Support NeoGAF

[Lord_Nergal]

It's beyond me how Polygon thinks it's acceptable to publish their glowing review based on an experience that NO ONE HAS ACCESS TO.

Poor form Mr. Gies and Mr. Pitss, poor form.

 

[Paches]

How many more days to get it to 1?

 

[Lime]

haha this shit just keeps on giving. How low will it go?

 

[Haunted]

Win? more like lose amirite guys

rite?

high five

 

[Forsaken82]

So when EA fixes the servers, does the score go back up?

I think the better question is will Polygon from this point on treat every game during release week the same. If a game ships broken, but gets patched a day after release, will the score be updated to reflect that?

How does Polygon sustain their integrity if they don't treat every review the same.

 

[Revven]

Sadly, the 4/10 doesn't matter too much in the grand scheme of things when Metacritic only takes the first score published. =\

It's hilarious how far this has gone though. I mean, really, it's extremely poor form to publish a review about an experience no one else can have right now. And then now look completely incompetent for expecting the game to be fine on launch day and their review would reflect that.

And now they're trying to save face by updating the score, only furthering to discredit their credentials as a site to look for reviews of video games.

Well done, Polygon, well done.

On another note, let's see if you'll do this for other future games or not. Should be interesting!

I'm sure Skyrim would have loved this treatment it never got (PS3 version).

 

[inky]

To be honest, I don't know why they bother doing all this when they're just going to bump it back up to 9.5 later anyway.

They are [still] trying to save face for their stupid decision of publishing the review before the game was out properly to gather as many hits as possible. That's it. The way they keep changing the score affects nothing and no-one.

 

[MC Safety]

So when EA fixes the servers, does the score go back up?

I'm surprised the game was scored so highly in the first place. I haven't played it at all, but Tom Chick from the Web site quartertothree.com did an excellent job of highlighting the game's design flaws. It seems to me in light of Chick's commentary a score of 9.5 as issued by Polygon was a softball.

 

[SummitAve]

I think the better question is will Polygon from this point on treat every game during release week the same. If a game ships broken, but gets patched a day after release, will the score be updated to reflect that?

If it changes the game significantly, I'd assume so.

 

[Empty]

polygon's willingness to make themselves look silly in order to demonstrate the uselessness of scores is pretty great. maybe i'd appreciate their site more if i took it as satire.

 

[Paches]

Sadly, the 4/10 doesn't matter too much in the grand scheme of things when Metacritic only takes the first score published. =\

It's hilarious how far this has gone though. I mean, really, it's extremely poor form to publish a review about an experience no one else can have right now. And then now look completely incompetent for expecting the game to be fine on launch day and their review would reflect that.

And now they're trying to save face by updating the score, only furthering to discredit their credentials as a site to look for reviews of video games.

Well done, Polygon, well done.

Yup, this "update" doesn't matter at all. Word is already out that this game is a disaster and unplayable and they have already done the damage of doing a pre-release review and giving it a glowing report. It is over, Polygon. Wrap it up.

 

[Duxxy3]

When EA fixes the servers/enough people abandon the game, will polygon raise their review score back up?

 

[Revven]

When EA fixes the servers/enough people abandon the game, will polygon raise their review score back up?

The fun part will be to monitor how quick they are to bump it back up.

 

[Vire]

I don't know who this ordeal is more embarrassing for.

Polygon or EA.

 

[XANDER CAGE]

I'm sorta scratching my head over why the initial review was so high if these debilitating problems are "as expected."

 

[BlazinAm]

I don't know who this ordeal is more embarrassing for.

Polygon or EA.

The way they reviewed the game was the problem at hand, they reviewed it based on experiences before the game was out. So in that case that is embarrassing for Polygon.

 

[Paches]

I'm sorta scratching my head over why the initial review was so high if these debilitating problems are "as expected."

Because it dispensed maximum fun as efficiently as possible.

 

[AcceptableGhost]

"Clowntown amateur hour" is a pretty good term to describe Polygon's game reviews.

 

[Vire]

I also don't understand why the score is arbitrarily lowered to a 4? Do they have some sort ridiculous formula for this kind of stuff? :lol

If it doesn't work at all, shouldn't it be a 1?

 

[fargofallout]

What's the point of them lowering the score? Yeah, they're technically showing a lower score on the main page, but Metacritic still shows their 9.5, and even if you go to Polygon's review browsing page, it shows a 9.5, and they plan on raising it if/when the server issues are fixed. Bravo, I guess, but what's the point?

