There was some "drama" yesterday over Polygon's decision not to do a review of Star Fox Zero.
I've not played it yet, but Polygon's scheduled reviewer, Arthur Gies - "Gies a bite of your haggis" - chose not to give the game a proper review, because he couldn't finish it.
Not because the game was hard, but because he struggled with the controls, and thought they were bad.
Instead of doing a traditional review with a score, he wrote an article entitled "Star Fox Zero Channels Everything Bad About Wii U Game Design" - without a score.
He ended his piece by stating: "Save for very rare, extreme circumstances, Polygon reviews require that a game be completed, or at least a good-faith effort be made to complete it. I am not playing any more Star Fox Zero."
Can you guess what happened next? That's right - out they all came!
I've not played it yet, but Polygon's scheduled reviewer, Arthur Gies - "Gies a bite of your haggis" - chose not to give the game a proper review, because he couldn't finish it.
Not because the game was hard, but because he struggled with the controls, and thought they were bad.
Instead of doing a traditional review with a score, he wrote an article entitled "Star Fox Zero Channels Everything Bad About Wii U Game Design" - without a score.
He ended his piece by stating: "Save for very rare, extreme circumstances, Polygon reviews require that a game be completed, or at least a good-faith effort be made to complete it. I am not playing any more Star Fox Zero."
Can you guess what happened next? That's right - out they all came!
USERS
Following the publication of the Polygon non-review, the social mediasphere went into something of a hysterical froth.
Twitter user Brendan raged: "An adult at Polygon couldn't finish Star Fox Zero, a children's game, for his job because 'too hard'"
Ty on Aussie-Gamer wrote a long and furious response, which included the line: "What kind of reviewer can honestly say they have an informed opinion if they cannot finish the game they’re writing about?"
Polygon reader Ngaiden fumed: "Not getting a proper review because the reviewer couldn’t be bothered finishing a game doesn’t look very professional."
Twitter's Robin Clarke bellowed: "Arthur Gies demonstrating yet again why Polygon are universally seen as a joke site staffed by entitled babies"
22 year-old Jack, another Twitter user, described the Polygon piece as "Disgraceful".
Worse still, it all kicked off on Polygon, after Kangokyle claimed cheerily: "It’s good this guy didn’t attempt to score it. At least it won’t affect the metascore!"
"There are more pressing things in life worth worrying about than a game’s supposed metascore," replied a livid Boss Kowbel.
Argued a steaming Tayturs in response: "Sort of a weird comment for someone to make on the internet on an entertainment news site. Yeah, there are always more important things in life than our entertainment luxuries, that’s a given. No real need to say it."
Anyway. You get the idea. Internet stuff. People who have nothing better to be angry about. Inevitably, there's always something under the surface for people who get bothered by stuff like this.
Some of the response to the Polygon piece was due to people having some sort of automatic emotional reaction to Polygon itself. Others still tried to link the article/non-review to Gamergate in some tenuous way - citing the high-profile firing of Nintendo employee Alison Rapp as somehow influencing the piece. Or something. I didn't really understand what they were getting at.
Others cited it as yet another example of bad journalistic ethics. Because... why wouldn't you finish a four hour game, even if the controls were bad? You must be corrupt.
Following the publication of the Polygon non-review, the social mediasphere went into something of a hysterical froth.
Twitter user Brendan raged: "An adult at Polygon couldn't finish Star Fox Zero, a children's game, for his job because 'too hard'"
Ty on Aussie-Gamer wrote a long and furious response, which included the line: "What kind of reviewer can honestly say they have an informed opinion if they cannot finish the game they’re writing about?"
Polygon reader Ngaiden fumed: "Not getting a proper review because the reviewer couldn’t be bothered finishing a game doesn’t look very professional."
Twitter's Robin Clarke bellowed: "Arthur Gies demonstrating yet again why Polygon are universally seen as a joke site staffed by entitled babies"
22 year-old Jack, another Twitter user, described the Polygon piece as "Disgraceful".
