Support NeoGAF

[unbias]

It seems every couple of months that Polygon do something incredibly dodgy, so I think a new thread dedicated to cataloguing Polygon's various misdeeds could be useful. I still find it hard to believe Gies is still digging a huge hole for himself even now. I don't even know what to make of Crecente flat out lying like that. After all the fanfare and hubris they had about redefining Games Journalism, just seeing crap like this just shows it's the same old stuff. I agree they've had some great longform articles, but I just cannot trust anything they review.

That is another thing. I've never liked their website or most of what they push out, so I never visit it. I follow RPS a lot, and the only reason I even started paying attention to them(polygon) was because of this.

I dont have any business creating a good solid topic, detailing what has been going on there, because I don't and have not followed them enough. For me it would be all about Arthur(cause it is essentially all I know). If there is more there then this, then ya, they definitely deserve a topic.

 

[JDSN]

Oh boy, this sure got worse real fast.

 

[aeolist]

No no no.

He is talking specifically about telling a developer how to develop a game, not critiquing the game they made.

Edit: As a brewer, it is like the difference between someone telling me why they do or do not like a beer I made versus telling me I should ferment at this temperature or that temperature. You don't know how my brewery works, don't tell me how to run it. You know what my beer tastes like, tell me and others whether it tastes good or not. One is valid, one is arguably stupid/pointless/pompous whatever.

Perhaps, but I think re: games and especially re: simulations (a genre with lots of expert devoted fans who know the minutia of previous games in the series extremely well) it's totally valid to say that X design decision was stupid and they should have done Y.

We can point at the agent pathfinding, specifically, and say that it is objectively bad, has specific quantifiable negative effects on the game, and there are known better ways to do it.

Especially wrt Arthur's hangup of the always online "design" decision it's extremely easy to observe that an offline mode is not only possible but desirable for any number of reasons, and fortunately for his peace of mind it appears that modders are going to put their money where their mouths are and make it happen.

 

[FuturusX]

Honest question.

I have never been to Polygon and abandoned most gaming news sites long ago. Wasn't Crecente a minion over at Kotaku?

How did he end up with this gig?

 

[aeolist]

I do agree that reviewers shouldn't be backseat developers but often that's a fine line and it's certainly not what any of the people who are down on SimCity have been doing.

 

[TheSeks]

Honest question.

I have never been to Polygon and abandoned most gaming news sites long ago. Wasn't Crecente a minion over at Kotaku?

How did he end up with this gig?

Yes.

And I have no idea, but that alone is why Polygon is a joke. Arthur is just cementing it.

 

[PogiJones]

A couple of thoughts.

1. While earlier I said I didn't find anything wrong with the Polygon re-scoring of SimCity, Gies's latest tweets are pretty freaking ridiculous. Whether they're just poorly stated, or juvenile in their core, they shouldn't have been said.

2. Having worked in broadcast journalism, I wouldn't call myself a paragon of journalistic excellence, but I at least have the basics of industry standard. Generally, you don't cite the bits of info that led you to get your story. You just tell your story, and if you use someone else's material in your story, then you cite it. Countless times, I interviewed someone, and then some other station interviewed the same person on the same story, and the words were very similar. But I didn't expect them to cite me, nor would I have cited them. Tell the story you have, and if you use someone else's material, then you cite it.

It's a basic fact that in ANY news story begins with leads, and 90% of leads go unmentioned in the actual story. "I was on CNN when I saw there was a hurricane in FL, and I was wondering what impact that would have on Nevadans with family in FL, so then I started calling people..." That sort of thinking is ridiculous.

So Crecente's story seemed plausible up to a point. HOWEVER, that said, him citing the RPS article, and then pretending to forget about it on twitter, that's pretty screwed up. If he got his own material for the story, yes, he doesn't need to cite it in the article itself, since it's his interview, his info, and he doesn't have to talk about his leads. But feigning ignorance on Twitter is just dumb.

3. GAF posters throwing nasty names around are the worst of the bunch. It doesn't excuse the behavior I just outlined above, but you guys are doing far worse. Polygon never called a group of people a bunch of cunts. Get that beam out of your eye first.

