Avatar image for sharkethic
#101 Edited by SharkEthic (1090 posts) -
@missacre said:
@sharkethic said:
@missacre said:

The rampant fanboyism we have here is great.

Wow, what a cool thing to say, dude! I don't really see any signs of "rampant fanboyism" in this thread, but still, VERY cool!

If you say so. Also, I didn't mean specifically in this thread, but if that's what you think, more power to you.

A thread with a rational discussion about the validity of (too) early hardware reviews and the suspected ulterior motives behind these, seems like a weird place to post that comment then, but thanks for the input and more power to you, or whatever the fuck ever.

Avatar image for anonymous_jesse
#102 Posted by Anonymous_Jesse (170 posts) -

@missacre said:
@sharkethic said:
@missacre said:

The rampant fanboyism we have here is great.

Wow, what a cool thing to say, dude! I don't really see any signs of "rampant fanboyism" in this thread, but still, VERY cool!

If you say so. Also, I didn't mean specifically in this thread, but if that's what you think, more power to you.

A thread with a rational discussion about the validity of (too) early hardware reviews and the suspected ulterior motives behind these, seems like a weird place to post that comment then, but thanks for the input and more power to you, or whatever the fuck ever.

Got some rough edges but if you give it a chance it is sure to provide entertainment for a good price. I give this thread of comments a 7/10.

Avatar image for sharkethic
#103 Edited by SharkEthic (1090 posts) -

@anonymous_jesse: Seems a bit premature. Will you revisit the thread at a later date and revise the score?

Avatar image for sunbrozak
#104 Edited by SunBroZak (2167 posts) -

@sunbrozak: McElroy has zero integrity. He reviewed a game, The Gunstringer, and gave it a 5/5 even though he had a direct conflict of interest and then went on to berate people who pointed out the conflict of interest on the Joystiq forums. He's no better than Arthur Gies.

That's a shame. He was pretty entertaining on the GB podcasts he's been on.

Avatar image for missacre
#105 Posted by Missacre (568 posts) -

@missacre said:
@sharkethic said:
@missacre said:

The rampant fanboyism we have here is great.

Wow, what a cool thing to say, dude! I don't really see any signs of "rampant fanboyism" in this thread, but still, VERY cool!

If you say so. Also, I didn't mean specifically in this thread, but if that's what you think, more power to you.

A thread with a rational discussion about the validity of (too) early hardware reviews and the suspected ulterior motives behind these, seems like a weird place to post that comment then, but thanks for the input and more power to you, or whatever the fuck ever.

A bit rude, don't you think?

Avatar image for anonymous_jesse
#106 Posted by Anonymous_Jesse (170 posts) -

@sharkethic said:

@anonymous_jesse: Seems a bit premature. Will you revisit the thread at a later date and revise the score?

If you look at the terms of our reviews you can see that I hold the right to change the score at a later date, but I will only do that to threads I deem it suited for. For instance if someone edits it I will not change the score, it's as if, however if the site hosting it goes down, I may lower it to 0.0 because what use is a comment thread if know one can see it?

Avatar image for sharkethic
#107 Edited by SharkEthic (1090 posts) -

@missacre said:

@sharkethic said:
@missacre said:
@sharkethic said:
@missacre said:

The rampant fanboyism we have here is great.

Wow, what a cool thing to say, dude! I don't really see any signs of "rampant fanboyism" in this thread, but still, VERY cool!

If you say so. Also, I didn't mean specifically in this thread, but if that's what you think, more power to you.

A thread with a rational discussion about the validity of (too) early hardware reviews and the suspected ulterior motives behind these, seems like a weird place to post that comment then, but thanks for the input and more power to you, or whatever the fuck ever.

A bit rude, don't you think?

Yeah, you're right. I apologize, but I still think your initial comment sucks;)

Avatar image for missacre
#108 Posted by Missacre (568 posts) -

@missacre said:

@sharkethic said:
@missacre said:
@sharkethic said:
@missacre said:

The rampant fanboyism we have here is great.

Wow, what a cool thing to say, dude! I don't really see any signs of "rampant fanboyism" in this thread, but still, VERY cool!

If you say so. Also, I didn't mean specifically in this thread, but if that's what you think, more power to you.

A thread with a rational discussion about the validity of (too) early hardware reviews and the suspected ulterior motives behind these, seems like a weird place to post that comment then, but thanks for the input and more power to you, or whatever the fuck ever.