Worse still, it all kicked off on Polygon, after Kangokyle claimed cheerily: "It’s good this guy didn’t attempt to score it. At least it won’t affect the metascore!"
"There are more pressing things in life worth worrying about than a game’s supposed metascore," replied a livid Boss Kowbel.
Argued a steaming Tayturs in response: "Sort of a weird comment for someone to make on the internet on an entertainment news site. Yeah, there are always more important things in life than our entertainment luxuries, that’s a given. No real need to say it."
Anyway. You get the idea. Internet stuff. People who have nothing better to be angry about. Inevitably, there's always something under the surface for people who get bothered by stuff like this.
Some of the response to the Polygon piece was due to people having some sort of automatic emotional reaction to Polygon itself. Others still tried to link the article/non-review to Gamergate in some tenuous way - citing the high-profile firing of Nintendo employee Alison Rapp as somehow influencing the piece. Or something. I didn't really understand what they were getting at.
Others cited it as yet another example of bad journalistic ethics. Because... why wouldn't you finish a four hour game, even if the controls were bad? You must be corrupt.
FINISH LINE
I'll admit it does seem a little odd that Gies - "Gies a lift to the station, son" - wouldn't bother reviewing a game which can be whizzed through in four hours. Or sooner, if you activate the invincibility mode for babies.
But here's another thing: the whining about it misses the point. I'm totally on the side of Gies - "Gies a job". Have I finished every game I've ever reviewed? Dear god no. Do I think that matters? Not particularly.
Do I think that every game I ever reviewed was given a fair shakedown? Well... probably not. I've reviewed a lot of games in my time, and I'm sure there were occasions when I was having a bad day/year, where my integrity had taken a break.
On the whole though, 99% of the time, I think I've been fair. And I think Gies - "Gies and dolls... yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, crazy Gies and dolls" - was absolutely within his right to do what he did.
THIN END OF THE WEDGE
You'll have noticed the reviews have been a bit thin on the ground on Digi recently - I've still not played Quantum Break as much as I think it needs, which is why the review hasn't gone up yet. And that's because I've not had the time to play the games, because - lest we forget - this site isn't my job, unless one of you fancies contributing a couple of grand a month to our Patreon fund.
There's a backlog building - Star Fox Zero itself and Ratchet & Clank arrive today - and at some point I'll have to carve out space in my life to play them. I also have a handful of indie games I want to play. There just arent the hours in the day at the moment to get through them all, because this is the time of year when my day job is proving most demanding of my hours.
Back when I was writing Digi for Teletext it was my full-time job. Playing games was part of that job. Plus, games back then were, generally, smaller, and easier to finish. That said, not always having saves could hamper that - oh, the joy of getting halfway through a game, and having to go back to the start.
So no. For the sake of my own sanity, I didn't finish every game I ever reviewed for Digitiser. And I stand by that.
I'll admit it does seem a little odd that Gies - "Gies a lift to the station, son" - wouldn't bother reviewing a game which can be whizzed through in four hours. Or sooner, if you activate the invincibility mode for babies.
But here's another thing: the whining about it misses the point. I'm totally on the side of Gies - "Gies a job". Have I finished every game I've ever reviewed? Dear god no. Do I think that matters? Not particularly.
Do I think that every game I ever reviewed was given a fair shakedown? Well... probably not. I've reviewed a lot of games in my time, and I'm sure there were occasions when I was having a bad day/year, where my integrity had taken a break.
On the whole though, 99% of the time, I think I've been fair. And I think Gies - "Gies and dolls... yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, crazy Gies and dolls" - was absolutely within his right to do what he did.
THIN END OF THE WEDGE
You'll have noticed the reviews have been a bit thin on the ground on Digi recently - I've still not played Quantum Break as much as I think it needs, which is why the review hasn't gone up yet. And that's because I've not had the time to play the games, because - lest we forget - this site isn't my job, unless one of you fancies contributing a couple of grand a month to our Patreon fund.
There's a backlog building - Star Fox Zero itself and Ratchet & Clank arrive today - and at some point I'll have to carve out space in my life to play them. I also have a handful of indie games I want to play. There just arent the hours in the day at the moment to get through them all, because this is the time of year when my day job is proving most demanding of my hours.