 

[peanutbutterlatte]

Ah, Brian "Zelda would be better on iPhone" Crecente. Lovely man.

 

[unbias]

A couple of thoughts.

1. While earlier I said I didn't find anything wrong with the Polygon re-scoring of SimCity, Gies's latest tweets are pretty freaking ridiculous. Whether they're just poorly stated, or juvenile in their core, they shouldn't have been said.

2. Having worked in broadcast journalism, I wouldn't call myself a paragon of journalistic excellence, but I at least have the basics of industry standard. Generally, you don't cite the bits of info that led you to get your story. You just tell your story, and if you use someone else's material in your story, then you cite it. Countless times, I interviewed someone, and then some other station interviewed the same person on the same story, and the words were very similar. But I didn't expect them to cite me, nor would I have cited them. Tell the story you have, and if you use someone else's material, then you cite it.

It's a basic fact that in ANY news story begins with leads, and 90% of leads go unmentioned in the actual story. "I was on CNN when I saw there was a hurricane in FL, and I was wondering what impact that would have on Nevadans with family in FL, so then I started calling people..." That sort of thinking is ridiculous.

So Crecente's story seemed plausible up to a point. HOWEVER, that said, him citing the RPS article, and then pretending to forget about it on twitter, that's pretty screwed up. If he got his own material for the story, yes, he doesn't need to cite it in the article itself, since it's his interview, his info, and he doesn't have to talk about his leads. But feigning ignorance on Twitter is just dumb.

3. GAF posters throwing nasty names around are the worst of the bunch. It doesn't excuse the behavior I just outlined above, but you guys are doing far worse. Polygon never called a group of people a bunch of cunts. Get that beam out of your eye first.

I'm not sure why you thought it was necessary to draw attention to the minority that was going out of their way to throw insults like "cunt" around. Most of the "nasty names" going around the are in the minority, most of the attention has been on the inane BS that he has been saying.

Drawing undue attention on the select few doing what you are saying, seems to be trying to take away from the over all point. I know it is a popular thing to do, but it doesn't mean you should do it.

 

[Pie and Beans]

New thread, go wild: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=526449

If I've fucked anything up let me know. Just look at that many tweet images has made me want to throw up.

 

[PogiJones]

I'm not sure why you thought it was necessarily to draw attention to the minority that was going out of their way to throw insults like "cunt" around. Most of the "nasty names" going around the are in the minority, most of the attention has been on the inane BS that he has been saying.

Drawing undue attention on the select few doing what you are saying, seems to be trying to take away from the over all point. I know it is a popular thing to do, but it doesn't mean you should do it.

I was specifically talking to those people with name-calling, yes. And I therefore addressed them.

Also, I do think the overall venom level in this thread, even without name-calling, is much higher than it should be. Calling them out on the problems is one thing, but this entire thread is pretty much a we-hate-polygon chant. Which, if you all do, I suppose that's fine, but once again, I think it's unwarranted.

Finally, speaking of dismissing the overall points to draw attention to a few, you literally bolded a few of my words, drawing attention to only them, and did not address a single other point I made. Why? Because you saw that as the most attackable point. Attacking the weakest point is a popular thing to do, but it doesn't mean you should do it.

 

[border]

Edit: As a brewer, it is like the difference between someone telling me why they do or do not like a beer I made versus telling me I should ferment at this temperature or that temperature. You don't know how my brewery works, don't tell me how to run it. You know what my beer tastes like, tell me and others whether it tastes good or not. One is valid, one is arguably stupid/pointless/pompous whatever.

In the context of this argument though, I don't see how saying "I hate the always online mode in this game" is all that different from saying "You should have made it without requiring an internet connection."

I have no idea what Gies is talking about, really. His point seems to be that you cannot suggest alternatives to a game's design or mechanics, you can only criticize the designs and mechanics that are in place. Why the fuck such a rule should be in place is beyond me though.

 

[WrenchNinja]

Tell that to Sony circa 2006.

