Baloonatic
Member
I might not be remembering correctly but I'm pretty sure it's the first thing you catch if you go to the location on your map. It's just an introduction to the fishing mechanics, not meant to be challenging at all.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Polygon gives high scores to games despite their anti-consumer aspects / DRM strategy
- Thread starter Vire
- Start date
I might not be remembering correctly but I'm pretty sure it's the first thing you catch if you go to the location on your map. It's just an introduction to the fishing mechanics, not meant to be challenging at all.
dragonflys545
Member
The only person who is biased for MS is Arthur Gies.
Edit: WOW they change the score twice! LMAO!!!!!!!
Damn, that really sucks. He should have been more observant.
Hmm, just read that Justine McElroy (guy in the fishing vid) is now one of the main editors at Polygon? Coupled with the Gies blatant bias thing, fine bunch of editors they have over there lol.
I feel a bit bad gunning Gies like this, especially seeing as how he posts on GAF and everything, but I'm just being blunt I guess.
I feel a bit bad gunning Gies like this, especially seeing as how he posts on GAF and everything, but I'm just being blunt I guess.
Devilgunman
Member
Many believers, especially those from Kotaku, thought Polygon would be the best gaming site because it was built by former chiefs from various sites.
Now, I don't make this post as someone who (a) wants to defend Polygon or (b) someone who bought and is attempting to play SimCity.
However, I'll put it this way. With reviewing(games (or movies, books, media, products, etc.) in general, the whole concept of doing so is very subjective. It's about your experience with the game/thing.
We could talk about the fact that (according to what I heard on the Joystiq podcast last week) EA forced people who were to have a review ready before release to play it on their terms with private servers and whatnot, but that's not what this is entirely about, to me at least. It's certainly part of it though.
What I expect out of a game is that person's opinion of the game. I don't go through reviews looking for validation of my own thoughts, I want some thoughtful insight on the games that I'm on the fence about or just don't care about. I listen to the reviewers who I have paid a lot of attention to, whose tastes seem to align to my own, and weigh their experiences and thoughts to figure out whether or not a borderline game is something I should actually pick up.
In the case of Pitts writing about SimCity, I wish they didn't compromise their rating. He disclosed that this was on private servers, and people should understand that they would not be playing under the same conditions. The simple fact is that if people could actually play this game, they would probably find that it's pretty good. Most people would, anyway. They'd agree (or mostly agree) with the 9.5 score, and it would be "justified".
In the case of Mass Effect 3, the "anti-consumer" aspects of the game didn't affect me at all. And I did play multiplayer to get that stupid readiness waiting up. But I never had to spend a dime on the microtransactions to get the "best" ending. The Bombcast people who have played DS3 have said they wouldn't have even noticed the microtransactions in the game if it weren't for the hoopla about it.
Clearly in the case of SimCity, the DRM completely screwed the game. But Russ's score should stand. He reviewed the game. And absolutely, there should've been an update/caveat placed on the review once it hit and the servers failed and whatnot. But the score should stand. He reviewed the game, gave it a score. Now all they've done is compromised their system.
The fact is, if the DRM worked as designed, there wouldn't be an issue. Yet they don't have enough servers to get the game out there, let alone run all of the resources on it, yeah, that really sucks. Surprise, surprise, EA is a moneygrubbing dirtbag who isn't known for their quality in the first place, let alone customer satisfaction or consumers rights. But game reviewing should be about reviewing the game. Game journalism should talk about the mechanics behind the games and the people making them. This is like writing a paragraph about the stupid pre-teens on XBox Live in every multiplayer game review. I know those kids exist, and I never have to hear them if I don't want to. But that has no place in the review. And if you're too stupid to know about the DRM before reading the review and you buy the game off of a glowing review in "ideal conditions" and you didn't see this coming after the Diablo 3 fiasco, well, you deserve to have your $60 taken for supporting such douchebaggery from EA.
TL;DR - The score should stand, but the DRM should be talked about in a separate piece. Don't shoot the messenger, shoot EA. Or be pissed at yourself for buying a game you figured would be broken out of the box. The fake, digital box. From origin. Which you hated in the first place.
However, I'll put it this way. With reviewing(games (or movies, books, media, products, etc.) in general, the whole concept of doing so is very subjective. It's about your experience with the game/thing.
We could talk about the fact that (according to what I heard on the Joystiq podcast last week) EA forced people who were to have a review ready before release to play it on their terms with private servers and whatnot, but that's not what this is entirely about, to me at least. It's certainly part of it though.