Back when I was writing Digi for Teletext it was my full-time job. Playing games was part of that job. Plus, games back then were, generally, smaller, and easier to finish. That said, not always having saves could hamper that - oh, the joy of getting halfway through a game, and having to go back to the start.
So no. For the sake of my own sanity, I didn't finish every game I ever reviewed for Digitiser. And I stand by that.
EXPERIENCE POINTS
As a reviewer, a review is about relating your experience with a game.
Of course, from the point of view of a developer, you want the reviewer to scratch away at every last corner of your masterpiece - but from a reviewer's perspective, you either like it or you don't.
You merely have to reach a point where you've played enough to be able to give a fair assessment. It's hard to say when that comes - it's different with every game - but speaking as someone who has reviewed games, on and off, for 23 years, it's instinctive. You get a feel for it.
At some point my time with a game reaches a tipping point where I just know I've played enough, and that my opinion isn't going to change no matter what. Sometimes I'll press on because I'm enjoying myself. But if a game is too much of a faff to keep playing, and I've played it enough to be confident of my opinion, I'll throw in the towel. I don't care whether you'd rather I kept plugging away, at the expense of my valuable family time.
Alright, I may not always be able to talk about that amazing end sequence, but - sorry - a great ending doesn't make up for a bad game. If you've not enjoyed any of it up until that point, playing for hours and hours more will make absolutely no difference to the score. All it will do is make the person playing it even more miserable about the game.
Would it be nice if every games journalist played every single bit of a game? Yes. I suppose. But it's unrealistic, in this age of enormo-games like The Witcher III and Fallout 4, it's insanity to expect a games writer - who's probably barely getting paid enough for a review to cover half a week's food shop - to spend 40-hours plus on something. You try giving up an entire working week for the sake of £120. Games reviewers aren't put on this earth to be your personal opinion monkey.
Alright, Star Fox Zero is a short game. I'd like to think I'll finish it before my review. But I'll let you know. My perspective is that reviews also need to be entertaining. That was always Digi's ethos; entertain first, challenge second, inform third.
And you know what's more important still? That the person doing the reviewing isn't wasting their own life to appease a bunch whining internet children.
As a reviewer, a review is about relating your experience with a game.
Of course, from the point of view of a developer, you want the reviewer to scratch away at every last corner of your masterpiece - but from a reviewer's perspective, you either like it or you don't.
You merely have to reach a point where you've played enough to be able to give a fair assessment. It's hard to say when that comes - it's different with every game - but speaking as someone who has reviewed games, on and off, for 23 years, it's instinctive. You get a feel for it.
At some point my time with a game reaches a tipping point where I just know I've played enough, and that my opinion isn't going to change no matter what. Sometimes I'll press on because I'm enjoying myself. But if a game is too much of a faff to keep playing, and I've played it enough to be confident of my opinion, I'll throw in the towel. I don't care whether you'd rather I kept plugging away, at the expense of my valuable family time.
Alright, I may not always be able to talk about that amazing end sequence, but - sorry - a great ending doesn't make up for a bad game. If you've not enjoyed any of it up until that point, playing for hours and hours more will make absolutely no difference to the score. All it will do is make the person playing it even more miserable about the game.
Would it be nice if every games journalist played every single bit of a game? Yes. I suppose. But it's unrealistic, in this age of enormo-games like The Witcher III and Fallout 4, it's insanity to expect a games writer - who's probably barely getting paid enough for a review to cover half a week's food shop - to spend 40-hours plus on something. You try giving up an entire working week for the sake of £120. Games reviewers aren't put on this earth to be your personal opinion monkey.
Alright, Star Fox Zero is a short game. I'd like to think I'll finish it before my review. But I'll let you know. My perspective is that reviews also need to be entertaining. That was always Digi's ethos; entertain first, challenge second, inform third.
And you know what's more important still? That the person doing the reviewing isn't wasting their own life to appease a bunch whining internet children.
RSS Feed
