Support NeoGAF

[IrishNinja]

Guess what?

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

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

Completely and totally irrelevant for a critical analysis of the actual gaming experience.

are you serious? you don't want to know about broken or oppressive features in a detailed review of a game which people potentially base their purchases around

stop and think about this: people disagreeing with the OP's notion of always-online, DRM etc as being inherently bad/a blanket statement are sometimes justifying EA's decision here by saying it was built from the ground-up as an online/shared community game.

at the time of said review, that community couldn't be accessed. similar point was made with the Diablo 3 review, only blizzard was given a pass because they're blizzard so that should be okay, somehow. if you actually don't want things so inherent to gamplay/the overall experience mentioned, what exactly do you go to reviews for?

just how far does this anti-logic extend? if the servers are broken in a popular FPS or fighter (which still isnt as bad as not being able to play the SP proper), should a review only be based on the merits of the % of the game available at the time? because if that's the case, i'd expect a goose egg for online-only titles that are down.

 

[cRIPticon]

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.

You mean except for the people in front of you in the server queue who are already playing while you wait to play?

 

[awa64]

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.

Movies have scores on them, but they don't dock a movie a star if there was a crying baby in the theater when they went to go see it, if the concession stand put too much butter on their popcorn, if the usher was an asshole about checking for ticket stubs or if the projectionist fucked up and showed part of it out of focus.

Game reviews can be product reviews. Or they can be art reviews. More importantly, they should be damn certain of--and up-front with--which of those they choose to be.

 

[Vire]

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?

How is preorder DLC free? You are putting down money...

Stop just stop. I'm not going to bother responding to these ridiculous posts.

 

[Haunted]

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.

Yes. And a good review talks about/mentions both. sflufan was arguing for disregarding one and only focusing on the other, which is bad (also goes vice versa).

 

[nhlducks35]

Movies have scores on them, but they don't dock a movie a star if there was a crying baby in the theater when they went to go see it, if the concession stand put too much butter on their popcorn, if the usher was an asshole about checking for ticket stubs or if the projectionist fucked up and showed part of it out of focus.

Game reviews can be product reviews. Or they can be art reviews. More importantly, they should be damn certain of--and up-front with--which of those they choose to be.

Yeah, but the the movie studios didn't ship the product with those types of things built in to the movie.

 

[BurnOutBrighter]

Just saw this thread now, and glad it has been made.

Polygon's staff must have rock solid insanely fast internet connections and bucketloads of money to spend on pay-to-win microtransactions. It's the only way they'd believe these games are actually good.

D3 and ME3 both 10. Don't even fucking start.

What's anti-consumer in ME3? They didn't charge for the extended cut and they created it in response to their consumers.

Day one DLC, ripped from the core game and resold to you, on a game you already paid $60 for.

Pay-to-win slot machine unlocks for multiplayer, on a game you already paid $60 for.

 

[mAcOdIn]

You mean except for the people in front of you in the server queue who are already playing while you wait to play?

And do you think their experience is not impacted as well? They get knocked off and lose hours of progress. Can no longer rejoin their server. I don't see why anyone would claim this isn't impacting the game or why some people getting to play normally for a few hours now will somehow invalidate the many who can't or the very same people who are playing now but won't be able to tomorrow or the people having other issues.

 

[Darkmakaimura]

Movies have scores on them, but they don't dock a movie a star if there was a crying baby in the theater when they went to go see it, if the concession stand put too much butter on their popcorn, if the usher was an asshole about checking for ticket stubs or if the projectionist fucked up and showed part of it out of focus.

Game reviews can be product reviews. Or they can be art reviews. More importantly, they should be damn certain of--and up-front with--which of those they choose to be.

Movies don't come with crying babies and dripping butter. Go to a different theater or buy the movie on DVD and things change. Not the case with something like DRM in a game.

Edit: Beaten by Mr. NHLDucks.

 

[cRIPticon]

How is preorder DLC free? You are putting down money...

Stop just stop. I'm not going to bother responding to these ridiculous posts.