What I expect out of a game is that person's opinion of the game. I don't go through reviews looking for validation of my own thoughts, I want some thoughtful insight on the games that I'm on the fence about or just don't care about. I listen to the reviewers who I have paid a lot of attention to, whose tastes seem to align to my own, and weigh their experiences and thoughts to figure out whether or not a borderline game is something I should actually pick up.
In the case of Pitts writing about SimCity, I wish they didn't compromise their rating. He disclosed that this was on private servers, and people should understand that they would not be playing under the same conditions. The simple fact is that if people could actually play this game, they would probably find that it's pretty good. Most people would, anyway. They'd agree (or mostly agree) with the 9.5 score, and it would be "justified".
In the case of Mass Effect 3, the "anti-consumer" aspects of the game didn't affect me at all. And I did play multiplayer to get that stupid readiness waiting up. But I never had to spend a dime on the microtransactions to get the "best" ending. The Bombcast people who have played DS3 have said they wouldn't have even noticed the microtransactions in the game if it weren't for the hoopla about it.
Clearly in the case of SimCity, the DRM completely screwed the game. But Russ's score should stand. He reviewed the game. And absolutely, there should've been an update/caveat placed on the review once it hit and the servers failed and whatnot. But the score should stand. He reviewed the game, gave it a score. Now all they've done is compromised their system.
The fact is, if the DRM worked as designed, there wouldn't be an issue. Yet they don't have enough servers to get the game out there, let alone run all of the resources on it, yeah, that really sucks. Surprise, surprise, EA is a moneygrubbing dirtbag who isn't known for their quality in the first place, let alone customer satisfaction or consumers rights. But game reviewing should be about reviewing the game. Game journalism should talk about the mechanics behind the games and the people making them. This is like writing a paragraph about the stupid pre-teens on XBox Live in every multiplayer game review. I know those kids exist, and I never have to hear them if I don't want to. But that has no place in the review. And if you're too stupid to know about the DRM before reading the review and you buy the game off of a glowing review in "ideal conditions" and you didn't see this coming after the Diablo 3 fiasco, well, you deserve to have your $60 taken for supporting such douchebaggery from EA.
TL;DR - The score should stand, but the DRM should be talked about in a separate piece. Don't shoot the messenger, shoot EA. Or be pissed at yourself for buying a game you figured would be broken out of the box. The fake, digital box. From origin. Which you hated in the first place.
FantasticMrFoxdie
Mumber
Dynamic Review scores.
Polygon innovating game journalism one step at a time. Visceral.
I'm not clicking on Polygon links anymore...
Polygon innovating game journalism one step at a time. Visceral.
I'm not clicking on Polygon links anymore...
turnbuckle
Member
won't happen, but yes. absolutely
TheNatural
My Member!
What do you define surviving as? Most of these companies are pulling plenty of profit by last check. And THQ sunk like a rock when they attempted the ultra microtransaction strategy with Saints Row 3 and other games.
Bottom line is, games are simple. Publishers are the only ones complicating matters by putting pressure on themselves for more, more, more. More money, more control, more anti consumer practice.
It's not just buy the game anymore, it's preorder it so you get something free to "augment" your experience. Then buy the game, activate it, register it, through the publisher approved client or "universe" of some kind. Make sure you're controlled by playing it, through always online DRM or maybe install some malware on your system like SecuROM.
If the game is fucked up because it was rushed? Wait for a patch. Then go buy some microtransactions, go buy some DLC episodic content to get the "compete" experience. Then wait a year to be shafted when the "complete" version is on sale cheaper for what you bought it for at rushed launch.
This whole idea that every game ever released now has to have transactions, episodic content, a publisher client, ways to track your usage, yearly sequels, social networking, and an entire fucking Universe around the game is on them. Companies made the choice to go this route. No one put a gun to their head to push 50 games out every year and 50 sequels out the following year and cause these problems for themselves.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=517078
NeoGAF already tore up his post. Cliffy showed up in the thread to do some initial drive by trolling. And when posters pointed out the weakness of his argument, he went onto twitter claiming he wasn't going to respond to trolls and threw out some logical fallacies for effect.
edit: Here are the highlights (thread is long)
1
2
3
---------
Ben Kuchera gave a speech where he thought that a WWII simulation/realistic FPS was trying to play to the same audience as CoD: MW/2/3. So I wouldn't put too much stock in him being an authority on anything related to gaming.
It's the content of the review. He basically shows that he has no idea what Diablo 2 was about, or how D3 is nowhere near the game that D2 was; yet he goes on to claim that D3 is a superior successor to what made D2 popular.
soxinthebox
Member
What's the deal with that review? Just looking at it now has it at 10 which is surprisingly high but if he enjoyed it like I have - sure why not. He also wasn't wrong about the server issues being resolved.
