Polygon.com is live. What do you guys think?

That review looks like someone scanned in a magazine. What an odd layout.

I think the layout of the site is awesome and very progressive

@BoG:

This sounds exactly like a 3 and there is NO difference between them.

Games with a score of six have good parts, but uneven overall execution. Prospective players should know what they’re getting into before they dedicate time and commitment.

A score of five indicates a bland, underwhelming game that's functional but little else. These games might still possess quirks or aspects that appeal to certain players.

The difference between 4 and 3 is pathetic.

Fours fail completely in one of three ways: design, execution or basic functionality — or they fail a fair amount in all of them.

Threes fail completely in two of three ways: design, execution or basic functionality — or they barely achieve a baseline in any of these.

The person who created the "Latest Threads" section should have their head examined, why would put the thread topic and what forum section its under in two different areas of the page?

@Sooty: What do you think of the large images in the reviews? They fill up the my entire screen when I have it full screen, it looks good when I have it at half, Im sure it looks great on phones but god damn is ever big when its full screen browser.

@HansKisaragi said:

@DoctorWelch said:

I say *farting noises*. The site is terribly designed. It looks like a Wordpress blog.

So guys, after all the hype...its a website...about video games.

You Sir needs to be slapped in the face.. it looks awesome..

Whether or not you think it looks kind of cool means nothing. The fact is the overly large pictures, the cluttered pages, the insanely long home page, and the terrible organization of content makes the site design just bad. Go look at the review pages. The words text is all over the place and the page feels like its zoomed in on giant pictures. Whoever designed the site tried to make it look cool without actually thinking about how people are going to use it.

Also, I say it looks like a Wordpress blog because the site is basically one giant banner made of two pictures followed by a bunch of large pictures with words underneath. It may look kind of cool, but it isn't efficient or helpful for actually finding and looking at content.

Apparently its supposed to be a gaming site that will try to differentiate itself from others and appeal to both gamer and non gamers. Reading down the list of stafff, and having read some of their stuff before, it looks like a bunch a fanboys so i dont know how they will be so different.

I do like the overall site design, but like most I wish everything (the images especially) was a little more... compact. Though they get bonus points for site easter eggs like the konami code and a doom egg.

Anyway, for those who don't like the design but are still interested in the content, add the RSS feed to a reader and view it that way.

I feel like the tag line of "Welcome to Polygon. It's a website." is kind of gimmick infringement.

The review layout is pretty disgusting. The images are absolutely massive and chop up the review in a really awful way. The main page is the same way at the top, with the edge-to-edge banner, but the rest of it is okay. I don't follow many of the dudes behind Polygon, so I don't have much incentive to check it out. It seems to have been designed for mobile use first, and then made into a website proper, which kind of hurts the main site.

I appreciate the consistent quality of the images, and how clean the site is. I am worried that they wont be able to keep the look as nice as time goes on.

All text reviews? Forget that! The only text reviews I read are here on the Giant Bomb...namely, Patrick's text reviews.

The whole hype for it really turned me away, and just made me feel like the whole concept is some sort of superiority complex on the part of its founders.

What I like about GB is video and stream content, and the fact that the guys talk about playing games for fun, and not just as a critic.

I like the look of it fine enough, but the layout is confusing because it is constantly changing between one big article that spans the width of the page, to smaller ones with a sidebar, and then three small ones spanning the width and THEN one of those sideways scrolling interfaces with more vertical shaped images, and THEN a list of top games on the side and some more articles on the right and THEN two giant ass images across the page and THEN and THEN AHHHHHH.

Never been a fan of the "endless scrolling" type of page. It's a pain in the ass to have to keep moving down and it makes it hard to remember where stuff is.

I actually really like the magazine-like feel to it. It's phenomenal on a tablet. I think they've done an amazing job. GB will always be my preferred site, because of their staff, but I'll be visiting Polygon daily as well.

Looked at the review they did for Lollipop Chainsaw (as played a ton of it recently) & basing the thoughts on the site from that review, it looks like a site that is like most others in written content, visually it looks like a company that did gaming magazines with filling the pages with huge images over the written review.