Seriously? If the game is $60 if you buy it within a promotional period (as a preorder), or play the promotional viral game you were playing, then you get the DLC. If you miss the promotional period, the preorder time window or the window to play the viral game, then you pay $60 when the game comes out and don't get the DLC. How is this difficult to understand?

Look, I have no problem if YOU have issues with the subjects in your OP. I do have a problem with them labeled as anti-consumer practices.

 

[Aaron]

Movies have scores on them, but they don't dock a movie a star if there was a crying baby in the theater when they went to go see it, if the concession stand put too much butter on their popcorn, if the usher was an asshole about checking for ticket stubs or if the projectionist fucked up and showed part of it out of focus.

Game reviews can be product reviews. Or they can be art reviews. More importantly, they should be damn certain of--and up-front with--which of those they choose to be.

A while back, some DVDs had DRM which made it hard to watch them over certain video connections. Did the reviews mention this? You better believe they did! When the consumer is certain to have a similar experience, those factors need to be mentioned. If I buy SimCity based on a glowing review, and I can't play the game due to factors unrelated to my unique setup, then that review has failed me, the consumer. I would ignore that reviewer from then on because he's shit at his job.

Just saw this thread now, and glad it has been made.

Polygon's staff must have rock solid insanely fast internet connections and bucketloads of money to spend on pay-to-win microtransactions. It's the only way they'd believe these games are actually good.

D3 and ME3 both 10. Don't even fucking start.

They play in a walled garden created by the publishers.

 

[Aquamarine]

Movies have scores on them, but they don't dock a movie a star if there was a crying baby in the theater when they went to go see it, if the concession stand put too much butter on their popcorn, if the usher was an asshole about checking for ticket stubs or if the projectionist fucked up and showed part of it out of focus.

Game reviews can be product reviews. Or they can be art reviews. More importantly, they should be damn certain of--and up-front with--which of those they choose to be.

1. Corrupting externalities in movies....are on a case-by-case basis

2. Corrupting externalities in video games....are universal, regardless of where you try to access it

The latter is infinitely worse than the former, and deserves a detraction in the review.

 

[Roto13]

Day one DLC, ripped from the core game and resold to you, on a game you already paid $60 for.

You sure about that, chief?

 

[awa64]

Yeah, but the the movie studios didn't ship the product with those types of things built in to the movie.

Movies don't come with crying babies and dripping butter. Go to a different theater or buy the movie on DVD and things change. Not the case with something like DRM in a game.

Edit: Beaten by Mr. NHLDucks.

It's rare--mostly happens with independent movies--but screenings organized and run by filmmakers aren't unheard-of, and for some smaller movies, that's all the theatrical presence they get.

But you're right. Issues like bad DRM and server problems are part of the experience, and they're something within the control of the game's creators (if you define that loosely enough). It's irresponsible to not take note of them, but I also think it's not worth condemning an otherwise-great game as bad just because of the DRM, especially when it's not a universal problem and influenced by factors outside of the gamemaker's control. I didn't stop thinking Depression Quest was well-made and important when the developers started running into server trouble from too much attention.

But what do I know? When it comes to purchasing advice, I'd rather just hear "Worth your time no matter what," "worth your time if you're already inclined toward this type of thing," or "disappointing even if you would have been interested otherwise." And I'd rather hear a deep-dive on what works and doesn't work about a game, and what that means in a broader context, than praise or scorn and a number.

 

[PsychoSoldier]

Even though Polygon putting up a review under the conditions they did is a bit slimy IMO, I'm not sure it matters much when the game is getting 1-star bombed as hard as it is on Amazon.

To say nothing of people with sway voicing their annoyance with the game over Twitter and such. It doesn't make the situation right, but I feel like EA's gross incompetence in the handling of this matter is going to bite them more than they may think. Word spreads far too fast.

 

[BurnOutBrighter]

How convenient that this happens right when GAF brings it up.

So where was this score change when Diablo III's launch was a total clusterfuck?

 

[dLMN8R]

How convenient that this happens right when GAF brings it up.

So where was this score change when Diablo III's launch was a total clusterfuck?