 

[unbias]

Also, I do think the overall venom level in this thread, even without name-calling, is much higher than it should be. Calling them out on the problems is one thing, but this entire thread is pretty much a we-hate-polygon chant. Which, if you all do, I suppose that's fine, but once again, I think it's unwarranted.

Oh please, the amount of "venom" in this thread is quite fine. The only reason the thread appears, to you, to be a "we hate polygon" is because Arthur and this last guy goes out of their way to stay relevant in regards to the topic. Your stance seems incredibly weak.

Finally, speaking of dismissing the overall points to draw attention to a few, you literally bolded a few of my words, drawing attention to only them, and did not address a single other point I made. Why? Because you saw that as the most attackable point. Attacking the weakest point is a popular thing to do, but it doesn't mean you should do it.

The reason why I didn't bold your other points, is because I agree'd with them. But good job, making me eat my words.

 

[CambriaRising]

I don't even understand this. By this logic how can he be a reviews editor for a site that covers video games? Any criticisms from any of his reviewers towards any games are invalid, because they should be out there making their own games!

Sounds like something a bad community manager would say.

 

[unbias]

Sounds like something a bad community manager would say.

Or a loyal one, amirite? Ya, it was lame, I'll stop.

 

[PogiJones]

Oh please, the amount of "venom" in this thread is quite fine. The only reason the thread appears, to you, to be a "we hate polygon" is because Arthur and this last guy goes out of their way to stay relevant in regards to the topic. Your stance seems incredibly weak.

No, the reason I think the venom is way too strong in this thread is because most of it originated before the most damning posts happened. In the past page or two, the opposite position has become quite indefensible. But before that, the hate was already extreme, even in the OP. I understand you like RPS a lot, and dislike Polygon (at least, due to this, as you said in another post), but there seemed to be no attempt made to understand what was meant by certain tweets, why adjustable reviews might be valid, etc. I don't mean to target any specific person, but the thread gained some serious mob-mentality momentum that can't be pinned on any single poster. The name-calling was a symptom of this, so I called that out, bringing attention to the one-sided nature of this thread. Personally, I like to see both sides of any issue, and while I may prefer one side over the other, I like both to be fairly represented. Right from the OP, the tone was set for crucifying Polygon, and that tone was maintained.
You'll notice that I still agreed with the overall outcome, i.e., that they screwed up. But it's possible to take a side, as I attempted in my post, without picking up torches.

The reason why I didn't bold your other points, is because I agree'd with them. But good job, making me eat my words.

I apologize. I did assume that you would disagree with the parts of my post that suggest the real wrong-doing didn't appear until recently, since you authored the OP, but that was an assumption I shouldn't have made.

 

[unbias]

No, the reason I think the venom is way too strong in this thread is because most of it originated before the most damning posts happened. In the past page or two, the opposite position has become quite indefensible. But before that, the hate was already extreme, even in the OP. I understand you like RPS a lot, and dislike Polygon (at least, due to this, as you said in another post), but there seemed to be no attempt made to understand what was meant by certain tweets, why adjustable reviews might be valid, etc. I don't mean to target any specific person, but the thread gained some serious mob-mentality momentum that can't be pinned on any single poster. The name-calling was a symptom of this, so I called that out, bringing attention to the one-sided nature of this thread. Personally, I like to see both sides of any issue, and while I may prefer one side over the other, I like both to be fairly represented. Right from the OP, the tone was set for crucifying Polygon, and that tone was maintained.
You'll notice that I still agreed with the overall outcome, i.e., that they screwed up. But it's possible to take a side, as I attempted in my post, without picking up torches.

I apologize. I did assume that you would disagree with the parts of my post that suggest the real wrong-doing didn't appear until recently, since you authored the OP, but that was an assumption I shouldn't have made.

I never focused on polygons review, ever, it was all around Arthur and dismissing his(Walkers) source, while at the same time acting like a total a-hole and acting like the victim. IF you notice, I didn't include polygon in this, until after the other guy got involved. In fact I kept polygon out of it. Every bit of what he got, he earned.

In every single twitter battle, either at the op or in this thread I posted links to the original arguments so people could see for themselves. I have not cherry picked his comments, outside of purposely highlighting the most obnoxious or stupid.

