Polygon's "Non-Review" review of Star Fox Zero is some thing that might cause a bit of controversy. Poli Games host Joseph, talks about his feelings towards review sites and advertisers.
How is every one enjoying Star Fox? Do you guys think Polygon is in the right, for not giving the game a review?
Polygon is just like Poli_Games, they want as many clicks as possible ;P
Oh gees if only it was true :3
Which why I never click on links to certain sketchy sites and just go by the title and comments.
@blackblades So you kinda try to feel around for what the story is... Lol! Alright, thats one way to do it, gah its so hard to read the comment sections. Things get so heated to fast. Especially if you make stuff like me, it gets brutal. But, you're not alone a lot of people just read the title and just shoot from the hip, its the internet after all!
Realize there are billions of people in this world and not everyone is going to agree with you. For what it's worth, I want to like the new Star Fox too, but I'm not going to be brought down if others do not.
@OtterX oh man, im sorry if i came across that way. In no way did i try to come across "well i don't agree with you so boo". What i think is concerning is that this review is actually incomplete. Why, did the author just give up playing the game? What made it so unplayable that you had to put it down? Other websites have out their thoughts out. Is it because Nintendo is advertising the game on their site? That is the question i'm trying to pose. As a reviewer, your job is... too review. Right? Thats what i was trying to get at. Sorry you didnt see it that way
Well... look at all the non scored reviews of quantum break. There are good scores and bad scores and then the ones with no score at all. How would this polygon non-review / review be any different?
As opposed to every other website, right? Every site wants clicks. I got StarFox for free and it still cost too much. Whoever decided that not being able to turn off the gyroscopic controls and play on one screen even if you want to was a good idea, they should be dragged out into the street and shot. Or worse, forced to play this debacle of a "game".
it looks like some Polygon shills jumped on your story so i would not take their comments too seriously- your comments were pertinent, reasonable and sincere IMO
No, Polygon was in the wrong for giving the game a non-score and a scathing review because one person sucked at playing it and didn't even bother TRYING to complete it. Edit: @ Dani I firmly believe that anyone trying to give a critique of a game has to have played an extensive amount of it to give a FAIR review. Nothing about this 0.4-hours-played criticism is fair, on the part of the Polygon author. There are plenty of other reviewers out there giving this game 7 out of 10, 4 out of 5 stars, etc, yet this yahoo with less than an hour's worth of play time on the title decides his dislike of the game and the inability on his part to finish, warrants a valid opinion of the game being just plain terrible. He doesn't have enough experience with the game to MAKE that call. That would be like me going into Dark Souls III, clearing the first area of the game, and saying it's "too easy" as a criticism. It's uninformed tripe, and Polygon should be ashamed of it. Edit No.2 @ Dani What the author says, and how he treated the article, are entirely at odds with each other. Even with his denial, the fact of the matter is that the whole article reads EXACTLY like a review. Hell, he even scores the game based upon his dislike of it. If it were a non-review, he wouldn't have given it a 0 out of 10; he'd have said "I have no score to give" and left the numbers out. I hate having to read between the lines, but when the author himself makes it blatantly obvious that he's attempting to review the game after less than an hour's worth of play time before having quit, despite claiming that he's not reviewing it, I can only roll my eyes and call bullsh*t. It WAS a review. It read and sounded exactly like a review from someone who hated the game, and had nothing good to say about it, due to his own inability to play it well, and was quite desperately reaching for a reason to justify his horribly hasty opinion of a game he's barely even experienced. There have been plenty of reviewers out there who have played through games that have gotten rock-bottom scores all the way through. This guy gave up before he even got to THAT point. His actions were entirely unprofessional as a reviewer; no matter how entitled he is to his opinion, it doesn't justify how he handled it. Again, it would be like me playing the first area of Dark Souls 3, then calling the whole game "terrible" or "too easy" before scoring it a 0 out of 10. Think Dark Souls fans would accept that bullsh*t? Hell no they wouldn't. So why should anyone with common sense accept it here? Because it's a Nintendo game with non-traditional controls? I refuse to play that game. Much like the reviewer refused to play much of Star Fox Zero, then ran his mouth off when he sucked at it.
I disagree. Polygon decided to not put a proper review with a number precisely because the reviewer couldn't finish that game, so they just reported that instead. That is an approach I respect (although I don't share). I've seen gaming sites posting reviews without having finished the game, and that's bullshit.
But... dude... the author was pretty clear that it WASN'T a review. He said that what he played so far was insufferable, so he commented on that, making it clear that it wasn't a review. What exactly is the issue here? I think it's fair.
They didn't gave it 0/10. They didn't score it at all. It's not a review.
Personally, I think anyone is in the right to review anything. Do reviewers, including Polygon, sometimes alter their reviews for views? Probably. Controversy of a general opinion usually gets clicks. It kinda reminds me of the Dragon's Crown debacle. Do I think that was altered for clicks? Even if it was, why would I care? Dragon's Crown was my GotY for 2013 and people tend to get too attached to games they like that anyone that doesn't agree with them, they get offended. So bottom line, yeah. Anyone is allowed to review what they want, but anyone is allowed to comment on it.
Most reviews I've seen are in the low 8 to high 8 mark- sure there are a few 7's in the mix and a couple of 9's- I'd hardly call that "negative" reviews..
I could have swore i said, negative. I thought i said "mixed", So i probably misspoke, so thats my bad. Usually i like to read Destructoid, Giantbomb, and in all honesty Polygon as well. That's why i think it seemed a bit weird move by them.
Destructoid is really not the best choice for reviews, their reviewer Chris Carter plays way too many games for reviews, bet he is totally fatigued from games.