Polygon didn't exist until 5 months after Diablo 3 came out. You're looking at a review from The Verge carried over to Polygon, that was initially written before a site even existed with policies about changing review scores (let alone web templates that gave them that affordance)

 

[Perkel]

I always don't fucking get it.


Games can be criticized in reviews for bugs in them
but fucking problems with lunching game like using GFWL or obsessive DRM can't.

 

[jayu26]

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.

From every think I have read, it seems that the game has been designed to do some of the calculation on EA's servers. The official reason seems to be that game just would not run properly on an average home PC. Conversely, it could be just highly sophisticated DRM. Except, in this case without those servers some of the information that is game critical is missing. Unlike a simple DRM, which only authenticates legitimacy of the software, this is different.

Think like this: if there was no authentication DRM, but all the calculation for the economy for the game are done on EA's servers, because our computers cannot handle it; even then the game would need to connect to servers, not to check if its legitimate, but to get all the required information. Without it the game is broken.

For this reason, Sim city "server issues" should be part of the review.

 

[Neuromancer]

Even though Polygon putting up a review under the conditions they did is a bit slimy IMO, I'm not sure it matters much when the game is getting 1-star bombed as hard as it is on Amazon.

To say nothing of people with sway voicing their annoyance with the game over Twitter and such. It doesn't make the situation right, but I feel like EA's gross incompetence in the handling of this matter is going to bite them more than they may think. Word spreads far too fast.

Does anyone care about user reviews on Amazon or Metacritic? I can't imagine them impacting sales all that much.

 

[awa64]

I always don't fucking get it.


Games can be criticized in reviews for bugs in them
but fucking problems with lunching game like using GFWL or obsessive DRM can't.

It's the difference between a projectionist showing a movie out of focus and the movie being shot out of focus. They may both be "technical" issues, but one's related to how the publisher is distributing the thing and one's related to how the creator made the thing. The lines are certainly a lot blurrier for games than for movies, but I still think the distinction exists and is worthwhile.

 

[PsychoSoldier]

Does anyone care about user reviews on Amazon or Metacritic? I can't imagine them impacting sales all that much.

Metacritic probably not, but I'd bet it'll have some impact on Amazon just because of the amount of sales traffic that goes through there.

 

[dLMN8R]

Does anyone care about user reviews on Amazon or Metacritic? I can't imagine them impacting sales all that much.

Diablo 3 got shit reviews on Amazon too. That game went on to sell more than 12 million copies.

I think consumers have smartened up to the fact that when they see a horrible review average for a game like this, it's generally by a bunch of internet trolls who have never actually played the game.

 

[IrishNinja]

It's the difference between a projectionist showing a movie out of focus and the movie being shot out of focus. They may both be "technical" issues, but one's related to how the publisher is distributing the thing and one's related to how the creator made the thing. The lines are certainly a lot blurrier for games than for movies, but I still think the distinction exists and is worthwhile.

while i appreciate this analogy, as an end-user, why should i care? i'm not able to enjoy my movie on the day of purchase. any review not informing/warning me is kinda worthless for my purposes.

 

[Vane_MagicCity]

It's the difference between a projectionist showing a movie out of focus and the movie being shot out of focus. They may both be "technical" issues, but one's related to how the publisher is distributing the thing and one's related to how the creator made the thing. The lines are certainly a lot blurrier for games than for movies, but I still think the distinction exists and is worthwhile.

No, the lines aren't blurry at all and your example is flawed.

The director and the projectionist do not work together and the projectionist has no creative input. They are not one in the same. A developer works for a publisher and the publisher has creative input.

Further, the projectionist does not ship with the movie. There is one movie and many projectionists. With games every game ships with the same DRM.

 

[davepoobond]

A game review is a product review.

in some cases, yes. but not in all cases. it depends on what is being discussed. Game design is a "review" of the content. Value included in the game is a "product" review. there is an inherent difference. It would not matter if a game is even being sold for a critical review of a game to not be classified as a product review.

That's why there's a score on it.

no, there's a score because reviewers like to have a single summation of a 1500 word essay in one number so that they can appeal to people who don't like to read their god awful reviews.

