Support NeoGAF

[Apath]

That is exactly the 10 point scale that they don't use and no one should. There's no point in having 1-5 if it means one thing.

Think of it like a test score. 1%-59% still means you failed, and on its own there really is no distinction. However when you weigh it against the rest of your tests (other reviews), that's where the distinction is made, as a 1% will throw off the average a lot more than a 59% will.

That's how I see it at least.

 

[RedSwirl]

Outside of reviews, is GAF in general still not aware of Polygon's features? Overall I consider them to be excellent (many are contracted), and they're just about the main reason I visit the site.

 

[Vane_MagicCity]

I agree that DRM is part of the package. I do not agree that it is as much a part of the game as any other part.

More actually. You will never see the same content everytime you play Diablo III but you will see the DRM everytime you play Diablo III.

Not only are you right, your awesome Powerslave avatar makes you irrefutable!

Thanks. Those were the days when Iron Maiden was on top of the world.

 

[sikkinixx]

I dont really get the point of knocking a 1.5 off the score. Won't it go right back up when server issues are eventually patched up? If that's the case why not remove the score for now until issues are sorted?

 

[Complex Shadow]

The press does a good job of informing you about DRM.
Also, it's the consumer job to defend their position, by not buying.
I think it worked for Dead Space 3. And the press wasn't even too harsh on it. Will EA get a clue? No, they'll just close the studio.
Nothing the press could've changed, to be honest.

Saying the press couldn't of done anything kind of gives the press the benefit of the doubt.

And second of all. i agree with the whole thing of not buying a game because you don't want to support publisher and will just hurt the developer. but I still won't buy a game just because I like the developer. although I know I, as a consumer, have to do more than just" not buy games" to get my point across. I don't know what that is yet. But I hope to find out soon.

 

[MegaKungFuRadio]

Think of it like a test score. 1%-59% still means you failed, and on its own there really is no distinction. However when you weigh it against the rest of your tests (other reviews), that's where the distinction is made, as a 1% will throw off the average a lot more than a 59% will.

That's how I see it at least.

So the way you see it is that we need more of the scale to describe how bad something is, completely disregarding the fact that anything at or below the point of being considered a failure is immediately dismissed by most people, as well as the fact that almost all games that get reviewed are at least average, than to distinguish all the other games that are average to nearly perfect.

More actually. You will never see the same content everytime you play Diablo III but you will see the DRM everytime you play Diablo III.

I disagree because even if I have to go through the DRM every time I play Diablo III, it doesn't affect my experience every time I play it.

 

[squidyj]

This thread is not about giving games that I don't like high scores.

That seems to be exactly what it's about, the fact that what you don't like is the practices in the games doesn't make it any less true. You're still suggesting that these games are deserving of a lower score because you believe they are in some way flawed or bad.

 

[Kurdel]

I dont really get the point of knocking a 1.5 off the score. Won't it go right back up when server issues are eventually patched up? If that's the case why not remove the score for now until issues are sorted?

Considering some people's bonuses can be affected by a Metacritic score, it can be a good way to aknowledge a game is good, but withold the full score until they get their shit together.

In this case it doesn't do shit, because Metacritic has kept the 9.5 score up on their site...

 

[DocSeuss]

Outside of reviews, is GAF in general still not aware of Polygon's features? Overall I consider them to be excellent (many are contracted), and they're just about the main reason I visit the site.

I feel like most gaffers aren't. I think I've heard to some referring to them as PR, though, because apparently they've not read, say, the Homefront one.

 

[Boss Doggie]

I'm more surprised GAF respects Polygon even though it's headed by a notorious person.

 

[The Crimson Kid]

This whole SimCity scoring incident has been handled extremely poorly and just serves to further tarnish whatever credibility Polygon might have. No matter what way you look at this, the impression given as to the integrity and/or the competence of the Polygon review staff is not good.

If you assume the most favorable reason for how this happened, which is that the review was rushed, didn't take into consideration the potential launch day issues from the always-online requirement, was poorly edited, and rushed out the door in order to generate maximum traffic, then Polygon comes off as a bunch of amateurs who can't edit a review to save their lives, were unable to see the entirely predictable issues that arose on day 1 of a game that required a constant connection to a server (and how that experience might differ from a prerelease review session on nearly empty servers), and who seem bent on maximizing the clicks they get over the quality of their work. Which, would be odd coming from a site that pitched themselves as a group of games journalism veterans determined to change games journalism as we know it.