Plus I think Cliff (and Ben Kuchera) were thinking of stuff like Dead Space 3 that from all I've heard is more pay-to-cheat, not pay-to-progress. The game is apparently farmable, and even if you didn't it sounds like you could do fine even if you never upgrade, nevermind what you'd casually get. But Real Racing 3 was an extreme line crossed that probably could've been avoided if they just charged us $5 or $10 damn dollars, and SimCity better stand as an example of why we're not reading for always online gaming and probably won't be for longer than they'd like (fortunately.)
Forsaken82
Member
He defended the monetization of content. I don't recall it having anything to do with Always Online DRM they are not the same thing in my opinion. One issue is restrictive, the other is an option.
Money.
They poached "talent" from other websites. They now prowl twitter and forums sticking up for their staffers no matter what.
I think this shouldn't be seen as business as usual for an editorial staff. This should be seen as a major gaffe on their part that requires changes in their editorial pipeline and an apology to those that relied on their recommendation. "Special arrangements" shouldn't be okay for Reviews Editors to post always-online reviews on. There is no accountability.
I really don't look to video game reviews as a consumer report, but more of an analysis/evaluation of the content. I guess I just feel EA has set up some outside barriers to their content. And now it's gotten so bad it warrants an update.
Also, everyone has an idea what a review should be and be centered around, and so does every outlet. Your opinion is not objectively correct about how a review should be structured.
Diablo III was one of the best gaming experiences I had last year, but a 10 for that game is a complete joke.
No. He told people to stop complaining. Consumers can't vote with their wallet when the people who are the experts constantly give these figurative political candidates the benefit of the doubt far to often.
There is no longer an honest system of good ideas winning and bad ideas failing. It is a society where those with the most clout dictate the terms of everything. EA can bully those who disseminate the information into not questioning their policies.
Cliffy is right if the system worked and the EA's of the world couldn't take advantage of their customers because of their strength and foothold in the market. He failed to understand that concept when he filled his piece with logical fallacy after logical fallacy.
To be entirely fair, the guy who gives you the fishing rod is standing on the beach he was attempting to fish at. So assuming that that is the intro fishing beach isn't unreasonable. I know that that is the first place I tried to fish.
Regardless, not reviewing the game because of that is pretty shitty.
I can't shoot Russ for this. All I can do is blame the editorial staff in place that allowed this review to be published. Arthur Gies and whoever else is in charge of reviews failed Russ and the other reviewers by allowing this review to be posted.
Damn Cliffy got exposed.
Very true. I just think that when the review was put in an ideal sandbox you can't expect the score to reflect the release day server snafu that everyone expected. Nor do I think that it needs to because the DRM is not inherently part of the game, just a service around it (albeit a broken one at that). But that's exactly what you're saying, that I have my own opinion about it. So cheers, I suppose!
Eh, I wouldn't even say they need to be blamed for it being published because the review is subjective as I said. He had a good experience with the game. Now, we can lambast them for accepting a pre-release game experience for the review when most would expect the game to be very different at release, and it's very stupid that they didn't talk about the worries more in the review regardless of whether or not the servers totally took a crap. But I think that's a different story than what the topic title suggests, really.
Vire
Member
http://www.gamespot.com/simcity/reviews/simcity-review-6405012/
Seems like Kevin read my thread.
Respect points +10
Seems like Kevin read my thread.
Respect points +10
Certain genres (especially heavily mechanical PC games) of games are far from static, significantly moreso than any other medium considering the design and meaning. An evolving critique (not just a silly rescore) of the game over time could be wonderful, so could true secondary reviews, where you leave the original untouched and have the same author revisit the game down the line. Although it'd take a more narrow focus and a lot of effort, whereas a big multiplat site that has to earn some bucks is just going to focus on the here and now for the most part.
So I think interactive reviews actually have pretty good merit as long as there's guidelines for them and it's part of the DNA of the site, I mean you can't just do it out of the blue like this, also doesn't help that batting the score around was the focused part. I think it's a good concept, but Polygon is really flubbing it. Still think the site is pretty decent, though.
Eh, great swaths of critical darlings and forum darlings alike are jokes, Diablo III was a great game with some warts and it has substantially improved and will continue to over time, until it gets an expansion that's likely to be a game changer and people start to forget. Same exact sequence Diablo II took until Lord of Destruction (except D2 launched significantly worse), which I assume the more vocally outraged on the game were too young to participate in.
Although, I'd never actually score something, as I'd rather just write about it with some substance, if I gave any 10s to games last year, D3 and Xcom would probably be the two off the top of my head, oh and Persona 4 if I hadn't played it before.