People don't attach a score to their treatise on the themes of MacBeth.

i give that book a 6/10. i've seen better themes in Othello.

so, who says i can't?

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.

no, its not the PS3's fault, its Bethesda's fault for not designing the game to the PS3's hardware and allowing a product that cannot be played shipped.

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.

maybe it is everyone's experience. lots of people complained about Diablo III's connection issues and having to always log in to play. I had no issues with either. And if you play the game now, those connection issues aren't present and always logging in isn't a factor that I would even mention in a review of that game if i were to write one.

i also probably wouldn't even care to read a review that did. its useless information and if they ding the game because of it, then wtf is the point of reviewing it? Every time some DRM thing is in a game it automatically gets a ding, then might as well have every game never be able to attain a good score.

From every think I have read, it seems that the game has been designed to do some of the calculation on EA's servers. The official reason seems to be that game just would not run properly on an average home PC. Conversely, it could be just highly sophisticated DRM. Except, in this case without those servers some of the information that is game critical is missing. Unlike a simple DRM, which only authenticates legitimacy of the software, this is different.

Think like this: if there was no authentication DRM, but all the calculation for the economy for the game are done on EA's servers, because our computers cannot handle it; even then the game would need to connect to servers, not to check if its legitimate, but to get all the required information. Without it the game is broken.

For this reason, Sim city "server issues" should be part of the review.

all of that is speculation, and ultimately i couldn't give a shit if the "calculations" ARE done server-side.

what it comes down to is the user experience -- if you experience consistent lag from an online game and there are no signs of improving, then yes, of course it is a detriment to the game. If it takes forever to do anything because of this "constant calculation" then yes, it is a user experience issue, not because its a server-side issue, but because of the way the game is seemingly designed -- there is always lag after placing an object down in the game that should not be present. I could care less if there is calculating server-side, they need to make sure that it works well enough before making it available and if it never improves, then it is an issue.

I wouldn't consider the lag on launch day or rare lag on days that they just have a lot of traffic going on to be representative of the game experience. Someone who logs in 5 months from the game's launch is not going to have those issues. The review will be worthless once something like server lag is ironed out, and is not representative at all. It should be a news announcement at that point. "There's a lot of lag today on Sim City, everyone."

Does anyone want to read a review of World of Warcraft Mists of Pandaria where it says "WELP ITS THE FIRST DAY OF A NEW WOW EXPANSION AND THERE'S TONS OF LAG AS ALWAYS THIS GAME IS BAD BECAUSE I CANT PLAY IT 0/10"

It's the difference between a projectionist showing a movie out of focus and the movie being shot out of focus. They may both be "technical" issues, but one's related to how the publisher is distributing the thing and one's related to how the creator made the thing. The lines are certainly a lot blurrier for games than for movies, but I still think the distinction exists and is worthwhile.

this is a great analogy, i like it. Its not the publisher's fault you have a shitty connection or a shitty computer, either. Nor is it their fault if you have an amazing computer.

 

[cutmeamango]

Movies have scores on them, but they don't dock a movie a star if there was a crying baby in the theater when they went to go see it, if the concession stand put too much butter on their popcorn, if the usher was an asshole about checking for ticket stubs or if the projectionist fucked up and showed part of it out of focus.

Game reviews can be product reviews. Or they can be art reviews. More importantly, they should be damn certain of--and up-front with--which of those they choose to be.

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.

I dislike analogies because they often are not read as you relate elements in your head but:

Publisher ABC releases the book "How To Catch Fire Safely".
It is paperback for 300 pages, glued binding. Rough paper and misaligned printing.
Basically, it will offer terrible readability and manuseability. The binding will worn out fast and the pages will have fold marks. (This is not analogous to a game visual presentation!)

You can make two (three but eh) reviews/critics of it.
A product critic.
A literary critic.

At the product critic you'll say how much the physical aspects of the book sucks and its value according to pricing and what not, and overall weight in the literary value it offers.
'How to catch fire safely' is a masterpiece but the quality of this edition makes it hard to follow through and the price makes it a tough buy.