Agreed. I couldn't call that "negative". The reviews its getting are solid.
the metaceitic is about 72 i think so the reviews were mostly mixed to neagative
A score of 70 isn't negative.
A 72 on a scale of 0 to 100 is a high score, not a mixed or negative one. Even on a 5-star scale, a 72 would be 4 stars. So yeah, no. Not "mixed to negative". At the least, it was mixed to positive, and at best, it's been a very nice success in critical ratings that is still growing.
@wonderfulmonkeyman A 72 on Metacritic is mixed which is why the color of the score is yellow. And on a 5 star scale, a 72 would be only 3.5 stars. Learn how to do correct fractional math.
additionally we are not talking about just "any game" before its e3 reveal Starfox had big expectations as a loved Nintendo franchise- After e3 expectations were tempered but the tone of reviews (for all practical purpose) so far leans toward the negative all things considered
@ garrettbobbyferguson Honestly, most people seem to see a score of 70 as "average," with things below 50 being considered somewhat broken. Its a terrible system, mostly because it's really a five point scale. Anything below a 70 is pretty much considered terrible, with the numbers above 70 denoting how good the game is. @ WonderfulMonkeyMan 1) 4/5 is 80. So this would be closer to 3.5 2) Even Metacritic views gaming scores as inflated, which is why a 75 is the minimum needed for "green" status. For every other media you need a score of 61. So this means, by Metacritics views, a 72 in gaming is worth less than a 61 anywhere else. While it would still be above "average," in that it would be a score greater than 50, I think its fair to call the scores mixed. 3) Believe it or not, a lot of companies would not consider a 72/100 as critically successful. This much is evident when you start to look at what other games get. While I know its not an exact science, Neptunia VII scored one point lower, Rainbow Moon scored two points lower, NitroPlus scored two points lower, and so forth.
This is no good. Yeah, money above integrity. Damn Polygon... these sites need to find another source of income before all integrity is lost. The real question is whether games get artificial good reviews for money as well.
I read Polygon's article on Star Fox. I suppose they could be walking that tight rope of sales vs journalism... but save for a numbered score they really did put out a review and it hit hard. Is it possible they had to agree to not put a review up lower than XYZ score? Yes...certainly possible. However, it seems they didn't do what likely could have been the easy thing to do and just put up a review that scored it an acceptable number and phone it in. Instead what they did write clearly reflects a game that misses the mark in their eyes. I for one will take a truthful "non-review" over a phone it in review every time.
Who in their right mind goes to Polygon for gaming reviews??
You aren't wrong they gave The Last of Is a 7.5. What monsters!!!! Hahaha xD
A game that was originally played with an SNES controller just fine now has three analogs and two screens shoved into it. Of course it handles/controls like ass. Why you make a throwback to the classic games and then shoehorn control scheme nonsense is beyond me.
I tried it at an event for a short time; it handled fine for me, and I really appreciated the ability to shoot and fly in different directions simultaneously. It gave me the ability to hit targets I would otherwise miss when trying to avoid obstacles mid-flight.
So much for innovative controls. ;)
Polygon itself is sketchy. I will not click on any of its links since it's abismal the last of us review. I hope they shut down.
Polygons non review seems pretty unprofessional in my opinion. I have no problem with negative reviews everyone is entitled to there own opinion but this game is obviously not horrible (72 on metacritic) I imagine the reviewer being completely uncoordinated and incapable of multitasking then having a tantrum throwing the Gamepad at the wall lol.
Regardless of review score or not, Polygon is terrible, they like creating non issues for clicks.
Verily so. Polygon should be ashamed of that sham score, and besides, they have a history of negative Nintendo articles. This one, where he played 0.4 hours of the game before giving up because he was just terrible at it or didn't like it, then giving it a 0 out of 10 because of it, really just reeks of biased, unfair, unskilled, and uninformed criticism.
There's a difference between writing a movie review and a game review, especially as it comes to length. If you're writing a movie review, you darn well expect that the reviewer sat through the entire thing. I mean, it's only two hours. However, games are a much different beast - they can take a few hours, or they can take 40 hours, or 100 hours - and that's not even including games that are primarily online that don't exactly -have- an ending. Reviewers on gaming news sites need to get their review up as soon as possible - within a day, generally. How do you determine when you've experienced enough to write a review? For better or for worse, it's really up to the reviewer. I don't expect that the reviewers will have played the entire game - in a world of open-world sandboxes and 100-hour epics, that's completely unreasonable, especially as it doesn't take a hundred hours to tell whether the game is a blast to play or a slog. However, I think that the reviewer must play a reasonable amount to be able to accurately reflect on all aspects of the game that will logically affect the player's opinion of the game. For games which rely -entirely- on their story, like Phoenix Wright or Ghost Trick, that really does involve sticking it out to the end. But for other games, the experience is not primarily in experiencing the fullness of the story, but rather in playing the games and the mechanics of the game. I think of all the games that I own, and there are only a few in which my opinion of them changed dramatically after playing it to its end. Those that have are usually story-heavy RPGs. Star Fox is not about the great sweeping story; it's literally about dogfighting and blasting through space, you and your team against Andross. And if the first five or ten hours of the game were lacking, I doubt that the reviewer's opinion would change after completing the game, regardless of how cool of an ending it had. One thing, though... I think that all reviewers, if they had not beaten a game, should disclose it on their review. Please, let us know if you're reviewing the entire game or just the first half, or first 20%.
Polygon never gives decently written reviews to Nintendo games, regardless of how good they are.
just make this a multiplat on all consoles, then I woke up from my dream
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.