So I think interactive reviews actually have pretty good merit as long as there's guidelines for them and it's part of the DNA of the site, I mean you can't just do it out of the blue like this, also doesn't help that batting the score around was the focused part. I think it's a good concept, but Polygon is really flubbing it. Still think the site is pretty decent, though.
Eh, great swaths of critical darlings and forum darlings alike are jokes, Diablo III was a great game with some warts and it has substantially improved and will continue to over time, until it gets an expansion that's likely to be a game changer and people start to forget. Same exact sequence Diablo II took until Lord of Destruction (except D2 launched significantly worse), which I assume the more vocally outraged on the game were too young to participate in.
Although, I'd never actually score something, as I'd rather just write about it with some substance, if I gave any 10s to games last year, D3 and Xcom would probably be the two off the top of my head, oh and Persona 4 if I hadn't played it before.
It just feels like a reaction to what is happening, like they're trying to be in line with consumers feelings of frustration etc.
I don't want that from a review. I want to know how good the game is. If there are problems at release, I'll factor at in, maybe wait a bit.
It's like if a car gets great reviews, but then gets recalled to replace a faulty battery or something. Should all reviews be lowered? No, it's still the same car.
It's nothing like a car with a faulty battery and everything like a car that you can't run because of a manufacturer fault. So it doesn't matter if it's a shitty car or the best car in the whole world if you can't drive it.
Agree, you dont change the score, you standby the review you gave in the situation you gave it. The most you should do is add a side note that says about the current issues but you dont flip flop on the score thats stupid.
Yup, and the bonus side-effect of this is that developers/publishers know the at-launch state of their online infrastructure will be baked into the review. Permanently. No retconning a couple weeks down the line when things stabilize. Ideally this'll lead to longer, more substantial beta testing - not just a couple single day sessions with limited invites.
GlamFM
Banned
I disagree. Unfortunately games now change over time. Reviews should be able to reflect that.
BurnOutBrighter
Banned
Agreed, but this only works if the review score actually reflects the quality of the game.
9.5 for SimCity and 10s for Diablo III and Mass Effect 3? Get the fuck out.
They can with a side note, the review should stand in the situation and time they reviewed it in.
GlamFM
Banned
OK - but in case of the Polygon review it did. EA set up some servers and it worked perfectly fine.
Now however the situation or state has dramatically changed and the new review reflects that.
One might say EA cheated and Polygon got owned, but at least they admit that and changed the review score.
Of course Polygon should have waited as most other sites did with their review until the servers went live...
Shitty situation, but I still think it´s better than having a 9.5 for a game nobody can play.
alexandros
Banned
The disagreement lies in what 'it' is. CliffyB's point of view seems to be that 'it' is nickel-and-diming consumers for every bit of content and using every dirty trick in the book. Other people seem to think that 'it' is keeping costs under check, making a good product and trying to build consumer good will.
Not a realistic proposition, for numerous reasons. Reviewers should concentrate on how a product performs when it hits the market. That's when most people buy it, that's when they look into reviews for purchasing advice. If publishers release broken games (be it because of ill-conceived DRM measures or other problems), they should be taken to task for it.
We DO look again however for when games pop up on sale, like Steam ones. Granted you can't keep an eye on a game all the time, and it doesn't necessarily deserve a new whole review (and likewise the original text should remain, as has happened with Polygon), but when relevant it can be worth it. Something like TF2 could use a whole new re-review now for example regardless of the 2007 reviews.
At the very least it's a very good idea to do an immediate second look when shit like this happens that is in direct contrast to when they reviewed it, as in a sense that experience ends up being a sham.
Do we really? Usually a few years down the line gaming communities have collectively formed a more accurate picture of a game's quality. I don't think reviews are really necessary at that stage.
But yes, if a game drastically changes (stuff way beyond "DRM/servers working now"), then maybe another look is warranted.
When shit like this happens, reviewers should just refrain from scoring the game before it gets released. Maybe now, after the trainwreck launches of Diablo 3 and Sim City, more reviewers will wait with their reviews for games that have always-online DRM functionality. Many sites already did wait with their reviews for Sim City, others refused to score it. They handled the situation correctly, Polygon didn't. Their glowing, hyperbolic* review probably duped a whole lot of gamers into buying the game in this broken state (and it's still happening via metacritic).
* what's up with their hyperbolic writing anyway? It sounds like they're desperately fishing for back-of-the-box quotes with every other sentence. I was under the impression McElroy's Skyrim dance gif was a joke but that gif looks like their reviews read.
