no game to game with it. ;_;
Shit, stop giving them ideas.
Vire
Member
Mass Effect is definitely the least of the offenders but it still had:
1. Day One DLC that was an integral part of the story (Javik and the Protheans whole back story)
2. Pre-Order Bonuses up the wazhoo.
3. Pay to become more powerful business model for multiplayer.
The other games are guilty of far more, which is incredibly sad.
:lol :/
Because members of niche enthusiast discussion boards represent the vast majority of game buyers.
They fleshed out the ending a bit with some new cutscenes, but also made a DLC mission that came midway through the game to retroactively set up the finale better.
Steve Youngblood
Member
I can see taking issue with reviews not being critical enough, but I don't necessarily think that stuff like DRM/microtransactions/other monetizing mechanics should automatically be grounds for point deduction. I mean, they should if you can elucidate why these mechanisms get in the way of things. But I don't know if a typical user necessarily has complaints about Diablo 3's always online requirement, or the integration with the real money auction house. The former won't be a problem if your connection always works when you go to play, and the latter doesn't really become apparent until late in the game.
Again, what I'm contesting here is not that they aren't problematic and deserving of no point deduction, as I think such an assessment would be completely fair, particularly if argued well in the text of the review. But I just don't necessarily agree that failure to acknowledge these factors is indicative in and of itself of shoddy reviewing.
Again, what I'm contesting here is not that they aren't problematic and deserving of no point deduction, as I think such an assessment would be completely fair, particularly if argued well in the text of the review. But I just don't necessarily agree that failure to acknowledge these factors is indicative in and of itself of shoddy reviewing.
Vire
Member
Are you kidding? Of course they do...
Go take a gander on Amazon reviews of the game.
EDIT: Here http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00178630A/?tag=neogaf0e-20
Can a typical user even complete the hardest difficulty without using the auction house?
Visualante2
Member
Pretty amusing that almost half their top rated games have had some backlash from the core.
The odds are kind of against them since they launched into an era of especially shittyproducts services.
The odds are kind of against them since they launched into an era of especially shitty
The problem with most game reviewers/journalists is they write articles for consumers, but they don't write articles that are from the consumer's perspective. They base their review or articles around the game itself, not the meta part of what they consumer has to endure DRM wise or grimy parts of the entire package.
Game journalists like to appeal to an audience rather than inform them and critique elements that are not consumer friendly.
Game journalists like to appeal to an audience rather than inform them and critique elements that are not consumer friendly.
Riposte
Member
It sounds like you are more interested in pushing your ideas onto game development than anything else. I have a more flexible stance because I'm not trying to dictate what developers do.
Okay, I really don't like seeing this kind of dismissive talk whenever someone tries to call out a review outlet for giving inflated scores to heavily marketed games.
Who cares about review scores? Everyone. Tons of people use numerical scores to help evaluate a product's quality against competing products in the market. Developers receive (or don't receive) portions of their pay according to the average Metacritic score, which is derived solely from the numerical scores given by review sites.
Ideally the content of a review should be what's most important, but acting like the number score given at the end isn't paramount is simply denying reality. And speaking of content, just look at some of the pull-quote examples that have been posted in this very thread. Does that seem like the type of quality content that reflects legitimate criticism and discernment to you? It's a joke.
That's not to say that Polygon is unique in this failing. Not by a long shot. Giving big-budget games 9's and 10's is as easy as breathing for almost every publication and web site nowadays, and it has been this way for years now (shameless plug for an article I wrote years ago).
Game reviews have so many problems from the top down that I'm not sure where anyone could even begin to start reversing the negative trends that plague game criticism on the whole. They typically focus too much on praising or damning individual "components" of the game, such as graphics, sound, story... etc. Games are reviewed more like pieces of software than they are pieces of interaction fiction, and that's not good. Worst of all, there is an inherent conflict of interest in that the people reviewing the games are the same ones who are being flown out to publisher-backed game events, given review copies and ads for their publication or web site, and possibly even directly incentivised with straight cash-for-scores offers.
___________
tl;dr - Scores matter, a lot. Games "criticism" is nothing of the sort.
If you're reviewing a game what can you really do for these two? Assuming that anyone reviewing the game is reviewing exactly what is on the disc and not any preorder or Day 1 DLC, they can't doc the game points for something that isn't there that they haven't experienced. Assuming the game doesn't feel like it is missing something (which I personally didn't think ME3 did when I played it without Javik), they can only rate it on what they actually played. You can't just be like "well there's some DLC out there I haven't played so let's subtract 1 from my rating."
Vire
Member
No, they don't necessarily have to subtract from the score. But definitely at least acknowledge it in a major way in the body of the review.
Probably because they don't actually have to buy most of the games they review.
I haven't read any of their reviews at all though (nothing against the site, but I can just GameFly any game I'm mildly interested in), so I can't really criticize.
Part of the problem of reviews for these 'games as a service' is that reviews are static and don't reflect the games other than in it's 1st day on the market.
