PedroLumpy
Member
Considering DRM can often impact the game itself, it seems like a no brainer.
If DRM prevents you from playing a game you purchased, does that not impact the game?
Polygon gives high scores to games despite their anti-consumer aspects / DRM strategy
- Thread starter Vire
- Start date
Considering DRM can often impact the game itself, it seems like a no brainer.
If DRM prevents you from playing a game you purchased, does that not impact the game?
Dave Meltzer
Banned
I haven't read a video game review in years.
Realise these are just the opinions of people you have no reason to trust and every reason to doubt. DTA son.
Realise these are just the opinions of people you have no reason to trust and every reason to doubt. DTA son.
Except when DRM is worth commenting on it's because it impacts the gaming experience.
Uh?
Jake Tower
Banned
Let's say I was writing an Assassin's Creed 2 review. I would have to give it 0, because Ubi's servers wouldn't connect and I would be unable to launch the game. How does that not impact the experience?
Haunted
Member
I want to play the game I purchased. I've waited all week to make a couple hours of time on the weekends. Their servers are down/full.
Tell me how my experience isn't impacted.
edit: beaten like 5 times, that must be a new record.
"It's okay because it's not cost-effective for EA to support so many players early on. The numbers will never be this high again. Fucking the consumer is great as long as it's temporary!" -- Polygon
Aquamarine
Member
Always-online single-player DRM-----ALWAYS----impacts the inherent gaming experience, because the inherent single-player gaming experience is corrupted with a forced online component.
Completely and totally irrelevant for a critical analysis of the actual gaming experience.
Tell that to the people that are trying to play simcity right now.....oh wait, they cannot play the game because of the DRM require always online BS.
You cannot remove the actual experience from the intended experience. Especially when it is inherent to the game itself.
Not being able to play the game inhibits your ability to critically analyze the game.
How about it this way. You are in the middle of a game and your internet goes out. What now? You are kicked from the game and lost all progress. Isn't that they same as a game breaking bug?
Vire
Member
The sad thing is this is not an exaggeration.
This is essentially an actual quote from Arthur Gies.
What the fucking fuck.
Haunted
Member
There is no fucking gaming experience with this bullshit.
If you want to write a critical analysis of the game's mechanics in a complete vaccuum, not impacted by any of this surrounding bullshit, feel free. Just don't call it a review.
If you write something like that as a review and you're ignoring these issues, you're not informing your customer of this very real possibility and that makes you a shitty consumer advocate and you just wrote a shit product review.
I know exactly what you're getting at, but I think you'll find that the consensus role of a gaming review is different from what you're putting forward.
Critical analysis and dissecting the game's mechanics and gameplay in a complete vacuum can be done in a separate article. But leaving that out of a review would make it incomplete at best, and straight up misleading at worst.
Should it?
PedroLumpy
Member
.... You trolling us? Something straight up preventing you from playing the game is not relevant to a review?
How is that any different to when my power goes out between saving points and I lose that progress?
Games don't exist in a vacuum, and they are treating their reviews as purchasing advice.
A product, which once purchased, won't fucking work seems like something you need to let people know. "Doesn't impact the experience" my ass.
Ideally it should.
Vire
Member
It's disgusting but it's what I've come to expect. When BF3 was unplayable for weeks, EA's response was that they did not expect so many players. A few weeks later we discovered they had shipped millions upon millions of units. Of course we know why this happens. It's insulting to imply otherwise -- or to excuse it. No one speaks for the lowly consumer.
I have to disagree.
PedroLumpy
Member
One is due to the game, the other is due to the power going out.
Yeah, but it looks like publishers/developers are pushing more and more DLC into the games -- and since it's becoming standard in games, it should become a standard in reviews. I'm just talking about the games that have DLC that somehow affects the experience, and isn't hidden away.
They are, after all, supposed to review the game for people -- and if the DLC, in any way affects the experience of the game/is a part of it, it should be part of the review.
Phoenician_Viking
Banned
Bwahahahaha. This is too good.
Because the power going out is an exogenous factor. Sort of like how ending up in the hospital would prevent you from playing the game. DRM is 100% endogenous. Very bad analogy.
HP_Wuvcraft
Banned
Think about the ridiculousness of what you just said.
It's pro-consumer to put something in the game for free, and then after it has been established, pull it for a fee?
PedroLumpy
Member
Hmmm, worded badly.
I didn't mean they give it to you, then take it away, and then charge you. Just that they charge you, no freebies.
Just something like a $0.99 DLC skin for your character as an example.
It really shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that a central-server-reliant game has server issues on launch day. Some are unbearably bad weeks later, some are fine within a day or two, but it's ALWAYS a problem.
For the review score? Either Polygon should have just left the score as-is (like they did with Diablo) unless it showed itself to be a persistent problem, knocked it down to a 4 ("fails at basic functionality") until the servers start working properly, or held off on a review altogether until the server situation had stabilized.
Of those three, frankly, I'd say the first would've been the right choice. While Polygon can dynamically update review scores, there's a difference between "this game experience has changed substantially from what we reviewed" and "brief service outage/bug in patch that's corrected within 24 hours," and it's unreasonable to expect a reviews staff to monitor every game they've reviewed for those kinds of problems. And more influential individuals than I have gone on at length about why "wait for retail code," while noble, isn't a logistically or economically viable route for a website to take.
Game journalism needs to do a better job of differentiating product reviews and experience reviews. It's only going to get worse going forward.
For the review score? Either Polygon should have just left the score as-is (like they did with Diablo) unless it showed itself to be a persistent problem, knocked it down to a 4 ("fails at basic functionality") until the servers start working properly, or held off on a review altogether until the server situation had stabilized.