While the literary critic would only concern the actual text.
It's a marvelous contemporary spaghetti wolf story that would make C.S.Lewis jealous. Must read!

(A bug that affects gameplay could be compared to a bad translation that affects comprehension.)
----

Both are completely fair assessments on their own merits. That works the same fior games.

Certainly there could be a balance between both, but the 'necessity' of a grading system allied with whatever have you, from writers to publishers influence, to lack of structure and pattern, harms the perception of most attempts. It all looks foolish and tainted.

I frankly do not mind reviews for any piece of entertainment, since I generally seek the simplistic overviews. "Fun, action packed, deep, great acting, challenging" to interest me, and after I experience it and reflect on it, I read some especialized crtics and general opinion to see if I misunderstood, missed something and wage reactions against my own.
I should go to bed.

 

[Nose Master]

They're reviewing the games, not the fucking piracy protection or the industry as a whole. Should movie critics take into account DVD region locking when they're reviewing a film, too?

If you care about this type of shit, you already know about it. And, chances are, they mention it in the review.

 

[dLMN8R]

If you care about this type of shit, you already know about it. And, chances are, they mention it in the review.

YUP

 

[Tain]

How a game is distributed is not something I care to see focus on when I look for serious criticism.

Not that I think Polygon has great reviews or anything.

 

[Perkel]

It's the difference between a projectionist showing a movie out of focus and the movie being shot out of focus. They may both be "technical" issues, but one's related to how the publisher is distributing the thing and one's related to how the creator made the thing. The lines are certainly a lot blurrier for games than for movies, but I still think the distinction exists and is worthwhile.

Still reviewers are not publishers lackeys. Reviewer in fact is representative of consumer.

If something is anti-consumer they should be first blow a whistle that game can be unplayable for some people because of those problems.

When we have Skyrim reviews and no one says anything about PS3 problems it only shows that reviewers either didn't play PS3 version a lot or they hide facts before their readers.

When reviewers say they "move with industry" for reason not commenting above simple facts like game problems (with DRM or other non game stuff which came out in box) they are sucking a publisher dick.

Same with statement "games probably will get ton of patches in future ergo it should get better score"

 

[Aaron]

They're reviewing the games, not the fucking piracy protection or the industry as a whole. Should movie critics take into account DVD region locking when they're reviewing a film, too?

They do when it's an issue. So yes.

If you care about this type of shit, you already know about it. And, chances are, they mention it in the review.

I think everybody cares if their game fucking works, or sticks them in a queue to play what for them is a single player experience. This isn't a niche issue.

i give that book a 6/10. i've seen better themes in Othello.

so, who says i can't?

That's a product review. That's practically consumer reports.

 

[awa64]

while i appreciate this analogy, as an end-user, why should i care? i'm not able to enjoy my movie on the day of purchase. any review not informing/warning me is kinda worthless for my purposes.

Because an art review isn't a product review.

No, the lines aren't blurry at all and your example is flawed.

The director and the projectionist do not work together and the projectionist has no creative input. They are not one in the same. A developer works for a publisher and the publisher has creative input.

Further, the projectionist does not ship with the movie. There is one movie and many projectionists. With games every game ships with the same DRM.

Unless the game is being sold on multiple platforms. Or has a Steam version and a non-Steam version. Or etc.

You can nitpick the analogy all you like. But the point remains: if you're judging something from an artistic standpoint it's silly to dock it points based on distribution issues. As a product? Sure, go ahead and dock it on distribution issues.

We've seen games released on so many platforms. Re-released so many times. Is it really so unreasonable to say "SimCity is a great game, but the PC version of SimCity has some really lousy distribution problems" even if the PC version is the only version currently? Is it OK for me to say that 1 vs 100 was shitty because I can't play it any more?

 

[PsychoSoldier]

If Polygon purports to recommend games to consumers, then it is borderline gross to do so under conditions no regular consumer will have access to.

If reviewers believe that the day 1 issues do not represent the game accurately, then perhaps it would be prudent to review the game a few days after the game releases instead of rushing to get them out pre-release.

