Yeah why not. I signed up there, wont be on there nearly as much as here probably but I like the McElroys and Chris Plant, a few of the other people seem cool. The site looks pretty slick, few things I'm not a fan of, I like the layout of these forums way more. The Polygon forums seem a little more form over function. Overall though, I like it. I'll give it a shot.
Polygon launch is nigh. Do you plan on frequenting the site?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
Doesn't look that pretty to me.@ZeForgotten said:
Something seems messed up, while reading the MoH review (just.. because .. well it's the only new thing to read on there) some of the images take up the whole width of my screen. Might just be chrome that's weird or the fact that I'm on a TV.. looks stupid though But meh, other than that it looks fine. Might check back at a later date (like next year) to see how things are goingIt's not you or your browser. It's how the layout of the site is. It looks pretty, almost like a magazine, but it is not practical for reading on a monitor.
And the tiny little images (like GB has in their articles, whatever they're called) look fine but then
@ZeForgotten said:
@MiniPato said:Doesn't look that pretty to me.@ZeForgotten said:
Something seems messed up, while reading the MoH review (just.. because .. well it's the only new thing to read on there) some of the images take up the whole width of my screen. Might just be chrome that's weird or the fact that I'm on a TV.. looks stupid though But meh, other than that it looks fine. Might check back at a later date (like next year) to see how things are goingIt's not you or your browser. It's how the layout of the site is. It looks pretty, almost like a magazine, but it is not practical for reading on a monitor.
And the tiny little images (like GB has in their articles, whatever they're called) look fine but then
Yeah, just found that out...it makes a really hard read.
Also what makes a hard read...All that white. And color. Where is the black version of the site??
Also, one more thing, their review system is based on what Jeff handled back in GS before he left. 4.5, 8.5, etc. That part of it feels antiquated. I am interested to see how they are going to implement their 'bump' aspect.
@Matthew said:
@ZeForgotten said:
@MiniPato said:Doesn't look that pretty to me.@ZeForgotten said:
Something seems messed up, while reading the MoH review (just.. because .. well it's the only new thing to read on there) some of the images take up the whole width of my screen. Might just be chrome that's weird or the fact that I'm on a TV.. looks stupid though But meh, other than that it looks fine. Might check back at a later date (like next year) to see how things are goingIt's not you or your browser. It's how the layout of the site is. It looks pretty, almost like a magazine, but it is not practical for reading on a monitor.
And the tiny little images (like GB has in their articles, whatever they're called) look fine but thenYeah, just found that out...it makes a really hard read.
Also what makes a hard read...All that white. And color. Where is the black version of the site??
Also, one more thing, their review system is based on what Jeff handled back in GS before he left. 4.5, 8.5, etc. That part of it feels antiquated. I am interested to see how they are going to implement their 'bump' aspect.
Think the point they were getting at is the design seems a little heavy handed on the magazine style. With a magazine, it's nice for pictures to break up the text, but on a computer, images can be placed around the text smartly to cater to those checking out screenshots and the people reading the reviews. On magazines, you don't have to scroll to see what you want, because typically there's one half picture, the other side text, at the most. It's Polygon putting design over usability. You might say this is a little thing, but it's big if you read a lot of reviews on sites, it's annoying.
Log in to comment