@chavtheworld: Sim City is still shit. It may not be as broken, but its still hot shit.

I don't really care if they update reviews periodically, it's a nice idea in theory.

In practice the two major review updates have been "oh shit, this game doesn't work like it did in a perfectly controlled environment!" and them backpedaling on it. If it's going to be used like that it's useless. Maybe 'better late than never', but it just gives off a bad impression.

Going to a review event is fine, but maybe spend some time with the game in a non-controlled environment before you review it -- especially if it is a multiplayer focused title.

Polygon is shit. Who cares what scores they give games.

If the game is as broken as I've heard, maybe a 4 is appropriate. I think the bigger issue that that review events for multiplayer games are silly, at best.

I'm changing this community's score from a 7.5 to a 4.

So they will change their console reviews as well? I really doubt itl

who are we to speculate? and why does it matter?

Reviews are opinions anyway, if you don't like to respect the change, ignore it.

Just because they want to change one review score (Perhaps its getting a lot of hits on the site, and they deem it necessary to update their community?), doesn't make it the standard for all reviews, that would be a silly waste of time. It is only for exceptional cases of brokenness (and perhaps happens when there is essentially nothing else for them to do)

I am not a fan off the polygon website but there damn right changing there scores to a still broken game. As much as i like dice, BF4 still crashes after 2 matches or so. You can really see (at least on PC) the actual players going down on most of there server because there sick of trying to play a game for almost over a month.

The problem is that it makes it very easy to go "OMG best game eva!!!" then swap to "meh, it's decent/worst gaem eva!!".

Let's look at GTA 5. It was critically acclaimed (where a 9/10 meant blasphemy), before the hot mess that was the online release happened (and say what you will, that was horrible....and yet, no one changed their scores). Jeff even said that the online portion would have actually made him give a different score (I cannot seem to find the actual tumblr post to prove this, so my apologies) had the online mode been in box. Should he go back and drop that star, or was the score reflective of the game that released at that time?

Should review outlets then be able to drop/raise scores due to that, or if a DLC comes out that breaks things? To me, that kind of behavior just comes off as fickle as the gaming populace (where favorites are played), plus do people really care months after launch that the score Polygon gave a game went (using SimCity as an example) from 9.5 to 8 to 4 to 6.5 over the course of a month after release? No, they're still fixated that it was a hot mess, and too busy losing their collective shit.

Even better, is that reflected anywhere but the site (say....Metacritic)? Also, who wants to keep revisiting game reviews from a journalism perspective? My opinion is game sites only do that if the game is hot, there's a ton of controversy, or "OMG everyone's talking about it!". Otherwise, I'd want EVERY new console launch title to be reviewed again if they're ever patched! It's the only way for them to maintain their integrity (note: I'm being sarcastic here just for clarity).I dunno. The whole Polygon adjusting scores feels like political BS to me, but then again, I'm not a big fan of that outlet in general.

No it is stupid to give a score from a review event even they were screwed by this before with Sim City that they even defended heavily back then. And if they do it with games they definitely should do it with consoles. For example If they include the line up of games into their score than they have to constantly update the score depending on the games releasing. If they change huge features and ad new software, features and so on they should update the score for example. Why did they not change the score with GTAV and their online problems for example? Why did they not do it for Diablo 3? If you want to be taken seriously to it proper and not by taste or whatever they thought by this move.

I'm not necessarily against Polygon's review policy, but come on. This isn't some recent occurrence; it didn't just break yesterday. It's been jacked since it's launch over a month ago and you're waiting until now to update instead of, I don't know, changing it when people realized they were sold a broken product?

I understand WHY they did this, but it's still a terrible thing to do. They should have done a review followup (without a score), or WAITED until they played the final product at home before reviewing it. Day 1 reviews are neat, but not when they don't represent what users will get. AT THE VERY LEAST they should have mentioned in the inital review that they played it at an EA studio and their may be slight deviations with the final product...

Also BF4 is broken, but GS gave it an 8 and never acknowged the crashes netcode etc. Reviewers should have a big Footnote saying "GAME'S BROKEN RIGHT NOW BUT WE ARE PRETENDING TO REVIEW THE PATCHED VERSION". Cause that's basically what Gamespot did except without the footnote.