I don't care about the adjusting review crap, at all, not even a little. Like I said, I dont even follow them, because I dont like how they started up(the way they sounded) and most of them I wasnt fans of before they started poly.

If you want to create a topic detailing Polygons side of the argument as to why the EA PR was fine, go for it, but as for me I had a problem with it, and I think I've done just fine backing up why.

 

[benny_a]

Finally, speaking of dismissing the overall points to draw attention to a few, you literally bolded a few of my words, drawing attention to only them, and did not address a single other point I made. Why? Because you saw that as the most attackable point. Attacking the weakest point is a popular thing to do, but it doesn't mean you should do it.

Persecution complex much?

 

[bishoptl]

Personally, I like to see both sides of any issue, and while I may prefer one side over the other, I like both to be fairly represented.

uh huh

 

[indigo-cyclops]

uh huh

Great article, thanks for posting this.

 

[NoirVisage]

https://twitter.com/botherer/status/314066861635534848

Originally Posted by RPS on Saturday:
"The SimCity servers are not doing any calculations that could not be done on your PC, even for an entire region single player offline mode, let alone just the city you are in. All the server sends to your client, is some very basic data about each city – how much power they have available, how much spare fire trucks, you know – that sort of stuff. It’s minor, and it’s sent as raw numbers. Your client then just goes ‘oh there’s XXX power spare from city Z.’ It’s that simple."

"The server side calculations are all, frankly, rubbish. Every bit of it. The only 'good' they do at the moment is for a multiplayer region – they are just a way for my city to tell your city how much power I have spare, and update that data every few minutes while I play. A middleman of sorts."

Matching the information we received from our Maxis mole, Azzer explains that the only other role served by the servers – beyond the obvious "fluff and guff" as he calls it of invites, chat, leaderboards, etc. – is to prevent cheating. "Most of the processing work is probably their attempts at anti-cheat stuff, checking a city doesn’t do… something… at an unrealistic speed."

Originally Posted by Polygon Today:
"It's not possible that EA servers are 'offloading' calculations (simulations) for your city, which it works out, and then sends to your client," Azzer Cronin told Polygon. "Not at all. Your client simulates your city, and your client simulates all of the 'fire trucks from another city' type stuff too. Your client does that all. EA servers do not do any processing that your client is incapable of because our 'computers aren't powerful enough.' EA servers do no complex calculations 'on our behalf' that it then passes the results back to us and that our clients need to run the game."

Cronin says he believes the servers are essentially functioning as go-betweens, handing off a raw list of what's available from other cities in a region, like water, power and spare fire trucks.

"I can tell you what your (computer) is doing, and thus what the server isn't doing," he said. "But I can't tell you what the server does by itself (eg. cheat checking, gathering global statistics on all cities, things like that), I can only take some decent educated guesses there."
lol polygon

i don't know dude..

 

[Kadayi]

No no no.

He is talking specifically about telling a developer how to develop a game, not critiquing the game they made.

Edit: As a brewer, it is like the difference between someone telling me why they do or do not like a beer I made versus telling me I should ferment at this temperature or that temperature. You don't know how my brewery works, don't tell me how to run it. You know what my beer tastes like, tell me and others whether it tastes good or not. One is valid, one is arguably stupid/pointless/pompous whatever.

With you on this. It seems to me too many people have a hard on for railing on Gies here without necessarily really getting what he's saying (or choosing not to). Dude has pissed me off with some of his shit before (that BS ME3 round table he did with Sessler a while back for instance), but on this occasion I'd say he's right in that there's limits to what you can say if it's outside your remit/realm of expertise. It's one thing to be critical of a game, another thing to say how you should do it.

 

[Nekofrog]

I'm not sure why you thought it was necessary to draw attention to the minority that was going out of their way to throw insults like "cunt" around. Most of the "nasty names" going around the are in the minority, most of the attention has been on the inane BS that he has been saying.

Drawing undue attention on the select few doing what you are saying, seems to be trying to take away from the over all point. I know it is a popular thing to do, but it doesn't mean you should do it.

because gies and co cherrypick those posts to dismiss everything?

