Polygon gives high scores to games despite their anti-consumer aspects / DRM strategy

I applaud them for constantly updating their review and reflecting the quality of the experience of owning the game, but they should have just did like IGN and had an ongoing review with NO SCORE.

As long as it gets the point across to anyone curious about the game that you can't reliably play it and they are chopping off features to get it to work, I couldn't care less about their (or any reviewer's) little number/stars.
 
Changing the score is ridiculous. Because in the end, they'll put the 9 back when the game is working for everyone if they follow the same guideline.
 
Revven said:
For an online-only game, yes, it is.
Click to expand...

You mean a temporary server issue that isn't always going to exist?

I can understand knocking down the score of a game because it is always online and being pissed at the developer/publisher because of it but knocking down a score for a temporary issue doesn't make sense to me.

Instead of waiting till post launch why don't we wait until the issues have been fixed to review it?
 
Vire said:
No it doesn't...

1 Fits the bill according to THEIR own criteria:



The game is unplayable.
Click to expand...
God this stuff reads like a highschooler wrote it.
massive technical, design, and execution problems
Click to expand...
What does this even mean? Why are they saying the same thing several times? Did they just jot down buzz terms and call it a day?
 
Are they an illegitimate website for consistently updating their review? I don't think so. So what is the intelligent response to this thought?
 
Should be a 1. They also should review retail copies and review the multiplayer once is released. Reviews shouldn't be buying advice and should not be executed in an environment that isn't equal to the ones the users that are actually paying for the game will have.
 
I think some sort of addendum should have just been added to the original score: this is how they felt about the experience with the game, its mechanics, ideas, and their response to it and that they can recommend it (or not) under the best conditions. The review mentions they played a pre-release code on reserved EA servers, at least.

I get when people say that the functionality of the servers as part of the always-online stipulation is a significant part of the game. I also think though that if the online experience is consistently smooth and there's a solid game somewhere, that should be noted too.

I don't know, however, that the constant updating of the score itself benefits anybody at this point.
 
PaineReign said:
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).
Click to expand...
They don't want that responsibility. They know that Metacritic averages can determine bonus payments, as fucked as it is. There's also a tendency to be, let's say, optimistic, about a game's flaws if the publisher or developer says they're going to be fixed come release. Furthermore, I would assume that most clicks for any given review happen before or right after a game is released, which is something bigger sites can't afford to pass up.
Polygon's solution is to have their cake and eat it, too. They look ridiculous in the process, but I don't think it's going to hurt them in the long run.

The best way in their 'predicament' here would have been to withhold a score until the issues are ironed out. One of the biggest, if not the biggest, German PC gaming sites/magazines did just that. With a big fat warning at the start of the review, essentially saying 'buyer's beware, game's fucked right now, score forthcoming'.
 
RedNumberFive said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think McElroy just didn't think it through and changed it after Polygon started catching heat for the score. He said on Twitter that he probably should have consulted with someone before doing it. Nothing to do with hating EA becoming fashionable as it has never been out of fashion.
 
Codeblue said:
I think McElroy just didn't think it through and changed it after Polygon started catching heat for the score. He said on Twitter that he probably should have consulted with someone before doing it. Nothing to do with hating EA becoming fashionable as it has never been out of fashion.
Click to expand...

Let me rephrase it. They played it as safe as possible, as to not upset EA. Only when the backlash became overwhelming, did they decide to change the score. They should have been looking out for the interests of their readers instead of publishers and advertisers.
 
RedNumberFive said:
Let me rephrase it. They played it as safe as possible, as to not upset EA. Only when the backlash became overwhelming, did they decide to change the score. They should have been looking out for the interests of their readers instead of publishers and advertisers.
Click to expand...

And bite the hand that feeds?
 
Aquamarine said:
Now THIS is more like it.

m3Gqnk4.png
Click to expand...

Overcompensating, its still 9.5 in Metacritic so EA is still pleased with this, so yeah, keep fucking that chicken Press Reset.
 
RedNumberFive said:
Let me rephrase it. They played it as safe as possible, as to not upset EA. Only when the backlash became overwhelming, did they decide to change the score. They should have been looking out for the interests of their readers instead of publishers and advertisers.
Click to expand...

Oh, totally agree then.

Edit: By "They" I still think it was only one person. I think everyone else at the site would have stood by their 9.5.
 
ServBotPhil said:
Is Horizon comparatively as great as the rest of the Motorsports titles? They look like apples and oranges.
Click to expand...

Horizon is not as good as Motorsport but it's also the first game by the developer and is really a arcade game with a bite of sim in it.

It's not a 9.5/10 or something crazy but it's also not a 6/10.

BlazinAm said:
It kinda is but it depends on the person reviewing it and their perception and if they feel that way then that is fair to put into a review.
Click to expand...

Are you honestly trying to tell me Horizon's world is empty?