A bit rude, don't you think?

Yeah, you're right. I apologize, but I still think your initial comment sucks;)

That's fine, I think your subsequent comments suck as well (winky come-hither face).

Avatar image for sharkethic
#109 Posted by SharkEthic (1090 posts) -

@missacre said:

@sharkethic said:

@missacre said:

@sharkethic said:
@missacre said:
@sharkethic said:
@missacre said:

The rampant fanboyism we have here is great.

Wow, what a cool thing to say, dude! I don't really see any signs of "rampant fanboyism" in this thread, but still, VERY cool!

If you say so. Also, I didn't mean specifically in this thread, but if that's what you think, more power to you.

A thread with a rational discussion about the validity of (too) early hardware reviews and the suspected ulterior motives behind these, seems like a weird place to post that comment then, but thanks for the input and more power to you, or whatever the fuck ever.

A bit rude, don't you think?

Yeah, you're right. I apologize, but I still think your initial comment sucks;)

That's fine, I think your subsequent comments suck as well (winky come-hither face).

Winky come-what-now face? Is that what that means? Shit...

Avatar image for dredavis
#110 Posted by DreDavis (44 posts) -

Reviewing a console and giving a score is just plain dumb. In a couple of years those systems will be completely different, I mean, look at what the Xbox 360 or PlayStation 3 were at their launches and what they offer now. You can look at a systems pros and cons at the time of their release, but giving it a score isn't the smartest thing to do.

Avatar image for royalewifcheese
#111 Posted by RoyaleWifCheese (586 posts) -

@bisonhero said:

Honest question: can you guys take Polygon's website seriously? (nothing about the writing, I just mean the structure, layout, design of the website)

I still can't. It's so silly.

I agree. It feels like their first concern when designing the website was to make it the prettiest place on the internet. The Verge has kind of the same problem, but I'll still read the Verge because I enjoy the content.

Avatar image for kpaadet
#112 Posted by kpaadet (420 posts) -

I give Polygon 4/10, I reviewed it Polygon style in that I told a friend what I thought of it and he gave it a score.

Avatar image for jinstarwing
#113 Posted by Jinstarwing (53 posts) -

@dredavis said:

Reviewing a console and giving a score is just plain dumb. In a couple of years those systems will be completely different, I mean, look at what the Xbox 360 or PlayStation 3 were at their launches and what they offer now. You can look at a systems pros and cons at the time of their release, but giving it a score isn't the smartest thing to do.

Even in their extensive review they mention that there isn't enough content for the camera and they are expecting good things from it. So how can they score something without exploring the machines full functionality.

Avatar image for brendan
#114 Edited by Brendan (8908 posts) -

I think this will make more sense when the One is out, and both scores change over time to reflect the feelings of the staff on the two products as they relate to each other, and to the Wii U/PC. It could be an interesting little experiment this gen, as I dont think anything of this sort has been documented before.

For now they simply comment on whether it's agood experience at launch, which is fine because historically there have been much better and worse launches that have dictated whether it was worth someones money to get it right off the bat.

Avatar image for sergio
#115 Posted by Sergio (3326 posts) -

I've never taken any Polygon review seriously, but I never thought they were biased because of the Microsoft money. That was until this recent PR-fluff piece about Xbox Live that had a factual error in the very first line that played up the importance of Microsoft/Xbox more than they actually were.

Avatar image for catsakimbo
#116 Posted by CatsAkimbo (765 posts) -

It's like reviewing a website during it's first week. It's going to change and grow over time so a review score is kind of pointless.

Polygon has been really up on changing review scores over time. See how their Sim City review went from a 9.5 to an 8 to a 4 to a 6.5. I agree that reviewing a console is pretty dumb, but they do have a history of keeping up with relevant changes.

Avatar image for rockyraccoon37
#117 Posted by RockyRaccoon37 (494 posts) -

@horseman6 said:

@sunbrozak: McElroy has zero integrity. He reviewed a game, The Gunstringer, and gave it a 5/5 even though he had a direct conflict of interest and then went on to berate people who pointed out the conflict of interest on the Joystiq forums. He's no better than Arthur Gies.

That's a shame. He was pretty entertaining on the GB podcasts he's been on.

I'm sorry, what was the conflict of interest re: Justin and the Gunstringer?

