Support NeoGAF

[Venfayth]

Lol @ title change

 

[Zabka]

Great content but the reviews are near useless, just like the Verge.

 

[KodeAndGame]

thread title change is wholly appropriate.

 

[eznark]

No, seriously, though: We're going to (and do!) get screamed at whether we review stuff high or low or anywhere in-between. But I believe our text backs up the scores we decide on. Obviously some people are going to disagree on some opinions.

All I have to add to this conversation, I'm outtttttttttttttttttttttt

Nothing to do with the score, but how come Russ reviewed SC? I thought he was a features guy.

 

[Ravidrath]

I thought this was a joke thread, but you were serious!

You're saying the entire site's reviews are terrible based on four you disagreed with?

And, as others have noted, they generally score below the average.

 

[Felix Lighter]

The scores don't bother me, even if I don't agree; it's the hyperbole that I can't take seriously. Are they looking to be highlighted on the back of the box and in advertisements?

 

[Ghazi]

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:

Put them in OP.

They have Halo a 9.5 (that's not what bothers me), they then claimed that Dominion was the best thing to happen to Xbox Live...

 

[Dysun]

Video game web site gives high reviews
news at 11

 

[Grampa Simpson]

Isn't polygon owned by ms or something?

 

[batman2million]

Not a big fan of their reviews but then again GAF doesn't like any reviews.

 

[BibiMaghoo]

Nothing is worse than IGN.

To be fair, in the context that it's an expansion pack, and a rather excellent one at that, the score it got isn't really a problem.

Uncharted 3 on the otherhand.

 

[Curufinwe]

Game reviews are universally bad. Stop reading them.

That's as silly as claiming all message board posts are bad.

 

[Dawg]

... but what I'm seeing here is basically a series of high scores given to games that pretty much got high scores across the board, but that you disagree with.

Agreed, except for Diablo 3 (and maybe ME3). Especially the conclusion in that review angers me.

"Diablo 3 is almost evil in how high a bar it's set for every PC action RPG to follow, and I wouldn't be surprised to see that bar remain for a very long time."

-Polygon

 

[Dahbomb]

And people STILL don't believe that money hats exist.

 

[Haunted]

aw shit @ thread title

 

[eznark]

This thread mirrors the precarious Icarus myth - fly too close to the sun, promise too much, and you're just as likely to tumble out of the sky as deliver on your potential.

 

[KingFire]

To be fair, in the context that it's an expansion pack, and a rather excellent one at that, the score it got isn't really a problem.

Uncharted 3 on the otherhand.

LOL. Don't get me started on U3...

 

[Drencrom]

Thread title change haha

 

[Yawnier]

Eh, Polygon has probably been fed several checks from the publishers of those games.

Not surprised really, probably happens all the time in the industry.

 

[KefkaTaran]

Nothing to do with the score, but how come Russ reviewed SC? I thought he was a features guy.

Everyone on staff does some reviews, just like everyone on staff does some features and some news. I did a feature on Swery recently, for example.

Russ reviewed SC because he's particularly knowledgable about city-building and sim games and was clearly the best choice on staff for it.

 

[Pachterballs]

How dare they have their own opinions, they're so terrible.

This sort of apologist post is so terrible

Insert shoe gears review.jpg

 

[jstripes]

They gave games you don't like a higher score than you feel is necessary?

SOMEBODY CALL OBAMA.


Anyway, as has been said, find another site for reviews. (Once they start wrapping their site in wall-to-wall ads, THEN worry.)

 

[Dead]

Theyre not bad

just avoid any review written by Gies

 

[Stumpokapow]

This thread is not about giving games that I don't like high scores.

IT'S ABOUT NOT ACKNOWLEDGING THE ANTI-CONSUMER STANCES THAT THESE GAMES TAKE IN THEIR REVIEW SCORES.

Your idea of Mass Effect 3 being anti consumer was that it has a bad ending. That's not anti-consumer. It is disappointing, but it's not anti-consumer. Your other examples are stronger because you are highlighting behaviours specifically designed to punish consumers to the company's benefit. I agree that reviews should do a better job of assessing the impact of DRM, but Diablo III for example didn't have the RMAH at launch.

