Support NeoGAF

[Clear]

Please take your used game ranting to a thread about a console game, please. Also, take your astroturf with you.

LOL. Truth hurts I guess.

Listen up: When you are talking about micro-transactions and the like. you are dealing with economic issues and decisions. The rationale behind the institution of these measures to maximize digital revenue is directly related to market conditions regarding first-sale at retail whether you like it or not.


PS. ME3 and DS3 are both console games, so my comment is perfectly on topic. Idiot.

 

[Riposte]

Meanwhile, those particular games have demonstratively influenced the way industry people approach their design and procedural messages, along with informing how people in general can understand games as procedures of meaning.

Demonstratively in what way?

Using videogames to express "meaning" is pretty misguided in the first place. If he is trying to get some political idea across (activism games lol) he would be better off (or at least more honest) writing it out clearly (although he might become less noteworthy if his ideas are nothing special).

 

[Vire]

LOL. Truth hurts I guess.

Listen up: When you are talking about micro-transactions and the like. you are dealing with economic issues and decisions. The rationale behind the institution of these measures to maximize digital revenue is directly related to market conditions regarding first-sale at retail whether you like it or not.


PS. ME3 and DS3 are both console games, so my comment is perfectly on topic. Idiot.

Hey now, let's not get all Ian Bogost on everyone.

GAF is on the same team.

 

[inky]

Games are constantly changing now and that needs to be reflected in their critiques. But how do you shoot a moving target like that?

I'd like to say that getting rid of traditional, scoring reviews would be one way, but no one in the industry actually likes that. When sales and notoriety is so front-loaded, it makes sense that editorial efforts would be the same, mostly for commercial interests. The holy number is Oh so important too.

Maybe it's on us to be more critical or demanding of what information reviews present and how too. For example, I don't know who is serviced by the prominent use of the word "perfect" in Polygon's SC review other than EA, but they can also cop-out by saying it's not criticism per-se but mostly purchasing advice for general audiences.

Tough nut to crack, but in the meantime I enjoy the way Giantbomb does its coverage. They don't abide by most review schedules either, probably because they know their bombcast and quick-looks and other types of coverage are sometimes a much better window into what the game actually is. As much as I like the site, I don't bother with their reviews either because I mostly know what they will say, and the number is irrelevant to me.

Spoiler

Other than for mocking purposes

 

[charsace]

I see nothing but really good games in the OP. Or am I wrong?

 

[Vire]

 

[TGMIII]

Yeah, I can see why so many people seemingly don't like him very much here on GAF.

The issue with his Nier review isn't that he refused to finish his review or score it. It's that he was unable to progress due to his own stupidity, something completely caused by himself, and after being corrected still refused to review the game.

 

[Jake Tower]

This picture is going to follow him for the rest of his career, and deservedly so.

It's the perfect bookend to

http://thetimebelt.tumblr.com/

 

[JABEE]

I like when everyone that matters apologizes to each other and they can go back to not thinking about the criticisms of their editorial work. The unwashed masses don't matter anyway.

 

[Empty]

that's so rude but also absolutely hilarious.

 

[partyphone]

The sites that were given early access to the game were playing on servers expressly set up for reviewers. The reviewers knew this. It would be naive of any of them to assume the real servers would be as stable. Especially on launch day. They'll likely be unstable all week. No one ever buys enough capacity for launch because they'll never need it again. Polygon was the first major site to publish their review. Clicks were more important to them than journalism.

 

[RiccochetJ]

I like when everyone that matters apologizes to each other and they can go back to not thinking about the criticisms of their editorial work. The unwashed masses don't matter anyway.

Well the obvious solution should be that the unwashed masses stop visiting the site.

 

[H2Yo]

I think it's also important to note that Polygon's review scores are influenced by the personal beliefs of the reviewer. I disagree with this method, since everyone has their own opinion on what is offensive and what isn't; It doesn't add anything of value since it's all so broad.

For instance Arthur said that Far Cry 3 villainized homosexuality.

Spoiler

Sure, Buck insinuated that he was homosexual but it's not this that made him an evil/crazy character

 

[sixghost]

It is a prerequisite to allow the execution as is minimum specifications.
It just happens to have other motivations (that can be understood as sensible, but I won't argue this) and be a bigger deterrent (since you should not expect a continuously available connection).

It doesn't constitute the game, it isn't a content of it.



Skyrim at 0fps matters, since it interferes with the usability and playability as intended by the creator.

For as long as reviews are primarily aimed at informing purchases, DRM is fair game. If Halo 5 costs $600, you better believe that would be factored into reviews, despite it having nothing to do with the actual game.

 

[MrDaravon]

Holy shit, I completely missed the whole SimCity review score change debacle, goddamn.

I was just going to come in to say that the main problem I have with Polygon's reviews and why I can't take them seriously (regardless of how I feel about their scores) is the complete absurdity of their written text. There are multiple examples in the OP and the thread already so I won't belabor the point, but it's goddamn ridiculous. It utterly reeks of nothing but specifically trying to present the appearance of being extremely well written and "different" from other sites, but just comes off as hilariously overwritten and verbose. It's not present with all of their reviewers, but it's there for most of them and it's very clear the direction comes from Gies.