 

[PogiJones]

I never focused on polygons review, ever, it was all around Arthur and dismissing his(Walkers) source, while at the same time acting like a total a-hole and acting like the victim. IF you notice, I didn't include polygon in this, until after the other guy got involved. In fact I kept polygon out of it. Every bit of what he got, he earned.

In every single twitter battle, either at the op or in this thread I posted links to the original arguments so people could see for themselves. I have not cherry picked his comments, outside of purposely highlighting the most obnoxious or stupid.

I don't care about the adjusting review crap, at all, not even a little. Like I said, I dont even follow them, because I dont like how they started up(the way they sounded) and most of them I wasnt fans of before they started poly.

If you want to create a topic detailing Polygons side of the argument as to why the EA PR was fine, go for it, but as for me I had a problem with it, and I think I've done just fine backing up why.

I wasn't trying to suggest that you are worse than Gies, or your post. I was suggesting that the profane posts are worse, and that they are a symptom of the one-sided nature of the thread, but I tried to emphasize that the blame lies at the feet of those who post nasty things, not those who have the same view as everyone else.

You're right, you did only focus on Gies, not Polygon. My bad.

Persecution complex much?

Nope. I've just seen a cherry-pick-the-worst-argument theme here, and I thought that was another one.

uh huh

Wishing for both sides to be fairly represented is not a wish for both sides to be given equal value. Do not conflate the two. "Fair" and "balanced" are two different things, and only "fair" should be sought in all situations. "Balance" is an artificial mechanism to appear "fair," but has little actual value.

What I saw in this thread was neither balanced (which is fine) NOR fair (which is not fine). There were a handful of people that really tried to figure out what was going on. Crecente was being crucified for his post before anyone found his previous link to the RPS article. But without that previous link, he did nothing wrong, as I addressed in my post. It was only after that link was found that he was shown to be in the wrong. So no, he was not fairly represented, as the supposed "journalistic standards" people were imposing on him are not, in fact, standard. No journalist--game industry or not--cites their leads; why should he?

Like I said, picking a side is not wrong, but torch-bearing does nothing for accuracy, nor truth. The point of that article you linked is that some arguments are indefensible, not that fairness in representation is wrong. If a man says he likes little boys, a torch-bearing crowd would say his position is indefensible, mistakenly link your article, and crucify him. But a FAIR representation would be to find out what he MEANT by that. What was the context? Was he talking about how he likes his 3 sons, and they give him great parental joy? If molestation is actually what he meant, THEN that would be a fair representation to say so, and THEN the position is indefensible, and THEN defenders of his actions would not be entitled to their opinions. But fair representation comes FIRST, before the judgment of the validity of opinion.

because gies and co cherrypick those posts to dismiss everything?

I've actually gone to great lengths to address every concern, quoting in full, despite the rampant cherry-picking some people love so much.

 

[Jac_Solar]

One of the wittiest people I ever met worked with me at a game store, so obviously jobs have nothing to do with how interesting or intelligent someone is. The difference here is that Elliot sent in samples that were good enough to get him a job when nobody knew him. The Blockbuster thing is someone getting an in because they knew a guy.

This is as personal as I'll get with this whole Gies thing: I was an art major for a year, and I met a lot of guys with his exact personality type. Humorless, obsessed with image, always right about everything in their own minds. That kind of personality has no place in journalism, but it is pretty good for getting jobs you aren't qualified for. I really don't think this guy has much respect for the medium.

What's the deal with the Blockbuster thing? Weren't they a chain of movie rental stores?

 

[SouthernDragon]

Gies might not be one for fancy pants academic articles, but he might find this enlightening:

Why the Unskilled Are Unaware: Further Explorations of (Absent) Self-Insight Among the Incompetent

 

[unbias]

What's the deal with the Blockbuster thing? Weren't they a chain of movie rental stores?

Ya, they were just a rental store. I think some of them still exist(perhaps as franchises?).

 

[unbias]

I'm going to go out on a limb and assume something will come from this?

 

[Derrick01]

If that email is like many of the others crecente has apparently responded to in the past then we can expect some variation of "eat shit and die".