If you assume the worst scenario, which is that this move was a calculated attempt to manipulate Metacritic to curry favor with EA before amending the score to their real opinion, then they come off as bought shills of the highest order.

For the record, I don't think the worst case scenario is what actually happened, although I can totally see how people would be justified in believing that. My guess is more the best case scenario, where the review was hastily written and rushed through editorial to get online at the best time, and they completely failed to realize the historical reality of online-only games having server troubles around launch. And after the game launched (and servers predictably failed), they realized they had screwed up in the review and remembered the line in their policy about "evolving" reviews, which they used to give themselves the out they needed.

The problem is that their editors are using the evolving policy as an excuse to cover their ass for posting irresponsible reporting.

Sim City didn't evolve.

This post succinctly nails it.

If this policy were intended to give readers an accurate impression of the post-launch state of the game (and not as an avenue to give themselves an out in an embarrassing situation), then why hasn't it been used yet, despite several obvious opportunities to do so? Did the several free Mass Effect 3 MP expansions not deserve an extra paragraph, despite bringing huge changes to the core game, let alone two SP DLC packs that altered or added to the main plot? What about the massive launch issues, the several additions, the multiple balance updates, and the developer apologies related to Diablo 3? While there are other examples, these two were massive releases that saw dramatic changes after launch, and if this policy of theirs was truly meant to properly inform readers of the post-launch state of a game, then surely that would have been done for at least these two games?

To my knowledge, this is the first time they have used this policy of theirs. By them using this policy first on the launch day of a game to reduce the review score by 15% due to an issue that was easily predictable and not for other, more viable candidates several months after launch, it appears to me that the whole point of having this policy wasn't to bring about a shift in game reviews with ongoing criticism, but rather as a built-in panic button they could hit at any time if they screwed up too bad.

In no way does this fall under their policy of amending "evolving" reviews ( which to my knowledge has never happened before ) because the game has had zero time to evolve. Not only has the content of the game not seen any changes, it just came out today!

This just further validates my decision to only go to Polygon for the long-form stories.

I like Polygon, Gaf doesn't like anyone that posts news/reviews that's not Gaf. News at 11.

Also, I firmly believe that use of the "GAF hivemind" argument should be a bannable offense. It is exclusively used as a crutch for poorly-considered thoughts in addition to being a logical fallacy, and the only discussion the use of it leads to is about how they are wrong, which always diverts from the topic at hand.

 

[Vane_MagicCity]

I disagree because even if I have to go through the DRM every time I play Diablo III, it doesn't affect my experience every time I play it.

You mean logging in doesn't affect you?

Check this out. I can start Age of Mythology and in a matter of seconds the title screen will be up. However, if I try to play Starcraft II, Diablo III or any number of modern games, I have to log in first. That affects me, it slows me down and it makes me rethink playing at all. For Blizzard games, I have an authenticator to protect my account so there is another step that affects me.

You know, everytime I start ME2 or ME3 I have to wait a few seconds while the game contacts EA's servers and I often long for the days of starting a game without having to fuck with creating an account and logging in.

Are you sure DRM doesn't affect you?

 

[Darkmakaimura]

Apparently not though, key developers from the Dead Space crew said that Visceral Games is in stable condition and that they will continue to make Dead Space games.

So maybe (hopefully) the devs will say, look we did it your way EA, that didn't work. Let's get back to basics here.

That's probably being way too optimistic, but hey it could happen... :/

Visceral Games may be in stable condition (at least Redwood) but I don't think they ever straight out stated they are making more Dead Space games. Personally, I hope they do.

Curious why DS3 is mentioned so much for its microtransactions since there's a trick to farm nigh unlimited resources, making the transactions irrelevant. I guess unless you're not in the know or really that desperate, you can use it but DS3 makes those transactions a lot less of an option than probably a lot of games that offer them do.

 

[MegaKungFuRadio]

You mean logging in doesn't affect you?