 

[Risette]

"Clowntown amateur hour" is a pretty good term to describe Polygon's game reviews.

that's insulting to clowns and aspiring amateur reviewers

 

[Paches]

I also don't understand why the score is arbitrarily lowered to a 4? Do they have some sort ridiculous formula for this kind of stuff? :lol

If it doesn't work at all, shouldn't it be a 1?

That is what I kinda thought. Why not a 3?

 

[Jigolo]

A 4 now. Wow where is that gif with the evolving score, it's needed.

 

[Empty]

I also don't understand why the score is arbitrarily lowered to a 4? Do they have some sort ridiculous formula for this kind of stuff? :lol

If it doesn't work at all, shouldn't it be a 1?

maybe going forwards they'll design an algorithm that takes into account the number of twitter complaints about sim city connection issues weighed against their critical opinion of the game design to create a real-time constantly changing score.

 

[$h@d0w]

The more 'updates' are posted the sillier Polygon's review policy looks.

They should have just held it until the verdict was clear. Instead, they wanted the hits and buzz generated on launch day.

 

[Risette]

maybe going forwards they'll create an algorithm that takes into account the number of twitter complaints about sim city connection issues weighed against their critical opinion of the game design to create a real-time constantly changing score.

don't forget the Fun Engineering Units

 

[Mrbob]

"Clowntown amateur hour" is a pretty good term to describe Polygon's game reviews.

I love that comment so much I'm going to have to keep it in my personal lexicon for future usage.

 

[Rufus]

I'm surprised the game was scored so highly in the first place. I haven't played it at all, but Tom Chick from the Web site quartertothree.com did an excellent job of highlighting the game's design flaws. It seems to me in light of Chick's commentary a score of 9.5 as issued by Polygon was a softball.

He also refused to review it in this state and explained why, which reads a lot like the updates Polygon is doing now. A much more honest approach to this mess.

 

[RedNumberFive]

How courageous of them. Lowering the score only after it became a big issue on every other gaming blog. I'd like to think that the clowns at Polygon will learn a lesson from this, but I think I'm expecting too much.

 

[Paches]

A 4 now. Wow where is that gif with the evolving score, it's needed.

 

[PaineReign]

So if you guys were in their position what do you think the best policy would be? Not release a review until the game is out and you get the consumer's experience?
(But then at that point what is the purpose of a review - generally they are pitched as buying advice, but if people could have bought a product before your review is release, what's the point?)

I mean, this whole situation is just awkward, but reviewers can only review what they are given. They cannot speculate what the game will be like on release day.

And then that brings up the question: If that game is broken on day 1, does the game get a 0? And how long do you wait to publish the review? If the first 3 hours are rough, and then it is fully playable, that 0 still stands (at least on metacritic).

 

[Zaph]

So, in theory, they now have one of the highest and lowest scores on metacritic?

Who...who is this for? Are consumers expected to recheck a review several times a week until the score 'settles'? Are they doing it for increased pageviews? To waste editors time monitoring games?

Such navel gazing bullshit. I can't believe they didn't think this through before wasting their engineers time.

Oh, and once this is all done is the slate wiped clean and all this anti-consumer shit forgotten?

 

[Ken Masters]

Got to give Polygon props for being the only site iwth balls to drop the score to what it should be


imagine if they around during the PS3 skyrim launch, would have given the game a 0

 

[Casimir]

I think the better question is will Polygon from this point on treat every game during release week the same. If a game ships broken, but gets patched a day after release, will the score be updated to reflect that?

How does Polygon sustain their integrity if they don't treat every review the same.

The positive revision only applies if it is a AAA budget game from one of the major publishers. Every other game review is appropriate at the time of writing.

 

[Revven]

So if you guys were in their position what do you think the best policy would be? Not release a review until the game is out and you get the consumer's experience?

A lot of the other "gaming journalist" websites did exactly this. They waited until the public servers were up to try the other features and see how the game held up. Giant Bomb did this, IGN, Kotaku, etc. And on average, their review scores were much lower (well Kotaku goes by a different system, but you get what I mean).

Polygon is the outlier.

 

[dLMN8R]

I also don't understand why the score is arbitrarily lowered to a 4? Do they have some sort ridiculous formula for this kind of stuff? :lol

If it doesn't work at all, shouldn't it be a 1?

http://www.polygon.com/pages/about-reviews

Fours fail completely in one of three ways: design, execution or basic functionality — or they fail a fair amount in all of them.

Seems like a 4 fits their review criteria.