Gaming websites have always posted Patch-Notes and some review additional content as well.
Polygon only gives the impression of going with the time when they completely ignore how Minecraft on the Xbox 360 has evolved over time but then use their Review Policy to cover obvious mistakes they've made during the review process. PC gamers have experienced outages or other kinds of problems with pretty much every single game that features always online DRM. There was no reason to believe that this wouldn't be the case this time. Polygon decided to use their perfect-setup experience to judge the quality of a game and later on found out that the real-world scenario is completely different from what they've experienced. This has nothing to do with the game changing over time and everything to do with ignoring the fact that a review experience set up by the publisher doesn't reflect the real-world scenario in any way.
If their intention was to go with the time and reflect changes, they wouldn't pick and choose which games are worth their attention. They'd re-visit every single game they've ever reviewed as soon as patches or add-ons hit to figure out if these change their experience. Minecraft shows that this is absolutely not what they're doing.
So I'd partly agree and say that games these days can change so much that it's definitely worth keeping the users up-to-date with what product they'd get if they just went out today and purchased it. This can be done without some fancy review policy that allows changing the scores afterwards. This can be done with news and new articles. This time they've used their review policy to cover up an obvious mistake on their part and nothing else. Had they done their job beforehand there'd be absolutely no need for this in the case of SimCity. When there's actually a reason to re-visit a game (again, Minecraft) they somehow don't do it.
It's kind of a hard situation for reviewers since they now putting scores on their experience rather than on the game itself. I bet SimCity is a lot of fun once you get a chance to play it but this review is just all fucked up now because it's gone from a score of 9.5 which is "amazing", to a pretty bad score of 4 which for me is on the edge of STAY AWAY.
I don't have any answers for how to properly deal with this but Polygon changing their score twice now is really not okay in my eyes.
I don't have any answers for how to properly deal with this but Polygon changing their score twice now is really not okay in my eyes.
Why single out this website? They all do it.
Polygon singled themselves out with that ridiculous documentary and all the talk about changing the way games media works and being an innovative disruptive new player
I think they absolutely deserve threads pointing out their glaring inadequacies, even if really they are just like everyone else
Now, there's a twofold issue here.
One is the idea that DLC and microtransactions are inherently anti-consumer. That's a strongly-held opinion, but it shouldn't be regarded as a solid fact, and it's entirely reasonable to not consider it worthy of negativity if you're okay with the premise at the outset. This is a YMMV thing; as far as the reader is concerned, it's up to them to give patronage to the review sites which more accurately reflect their opinion on the subject.
The second issue is the simple fact that since release, the game doesn't work; this highlights a major flaw with the business model of game review sites; the fact that reviews 1) have to be out prior to release to get noticed - they can't earn revenue if they're too late to be of use to people - and 2) cannot therefore give an accurate reflection of the actual end-user experience. Things like that have to be tied up in guesswork and prediction, and there's no inherent reason to predict failure in that regard.
How can we have a review site that accurately reflects the final player experience yet still makes sufficient revenue to be sustainable? Maybe it's not that bad a problem, maybe people will still pay attention to late reviews, but I can understand why many of the big sites are very nervous about attempting that without having an alternative revenue feed to fall back on.
Shao Kahn Brewing a Stew
Banned
Here you go
Holy shit! :lol
Oh and I can't believe they lowered the score to 4... :lol
SolarPowered
Member
Sweet
Barely looked at Polygon, but some of the stuff I've seen in this thread is a major turn off. Definitely putting that site on the list of stuff to avoid in the future. I'm gonna have to be fair and scrutinize the other gaming sites too.
Jake Tower
Banned
Here you go
This needs <parameter: score> thrown in the mix.
BRocknRolla
Member
This Polygon nonsense about score changing has really made me lose even more respect for them, not only does the editorial staff feel entirely out of sync with one and other in regard to reviews (listen to Besties when they talk about Dead Space 3 and explain to me how that conversation meets with a "9.5"), but they clearly don't have the gumption to stand behind their scores as valuable critical reviews.
It all reads to me like, "If the winds of public opinion start blowing, we better make sure we're headed in the same direction."
Post a disclaimer, or explain why the review may not meet with actual experience, and update that as you see fit, but don't change your score repeatedly. It drains it of all value.
It all reads to me like, "If the winds of public opinion start blowing, we better make sure we're headed in the same direction."
Post a disclaimer, or explain why the review may not meet with actual experience, and update that as you see fit, but don't change your score repeatedly. It drains it of all value.
Boss Doggie
all my loli wolf companions are so moe
Same. Somehow they feel more like sheep rather trying to be "different".