Whether it's always-online DRM, added content and features, balancing and bug fixes, reviews today fail miserably to reflect the up-to-date status of a game and adjust the scores accordingly.
When was the last time a big site re-visited and re-reviewed a game and raised\lowered its score?
These reviews are of no use to anyone who reads them on any other day than the day they were posted at. If reviews are there to notify readers about the product they are considering the buy then today's reviews are irrelevant for anyone who is looking to buy a game outside of it's day\week of launch.
Diablo reviews should have been revisited; Simcity reviews should be revisited; L4D2 reviews. At their current state these reviews are false and misleading and aren't representative of the product you will buy.
I want to read reviews about TF2 and decide whether to download it (or buy it, before it went F2P). 99% of the reviews available of the game are outdated, misleading and flat-out false. (I think only Eurogamer did a re-review of the game).
Whether it's always-online DRM, added content and features, balancing and bug fixes, reviews today fail miserably to reflect the up-to-date status of a game and adjust the scores accordingly.
When was the last time a big site re-visited and re-reviewed a game and raised\lowered its score?
These reviews are of no use to anyone who reads them on any other day than the day they were posted at. If reviews are there to notify readers about the product they are considering the buy then today's reviews are irrelevant for anyone who is looking to buy a game outside of it's day\week of launch.
Diablo reviews should have been revisited; Simcity reviews should be revisited; L4D2 reviews. At their current state these reviews are false and misleading and aren't representative of the product you will buy.
I want to read reviews about TF2 and decide whether to download it (or buy it, before it went F2P). 99% of the reviews available of the game are outdated, misleading and flat-out false. (I think only Eurogamer did a re-review of the game).
While I agree with you, the pull quotes from this thread have all been headlines or closing paragraphs, which is not much more than posting just the score. While I agree that some of Arthur Gies' reviews read more like a cheerleader, the ENTIRETY of some of those reviews shows a lot more thoughtfulness than people are giving credit for.
Steve Youngblood
Member
I'm not trying to be obtuse, but the kinds of people that write these belligerent Amazon reviews aren't necessarily indicative of typical users to me. I've seen plenty of reviews written prerelease about some titles simply because they are using Steamworks with the retail disc.
Is a typical user even playing through Nightmare mode?
Because Amazon reviews are always a reflection of public opinion.
out0v0rder
Member
i am going to start a review site of reviews
Riposte
Member
So because they got something worth 60 dollars for free you think they don't care about online (i.e. the game itself) not working?
Normal people reading their reviews don't know about them. They have a platform to evaluate games. I think they should take their platform more seriously than they do. You shouldn't review a game that relies on always-online without experiencing the game that is available today.
Special arrangements with EA who are almost certainly providing more support to media is not an accurate representation of the game. Saying you will change the score and contents of the review later is a cop out. It's about wanting early page views, but still having the chance to nix everything if they get egg on their face and prove to be an un-credible source for information.
Just write a preview of your experience if you want to make content for the site. Don't spout out hyperbole about a game that may not even work when it launches. What if the game never works? You have already told a large percentage of videogame buyers that this game is a 9.5 and is incredible.
killer rin
Member
I honestly dont see a problem with Polygon. They make some great content. Read their features sometimes.
2/10. Has some serious transparency issues.
Quick 'n' Dirty (just like Polygon):
2/10. Has some serious transparency issues.
I'll give you the whole Javik thing being poorly handled, but stuff like preorders are so common that there are so many more games that can be added to having a blind eye turned towards them.
Hell, just looking at your avatar and the last of us preorder bonuses, you get single player skins, bonus cash and xp in multiplayer, which I believe is competitive meaning this stuff is far worse than the ME3 co-op gambling stuff which can be easily ignored. This goes out of its way to give people an edge with the preorder. I hate these practices, but some in parciular can simply not be ignored at this point without having a damn near 100% rate of simply not supporting games anymore and renting everything.
Vire
Member
The funny part is that Polygon claimed that they would alter reviews at a later date if deemed necessary. Which I actually applauded them for when they came out with that policy, but I have yet to see it put into action appropriately.
Blizzard's statistics say absolutely fucking not.
It's a fraction of 1% who even got that far.
I urge you to read the entire DS3 review that Arthur wrote then. He devotes almost 2 paragraphs talking about how the formula of the game is starting to wear thin, and a whole sidebar about the difficulty levels and how veteran Dead Space gamers might want to jack it up a bit.
I also thought his analysis of how the new weapon crafting system complements the changed enemy behavior to be interesting, and how they try to balance each other out.
Why not? I think even hell might be difficult without using the AH.
I hear you. The quality of the writing on Polygon is at times better than the average fair that you see in other reviews. That being said, the hyperbolic aspects and inflated review scores given to heavily-marketed games pretty much undo all of that good in the end.
But like I said, that's a symptom of "game criticism" as a whole right now. A game getting a 9 or a 10 from a web site means little more than "this game has a lot of money riding on it" these days.