Check this out. I can start Age of Mythology and in a matter of seconds the title screen will be up. However, if I try to play Starcraft II, Diablo III or any number of modern games, I have to log in first. That affects me, it slows me down and it makes me rethink playing at all. For Blizzard games, I have an authenticator to protect my account so there is another step that affects me.

You know, everytime I start ME2 or ME3 I have to wait a few seconds while the game contacts EA's servers and I often long for the days of starting a game without having to fuck with creating an account and logging in.

Are you sure DRM doesn't affect you?

No, I don't care that I have to log in or that I have to wait a few seconds while a game connects to servers to authenticate and I don't think that I said anything about it not affecting me. I said it doesn't affect how good I think a game is and I stand by it.

Edit: I see what you may have interpreted as me saying it doesn't affect me. What I meant is that it doesn't affect my experience (as in what I think about a game) every time I play it.

Edit 2: OK, maybe I do care, but not enough to say it's more a part of a game than the rest or for it affect my judgment of a game overall.

 

[freddy]

OT: I'm curious why the change won't be reflected on Metacritic. Can someone explain that to me?

Maybe metacritic respects when a review has already been paid for.

 

[Vire]

Visceral Games may be in stable condition (at least Redwood) but I don't think they ever straight out stated they are making more Dead Space games. Personally, I hope they do.

Curious why DS3 is mentioned so much for its microtransactions since there's a trick to farm nigh unlimited resources, making the transactions irrelevant. I guess unless you're not in the know or really that desperate, you can use it but DS3 makes those transactions a lot less of an option than probably a lot of games that offer them do.

I hope they do.

EA coming out and saying that Dead Space 4 being canceled was "patently false" implies that there was a Dead Space 4 to begin with.

*shrug*

 

[CouldBeWorse]

Outside of reviews, is GAF in general still not aware of Polygon's features? Overall I consider them to be excellent (many are contracted), and they're just about the main reason I visit the site.

Agreed.

The site layout is crap but the features have almost all been excellent. And highly varied. I almost always have one open in a tab on my phone.

A site is not just defined by its reviews.

 

[Vire]

Agreed.

The site layout is crap but the features have almost all been excellent. And highly varied. I almost always have one open in a tab on my phone.

A site is not just defined by its reviews.

I made a point to put that in the opening line in the OP.

I think their features are fantastic. They definitely cover things that other sites don't.

Reviews is an entirely different matter.

 

[DTKT]

Maybe metacritic respects when a review has already been paid for.

It's internal policy at Metacritic to never change the review score once it's been posted. There was a similar issue when the Gamespot Natural Selection 2 review was pulled because it's was inaccurate.

“I’m explicit about this policy with every new publication we agree to track. It’s a critic-protection measure, instituted in 2003 after I found that many publications had been pressured to raise review scores (or de-publish reviews) to satisfy outside influences. Our policy acted as a disincentive for these outside forces to apply that type of inappropriate pressure.” Metacritic Head, Marc Doyle stated on the matter.

 

[Radec]

How dare they have their own opinions, they're so terrible.

.

 

[Vire]

It's internal policy at Metacritic to never change the review score once it's been posted. There was a similar issue when the Gamespot Natural Selection 2 review was pulled because it's was inaccurate.

It's a good policy because it does protect from things like that happening.

Just because Polygon wants to be crazy doesn't mean they need to abide by their rules.

 

[GatorFan]

Arthur Geese

 

[Casimir]

I'm not asking for just a points reduction.

All I wanted is an honest discussion on how this is a problem for games going forward.

If they have a significant disclaimer warning the viewer of potential Microtransaction/Always On DRM/Other issues, then it is up to the reader to parse out that information and make their decisions afterwords.

Kinda like a General Sergeants warning right?

In my world, I would deduct points, but I realize this isn't necessarily feasible for reviewers.

Surgeon General's warning.

 

[Kurdel]

Are you sure DRM doesn't affect you?

This reads like an Onion article.

"Area man had to wait a few seconds before playing videogame.

"It was terrible", said the gamer, clenching his doritos and MTN dew, "I thought I could just turn the game on and play, but it had to connect to the internet to verify the account". He thought about turning the game off and launching a game that could be played offline, but that train of thought was swiftly interrupted by the title screen appearing on his monitor. The man did however, take the time to outline why this wait is unnaceptable to fellow forum goers, and why they should share his opinion."