 

[MegaKungFuRadio]

I don't know who this ordeal is more embarrassing for.

Polygon or EA.

Polygon. EA loses credibility with an audience it didn't really have credibility with anyway and is still probably making tons of money. Polygon makes no money, and is losing credibility when credibility is all you really have as a gaming website.

So if you guys were in their position what do you think the best policy would be? Not release a review until the game is out and you get the consumer's experience?
(But then at that point what is the purpose of a review - generally they are pitched as buying advice, but if people could have bought a product before your review is release, what's the point?)

I mean, this whole situation is just awkward, but reviewers can only review what they are given. They cannot speculate what the game will be like on release day.

And then that brings up the question: If that game is broken on day 1, does the game get a 0? And how long do you wait to publish the review? If the first 3 hours are rough, and then it is fully playable, that 0 still stands (at least on metacritic).

My solution would have been take down the review and replace it with an explanation of the current situation with SimCity. Holding points random like that is pointless, since it will presumably just go back up if/when it starts working as intended.

 

[Victrix]

If I read Polygon I would be outraged!

I will pretend I read Polygon so I can be outraged here.

I am outraged.

 

[RedNumberFive]

Got to give Polygon props for being the only site iwth balls to drop the score to what it should be


imagine if they around during the PS3 skyrim launch, would have given the game a 0

Watch the gif of McElroy dancing again, then ask yourself if that would ever really happen. They're only lowering their score because shitting on EA became fashionable late in the day. Rest assured, their lips are firmly clasped around the teat of big game publishers.

 

[Tevos]

Polygon is a complete joke, especially if they "expected" this problem to continue.

They need to remove the score altogether, or even pull the review until they're confident in their score. This is a stupid system.

 

[Lime]

"Clowntown amateur hour" is a pretty good term to describe Polygon's game reviews.

Pretty much.

that's insulting to clowns and aspiring amateur reviewers

:lol

 

[AcceptableGhost]

Got to give Polygon props for being the only site iwth balls to drop the score to what it should be


imagine if they around during the PS3 skyrim launch, would have given the game a 0

If they had any balls they wouldn't have reviewed a big-scale online centric game before it even fucking launched.

 

[partyphone]

Polygon is a complete joke, especially if they "expected" this problem to continue.

They need to remove the score altogether, or even pull the review until they're confident in their score. This is a stupid system.

And it's one that is completely unsustainable. How many games have had updates and DLC patches since they launched? Most of them?

If they had any balls they wouldn't have reviewed a big-scale online centric game before it even fucking launched.

Gotta publish first and get dem clicks!

 

[FordGTGuy]

A lot of the other "gaming journalist" websites did exactly this. They waited until the public servers were up to try the other features and see how the game held up. Giant Bomb did this, IGN, Kotaku, etc. And on average, their review scores were much lower (well Kotaku goes by a different system, but you get what I mean).

Polygon is the outlier.

You make it sound as if releasing a review before a game launches is taboo.

Clearly these server problems did not exist before the game launched and the features that they didn't get to see most likely weren't going to change their final score.

Server issues are a temporary problem and shouldn't permanently put a mark on the final score of a game.

 

[MegaKungFuRadio]

Polygon is a complete joke, especially if they "expected" this problem to continue.

They need to remove the score altogether, or even pull the review until they're confident in their score. This is a stupid system.

Exactly. I presume the "evolving review" or whatever they call it is supposed to allow them to amend low scores given to games that shipped broken and was later fixed in a patch, not amend high scores given to games that... shipped broken and... we'll see?

 

[Yagharek]

I don't know who this ordeal is more embarrassing for.

Polygon or EA.

They could all switch jobs and no one could tell the difference

 

[BlazinAm]

How courageous of them. Lowering the score only after it became a big issue on every other gaming blog. I'd like to think that the clowns at Polygon will learn a lesson from this, but I think I'm expecting too much.

Before or as the review was going up Arthur stated that the score could be changed to reflect any issues that may come up. So they were going to do this.

 

[Revven]

You make it sound as if releasing a review before a game launches is taboo.

For an online-only game, yes, it is.

 

[DRG]

.

 

[Vire]

http://www.polygon.com/pages/about-reviews



Seems like a 4 fits their review criteria.

No it doesn't...

1 Fits the bill according to THEIR own criteria:

A score of one indicates that Polygon review staff believe said game doesn’t properly function. Most reasonable people will not be able to finish a game with a score of one due to massive technical, design, and execution problems.

The game is unplayable.