 

[bodyofanamerican]

I'm going to go out on a limb and assume something will come from this?

I had such a great impression of Brian before this nonsense.

 

[Rufus]

Wishing for both sides to be fairly represented is not a wish for both sides to be given equal value.

Actually I would challenge that and that's part of the point of the article. You might think you're giving obviously ridiculous positions just a fair treatment and maybe even enough rope to hang themselves with. It sometimes works, but instead it often suggests equal value, especially to people who have preconceived notions about the issues at hand, such as anti-vaccination people. It's on TV, so there must be something to it, after all. Especially considering how quacks use and abuse media to cite what other quacks say to make it look like they're citing research or have reputable references. Prestigious publication who give them the time of day are a goldmine.

That might be beside your point or the scope of this thread, but I thought I'd chime in anyway.

 

[unbias]

If that email is like many of the others crecente has apparently responded to in the past then we can expect some variation of "eat shit and die".

Ya, I'm not sure about all that, but I can only think of a couple of things it could be.

 

[Sloane]

I had such a great impression of Brian before this nonsense.

You did? Why?

 

[Dead Man]

I don't...

this person literally just told everyone that, as a game critic, he didn't think criticism of games from non-developers is fair.


1. Arthur Gies, what do you think your actual job is?

2. You have now entirely undermined the credibility of every piece of content you will ever write.

Yeah, pretty much sums up the stupidity of it all. Nicely put.

 

[Suairyu]

I had such a great impression of Brian before this nonsense.

... why?

Under his stewardship, Kotaku made British tabloid rags The Sun and The Daily Mail look like bastions of accuracy, reason, and journalistic integrity.

 

[IrishNinja]

Ah, Brian "Zelda would be better on iPhone" Crecente. Lovely man.

wait, did he really say this? i don't recall seeing it, even when he was back on kotaku.

 

[Broder Salsa]

I think this is the choicest nugget in that exchange:

This just keeps getting dumber and dumber, when you think it can't get down another level it does. Fucking joke.

 

[Incontinentia Buttocks]

Had anybody that has been collating the twitter pics thought of using storify? Makes it a lot easier to read than the bottom up shite.

 

[unbias]

Had anybody that has been collating the twitter pics thought of using storify? Makes it a lot easier to read than the bottom up shite.

Ya. I would look into that, but I'm hoping I wont need it, at least for this topic much longer. Look, nothing wrong with questioning Walkers source, that is fine it was anonymous, unless it has a second, you should question it. The problem is, Arthur took a stance(Pro EA PR), and then dismissed the source, because he took a stance that was pro EA PR. If he would have remained objective and didn't clearly paint the picture of what "side" of the argument he was on this would have never been an issue and I would have never cared.

The worst part is though, it got dragged on, not by people hating on him(because plenty of people that are always in the media have to deal with this every day) but because he kept making it worse and worse. It's like he doesn't get it; there are tons of sports players who are always making dumb tweets, and at 1st ya, they get a lot of heat/hate, but if the guy who made the comment lets it go and/or apologizes, it's gone in a matter of a day(whether he means it or not).

The difference is, he took a side, and the moment he did that he should have recused himself of questioning anyone's reporting, critic, or reviewer pants that went contrary to his stance, because at that point he turned himself into an advocate for EA instead of a reporter; Maybe not intentionally, but he did it, because what he was saying and what the PR was saying, was essentially the same.

And honestly, most of the stuff I posted, was quite toothless about him(at 1st). He turned it into something more by blowing up and not admitting he took a side, while at the same time questioning a source(which if he would have recused himself of an opinion on PR vs consumers at the time, would have been fine).

Now it has turned into quite a mess, with now a new topic aimed at his website, and now this new guy Brian being involved. It is like he doesn't realize where the problem originated from.

Luckily his antagonistic behavior on twitter has prevented me from feeling bad about the crap he has been getting. Also it doesnt hurt that it seems while the loudest of the bunch he is slowly making me realize he isn't the most arrogant of the bunch, so whatever polygon.

But hey, before this I never cared to ever visit polygon, not out of malice, but jsut out of apathy for another website. Now though, I dont plan on really ever giving them a page hit(like they care) without some obvious perspective switches. And I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels that way now, which is probably the worst thing Arthur did.