I also think there's an issue where if you expect reviews to rehash known givens, you get in the way of the specific review... I'm not sure I'm being clear here... I mean, like, every Ubisoft game for PC for 5 years had always-on DRM. Is there a space to talk about that? Yes, absolutely. Should reviews make note of this? Yes, absolutely. But does it makes sense to make every review about every Ubisoft game during that period significantly impacted by the DRM... I'm not sure, I feel like at some point the audience has made up their mind about that issue one way or another and so implicit in the review is that someone knows about the givens and wants to know about the game.

(I wasn't the one that changed the title, btw)

 

[DICKS AHOY]

Their feature articles are surprisingly in-depth and interesting so I still use Polygon from time to time but I will admit after reading those review blurbs are pretty embarrassing, especially when each one of those games seem generally hated by their fanbase to varying degrees. I don't think they're necessarily bad because they don't criticise micro-transactions though.

 

[Wolfgunblood Garopa]

Spoiler image?

 

[Larsen B]

Trust the name on the byline not the one on the headline.

 

[nib95]

Lol handing out the high scores like candy. Watch them low ball Ascension. Agies doesn't seem too positive on Sony stuff lately, and the opposite towards Microsoft. Secret sauce, durango > Orbis hardware wise, doesn't see the point of Ascension etc.

 

[Patryn]

This thread is not about giving games that I don't like high scores.

IT'S ABOUT NOT ACKNOWLEDGING THE ANTI-CONSUMER STANCES THAT THESE GAMES TAKE IN THEIR REVIEW SCORES.

Thanks mod for not even reading.

Is it possible that they disagreed that the stances were anti-consumer? You're stating that as a fact, which I'm not quite sure it is.

 

[WickedCobra03]

Isn't polygon owned by ms or something?

Nah, they were just being sponsored by Internet Explorer, but a lot of people started feeling that was close enough. I don't know if it was influencing them or not since I don't know their inner-workings. But seriously, they over-rate everything. If there is a review Arthur takes to his grave, its going to be Mass Effect 3. Its good, but not amazing, spectacular, not even great. I would give Mass Effect 3 a solid 7or8/10... but these 9's and 10's for any game is almost ridiculous! I would never give a game a 10 because to me, that means basically perfect, and even 9 should be reserved for those 2-3 games a year that really really shine without really any major detractors, just some minor negligible ones that might not matter to most people... that is a 9.

 

[inky]

You should've probably focused on the hyperbolic statements of those reviews instead of the scores OP.

Or better yet, do like me and just not read them anymore. Or do if you want to have a laugh, your choice.

 

[Vire]

Your idea of Mass Effect 3 being anti consumer was that it has a bad ending. That's not anti-consumer. It is disappointing, but it's not anti-consumer. Your other examples are stronger because you are highlighting behaviours specifically designed to punish consumers to the company's benefit. I agree that reviews should do a better job of assessing the impact of DRM, but Diablo III for example didn't have the RMAH at launch.

I also think there's an issue where if you expect reviews to rehash known givens, you get in the way of the specific review... I'm not sure I'm being clear here... I mean, like, every Ubisoft game for PC for 5 years had always-on DRM. Is there a space to talk about that? Yes, absolutely. Should reviews make note of this? Yes, absolutely. But does it makes sense to make every review about every Ubisoft game during that period significantly impacted by the DRM... I'm not sure, I feel like at some point the audience has made up their mind about that issue one way or another and so implicit in the review is that someone knows about the givens and wants to know about the game.

(I wasn't the one that changed the title, btw)

Mass Effect 3 also has microtransactions and pay to win models in the multiplayer mode. It is worth keeping it in the OP as it's part of the problem.

The rest of the games are self explanatory as to why they are highlighted in the opening post.

If I was trying to make a point on the high scores, I would have included their Dance Central 3 and Spelunky reviews. But that's not the point.

 

[benny_a]

(I wasn't the one that changed the title, btw)

It's quite poor that a mod changes the thread title without explaining his reasoning.

We've had a thread about this where this was brought up and even some mods agreed that this is poor.

 

[Mik_Pad]

Everyone on staff does some reviews, just like everyone on staff does some features and some news. I did a feature on Swery recently, for example.

