However, the Digi reader suggested that it was further evidence of the website's bias against Sony. I don't read a lot of Polygon - if I'm honest, the layout of the site sort of confuses me - so I wasn't aware of any bias. And if I was, I wouldn't have really cared anyway.
Nevertheless, I did look into this accusation and discovered... well... I discovered accusations that Polygon was anti-Sony, pro-Nintendo, anti-Microsoft... and on and on. Surely, they can't be pro and anti every gaming format simultaneously? Can they?
It's a familiar story - back in the original Digitiser days, we would get letters accusing us of exactly the same thing. We ended up coining the phrase "We hate everyone equally", because we grew so weary of being accused by gamers of having a bias against their particularly console or computer. To which, obviously, they had their own bias.
Frankly, I don't think we ever cared enough to actually have any sort of uncontrollable bias. A bias is quite a lot of work. It was, as stated, much easier to hate everyone equally.
There's a thick streak of format loyalty running through most gamers - I'm still a ZX Spectrum fanboy, even after all these years - and it's hard to see something you love being criticised. Especially when you've paid hundreds, or thousands, of pounds for it.
So are games journalists biased? Maybe some of them. It's inevitable. But it might not be to the degree you suspect. And it isn't actually a bad thing. Wha... wha... whaaaaaa?!
See, here's the truth about everyone on earth: we're all prejudiced - every single one of us, without exception.
When I accidentally got stranded in Barbados years ago (no, really - it was so terrible...) I was taken aback by the open racism of assorted taxi drivers towards Guyanese immigrants ("Coming over here... taking all the jobs etc."). Because the drivers were black, I automatically assumed they couldn't be racist - which, in itself, was a form of prejudice. I'd judged them on the colour of their skin.
When I later made the terrible error of spending several years training to become a psychotherapist, part of that training was to become aware of my own prejudices, and realise how we all have them.
Alas, they get wedged in there throughout our lives, and there's little any of us can do to get rid of them. However, shining a light on them at least makes it easier to control them, rather than letting them control us. No client wants to be sat opposite a therapist who might have a skewed view of them because they're Asian, or because of their religion, or because of how they dress, or how much they earn, or their tattoos, or whatever.
It's a tough thing to do, admitting that you might have a prejudice against an individual, or group of people, that we might judge them without even knowing them - yet we all do it... Thing is though - is a bias even the same thing as a prejudice? I think when it comes to criticism of games journos, the line gets blurred.
Certainly, when I was a games journalist, I preferred some games companies over others. I mean, I'll get it out of the way now: Digitiser was never actually anti-Amiga. The reason why we never covered the machine in the first place was because we never had one to review games on.
We were a two-man team at the start, and it was enough work just getting all the other systems to review games on. We never covered the PC or Atari ST either at first... but it was only ever the Amiga fans who wrote in complaining. Suffice to say, this certainly skewed our coverage, and made it biased to a certain degree. Though mostly only to wind them up further.
That in itself might've become a form of prejudice: tarring all Amiga owners with the same brush, because of the actions of a few. Well... a few thousand anyway.
From that point on, all of our Amiga coverage was sort of begrudging for the sake of a quiet life. We knew the format was on the way out, and once we were proven right we didn't hold back. Although that might not be bias. That's probably just smugness at being right.
I think we probably treated the Super NES more favourably than the Mega Drive - yet we had more of a relationship with Sega than we did Nintendo.
Alright, it wasn't always a good relationship - at least one of Sega's PR guys was a scowl-faced barrow boy type who appeared to detest us (apart from the time we saw him at a trade show, after he'd moved on from Sega, and he was incredibly animated, and behaved as if we were his oldest friends - for some undefined reason...).
His replacement at Sega was a lovely man, who did his best to keep us happy, but by that point Mr Hairs and I were firmly into our 'naughty boy' phase, and we did everything in our power to wind him up. I confess that there was, quite possibly, some latent bias remaining from his predecessor, with regard to our Sega coverage.
Certainly, when the first PlayStation was released, we were treated pretty shittily by Sony. It improved once we'd publicly shamed the company's PR guy - and nearly lost our jobs in the process - but even then we were big enough to herald Sony's success once the machine started going nuts. We didn't like the PR guy who did his best to ignore us and get us fired, but we had nothing against the company or its machine.
I do know that there were one or two PRs, for smaller companies, whose games would perhaps get more coverage than they deserved, simply because they would pester us endlessly. Nice guys, admittedly, but sometimes it was the path of least resistance.
Ultimately... I dunno about this whole bias thing.
There often seems to be an assumption from readers that journalists are biased against one company or system over others, but it serves nobody well to have an irrational, uncontrollable, bias against or in favour of Sony or Microsoft or Nintendo. I struggle to think it ever realistically exists in multiformat coverage.
From my experience, opinions were all too frequently mistaken for bias, and I think bias was too often mistaken for prejudice.
The latter can be defined as - to a certain degree - irrational, because it's an ingrained, premature judgement ("I'm going to hate Sony's new machine because it's Sony, and it'll be rubbish!"). You can be prejudiced against an individual, or group of individuals, without first-hand experience.
Bias tends to be built upon the evidence at hand, as you see it. It's more complex, less knee-jerk. That isn't to say that a bias can't be as skewed or distorted through how a person sees the world, but it's as much as anything down to a personal preference, and their opinion.
If you want a games journalist to put aside who they are, because you demand that their preference, or opinion, tallies with your own... then you might as well replace all games journalists with robots. Bias isn't always bad - it gives us shade and light, and allows us, the reader, to formulate their own opinions.
Ironically, there's a massive swathe of the gaming community which has an ingrained prejudice against games journalists - and they seemingly don't even realise it.