 

[Tain]

"Steel Battalion is flawed because the controller takes up a lot of space and you sort of need a dedicated setup."

real criticism

 

[Perkel]

Because an art review isn't a product review.



Unless the game is being sold on multiple platforms. Or has a Steam version and a non-Steam version. Or etc.

You can nitpick the analogy all you like. But the point remains: if you're judging something from an artistic standpoint it's silly to dock it points based on distribution issues. As a product? Sure, go ahead and dock it on distribution issues.

We've seen games released on so many platforms. Re-released so many times. Is it really so unreasonable to say "SimCity is a great game, but the PC version of SimCity has some really lousy distribution problems" even if the PC version is the only version currently? Is it OK for me to say that 1 vs 100 was shitty because I can't play it any more?

What distribution issues ? DRM is part of product not line of distribution. Same as GFWL. If you can't play because servers are not working or are horrible you should write about it, It is essential knowledge to consumer.

 

[davepoobond]

Still reviewers are not publishers lackeys. Reviewer in fact is representative of consumer.

i would say they're not representative. there is a conflict of interest if you are a reviewer that has public relations with a company that you rely on to give you games to review more. i felt the pressure when i was doing reviews on a more consistent basis at a small site, but I tried to not let it affect my judgment. No one put the pressure on me but myself, since i was in a higher-level position, so just imagine what that is like for some staff writer who has an editor in chief who makes it a point to stay in the good graces of a publisher.

If something is anti-consumer they should be first blow a whistle that game can be unplayable for some people because of those problems.

When we have Skyrim reviews and no one says anything about PS3 problems it only shows that reviewers either didn't play PS3 version a lot or they hide facts before their readers.

most of the time they play their preferred console and then duplicate the review for the other consoles. They reviewed the game on Xbox and then post it up for PC and PS3. No one has time to review the same game 3 times.

When reviewers say they "move with industry" for reason not commenting above simple facts like game problems (with DRM or other non game stuff which came out in box) they are sucking a publisher dick.

Same with statement "games probably will get ton of patches in future ergo it should get better score"

i'll also let you in on another secret -- game reviewers don't always get versions of the game with the DRM integrated into it, so they may not even encounter those things.

they aren't "always" reviewing a true retail product. they are reviewing something "representative" of the review product. There's a specific name for it that escapes me at the moment.

That's a product review. That's practically consumer reports.

absolutely not. I can read MacBeth on the computer in PDF form that i got from Google Books for free. I make no mention of the delivery system and I didn't even buy it. How is that automatically a product review? It is a literary review.

 

[A Link to the Past]

You all are confusing your consumer experiences with the role of a reviewer which should be somewhat insulated from that.

They're reviewing a product for consumers, not businesses. Would consumers want a game that is, at its base, anti-consumer?

Spoiler

Of course they would

 

[Aaron]

"Steel Battalion is flawed because the controller takes up a lot of space and you sort of need a dedicated setup."

real criticism

Absolutely. If you have a small apartment, and then this huge box arrives with a controller you can't fit anywhere, then it will impact your ability to play the game properly. Especially if you weren't following the game well, and didn't realize it came with a controller.

To turn that on it's head, the new Steel Battalion is kinect, but since kinect is a terrible lump of bad hardware, it plays awfully. Probably shouldn't mention that in the review since that's just the fault of the hardware, and not the game itself.

 

[BlazinAm]

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

IT'S ABOUT NOT ACKNOWLEDGING THE ANTI-CONSUMER STANCES THAT THESE GAMES TAKE IN THEIR REVIEW SCORES.

Most reviewers take into account the DRM when there is an issue. Their job is not to cover some moral outcry of the game, they are expected to review the game as it is. In the case of SimCity, it appears that Polygon had an advanced copy to review from so server issues may not have been apparent. They should not have ran the review without testing the retail copies on the servers when they when live. Who knows maybe the writer lucked out and he didn't run into those issues.

And now they have added in that connections issues are widespread so when you think about it they addressed the issue you brought up.

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.