 

[Usobuko]

I like when everyone that matters apologizes to each other and they can go back to not thinking about the criticisms of their editorial work. The unwashed masses don't matter anyway.

You have to wait for 'popular' youtube reviewers/game personalities to take this up like they did it with capcom, and rightfully so.

 

[erpg]

This is my favourite. I love the vgjournalism clique mentality.

 

[Neki]

Optional microtransactions that affect gameplay decisions and game design?

Diablo 3 is next to unbeatable on Nightmare without purchasing things from the Real Money Auction house.

I hope you're kidding, people got to inferno long before the RMAH existed.

 

[Clear]

GAF is on the same team.

I don't appreciate being flat-out accused of being a shill for EA marketing astro-turfing the thread.

That's rude, and completely untrue.

 

[Yawnier]

The issue with his Nier review isn't that he refused to finish his review or score it. It's that he was unable to progress due to his own stupidity, something completely caused by himself, and after being corrected still refused to review the game.

Well, at least he has some integrity in that case.

Spoiler

lol

 

[Reluctant-Hero]

Just caught up on this most recent bit of "gaming journalism" drama. Wow.

 

[catotheyounger]

I keep seeing it on this thread and am getting annoyed that GAF is conflating the two, but Journalism ≠ Criticism.

 

[Doctor Decimate]

This is my favourite. I love the vgjournalism clique mentality.

they all write for the same site. i know what you're talking about, but i don't think it applies in this case.

 

[JABEE]

I keep seeing it on this thread and am getting annoyed that GAF is conflating the two, but Journalism ≠ Criticism.

Criticism is a branch of Journalism.

 

[Mik_Pad]

Lol

@ibogost: Btw, waves and kisses to everyone at Neogaf...

https://twitter.com/ibogost/status/309106089977315329

 

[DaBuddaDa]

they all write for the same site. i know what you're talking about, but i don't think it applies in this case.

What's even more disturbing is aegies trading snarky tweets with PR reps about the whole ordeal.

 

[Forsaken82]

Yeah, As if people who were going to buy it are all of a sudden put off on there purchase by an "8" instead of a 9.5. What if these issues are fixed by tomorrow? Does the score go back to a 9.5? Where does it stop?

Again, this is why Scores are destroying the integrity of any review and the medium they are posted under. Why don't they adjust scores weeks or months down the road when a game is patched to perfection? It is an imperfect system. So much emphasis on one number because 90% of the world is to lazy to read. I think everyone should adopt a system where the score is removed and replaced by simply a cliffnotes version of positives and negatives. (think IGN minus the score and shitty journalism)

 

[Metalmurphy]

They review the game for what it is and don't get blindsided by irrational hate? Gotta start reading more of their reviews.

 

[EmCeeGramr]

There should be a new thread for this SimCity and score-changing stuff, shouldn't there?

 

[IrishNinja]

not familiar with Bogost prior, but will do so now, wow

anti-consumer is the dumbest fucking word.

charging for the game at all is anti-consumer. get over it. companies take massive risk to fund these projects and they have to make a profit to continue doing it at all.

carve this post on gaming's tombstone

 

[AppleSmack]

Diablo 3 a 10? Dead Space 3 a 9.5? They are out of their minds. "Integrity" my ass.

 

[Vire]

There should be a new thread for this SimCity and score-changing stuff, shouldn't there?

It's pretty well covered in the OP...

I guess a mod could change the thread title to reflect the drama that went down.

 

[MoxManiac]

Dead space 3 isnt any more action-y then dead space 2 was. And the microtransactions in ds3, as odious as they are, are easily ignored.

 

[Vire]

Dead space 3 isnt any more action-y then dead space 2 was. And the microtransactions in ds3, as odious as they are, are easily ignored.

Patently false.

1. Cover System

2. Universal ammunition

3. Fighting human enemies for part of the game instead of necromorphs

4. Weapons are no longer mining utilities, instead they are straight up guns.

 

[antitrop]

Dead space 3 isnt any more action-y then dead space 2 was. And the microtransactions in ds3, as odious as they are, are easily ignored.

Those who have issue with the microtransactions in Dead Space 3 should take it up with Brad Shoemaker, as well.

He stated on the Bombcast that he felt the microtransactions had no effect on the overall gameplay or balance of the game, should you choose not to purchase them.

 

[spindoctor]

Polygon should institute a new review policy where every game gets a 10/10 right out of the gate so that they get the hits, then they can wait a couple of days for it to go up on Metacritic so that the publisher is happy and then they finally revise the score because 'integrity' and any fool who believed their review can go fuck himself.

 

[Riposte]

Patently false.

1. Cover System

2. Universal ammunition

3. Fighting human enemies for part of the game instead of necromorphs

4. Weapons are no longer mining utilities, instead they are straight up guns.

None of these make a game more or less "action-y".