Of those three, frankly, I'd say the first would've been the right choice. While Polygon can dynamically update review scores, there's a difference between "this game experience has changed substantially from what we reviewed" and "brief service outage/bug in patch that's corrected within 24 hours," and it's unreasonable to expect a reviews staff to monitor every game they've reviewed for those kinds of problems. And more influential individuals than I have gone on at length about why "wait for retail code," while noble, isn't a logistically or economically viable route for a website to take.
Game journalism needs to do a better job of differentiating product reviews and experience reviews. It's only going to get worse going forward.
Unless the game publisher is also your power company, it's completely different. Reviews aren't critical analysis. They're a judgement if a product is worth it for a consumer to purchase.
No it shouldn't.
The reviewer should review product as a whole, not just the game. If the expereince of getting to actually play the game is so bad that diminishes the entire product that should be reflected in the review.
It's like creating a keyless entry vehicle without manual entry that won't let you get in your vehicle on rare occasions because of unreliable technology. Fucking annoying, even of it means my car will always be locked to keep most would-be intruders out.
Splash Wave
Member
I agree with this, though it should come with a big disclaimer. Changing the score to an 8 seems like such an arbitrary number considering the circumstances.
davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
i dont know if "temporary" or "non-game" issues should really even be included in a "review" of a game.
you're playing the game, you're supposed to review the game. not the draconian DRM or the server issues. Those might be bad for the initial/prolonged user experience but it isn't the game that you are playing.
not saying those things DON'T play a part, but i don't know how you can justify including it. If you're doing a product review rather than a game review, I suppose it would make more sense to mention it.
you're playing the game, you're supposed to review the game. not the draconian DRM or the server issues. Those might be bad for the initial/prolonged user experience but it isn't the game that you are playing.
not saying those things DON'T play a part, but i don't know how you can justify including it. If you're doing a product review rather than a game review, I suppose it would make more sense to mention it.
A game review is a product review. That's why there's a score on it. People don't attach a score to their treatise on the themes of MacBeth. It's like saying Skyrim on PS3 shouldn't be dinged for turning into an unplayable mound of shit because it's just the fault of the PS3 hardware. The game is fine.
Because, technically, preorder DLC is free as well. You are not paying any more for it than the DLC in the viral game. So you are cool with it so long as it fits the model you want, correct?
Hot Coldman
Banned
Games websites seriously need to figure out some way of letting people know whether they should be buying a new release that concentrates purely on issues like the ones SimCity is going through. Reviews do not fit that purpose at all.
Maybe a front-page ticker? So one on a site today would say "Don't buy SimCity! It's fucked!" but would say "Castlevania 3DS is safe to buy". And then if Castlevania turns out to have a horrible game-breaking bug, then you can get the word out that Castlevania is fucked too. Maybe a traffic-light system. Red for "OH JESUS WHAT HAPPENED HERE", yellow for "fine apart from a notable bug" (like VLR had, or for something like New Vegas), green for hunky-dory.
Maybe a front-page ticker? So one on a site today would say "Don't buy SimCity! It's fucked!" but would say "Castlevania 3DS is safe to buy". And then if Castlevania turns out to have a horrible game-breaking bug, then you can get the word out that Castlevania is fucked too. Maybe a traffic-light system. Red for "OH JESUS WHAT HAPPENED HERE", yellow for "fine apart from a notable bug" (like VLR had, or for something like New Vegas), green for hunky-dory.
I tried to use movies but ended up with the most convoluted Stevens-esque sentence ever. It's like introducing a video format that has issues of clarity -- but what you are showing is Taxi Driver or Full Metal Jacket? I don't even know.
I don't see why both types of reviews can't co-exist. Certainly, this game should get some criticism if user have to wait a substantial period of time before they can play their game. However, if the game is fine in a couple weeks, does it deserve that 1/5(10)? If someone looks at the review months from now and sees that it's bad because of factors that don't exist, that's not a good review. You also can't expect reviewers to change their scores on a regular basis because their time is better spent moving on to other games.
Basically, I think the knowledge of how this game is in its current state and how it is in a vacuum are equally valuable. I know that I shouldn't be getting this game right now, but maybe some people will want to pick it up later if the server stuff smooths over.
You need to consider that these are things that will radically change how the game is designed (Which will alter the overall dynamic of the game.), just because the developers/publishers want to make as much money as possible.
This whole sim city mess really sours me. Was looking forward to grabbing it next week, but I really think I'd be just fine rebuying 4 or 2000 and rediscovering it instead of investing in this joke. Really makes me mad that I have to rely on word of mouth to learn about it too. I'm sure the devs didn't have much to do with this as well, which is equally frustrating
I somewhat disagree with this in the case of games. I get the idea with movies, or a live concert, just because a theater in San Jacinto's run down and their projector goes out 30 minutes into the movie and their ticket staff was rude doesn't mean everyone's experience will be the same or that they're even worth talking about in regards to the movie but for a videogame like this, where essentially EA is not just selling the game as a physical disc but as a service I think it absolutely does matter what externalties affect it. This is everyone's experience. Right here. Ea is the ticketmaster, the director, the projector, the concession stand employee, everything, they are absolutely all related to the experience. About the only thing in Sim City not worth being mentioned in a review is how hard it was or was not to purchase a copy at your favorite retailer. That's the only part that doesn't matter.
Nonsense.
Again, who are reviews for?
If reviews are advertisements for publishers, then fine, don't mention these issues.
If reviews are to show off how well you write, then fine, don't mention these issues.
If reviews are to have a "discussion" with other reviewers, then fine, don't mention these issues.
If reviews are actually for the consumer, then you have to mention these issues.