Honestly, there are more legitimate complaints DRM than waiting a few seconds. The point they were making on Idle Thumbs about this game being at risk of being a thing only until EA shuts down the servers is a legitimate worry and a sad trade off if their goal was to stave off piracy.

 

[Vire]

Surgeon General's warning.

Thanks.

Hastily typed responses need to be corrected.

 

[cRIPticon]

Here's my review of these fine fine games:

Microtransactions? You bet!

So don't buy them. Grind or wait the time allotment.

Real Money Auction House? No problem!

See above.

Transition from survival horror game to third person shooter to sell more copies? Yep!

So they change the direction of the game and you don't care for it? So what?

Pay to win multiplayer mode? Sure thing

Ok, this one may suck the challenge out of the game a bit, but nothing forcing you to so.

Always Online DRM? Sharing is caring.

Not a big deal for me, YMMV.

Day One DLC? Wooo!

Yes? So? You do realize that there may be a significant lead time between when a game has gone gold and when it actually ships, right? If the dev team builds more for the game, and makes it available on day one as DLC, what's the big deal?

Pre-Order Bonuses? My favorite.

So the consumer gets a few extra bits for preordering the game they were going to buy anyway? What's the problem again?

Server's Busy? Well, you didn't want to play this game anyway

Is this your first time on the Internet? Predicting demand against the real and expensive costs of building infrastructure to meet peak is still very difficult to get right. Yeah, it may suck, but how the company responds is what matters. At any rate, it's not as if game companies don't want you to be able to connect. To imply that is just ridiculous.

This thread was made to discuss the current state of reviews in the games industry and how Polygon is failing the average gamer by not acknowledging / taking into account the anti-consumer stances that these games take.

I'm still waiting to hear the anti-consumer stances you are referring to.

 

[Vire]

So wait, just because they don't bother you means that it doesn't exist?

:lol

 

[cRIPticon]

So wait, just because they don't bother you means that it doesn't exist?

:lol

No, just because they implement these, or bother you, does not make them anti-consumer.

Oh, lol.

 

[michaeltraps]

This is an interesting conversation to have simply to discuss what readers expect of major video game websites these days. Since this is the internet, I find myself picking and choosing the reviewers/writers I get my information from, rather than following a single site wholeheartedly.

For me, anything regarding RPGs goes directly to Jeremy Parish or Kat Bailey, more main stream stuff goes to the Giantbomb guys, while Nintendo stuff is usually the team over at IGN. I just don't find myself following a singular website for every release anymore.

I also rarely ever take review scores into account, and much rather prefer the Giantbomb Quick look format or whenever Jeremy Parish does his hands-on videos. This is drastically different from how I took in my video game content in 10 years ago when it was primarily 1up, IGN and Gamespot for me and review scores were everything.

I feel like there has been so much drama with Polygon lately and how they choose to deliver their content. I can't say I agree with them changing their review score over server launch issues and seems like a really odd way to run a website. Like others here have said, how far do you go with this? What is the accepted cut-off? 1 month? 3 months? And why change a score at all when you know that launch issues will be resolved in a week's time?

I enjoy their content every once in a while, I just don't find myself ever taking their reviews seriously. And this hasn't helped matters much.

 

[Vane_MagicCity]

Honestly, there are more legitimate complaints DRM than waiting a few seconds.

There are always more legitimate concerns but that doesn't mean other concerns don't exist. Now I don't know about you but I am not looking forward to having 20 different accounts from 20 different developers just to play games.

 

[HP_Wuvcraft]

No, just because they implement these, or bother you, does not make them anti-consumer.

Oh, lol.

Pretty much.

Shit in games that is completely optional is not anti-consumer. I will never, for the life of me, understand why people think that being able to buy Equipment/Items in-game of a single player campaign is something horrible.

If the game were designed strictly so you had to buy DLC to continue, that would be anti-consumer.

 

[njean777]

This is an interesting conversation to have simply to discuss what readers expect of major video game websites these days. Since this is the internet, I find myself picking and choosing the reviewers/writers I get my information from, rather than following a single site wholeheartedly.