Avatar image for brendan
#118 Edited by Brendan (8908 posts) -

@sergio: What was the factual error specifically? I thought it was a great read.

Avatar image for horseman6
#119 Edited by horseman6 (881 posts) -

@mikey87144 said:

It's like reviewing a website during it's first week. It's going to change and grow over time so a review score is kind of pointless.

Polygon has been really up on changing review scores over time. See how their Sim City review went from a 9.5 to an 8 to a 4 to a 6.5. I agree that reviewing a console is pretty dumb, but they do have a history of keeping up with relevant changes.

That was a big deal at the time. They changed those scores consistently over a matter of a couple days. It was a joke.

Avatar image for thepickle
#120 Posted by ThePickle (4317 posts) -

Just more Polygon nonsense to ignore.

Avatar image for horseman6
#121 Edited by horseman6 (881 posts) -

@sergio said:

I've never taken any Polygon review seriously, but I never thought they were biased because of the Microsoft money. That was until this recent PR-fluff piece about Xbox Live that had a factual error in the very first line that played up the importance of Microsoft/Xbox more than they actually were.

I don't necessarily think they're biased but that's just in bad taste. Taking money from a major corporation who has a vested interest in getting high review scores for games and hardware is just bad. Like I have said previously, lack of integrity. It would be like Roger Ebert getting a donation from Disney of $750k to make a better website. That's just not something any supposedly objective journalist should do.

Avatar image for monkeyking1969
#122 Edited by MonkeyKing1969 (5326 posts) -

Its a review, its and opinion...meh. To be honest the only thing I can say is they might have reviewed and scored the machine without needing to do so. I'm not seeing too many sites review the system now, nor are most sites in any hurry to do so.

To be honest, I think the only review of system I will care about will occur in Edge, Giant Bomb, or IGN next June after e3. After a few months, after more games are playable, after the UI of all systems is settled, and after the plans for 2014/15 have been said at e3 than you can score the machine with some sort of scope.

Avatar image for hippie_genocide
#123 Posted by Hippie_Genocide (1582 posts) -

I don't have any beef with Polygon. I've read some great articles there and although I know the corporate backing scenario, I can't say I've ever gotten the vibe that they've compromised their journalistic integrity over it. I think the console scoring thing is kinda dumb, though I have to say. The writeup is actually pretty good, and doesn't read like it's biased against Sony in any way, but I don't like attaching a score to it.

Avatar image for razzdrazz
#124 Posted by razzdrazz (94 posts) -

@ferros: I'm pretty sure their major sponsors were initially Microsoft and BMW, with ads for Internet Explorer and BMW's line of vehicles. They've also drawn in Verizon and Ford.

Polygon has been pretty upfront about the sponsorships though; so, while I don't think taking money from Microsoft was a good idea from a perception standpoint, I don't get the impression it somehow taints their coverage. I think it seems to just be a convenient way to dismiss them whenever they say something unpopular, like enjoying a game people don't like or not praising something as much as some people think they should.

Agreed. I also think part of this stems from the fact that Vox Media (the parent company of The Verge, Polygon, and SB Nation) is a growing technology company. The Chorus CMS and Vox's recent acquisition of The Curbed Network exemplify this. As this writer argues, Vox is aiming to construct one of the next great media hubs in competition with traditional outlets such as AOL and Conde Nast. So, I think these issues are a bit more complex than some make them out to be.

As for the score: ultimately, it's their prerogative as a 'critical' outlet. In their defense, however, they often do update scores to reflect patches/updates (ie. Sim City). I honestly think that they're super critical in a meaningful way. For some, scoring the new consoles might seem ridiculous when the software isn't up to snuff yet. But, what Polygon seems to be saying with the reviews is that the consoles should be thoroughly vetted at launch, which is something a lot of people seem to agree with, especially considering the current blue light dilemma. This is the same way The Verge critiques smartphone launches. They argue that there should be a 'killer app' and, without that, a new product often isn't justifiable.

Avatar image for chrissedoff
#125 Edited by chrissedoff (2279 posts) -

@sharkethic: It's not too early to review the Playstation 4 because it is out. It is an absolute misunderstanding of the purpose of product reviews to think otherwise. Every single person who makes this complaint is acting like an idiot/corporate tool and doesn't even realize it.

