When a game has always online DRM then absolutely they should wait as that is something that can severely hinder the user base. EA said that the DRM was needed to make the game work and the fact is that the game doesn't work because of their DRM. Offline mode and this server issue is forgiven. There is no offline mode so they deserve to be skewered for it.
-
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
When a game has always online DRM then absolutely they should wait as that is something that can severely hinder the user base. EA said that the DRM was needed to make the game work and the fact is that the game doesn't work because of their DRM. Offline mode and this server issue is forgiven. There is no offline mode so they deserve to be skewered for it.
This will be getting some use.
No they shouldn't assume any information in a review score, a review score is supposed to be a definitive and final rating of a game.
You shouldn't give a game a bad mark for a temporary issue that wasn't even caused by the game but by the Publisher forcing you to connect to a server to play the game.
Lower the score for always online but lowering the score for a issue that will most likely not exist in a week and wasn't even caused directly by the game(server-side) is pretty silly.
Joe Shlabotnik
Banned
Yeah. They'll never do an "evolving review" again, but they have to stick with this for now. I would not be surprised to see at least a week's delay or no score given for "online" games from here on out.
ThatObviousUser
ὠαἴÏÏιÏÏÎ¿Ï Ïαá¿Ï εἶ
Jigolo
Member
Incredible
BolognaSoup
Member
Would be better if the numbers were popping randomly rather than ascending. Like a slot machine.
SlipperyFishes
Banned
I really don't get the Polygon/Kotaku/Giant Bomb/"Insert Website" hate lately - sure in the past some outlets have had really shitty coverage (hello Kotaku East) but I'm pretty sure they all work hard to bring their audiences the coverage they want, and whoever they are the news they clearly return for is enough to keep them coming back often. Maybe that news is not for us here on this hallowed ground of GAF, we've proven we can stand on our own without the backing of publishers.
I've just not understood why it's okay to insult people to the level we often do here. :/
I've just not understood why it's okay to insult people to the level we often do here. :/
Freshmaker
I am Korean.
When the game hinges on the online component... YES.
Because they're self-aggrandizing children both here and on twitter. Especially when a consumer (forum poster) points out their (or their fellow 'reviewers') failures. If they acted like adults and accepted their failures and learned from them, their fellow humans on this forum/twitter would be less critical.
They put it up a whole day in advance, that's not being on time, that's being early. That's so they can get clicks and have the first coverage of the game. They're prioritizing their "business" or whatever than the consumers who are likely to buy the game based on what they say. And if shit hits the fan the very next day (which it did) it's on them for giving their reader-base (and others) a false idea of what to expect.
Maybe if in the review itself, somewhere at the top where they put their hyperbolic statements/quotations they could put a very clear statement of the environment/conditions they were in when playing the game. OR, they could give a word of caution that x game is an always-online game and may have issues launch day with being able to play it; so you may not be able to experience what they were if they put the review up early.
The fact of the matter is, the review was put up early and made no mention of there being any server issues because they played on EA private servers which is but a dream to have right now in the eyes of the consumer. It was wrong of them to give the expectation that the servers would be fine. You can gather from their review, before all these changes, that the servers are fine because of them not mentioning a single thing about it.
It's also highly incompetent of them to have expected the servers would be okay. It's not until after it happened they started stating "it was expected". Yeah, okay, keep telling people that you knew it was going to happen when you had your review up a day in advance rather than waiting like the rest of your competitors. Your actions speak louder than your words, Polygon.
Dorito Pope
Banned
So I take it you guys don't like Mountain Dew?I vote for this becoming the new
Jake Tower
Banned
ALL HAIL DORITO POPE
It will forever be a mystery
Broder Salsa
Banned
Not to me, I felt like I was truly a part of something bigger for the first time in my life when I watched that documentary about the site.
Ken Masters
Banned
LOL, had to laugh because there was real hatred in your post
whatsinaname
Member
The supergroup effect. You have fans of each performer taking a look at what things are going to sound like. The final effect might be great (Cream) or shit (The Firm) but the initial number of people paying attention is going to be big.