For me, anything regarding RPGs goes directly to Jeremy Parish or Kat Bailey, more main stream stuff goes to the Giantbomb guys, while Nintendo stuff is usually the team over at IGN. I just don't find myself following a singular website for every release anymore.

I also rarely ever take review scores into account, and much rather prefer the Giantbomb Quick look format or whenever Jeremy Parish does his hands-on videos. This is drastically different from how I took in my video game content in 10 years ago when it was primarily 1up, IGN and Gamespot for me and review scores were everything.

I feel like there has been so much drama with Polygon lately and how they choose to deliver their content. I can't say I agree with them changing their review score over server launch issues and seems like a really odd way to run a website. Like others here have said, how far do you go with this? What is the accepted cut-off? 1 month? 3 months? And why change a score at all when you know that launch issues will be resolved in a week's time?

I enjoy their content every once in a while, I just don't find myself ever taking their reviews seriously. And this hasn't helped matters much.

Giantbomb quicklooks and youtube has been what has worked for me for years. I could care less about other peoples reviews though, though I do like Weekend Confirmed, 8-4 play, and rebel fm (and yes I know Arthur is on it, but he is allowed to have his own opinions) as it gives me other peoples opinions.

 

[TouchMyBox]

big post.

You must realize that there are compromises being made here. Compromises which negatively affect the consumer's experience (not to mention the thing I'm always worried about regarding the inability to guarantee a game's existence once its servers are shut down).

Compromises which exist for no benefits to the consumer but only exist to curb piracy. Afterall, I'm pretty sure I've played videogames before with asynchronous and social multiplayer features without having to take up a server slot in an always-online drm nightmare.

 

[Aaron]

This reads like an Onion article.

No it doesn't. Waiting for a half hour on something you paid for isn't something to mock. If you car didn't start a half hour after turning the key, you wouldn't complain to the dealer? You would just shrug it off? Really? Mocking people with legit complaints seems really short sighted of you.

 

[gryz]

"anti consumer" is the angry internet nerd mob buzzword of 2013

according to you guys anything a business does to earn profits rather than give things to you for free is "anti consumer"

Anti-consumerism is a socio-political ideology opposed to consumerism, which discourages an ever-growing purchasing and consumption of material possessions.

lol pretty sure this is the opposite of what game companies do.

 

[codhand]

ian seems like an anecdotally large douche

 

[PedroLumpy]

Pretty much.

Shit in games that is completely optional is not anti-consumer. I will never, for the life of me, understand why people think that being able to buy Equipment/Items in-game of a single player campaign is something horrible.

If the game were designed strictly so you had to buy DLC to continue, that would be anti-consumer.

The best case scenario for this in-game item microtransaction stuff is that it doesn't make things worse. If that's the best that can come out of it, but I risk all this shitty stuff happening as well, then I damn well am going to argue against it.

If they add in something that may make the game worse just so they can charge me more money, that's anti consumer. Nice companies charge you for things that improve the game.

 

[ThatsMytrunks]

Here's how I see it, and whether my post gets ignored and washed into the ether or not, I feel like posing my stance.

Polygon's "dynamic" scoring system is neat, but the biggest problem right here and right now is that yesterday they posted a score that undoubtedly encouraged people to buy the game, and the next day, the day the game launched, they dropped the score 1.5 points.

-As a consumer considering buying the game, the fact that they amended the score of a review makes me take a massive second look at the possibility of buying it.

-I'd assume, as a consumer who bought the game based on the recommendation of Polygon's review, I'd be upset (assuming again that I ran into the problems that they changed their score for).

I think the inherent problem here is that they posted the review before the game was truly live, and as such, they didn't review the product as it's meant to exist. If EA's going to put out a game that requires you be connected to their servers in this situation, and you review a game that requires these things under perfect storm circumstances, you're not reviewing that game.

The fact that they dropped it to an 8.0 isn't even a point worth discussing. An 8 by Polygon's standards is a damn good score to get. If they came out the gate with an 8 for everyone and said "the servers are fucked but the game is fun as hell", there'd be nothing to discuss. But the fact that they dropped the score (which they've done before) is a big warning sign for customers.