That isn't a subjective statement.
 
Its very likely that Polygon got duped by EA in this situation. EA probably knew that there would be server problems, and hoped that they could convince reviewers to bite and post the reviews early. Im not sure if the other sites also got the same access to the private servers and are merely delaying the scores to see how it actually functions in the enviroment it was designed for. In any case, seems very likely that polygon got taken for a ride, which would be their own fault no doubt.
 
SMD said:
How do you know? The game hasn't been in a fit state since launch. If a game only runs well provided there aren't too many people playing it, how does that mean it's a temporary issue? If the DRM is crippling and EA are unwilling to sort it out during periods of high demand, why should it be ignored because in 2 years not everyone will still be on?
Click to expand...

C'mon now, are you honestly trying to say SimCity's current server problems are going to be persistent through it's life?

I guess Diablo 3 started working because most people just stopped playing it?
 
nib95 said:
They might not be persistently this bad, but they may still be bad. That is a very worrying prospect.
Click to expand...

Because SimCity isn't the first game to do this and we have other games(Diablo 3) that we can look to as evidence that the issues will be resolved at some point.

Every MMO and MMO type game goes through this same problem at launch, the servers are never good enough for the response.

All of those MMOs solved the server issues within a week if not a little longer.
 
Why are people mad that a game that is unplayable for a huge selection of people that bought it is getting torched like a game that is unplayable for a huge selection of people that bought it?

I would be more offended if the review still said 9/10 - good luck trying to play
 
I still don't understand why they didn't just NOT post a score for now until server issues are resolved. Giving a game ANYTHING when you can't play it is pointless.
 
SMD said:
People have already said that this is far worse than Diablo 3's launch - and that's also a title that suffered from the online DRM.

Still, my point remains - you expect the situation to improve but can you guarantee 100% that it will simply if the numbers drop off? And for that matter, when people are queuing, they're not getting in and playing, they're getting in and losing connection.
Click to expand...

Of course I can't we can't guarantee that they won't improve it either.

We can't see the future but based on experiences of the past we can see that these issues will most likely be fixed.

sikkinixx said:
I still don't understand why they didn't just NOT post a score for now until server issues are resolved. Giving a game ANYTHING when you can't play it is pointless.
Click to expand...

Exactly, at the very least instead of "evolving" the score just remove the score and say it's temporarily unplayable due to a issue that might be resolved soon
 
I don't get why they couldn't just say "This game is a 10 or w/e, but the launch is a mess, so don't buy it right now". That makes more sense to me than "waiting x amount of time = -y points from score".
 
They fucked. The updating score don´t work. Now probably Polygon knows, but it is too late. It going to be worse when the score go back to 8.
 
Riposte said:
I don't get why they couldn't just say "This game is a 10 or w/e, but the launch is a mess, so don't buy it right now". That makes more sense to me than "waiting x amount of time = -y points from score".
Click to expand...
The score is becoming completely arbitrary. Why not a 2.5? Why a 4.0?

Points out the ludicrous nature of scoring itself...
 
FordGTGuy said:
Because SimCity isn't the first game to do this and we have other games(Diablo 3) that we can look to as evidence that the issues will be resolved at some point.

Every MMO and MMO type game goes through this same problem at launch, the servers are never good enough for the response.

All of those MMOs solved the server issues within a week if not a little longer.
Click to expand...

Competitive games get regular balance patches, and are usually bad to some degree at launch. Should we rate an FPS where the shotgun has a half-mile range OK because it'll probably be patched, when the emergency reaction is to put walls in all the open space? Nope. It's such a huge fuckup and such a bad reaction that it leaves the dev's credibility in question and permanently drives away some of the online playerbase you could otherwise expect.
 
JDSN said:
Problem were there since day one, their amends are based on their need to avoid a backlash and bad rep, not to fix the plain ignorance that was the first score.
Click to expand...

Problems were not there when they initially reviewed the game. They amended the score when the problems became significant.
 
FordGTGuy said:
You mean a temporary server issue that isn't always going to exist?
?,
I can understand knocking down the score of a game because it is always online and being pissed at the developer/publisher because of it but knocking down a score for a temporary issue doesn't make sense to me.

Instead of waiting till post launch why don't we wait until the issue's have been fixed to review it?
Click to expand...

Because EA didn't wait to the issues were fixed before selling it.
 
Deadly Cyclone said:
Problems were not there when they initially reviewed the game. They amended the score when the problems became significant.
Click to expand...

Most publications waited because they knew shit was probably going to hit the fan. Polygon was in the wrong and they are trying to look like they are the good guys now when they did a shitty thing in the first place.
 
Mandoric said:
Competitive games get regular balance patches, and are usually bad to some degree at launch. Should we rate an FPS where the shotgun has a half-mile range OK because it'll probably be patched, when the emergency reaction is to put walls in all the open space? Nope. It's such a huge fuckup and such a bad reaction that it leaves the dev's credibility in question and permanently drives away some of the online playerbase you could otherwise expect.
Click to expand...