The real money auction house wasn't there at the start and people had already burned through almost all the difficulty levels.

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.

Eh on paper none of that make the game any less or more a horror game. The first Dead Space wasn't very much a horror game. Horror in game comes from the design more than anything else not so much the systems at work but how they build that stuff together and that franchise honestly was not a great horror series.

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

Stop trollin'.

Man what is your problem.

Complacence towards the idea is exactly what EA wants. You'll slowly succumb to accept more and more bullshit from them as if it's a normal every day routine and something that comes with the good and bad of games.

It doesn't have to be this way.

Well if the game is good and want I am paying for is worth it then I will continue to consume, I think the biggest hurdle for me in the case of Simcity is it's graphical performance.
As for what EA would want customers to accept, that is really offering value to whatever they are charging for. It is unfortunate that the DRM is affecting people.

I always don't fucking get it.


Games can be criticized in reviews for bugs in them
but fucking problems with lunching game like using GFWL or obsessive DRM can't.

If it affect the game playing experience it should certainly be mentioned but if it isn't then why bring it up in a review. This stuff gets cover anyway that people who really care and pay attention would be in the know.

 

[awa64]

What distribution issues ? DRM is part of product not line of distribution. Same as GFWL. If you can't play because servers are not working or are horrible you should write about it, It is essential knowledge to consumer.

DRM isn't content. Iron Man isn't a shitty movie because I downloaded it on Xbox and now I can't watch it on my Android tablet. American Idiot isn't a shitty album because I bought it on iTunes and it came with FairPlay DRM. And Assassin's Creed: Revelations isn't a shitty game because the PC version had always-on DRM.

 

[Miles Quaritch]

He's definitely reducing it to mud shit flinging level.

Shame, because the gist of what he is saying is correct..

An understatement if ever there was one. He completely embarrassed him during the exchange.

Allowing his frustrations to get the better of him isn't entirely unexpected, it can happen to the best of us, but he should have channelled that frustration into the back and forth and not allowed his emotions to get the better of him.

He's apologised since, so I can only assume he realised how how stupid and pathetic his comments were and rather poorly attempted to salvage what precious little reputation he could.

 

[Aaron]

DRM isn't content. Iron Man isn't a shitty movie because I downloaded it on Xbox and now I can't watch it on my Android tablet. American Idiot isn't a shitty album because I bought it on iTunes and it came with FairPlay DRM. And Assassin's Creed: Revelations isn't a shitty game because the PC version had always-on DRM.

You can buy a car made from the best parts in the world, but if it doesn't start it's still a shitty car.

 

[davepoobond]

They're reviewing a product for consumers, not businesses. Would consumers want a game that is, at its base, anti-consumer?

Spoiler

Of course they would

i think that it depends on what you are trying to write it for.

are you writing game reviews for consumers or are you writing it for game enthusiasts?


think about it for a second. they're different classifications.

 

[olimpia84]

Bookmarking this thread. The ultimate sign and exemplification of the dangerous influence GAF has over the industry.

 

[Trey]

You can buy a car made from the best parts in the world, but if it doesn't start it's still a shitty car.

More like the roads are bad.

 

[Nose Master]

I think everybody cares if their game fucking works, or sticks them in a queue to play what for them is a single player experience. This isn't a niche issue.

I am going to go out on a limb here, and say that they didn't experience these issues while they were reviewing the game. Should they retroactively change the review score because of launch day hiccups? What about if a game receives a shitty patch a few months down the line? That too? What if one day, they decide they like it less on a replay?

I can not wait until the pissing and moaning about DRM fad has passed.

 

[Vane_MagicCity]

More like the roads are bad.

...and the roads were built by the car manufacturer AND you are only allowed to drive on those shitty roads.

 

[PsychoSoldier]

I can not wait until the pissing and moaning about DRM fad has passed.

Yeah, how dare people complain that they can't play the games they've bought. What assholes.

 

[davepoobond]

Yeah, how dare people complain that they can't play the games they've bought. What assholes.

i bought an xbox360 game for my PS3 and it didnt work.

DRM!!!!!!