 

[TheHater]

"Diablo III is perfectly and carefully balanced and makes all other loot games including Diablo II completely obsolete"
-Polygon.com

Do reviewers play these game or do they copy and paste press release? Diablo 3 is possible the worst game I played all of last year.

 

[sflufan]

Guess what?

Game review scores should NOT reflect a judgment on any perceived "anti-consumer strategy" or DRM.

 

[cRIPticon]

So, regarding the OP and the crappy practice of pre-order DLC, I guess DLC is ok if you contribute to a viral campaign instead? So long as you get it for free, it's cool? Just wondering where the line is drawn .

http://www.godofwar.com/en-us/rise-of-the-warrior/

Register and join a team to earn in-game DLC rewards and potential early demo access.

Post your team and help each other out in this thread! This is a different single player demo than the one in the Total Recall Blu-Ray.

I'm on team Trojan!

Spoiler

I'm sure we'll set up a dummy account once the goal has been reached.

 

[Jake Tower]

This reads like an Onion article.

"Area man had to wait a few seconds before playing videogame.

"It was terrible", said the gamer, clenching his doritos and MTN dew, "I thought I could just turn the game on and play, but it had to connect to the internet to verify the account". He thought about turning the game off and launching a game that could be played offline, but that train of thought was swiftly interrupted by the title screen appearing on his monitor. The man did however, take the time to outline why this wait is unnaceptable to fellow forum goers, and why they should share his opinion."

Honestly, there are more legitimate complaints DRM than waiting a few seconds. The point they were making on Idle Thumbs about this game being at risk of being a thing only until EA shuts down the servers is a legitimate worry and a sad trade off if their goal was to stave off piracy.

Looks like more than a few seconds to me

 

[Jinfash]

Guess what EA's PR people will get bonuses from: 9.5

Guess who benefits from knowingly posting an inaccurate review: Polygon

Good arrangement for everyone except consumers.

Pubs hand out bonuses based on Metacritics, so the updated score not being reflected there is like win/win.

 

[Mononoke]

Guess what?

Game review scores should NOT reflect a judgment on any perceived "anti-consumer strategy" or DRM.

Why does gaming reviews have to toe the line? Unlike movies and music, the consumer is having to shell out $60 + That's a lot of money.

I think they should buck the trend, and DRM should be included in the reviews. It's apart of the product - and effects whether the game can be played/accessed consistently. Reviewers will dock points if the game has screen tearing, or issues with FPS. And often those can be patched at a later time.

Why should DRM not be apart of the overall product review.

 

[Aaron]

"anti consumer" is the angry internet nerd mob buzzword of 2013

according to you guys anything a business does to earn profits rather than give things to you for free is "anti consumer"



lol pretty sure this is the opposite of what game companies do.

People wanting the game they paid $60 to actually work is wanting it for free? Where the hell are you getting that from?

 

[cRIPticon]

People wanting the game they paid $60 to actually work is wanting it for free? Where the hell are you getting that from?

To be fair, the OP was about a lot more than DRM. That is what I believe gyrz is referring to.

 

[dr3upmushroom]

I'm just going to assume the guy who did the personal response is a dick... He's website screams "I'm a dick". Even some of the most respected people who write about video games don't take themselves that serious.

 

[Mrbob]

Pubs hand out bonuses based on Metacritics, so the updated score not being reflected there is like win/win.

Yeah the metacritic thing is a joke. Maybe websites will be a bit more hesitant to post scores from now on.

It may not be all their fault, but these journalists are losing a lot of respect in the gaming community. First Aliens Colonial Marines, and now this. I hope they push back against publishers making them look like fools. Or perhaps make it clear they are playing a game pre release in a a different environment which is not representative of the final product.

 

[Vire]

So, regarding the OP and the crappy practice of pre-order DLC, I guess DLC is ok if you contribute to a viral campaign instead? So long as you get it for free, it's cool? Just wondering where the line is drawn .

Yes, as long as it's free I have no problem with it?

Why would I have a problem with that?

 

[sflufan]

Why should DRM not be apart of the overall product review.

Because unlike the graphical issues you described, DRM is an externality that does not impact the inherent gaming experience itself.