 

[eot]

I think this is the choicest nugget in that exchange:

"As a games writer, I don't think you should criticize games unless you're making them"..?

Edit: Dammit, me and my slow-ass image-editing skills. But whatever, it's stupid enough to post twice in a row!

It's also funny because lots of people who were good at criticizing and analysing games did end up making games (I don't mean community managers).

 

[peanutbutterlatte]

wait, did he really say this? i don't recall seeing it, even when he was back on kotaku.

It's essentially him pushing some game called Mage Gauntlet. There's little to no discussion on Zelda itself. Headline grabbing example on Kotaku No. 45345.

 

[Dakota47]

So it took Crecente less than a year to turn Polygon into Kotaku 2.0. Well done.

 

[Art Teitlebaum]

So it took Crecente less than a year to turn Polygon into Kotaku 2.0. Well done.

We all knew it right from the start, didn't we?

Slightly OT: Obligatory Crecente parody

 

[Dakota47]

We all knew it right from the start, didn't we?

It really is too bad. I liked the idea of Polygon.

 

[Social]

what a soap opera this is, videogames...

 

[Art Teitlebaum]

It really is too bad. I liked the idea of Polygon.

Tbh, I visit TheVerge from time to time and they are not tooooo bad. So there was hope for a at least OKish high-profile game site, when I heard of their Polygon plans. But the personnel chosen made it sure right from the beginning that this would become utter trash. Their pretentious video sealed the deal for me.

 

[unbias]

John tweeted this beautiful blog out, which I found to be a great read: by Al Byrne

It seems like people—for some reason—were waiting on Polygon to call the industry out on its crap. Polygon, that Microsoft-sponsored, humourless, 70s prog rock supergroup of games journalism. Expecting any kind of populist uproar from Polygon is like expecting One Direction to vilify the X Factor culture that spawned them – they’re entirely within the system, with no interest in existing outside of it. Probably the only thing you needed to know in order to be sure that Polygon was never going to change the world of games journalism was that they could afford to make a multi-part documentary trumpeting all the ways they were going to change the world of games journalism.

As the fine folks at NeoGaf tirelessly collated, Polygon’s reviews editor Arthur Gies scoffed at Walker’s inside source, insisting that the always-online battle was one the publishers had already won, and pooh-poohing the suggestion that the game could be workable offline. Until—no! But yes!—Polygon newsy guy Brian Crecente threw up an interview with the modder who’d tweaked the game to work offline, neglecting to mention that his mag had loudly refused to believe anything about such a tweak despite John’s publishing a very similar interview with that selfsame modder days previously. Crecente even went so far as to deny seeing that interview, which was fine until it was awkwardly pointed out that he’d actually tweeted about seeing it shortly after it was lobbed online. In essence he went back in time to shoot himself in the foot, somehow managing to be impressively unimpressive.

So: Polygon and their ilk will continue with their nonsense, proudly accepting always-on DRM, or microtransactions, or day-one DLC, or whatever new and harmful gimmick the increasingly obsolete publishers wheel out, as the inevitable industry norm. They will continue to award 9.5 to broken or unworthy games, and then point out the fact that people buy those games as an infallible sign that they were right, as if completely oblivious to the part their exclusive reviews play in that. Because they don’t have the will or the courage or the drunken recklessness to opt out of the loop.http://ridiculoushuman.wordpress.com/2013/03/20/pure-folly-miss-polygon/

A lot more in the link, very funny and good read.

 

[unbias]

updated the op with Al Byrne's blog post link, with an excerpt from the article.

 

[Boerseun]

But hey, before this I never cared to ever visit polygon, not out of malice, but just out of apathy for another website. Now though, I dont plan on really ever giving them a page hit (like they care) without some obvious perspective switches. And I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels that way now, which is probably the worst thing Arthur did.

This debacle has seen Polygon join my shit list alongside the likes of Joystiq, Kotaku, Michael Pachter, and various other individuals and/or organisations I don't care to give hits to.

Good work on this thread, by the way.