Avatar image for captain_felafel
#126 Posted by Captain_Felafel (1719 posts) -

I think the idea that you can slap a score onto a console after it's been out for a week is kind of ridiculous. A lot of sites are doing it, and it just seems silly. These things will be with us for at least five or six years, and they're going to change substantially in the coming years. Throwing a number onto them in their infancy is just short-sighted.

Avatar image for shookems
#127 Posted by Shookems (479 posts) -

Polygon's 7.5 has become the new Sessler "A three....out of five"

Avatar image for blastroid
#128 Edited by Blastroid (289 posts) -

Remember 43.2% of internet stats and numbers are made up and 100% of ratings mean nothing unless you are the person giving that rating.

Avatar image for horseman6
#129 Edited by horseman6 (881 posts) -

@chrissedoff: And that's the problem with the industry. There are already Killer Instinct reviews out there but the major aspect of the game, the netcode, isn't even able to be tested yet. It's a joke. Games and tech are not movies, they have the ability to change and evolve very quickly. There should at least be a two week gap between when the product is released and when it's reviewed; maybe even a month. Impressions are fine though.

Avatar image for chrissedoff
#130 Edited by chrissedoff (2279 posts) -

@horseman6: NOPE. Not ridiculous. A review is fine. They've had ample time to look at it from every angle. Eventually you will see reason, I just know it.

Avatar image for sjwho2
#131 Posted by sjwho2 (49 posts) -

2571414-9657750475-untit.png

Polyon took $750k in funding from Microsoft in the past.

One should NEVER, EVER mention Polygon or give that site any clicks. They have an obvious agenda and the blatant Microsoft paychecks are acknowlegded.

I'm more interested in why that twitter picture has a shadow if anything now.

Polygon's reviews (in my opinion) are not worth reading. They have a weird "bias" of sorts, and it seems the games that are "harder" get lower scores simply because the reviewer was bad at the game.

Take Killzone Shadowfall or Knack for example, the reviewer admits to dying a lot repeatedly but I don't really see this problem from other review sites. In the case of Knack video review I continually see the "dodge" mechanic highlighted but I never really see him dodge. In fact he continually showed himself dying with this same mechanic. It was really odd for him to mention this in the edited footage as it just screamed to me that he didn't know how to play the game.

Idk, most of polygon's reviews that aren't obligatory 10's(diablo3) or 9's(sim city originally) seem to be low scores for very silly reasons or just for controversy.

I remember the dragons' crown incident. Still bought the game and loved it, dunno what all the fuss was about.

Avatar image for zekhariah
#132 Posted by Zekhariah (700 posts) -

I think it is kind of funny that the game review sites tend to have such a poor grasp of hardware that they flounder compared to something like an Engadget or Anandtech. There seems to be a lack of proper framing in terms of what a piece of hardware represents vs. a actual shrink-wrapped (or downloaded) game. Not to mention little understanding of hardware even when attempting to quantify it.

Eurogamer demonstrated their hardware knowledge in measuring the temperature of exhaust air and the chassis as a possible metric of reliability (along with noise). But those seem like the actual selection was due to those items requiring no technical expertise to check, and allowed them to spin out some vague conclusions toward reliability while not actually looking at anything that would provide a indication of the MTBF. Doing that would take knowledge on the hardware side or more than 30 minutes of work, so oh well.....

Avatar image for sergio
#133 Posted by Sergio (3326 posts) -

@brendan said:

@sergio: What was the factual error specifically? I thought it was a great read.

The Xbox was not the first broadband-connected console. It was the first console to include an ethernet port out of the box, but there was a broadband-connected console before the Xbox.

Avatar image for truthtellah
#134 Edited by TruthTellah (9788 posts) -

@sergio said:

@brendan said:

@sergio: What was the factual error specifically? I thought it was a great read.

The Xbox was not the first broadband-connected console. It was the first console to include an ethernet port out of the box, but there was a broadband-connected console before the Xbox.

That is the factual error that bothered you? That the Xbox wasn't technically the first broadband-connected console, only the first out of the box broadband-connected console?

If that is considered something that suggests some sort of Microsoft bias from Polygon, it may be one of the silliest things I've heard from someone around here in a while.

Avatar image for horseman6
#135 Posted by horseman6 (881 posts) -

@chrissedoff: Yes, 1 week is ample time to review new hardware, a new piece of hardware that didn't even have a majority of features enabled until just before launch. Much like any piece of hardware should be reviewed after 1 day of use. Hardware never has problems at or after launch. . .

