I think these things are what makes me think Polygon should look over their review system. On one hand, I can understand not giving publishers slack for releasing a broken product, but a review shouldn't be a preview with a possible score. It just makes them look really undecided and inconsistent as they don't later (as others have pointed out) point out when those issues are fixed.
It's not really a "preview with a possible score". They had the final game on machines provided by the publisher. Basically they tested the actual game in a limited event in a controlled environment. What are the odds of finding issues in an 2-day event while playing in ideal conditions? I had preordered the game and played for 4 days before the first issues started to appear. It got serious after a week and I managed to get a refund shortly after.
I can't really blame Polygon for anything. They adjusted the grade later after the shit hit the fan and after giving a chance to EA to fix things. That was fair of them and at least Polygon is doing that.
Look at how crappy Machinima and IGN are. They reviewed the game under the same conditions but they gave outmost praises (9.5/10 and 9/10) to a game and stood by the review even after the shit hit the fan. They're not saying "yeah, the test under those conditions provided by EA was disproved by reality and let's have a real review" but they keep praising a shit.
Log in to comment