Polygon did something stupid? You don't say...

to be clear that they reviewed it at an EA event is the fucking stupid part. Shame on them

It seems to me that if Polygon is interested in updating scores in this manner that the best thing that they could do would be to release their review initially without a numbered score at all and then add in the score (and perhaps adjust the review) once the final version has been released for everyone. That way there wouldn't be an issue about pushing various scores and which games get their scores adjusted, etc.

@soulcake: They should have reviewed ut as broken in the first place. Changing the score after the fact just means they didn't do a good enough job reviewing the first time around.

>polygon

@zelyre: Yep, that's fair enough and I don't disagree at all.

Shouldn't you be changing the polygon score from a 4 to a 2.7?

The way EA has been fucking up every franchise they have and rarely even manage to put out a functioning game justifies scrutiny and "backpedaling". From now on Polygon and others will do better to simply not review EA's games at all til 3 months after release when they might actually be playable.

Based on the results of the recent "____ of the Generation" polls, I believe that you're totally justified.

I enjoy it way more over 3. I don't see why there is so much hatred towards it.

Someone takes reviews way too seriously.

@hailinel: Thats true but i am guessing they had to review it in a closed environment somewhere in Sweden to get a early review, on PC's that weren't having any problems running the game.

I wonder what percent of people that read the original score they give actual ever see the score update.

I only heard of Polygon a few weeks ago, and I already don't like em!
Way to go!

From what memory recalls, BF4 crashes about as much as BF2.

...and BF2 received universal acclaim, including several GOTYs & a 91 on Metacritic.

I wouldn't consider the game unplayable. Then again, this is on the PC. I get to play on dedicated servers.

OH: and this:

"It's exhilarating in a way no other shooter is. 4/10"

The only crashing I had on the PS4 is when I quit out of a game...not worth giving it a 4, the multiplayer actually seems to function now (the few times I played it)...polygon just wants attention

Any game reviewed through gameplay in a controlled environment like that probably isn't worth rushing an early review to press.

It's fair on the one hand because of the state of the mp connectivity/matchmaking, which DICE has shown is par for their BF games in the past, to be terrible for some time upon release. In this respect EA and DICE deserve the flak and rescore.

But on the other hand it could be handled so much better by Polygon. Maybe they intimated it already(dunno didn't read the original review)in their review that a subsequent update to the original review would be forthcoming after extensive play after release. If not, then it looks like a placation to the pissed off fans of the BF games and this one specifically. Looks kind of disingenuous to me. Also they need to address the score again now if the patches get the game running as intended, which will almost assuredly happen at some point in the future.

I've played through most of the sp already and it's really damn great imo, and such a vast improvement upon BF3. In terms of the sp I'd bet they got the Bad Co. duders on this sp campaign. It's really an amazing improvement and looks absolutely incredible btw. Only played a tiny slice of the mp on my One and it seemed ok for quickmatch at least. The squad feature seems ignored again, and friends have told me it is still stupid hard to get in games together on the same team, and chat is flat busted; they use Skype right now. Partly the One's fault for sure too.

I feel sorry for the consumers who buy games based on high-scoring Polygon reviews only to watch it halve after they're out their 60$.

I kind of want to be a game journo just for the sake of being able to troll thousands of people with a number

Can we add "click-bait" to the list of words that internet morons use as a reactionary response to something they clearly don't understand?

"Polygon said Battlefield 4 was a 7.5. One month later, they changed it to a 4. (Image on screen freezes; turns negative; zooms in; loud thudding sound) Do you want Polygon telling your kids what to get this Christmas?"

I agree. There's nothing wrong with this. I think changing review scores is kind of lame, in theory, but if something like this happens, it can't hurt to let people know through a definitive action like changing a score.

Polygon isn't Giant Bomb. They don't always have the caliber of personalities that Giant Bomb has; they don't have a Jeff or a Vinny. Justin McElory comes close. They don't have a strong video section that's unique and updated daily; they have streams with Arthur and Phil and whatever bullshit Russ and Chris does (maybe they've added more content; I don't visit the site much lately). So their bread-and-butter is news and getting reviews out as soon as embargo lifts. We probably don't care about day one reviews, but maybe their community does. That's why we're here and not there. Even still, people here complain about late reviews from the Giant Bomb staff. Ryan got shit for it all the time. Polygon and Giant Bomb cannot please everyone.