This issue you're describing is caused by the game itself, this is a server issue caused by a overload of people trying to play at once.

Two completely different things, It's like saying not having gas in a car is the same as a car with a broken engine because both aren't capable of operating.

Yagharek said:
Because EA didn't wait to the issues were fixed before selling it.
Click to expand...

EA could've definitely better prepared for this launch but this isn't a issue you can fix until it occurs.

What made you guys think that out of every online-only release(including MMOs) EA would master this release? C'mon now this is EA we're talking about here.
 
MikeE21286 said:
The score is becoming completely arbitrary. Why not a 2.5? Why a 4.0?

Points out the ludicrous nature of scoring itself...
Click to expand...

It points out the ludicrous nature of ludicrous scoring. At some point people thought that points = a game's value, which is stupid and incalculable. Scores (ideally 1-5 out of 5) are simply ranking tiers to put games in. Nothing about "innovation", nothing about "perfection", no trying to make up some stupid ass math system to subtracts bad graphics from nice music, no rating the varying stability of an online service like Origin or Xbox Live, etc.

EDIT: Don't forget scoring based on price. Jesus christ is that stupid, more so nowadays even.
 
Big-E said:
Most publications waited because they knew shit was probably going to hit the fan. Polygon was in the wrong and they are trying to look like they are the good guys now when they did a shitty thing in the first place.
Click to expand...

I don't see how they were wrong for reviewing the game on time. No one waited for Call of Duty to come out to put the review up and they have had server issues (not to this degree) each of the past few games. Why now should everyone be waiting and those who don't are just "wrong?"

Should every site now wait to review every single game with some form of online component?
 
Lime said:
You forgot the quotations. They are pure hyperbole straight out of a PR release. I cannot fathom how the EiC even allowed this fanboy-drivel to be publicized:

fuckpolygonkab2s.png


unavngivetweze5.png


unavngivet7jpsf.png


polygonlol75u3y.png


Put them in OP.
Click to expand...
Had a very good laugh with these.
It's been a while since a read a game review, i should start again.
 
RedNumberFive said:
Let me rephrase it. They played it as safe as possible, as to not upset EA. Only when the backlash became overwhelming, did they decide to change the score. They should have been looking out for the interests of their readers instead of publishers and advertisers.
Click to expand...
Why do you automatically assume that 1) a high score was originally given to the game because of CORRUPTION!! and ass-kissing a publisher and 2) that the review score was only changed because of some kind of united backlash against them or the game, whichever you're implying?

Is it just cynicism?

I mean, there's no evidence for the former, and for the latter, why assume that instead of the more logical explanation: The game worked well pre-launch, was busted as shit at launch, and they changed the score in response to that?

You can argue all day about the futility of changing scores (you'd have a point) or what the number should be if the servers are busted (so pedantic) or that the score was too high in the first place (opinions!) and I'm sure no one would convince you otherwise. But I frankly find it baffling that the common assumption is that the high score indicates pandering to EA and not, like, the writer's actual thoughts, and that changing the score was in response to a mob and not them trying to use a system they talked about when they launched the site.

I don't see any real logic behind that point of view. Why villainize people so readily? I think reviewing a game with heavy online elements was premature--pretty much everyone with good sense knew there would be launch problems, though not to this extent--but christ, it's mystifying how many people jump to paid off/no integrity conclusions instead of, say, overenthusiasm.
 
FordGtGuy, what exactly are you suggesting? That they review a game based on a pre-empitive assumption on how the servers might run? If they're selling the game at full price and launching it even to begin with, they need to get their shit in order and working from the start. The reviews should be of the product the way the masses will be playing it on the off set, and any updates to scores based on patches should come thereafter, only if the problems are fixed. The issue here is that they started with a stupendously high score for a game that basically doesn't work, and then dropped it slightly to reflect it some what, and then dropped it more. Pointless. They should have attempted to get a more accurate measure of the game from the off set, especially for an online only one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Despelote, Consume Me, Keep Driving, do game journalist overvalue "snack games" and get high on finishing novel experiences?
10
161
Madonis replied
Hypothetical: Nintendo releases games on PC, but exclusive to own launcher with DRM and no modding. Would you still buy their games?
2
86
1K
tusharngf replied
Consumer-level AI is rapidly improving - why aren't we getting better "AI" in games?
2
95
238
Autistic_Pancake replied
Silksong Players complain about high difficulty, Steam Scores Fall, Easy Mode Mod Gets Popular
Drama  2 3 4 5 6
281
5K
Timberwolf25 replied
  • Locked
Despite failure, PlayStation CEO praises Concord: 'Certain aspects were exceptional'
Game Dev Platform 
23
1K
El Hee-Ho replied
Top Bottom