Avatar image for spraynardtatum
#136 Edited by spraynardtatum (4342 posts) -

Man, I really liked that Watchdogs surveillance piece they did last month. Why does it seem like that site exists on two different levels? There is the good, thoughtful, and interesting side to Polygon and then there's the toilet bowl side that sucks up all the attention and people can't stop hating how fucking miserable and shitty the scummy fart sniffing diarrhea is.

Do you know what it is? It's that ad money. That ad money is making them spew out words they don't care about and prance around like they're doing the lords work. A bunch of overpaid hipsters that don't seem like they'd be in the video game business if it weren't lucrative.

They don't care about real shit. Just that paper.

Sometimes they write good editorials.

Avatar image for blu3v3nom07
#137 Posted by Blu3V3nom07 (4283 posts) -

Man, I really liked that Watchdogs surveillance piece they did last month. Why does it seem like that site exists on two different levels? There is the good, thoughtful, and interesting side to Polygon and then there's the toilet bowl side that sucks up all the attention and people can't stop hating how fucking miserable and shitty the scummy fart sniffing it is.

Do you know what it is? It's that ad money. That ad money is making them spew out words they don't care about and prance around like they're doing the lords work. A bunch of overpaid hipsters that don't seem like they'd be in the video game business if it weren't lucrative.

They don't care about real shit. Just that paper.

Why you gotta be like that and not hate The Verge too? They gave PS4 a 7.7, and nobody mentions them?! Can't we all just get along and hate them too? They're also hipsters, and sister websites!

Paul. :/

Avatar image for spraynardtatum
#138 Posted by spraynardtatum (4342 posts) -
Avatar image for blu3v3nom07
#139 Posted by Blu3V3nom07 (4283 posts) -

@blu3v3nom07: Some dumb Verge guy that made an annoying point to stay off the internet for a year, and then write a book about it, and then there's a inside joke by saying Paul during the end of the Vergecast even though he's never on.

Avatar image for sharkethic
#140 Edited by SharkEthic (1090 posts) -
@chrissedoff said:

@sharkethic: It's not too early to review the Playstation 4 because it is out. It is an absolute misunderstanding of the purpose of product reviews to think otherwise. Every single person who makes this complaint is acting like an idiot/corporate tool and doesn't even realize it.

What, because you say so? There's people with years of experience in the industry, people that really know their shit that questions the validity of these reviews, and you're labeling all of them as idiots and corporate tools? Maybe you should cool your fucking jets, and realize that we're allowed to have different opinions on the matter.

Avatar image for chrissedoff
#141 Edited by chrissedoff (2279 posts) -

@sharkethic: Your opinion is that your opinion that critics don't have a right to express their opinion is under threat from my opinion that that is a dumb opinion to have. So no. I'm declaring unilaterally that is too cluelessly ironic to be allowed. Sorry, dude. IT IS BANNED HENCEFORTH.

Avatar image for sharkethic
#142 Edited by SharkEthic (1090 posts) -

@chrissedoff: When exactly did I say, that it's my opinion that critics don't have a right to express their opinion? I'm only questioning the usefulness of these reviews, which seems like all people are doing here. Nobody's trying to ban tech reviews, so please calm down. Your "because I say so", straw man brand of argumentation is pretty obnoxious.

Avatar image for soap
#143 Posted by Soap (3772 posts) -

PS4 7.5, Xbox One 8. Polygon have reviewed the systems! and they have declared Microsoft the winner, shall we get started on the next generation now then? Seeing as the website that takes money from MS has declared it pretty much over already? :D

Avatar image for slag
#144 Posted by Slag (6745 posts) -

Can't say I'm surprised XB1 got a higher score from Polygon. It looks like it's a fair score and review to me, but anytime Microsoft gets a higher score from them it still feels wrong. Just a nagging uncomfortable feeling.

This is why you can't ever take money from a company you review like that, even if you have ethical safeguards and mitigating circumstances. No matter how you cut it , it just looks bad and makes people question your ethics. Once lost your reputation it is extremely difficult to regain, and for a website that reviews games what is more valuable than their reputation?

Online
Avatar image for kishinfoulux
#145 Posted by kishinfoulux (3108 posts) -

@slag said:

Can't say I'm surprised XB1 got a higher score from Polygon. It looks like it's a fair score and review to me, but anytime Microsoft gets a higher score from them it still feels wrong. Just a nagging uncomfortable feeling.