Russ reviewed SC because he's particularly knowledgable about city-building and sim games and was clearly the best choice on staff for it.

Hey Phil how do you at Polygon choose who reviews what?

 

[GoddyofAus]

Oh dear. I'll stick to Destructoid thanks.

 

[Lime]

Vire, if you want less backfire, include some of the obviously terrible quotes from the reviews. No one will disagree that those quotes are IGN-like.

 

[DICKS AHOY]

Eh, Polygon has probably been fed several checks from the publishers of those games.

I misread this as chicks and wondered just how far that cannibal cop thing reached.

 

[Live Free or Die]

1. Dont read reviews.
2. Try the game out for yourself and come to your own conclusion about the game.

 

[Odrion]

The game reviewers aren't even the ones applying the scores to the reviews, their editors are. Arthur was confused when Polygon put a 7 on his Crysis 3 review when he trashed the game.

 

[RiccochetJ]

What's anti-consumer in ME3? They didn't charge for the extended cut and they created it in response to their consumers.

 

[benny_a]

Is it possible that they disagreed that the stances were anti-consumer? You're stating that as a fact, which I'm not quite sure it is.

One of their staff takes the following stance:

I'm not a fan of EA's always-on stuff either, but maybe if everyone you know would stop stealing everything ever it wouldn't be an issue.

Seems like he knows it's not pro-consumer.

 

[Shinta]

One of their worst reviews was for KH3D and it was extremely low. Actually, they usually score most games extremely low, lower than even Destructoid.

They score some of the obnoxiously big budget AAA shooters too high. But that's about it.

Disliking their reviews for me is not about them just scoring things too high. Justin McElroy does a fair bit of reviews too and he gave NieR a 0/10 on Joystiq which I will never forgive.

 

[velociraptor]

While I enjoy Polygon for their awesome features and behind the scenes coverage, their reviews leave something to be desired...

It wouldn't be so bad if it weren't for the fact that the games they are awarding these scores to didn't blatantly support anti-consumerism.

It's time that the standards are raised, and we as gamers need to say something about it.

It is the presses responsibility to hold publishers accountable for their less than questionable business decisions being forced into our favorite games. It starts with you Polygon.

This thread is not about giving games that I don't like high scores.

IT'S ABOUT NOT ACKNOWLEDGING THE ANTI-CONSUMER STANCES THAT THESE GAMES TAKE IN THEIR REVIEW SCORES.

Please change the thread title accordingly.

Here is a sampling of Polygon's reviews over the past year or so:

Diablo 3 - 10

Mass Effect 3 - 10

Sim City - 9.5

Dead Space 3 - 9.5

Here's my review of these fine fine games:

Microtransactions? You bet!

Real Money Auction House? No problem!

Painfully reduced City Sizes? We got your back.

Transition from survival horror game to third person shooter to sell more copies? Yep!

One of the worst ending in the history of games? Wait till you see the Extended Cut.

Always Online DRM? Sharing is caring.

This thread was made to discuss the current state of reviews in the games industry and how Polygon is failing the average gamer by not acknowledging the anti-consumer stances that these games take.

Hahaha. This website Arthur Gies truly has no credibility.

 

[Gravijah]

It wouldn't be so bad if it weren't for the fact that the games they are awarding these scores to didn't blatantly support anti-consumerism.

This thread is not about giving games that I don't like high scores.

IT'S ABOUT NOT ACKNOWLEDGING THE ANTI-CONSUMER STANCES THAT THESE GAMES TAKE IN THEIR REVIEW SCORES.

OP, what is your view on Steam?

 

[rdrr gnr]

Well, this thread has had its ups and downs.

 

[Refyref]

New new title isn't as good.

 

[RedNumberFive]

Hahaha. This website truly has no credibility.

This should have been obvious from the second they announced the "talent" they hired.

 

[Jack_AG]

I really dislike the layout of that site.

This is what I find most offensive. I have no clue where I'm supposed to be directing my eyes since everything is fighting for their attention. Such a poorly designed template.

 

[eznark]

Spoiler image?

Seriously. Now I know the ending to Sim City. Thanks OP.

 

[GraveRobberX]

How many thread title changes are there going to be

Anyone know the GAF record?