Sometimes it feels like I know what's going on at Polygon here more than the actual site I'm visiting.

"I'm Jeff Gerstmann and I want to shoot criminals into the sun."

What I'm saying is that I fully endorse game review site political ads.

I'm not a fan of this style of adjustment. But then again I'm not a fan of scores anyway.

Jeff 'The Rap Man' Gerstmann -says- he wants to shoot criminals into the sun, but did you know that he gave Twilight Princess an 8.8 out of 10?

Ask yourself: Who is the real criminal here?

Murder Slingshot for VP!

@truthtellah said:

@video_game_king said:

@wjb said:

@artisanbreads said:

haha "backpedaled".... they can't win with some of you guys. Hilarious.

There is nothing wrong with this.

"Polygon said Battlefield 4 was a 7.5. One month later, they changed it to a 4. (Image on screen freezes; turns negative; zooms in; loud thudding sound) Do you want Polygon telling your kids what to get this Christmas?"

"I'm Jeff Gerstmann and I want to shoot criminals into the sun."

What I'm saying is that I fully endorse game review site political ads.

Jeff 'The Rap Man' Gerstmann -says- he wants to shoot criminals into the sun, but did you know that he gave Twilight Princess an 8.8 out of 10?

Ask yourself: Who is the real criminal here?

Good times.

It's just such a random number to assign it. Review scores are silly once they get past a four or five star scale.

I agree with them. Although it sucks for the early adopter. Probably would be wiser to review the game in the office at release, like a regular consumer. That would be a more unbiased review.

Are we sure that they changed the review based on connectivity issues? I simply assumed that on further review that they found Battlefield to be both racist and sexist at the same time, and if there's anything the *fine* people at Polygon won't stand for, it's anyone who's sexually racist.

Then tough shit. That's the risk you take being an early adopter, with anything in the video game realm. Polygon is an enthusiast site and is thankfully acting as such. It's admirable that Polygon is the only major site willing to do something like this. the game is eventually fixed, I hope they change their score again. The idea that review scores have to be set for eternity is incredibly outdated, a mandate set back when there was no such thing as online play or patches for games.

I'm glad they are trying to keep these ratings current, but isn't this too little too late?

I mean the game has been out for over a month. Probably most of the sales have already happened.

Do we really need to bring up a topic on here EVERY time Polygon decides to change their score of a game? I mean, every now and then sure bring it up. But really, we don't need to discuss this every time it happens.

Shouldn't the rating have been "current" to begin with? They took a game that they gave a positive review and twisted it around because of issues that should have been taken into consideration in the first place.

I see nothing wrong with additional content not available at launch changing the review score. There are two alternatives, one is sticking with the original score knowing that's now what people will actually experience and the other is waiting until a game is entirely released and giving an appropriate review. But guess what, there are no clicks in to the latter. People will read the review that comes out day and date and make their purchase. Polygon is at least admitting that the game review system is a complete farce and attempting a real review weeks later. People are mad at this? That they're not sticking by a review score they no longer see as accurate? What a dumb thing to get mad about.

The only shady bit here is the possibility that they're purposefully giving lifted review scores at launch for big games to get clicks and then posting the "real" review later after the fervor died out. Which is a shitty way to run your site. That's CNN levels of shady.

Why do people care what Polygon does? Is it because of Internet? DAMN YOU, INTERNET!

One would think that would be the right way to do it. I think they'd be doing their readers a service by not overlooking network issues at launch. Start it at a 4 and keep it a 4 until they get it right.

Yeah, there will always be the guys who want to get their reviews out first, but you've just got to always take them with a grain of salt. Giant Bomb tends to take the wait and see approach more often than not, which I like. Tested does the same thing with their tech reviews. Sometimes they'll test something for like a month or two before posting a review, which is actually a little extreme, I think, but preferable to rushing it.

Sometimes I play a game through once, enjoy it just fine and then move on. Then much later I decide to fire it up again out of boredom and find myself enthralled by the experience. I play through it on hard, get every achievement and read an entire wiki page about it.

If I worked at Polygon, would I be allowed to change my review score of Dead Space from an 8 to a 9.5? Just curious.