This is why you can't ever take money from a company you review like that, even if you have ethical safeguards and mitigating circumstances. No matter how you cut it , it just looks bad and makes people question your ethics. Once lost your reputation it is extremely difficult to regain, and for a website that reviews games what is more valuable than their reputation?

No website has a good reputation though. This is the internet. Even Giant Bomb.

Avatar image for sdharrison
#146 Posted by sdharrison (519 posts) -

Both platforms have huge limitations and closed ecosystems. From a consumer review standpoint, that should drastically lower the score. People are essentially buying into needlessly closed systems that offer little functionality outside of games. Even the Xbox with it's living room aspirations, isn't really an open platform.

So the question becomes: Is the price and experience of using these to play games, easy and smooth enough to be worth the tradeoff? It sounds like, for both, it is.

For me? I didn't like Microsofts starting plan. I didn't like Kinect, and I don't think it's worth $100 from my wallet. I do own a Vita, and I'm excited about pairing that with a PS4. Case closed. But none of that could really add up in a numbered score of any consequence.

Avatar image for jarmahead
#147 Posted by jArmAhead (354 posts) -

Wait so they give it a very good score and people think they are being assholes and not giving it enough credit? 7.5 seems about accurate for the laucnh, and with how Polygon does reviews (ie changes them as time goes on) I'm sure the number will crawl up over time as promised features come online and PSN stabilizes and the UI is polished up. Do any of the people complaining here actually have an argument about why the PS4 review is bad beyond, "it's bad," or are people just hating on Polygon because they wanted their day one purchase to be justified by a perfect score? Or because it's Polygon, for that matter?

I get it, people don't like Polygon, and for plenty of good reasons. I just don't see what the fuck people THINK the PS4 should have gotten. The interface looks kind of rough and lacks a lot of basic polish in spots it shouldn't, the games are severely lacking, PSN is a mess, etc. Yes, it's launch days but if they update the review as things change, doesn't that mean they no longer have to make allowances and instead just say "right now it's not perfect, we'll let you know if/when things improve though."

If you want to complain about how Polygon's content tends to basically be a website tech demo, that's fair. But the review seemed fine to me other than how it was displayed (which was really, really stupid, I'll grant you that). If this was the final review, I'd understand maybe, but it isn't. This is a review of the experience as it stands now. If they update it as updates come along for the OS, who cares? Some people want to know if it's worth buying now, and having a review that works for those people is a good thing, no matter how silly you think launches are.

Avatar image for amyggen
#148 Edited by AMyggen (7005 posts) -

@sdharrison said:

Both platforms have huge limitations and closed ecosystems. From a consumer review standpoint, that should drastically lower the score. People are essentially buying into needlessly closed systems that offer little functionality outside of games. Even the Xbox with it's living room aspirations, isn't really an open platform.

So the question becomes: Is the price and experience of using these to play games, easy and smooth enough to be worth the tradeoff? It sounds like, for both, it is.

For me? I didn't like Microsofts starting plan. I didn't like Kinect, and I don't think it's worth $100 from my wallet. I do own a Vita, and I'm excited about pairing that with a PS4. Case closed. But none of that could really add up in a numbered score of any consequence.

If you "drastically lower the score" for something like that, aren't you then judging the consoles for not what they're trying to be, but what you want them to be? The consoles were never gonna be open platforms in any way, and I don't think it's fair to lower the score because of that. People don't generally lower the score on Apple products because of that, and those are some of the least open platforms out there. Valve seem to be working on the thing you want.

Anyyyyyyways, now Polygon has reviewed both platforms. Moneyhatting etc. etc., Arthur Gies is the devil? Let's move the fuck on.

Avatar image for yillb
#149 Posted by Yillb (35 posts) -

Really don't get what the big deal is with putting a score on a consumer product vs any other consumer product.

If you watch their video review they acknowledge that the PS4 is built to grow and that the library will improve but right now it's a game console without a game to recommend it.

They gave the console a good score that reflects their opinion of the entire package - that score comes at the end of their written and video reviews and I don't see the score being plastered all over the site to cause controversy.

Avatar image for amonkey
#150 Posted by AMonkey (117 posts) -

No reason why they shouldn't give a review score; presumably its rated against console launches for the last few systems. That said Polygon is an awful site so I don't care what they say.