The whole documentary turned out to be a big propaganda piece.
EagleBurnn
Banned
They made a self documentary acting as if their gaming blog was revolutionary, something that every college kid thinks when he makes one, but these guys had money to make their fantasy known to everyone.
I agree.
The problem with this case is that they released an early review even though they themselves admitted that it was likely the final game experience wouldn't be the same.
They should have waited until after this whole dilemma to finish their review.
Right click -> Save Image As
Wasn't it spun off The Verge?
Not really. The Verge was really just a temporary home to publish their content while they finalized their own site design.
Polygon was built from the ground up to be independent.
CrunchinJelly
formerly cjelly
As long as other people's careers and futures are affected by game reviews, Polygon will keep taking them seriously.
http://www.joystiq.com/2010/05/03/nier-review-fail/
Unless the members of the design team lack souls, of course.
The Ziggy Sobotka of video games.
Still as funny as the day it went up. Ironically, of course.
Hale-XF11
Member
I vote we throw CliffyB into the mix.
So what makes you think EA deserves a free pass and a moratorium on reviews until the game works?
Films aren't reviewed two years later when the directors cut comes out.
Games should be reviewed as they are at the time they land on the reviewers desk. In this case 1/10 would be generous for EA. It is unjustifiable to release in this state, and the fact it's reviewed so highly just proves yet again that the games media is corrupt.
Is there a mechanic he's missing, or does it actually take that long to catch?
Because that does seem pretty annoying. Not bad enough to mean I couldn't finish it, but it definitely seems obnoxious.
That sort of undermines your other points... most of these reviews were written based on ideal-condition review servers. Games should really be reviewed in as close to consumer conditions as possible and EA sugar coating their online for the press took this wholly expected outcome out of the picture for the people with an audience.
Fortunately the audience itself is piping up about things. Unfortunately, the audience has a short attention span.
XANDER CAGE
Member
The actual place he's supposed to be is on the minimap. He's nowhere near it.
That it is funny not because of the intended effect of Justin Macelroy being a hilarious comedian, but rather it is funny to watch him flounder around and embarrass himself for gloating about being unable to finish a simple mini game.
You raise a fair point. My argument applies more to broken games like skyrim ps3 for example. Mmo games I seem to recall being reviewed a month or two after release. Maybe online drm single player games should also be reviewed in the customers conditions.
And then given 1/10.
The one critical lesson here is dont believe reviews, and dont buy online only drm games.
Did he defend this somehow too?
That documentary made me want to get a tattoo.
He made the asinine argument to vote with your wallet and shut your mouth, ie stop giving EA a hard time. So yeah, he defended this practice though not this specific example.
Seems a bit unfair to attack Cliff over that. He's completely right. The gaming industry needs to do what it needs to do to survive. That doesn't mean every example of microtransactions is a good example.
That blog post was posted with many people like Ben Kuchera of Penny Arcade agreeing with it. But then 1-2 days later EA released Real Racing 3, which took microtransactions to such a horrible extreme that no one could defend it - not Kuchera, probably not Cliff either.
And he certainly hasn't said anything about SimCity here.
That blog post was posted with many people like Ben Kuchera of Penny Arcade agreeing with it. But then 1-2 days later EA released Real Racing 3, which took microtransactions to such a horrible extreme that no one could defend it - not Kuchera, probably not Cliff either.
And he certainly hasn't said anything about SimCity here.
Does going to the other place make the mini game less arduous?
It certainly doesn't take an hour.
Oh my....dear....lol. I hope people lambasted and mocked him for this. LOL. Assuming of course that it's easier to catch the fish in the other area, which based on his little edit and the bottom of the article, it is.
That's why we're still bringing it up 3 years later.
The fish he has on the lure there is one he is not really meant to get, so it takes forever and is easily lost. If he was actual capable of looking at the map and going to the correct spot, it takes a literal 5 second fish pull minigame to snag it.
I recall doing that bit in like... a minute. It took nothing and I barely remembered it until the outrage was being laughed about by everyone else.