 

[RedNumberFive]

What's even more disturbing is aegies trading snarky tweets with PR reps about the whole ordeal.

It's sad that this behavior doesn't surprise me anymore, and instead is expected.

 

[Vire]

None of these make a game more or less "action-y".

Says the guy with a RE5 avatar. C'mon...

Stop trollin'.

 

[DaBuddaDa]

Jeff Gerstmann real talk on tumblr:

Anonymous asked:
"Changing review scores after launch: why have you decided to not allow it?"

For now we’re comfortable posting video coverage timed to a game’s release and following up with a review when it’s ready. It’s one of the big reasons why the Quick Look was implemented in the first place: To give people something to see for themselves on or around release day, when interest surrounding a game is typically at its highest. We didn’t originally anticipate that this content would end up becoming more popular than the reviews themselves, but it’s been a pretty happy accident, I suppose.

In some ways, the idea that the review itself needs to be the thing that lives on and remains relevant for all time is just absurd to begin with. Reviews are generally good for about 21 days, and after that, who cares? With that much time under its belt, more and more people will be turning to overall word of mouth and additional non-editorial sources for purchasing advice. Struggling against that tide to ensure that your one-page article remains useful just in case someone stumbles upon it six months later seems like a bad use of time. Leave them up for historical context, since some people are still interested in that sort of information, and move on. If games warrant further coverage as they change, post new coverage devoted to those changes. Maybe post links to that coverage at the end of the old review page?

People playing a service-driven game over a long stretch will go on to want dedicated coverage and insight from someone that has stayed with that game all along, not some reviewer who is cruising back into a game for a few days to see if the latest patch makes some part of an old review obsolete.

 

[catotheyounger]

So ultimately this thread comes down to the division of perception of what games are: products or art. If a product, any "anticonsumer aspects" embedded in it should be subject of scorn. If art, then the content of the review take on the form of a critique and is subject to the reviewer's sensibilities - the credibility of which is derived from the reader and the relationship/trust they have with the writer.

Perhaps is it is Polygon's folly to try to appease both schools of thought, but one thing is for certain: there is no pleasing GAF.

 

[Lord_Nergal]

There should be a new thread for this SimCity and score-changing stuff, shouldn't there?

No. Polygon has had this in their review rubric since day 1. There's not really any controversy, unless you disagree with re-reviewing games entirely.

 

[MoxManiac]

You fight human enemies like 10% of the game, if that. Its stupid, but the encounters against humans are pretty sparse.

Im pretty sure the universal ammo was to facilitate the weapon crafting system more than anything.

DS3 has its problems, but they are getting blown out of proportion.

 

[Etnos]

I like Polygon for the most part, but their reviews are lacking.

This, I wouldn`t even read a lot into it.. I just think they need better reviewers.

 

[DragonSworne]

Polygon should be above reviewing games.

Reviewing games seems to clash with the image they are trying to cultivate...

 

[Casimir]

None of that is true.

Not gonna sit here and defend the guy all day, but he didn't review Nier. He refused to because he got to a point in the game he couldn't get past, so just posted a video telling everyone he wasn't going to review it, which got taken as a negative. I think a lot of writers would have just posted an uninformed review based on the part of the game that they did play. He's a pretty straight up guy I think.

The other part of your sentence doesn't really make sense.

The reason everyone got upset was that the point he got stuck at requires the mental skills of a small child to bypass, let alone an adult who is purportedly supposed to have a modicum of proficiency with the medium. Then when his obvious failures were pointed out by other people, instead of apologizing for his mistake like an actual adult would have, he doubled down on defending his reasoning and dismissed the legitimate criticism. That's why he gets criticized when he comments on GAF (and on twitter) with a sense of self aggrandizement.



/For the record, I don't really hold Nier, then or now, in any special regard.

RPS used to be better but these days they seem obsessed with either hyperblic ranting about the game or trying to interpret the games as harshly as possible so they can jump back on their hobby horse about racism/sexism/whatever other ism they feel will bring the clicks. The sites declined in general over the last few months.

More or less why I stopped visiting the site completely.

 

[JABEE]

No. Polygon has had this in their review rubric since day 1. There's not really any controversy, unless you disagree with re-reviewing games entirely.

They aren't re-reviewing the same game. They pushed out a review that was instantly obsolete. They mentioned changing the score and content yesterday. They did it for business reasons not to be accurate.

 

[Riposte]

In some ways, the idea that the review itself needs to be the thing that lives on and remains relevant for all time is just absurd to begin with. Reviews are generally good for about 21 days, and after that, who cares?

It should be no surprise then that Jeff Gerstmann's work is entirely disposable.

Says the guy with a RE5 avatar. C'mon...

Stop trollin'.

Okay?

 

[Lord_Nergal]

They aren't re-reviewing the same game. They pushed out a review that was instantly obsolete. They mentioned changing the score and content yesterday. They did it for business reasons not to be accurate.

Business reasons according to you? Their reviewer had a different experience, and the initial review shows that.

 

[Vire]

Jeff Gerstmann real talk on tumblr:

Or why I love Giant Bomb.