I only have photoshop available at the moment, and I didn't feel like spending an hour for a quick joke.
I think it's fair to say that in most of these high-profile cases the common man's opinion is much more in line with Neogaf's than review sites.
If you look at user reviews on a variety of sites, anecdotal evidence, other forums, etc, I think it's safe to say that a lot of people were disappointed with D3. My coworkers complained about it non-stop.
It's possible that there is some silent majority of people who think games like D3 are the best games of all time but I don't see any evidence for that at all.
XANDER CAGE
Member
"Anti-consumer" has become a bit of a buzzword recently. It's being tossed around like fact in a lot of discussions, as if it's a well-understood thing that everyone understands the same way.
I certainly don't disagree that the games listed (Dead Space 3 and Sim City in particular) have some egregious problems that are bad for the end-user/consumer, but "anti-consumer" needs to stop being used as a catch-all for bad business decisions. Explain why it's anti-consumer. Explain why these are things that should affect reviews, or how these reviews should tackle these problems. I agree with the premise of this thread but that's just something that bugs me, I guess. Just saying, "Ha! It how microtransactions! You like anti-consumer bullshit!" doesn't really say much about the game, nor does it really foster discussion.
The real conversation should be: should reviews focus on business practice, or the gameplay itself? What line needs to be crossed before one affects the other?
I certainly don't disagree that the games listed (Dead Space 3 and Sim City in particular) have some egregious problems that are bad for the end-user/consumer, but "anti-consumer" needs to stop being used as a catch-all for bad business decisions. Explain why it's anti-consumer. Explain why these are things that should affect reviews, or how these reviews should tackle these problems. I agree with the premise of this thread but that's just something that bugs me, I guess. Just saying, "Ha! It how microtransactions! You like anti-consumer bullshit!" doesn't really say much about the game, nor does it really foster discussion.
The real conversation should be: should reviews focus on business practice, or the gameplay itself? What line needs to be crossed before one affects the other?
You can't do that for any PC game. That's how it's been for decades because of the technical nature of them.
If a PC game has no DRM you can give your friend a copy, but that's about it.
Also, scores do matter. Scores may be stupid, but having a score and having a presence on MetaCritic matters for significant financial reasons.
If you don't give out scores, you don't count towards MetaCritic. PR people favor sites that give out scores because these sites affect whether they get a bonus or not. Sites with scoring systems that line up with MetaCritics way of breaking down scores are more likely to give closer to a 10, if you mark down a 5 to a 4 like GiantBomb, you are already down to an 8 on MC.
There are financial implications to scores that shouldn't be ignored. Their existence is to inform for some, but I believe it is just an excuse to justify the marketing reasons scoring exists.
If you don't give out scores, you don't count towards MetaCritic. PR people favor sites that give out scores because these sites affect whether they get a bonus or not. Sites with scoring systems that line up with MetaCritics way of breaking down scores are more likely to give closer to a 10, if you mark down a 5 to a 4 like GiantBomb, you are already down to an 8 on MC.
There are financial implications to scores that shouldn't be ignored. Their existence is to inform for some, but I believe it is just an excuse to justify the marketing reasons scoring exists.
Dreams-Visions
Member
they do like their hyperbole, don't they.
Hi i'm Caleb
Member
Their job is to review the game.
Not the game or game company's business practices.
Not the game or game company's business practices.
The problem with threads like this is that they lump together wildly different complaints in broad categories acting like they're all equivalent even though they may have radically different effects upon consumers.
Always-on DRM heavily affects customers, and it should absolutely be considered in a game's judgment. But on Polygon's case - they do, with extensive sidebars in their review discussing things in detail about how it could affect their game. Should that discussion lead to a lower score? Depends on if you want to judge the merits of the game purely as a game, or if technical details should come up too. That's subjective - there's no single right way of doing things.
Microtransactions are another story entirely. I haven't played Dead Space 3, but everything I've read and heard about it suggests that if you ignore microtransactions, you'd never feel like you're missing anything. The game scales up their dispersal well, you can easily get everything you'd want by halfway through the game, and it's not any worse because microtransactions exist.
If the game design wasn't compromised by microtransactions, is it really "anti-consumer"?
Always-on DRM heavily affects customers, and it should absolutely be considered in a game's judgment. But on Polygon's case - they do, with extensive sidebars in their review discussing things in detail about how it could affect their game. Should that discussion lead to a lower score? Depends on if you want to judge the merits of the game purely as a game, or if technical details should come up too. That's subjective - there's no single right way of doing things.
Microtransactions are another story entirely. I haven't played Dead Space 3, but everything I've read and heard about it suggests that if you ignore microtransactions, you'd never feel like you're missing anything. The game scales up their dispersal well, you can easily get everything you'd want by halfway through the game, and it's not any worse because microtransactions exist.
If the game design wasn't compromised by microtransactions, is it really "anti-consumer"?