I think it's pretty cool but like others have already mentioned—it's a website... about video games.

Works like shit without JS. Instant 0/5 - will not revisit again.

I find it weird about Polygon that their comments sections are always full of fawning cheerleaders, without a critical post in sight, while there seem to be some sort of animosity towards them from a lot of users on other sites. I don't know why that is.

Really like the layout on the articles but that homepage is messy. More sites should adopt the scroll instead of imaginary page turn.

Didnt like the layout and the magazine like design of it .... but man their video encoders works wonderfully , its fast , doesnt get stuck and are big and no loss in quality .... better than the embiggen feature :/ Dave should take a look at it

People are complaining about the design of another website on Giant Bomb? HAHAHAAHAHAA.

The Verge and Polygon publish a lot of in-depth, long form articles which I enjoy reading.

I love that Patrick is writing for Giant Bomb for the same reason.

I like the layout. It feels like a true digital magazine.

I have GB, why do i need an other gaming site?

It's cool and all but man Main page looks like it's zoomed in to far which makes everything way to big on my small laptop screen and the constant toolbar doesn't help either , I can only see like two articles and then have to scroll to see the rest and that's kinda bad . The content on the other is pretty good so hopefully they change the main page soon .

People are complaining about the design of another website on Giant Bomb? HAHAHAAHAHAA.

It feels over designed to me. To much on the main page.  
  
I'm not a fan of it looking like a GQ magazine. 
 
It's fine, though, over all. I'll probably just read reviews there, and some game news. They do have interesting editorials already. 
There is an unfortunate lack of McElroy comedy but I guess there's always the MBMBAM podcast for that =P

The layout is meh, and especially all the comments being shown by default and making the page about 10 times as tall as it really should be.

That site design sucks ass. I hate that it continues to grow as I scroll down the page. I couldn't find a single navigation bar to just take to a place I wanted to see. The one navigation bar they had was for social media. Fuck social media and social networking. There is a drop down menu, but I just want to click a button and take me there. Never been a fan of website drop down menus.

And holy shit, could they make the images any bigger? Won't be going to that site again anytime soon.

I will have to read it a bit more to find out but it sometimes feels like im reading a PDF of a magazine rather than a website. I suppose that could be a good thing for specific articles, this Halo 4 article here, that I could sit down and truly enjoy but for general news stories or even reviews I dont want to be all that invested in my reading experience.

As I said, Ill give it a chance but right now im leaning towards the idea that I go to Polygon for the features in addition to other websites.

EDIT: I just realised a massive flaw for me. Usually while I browse the web im downloading things which means every article I load has giant empty spaces and text on filling half the page.

Yeah... it took me awhile to realize that all of that wonky formatting is intentional and their website isn't just busted. I don't really know anything about these guys, maybe I'll listen to a podcast or something...

@Freshbandito said:

@Deusx said:

Just saying, design isn't art. It's not subjective, it isn't asking what your "style" is. It's bad or good and that's it.

Design can be incredibly subjective, I love fractal shapes, should a piece I design be based around fractals then people are fully able to love, hate or not care about it.

Function however is not subjective, if using the fractal pattern I deliver all the information and catch the eye of those looking at it and draw it to the intended place then it's functionally exactly what I want and doing what intended, people may still hate the design though. as a designer I would really hope you realise the difference between the two and how people can love/hate design layouts completely disregarding functionality. Form and function, this is something taught in week 1 of a basic graphic design course.

I don't agree with that, it is not subjective because design isn't what you like. Design is what works and what doesn't. People can appreciate a design even if the eye candy isn't what they are accustomed to. If they don't like it, you make them like it. The aesthetic part will always be important, that we can agree on, but it is not the main goal of a design. Design is about working fast, efficient, being comfortable, etc. It's the difficult part of design. Anyone can have a good sense of what looks good. That's the easy part. That is what separates design from artistic endeavors and from little kids with no education on the subject who get paid only $100 for a logo design. But hey, if you don't agree, I can't convince you. We have very different opinions about this and I respect that.

@rebgav said:

@Deusx said:

@rebgav: @Levio: @SuperJoe: It's procedural. The content loads as you scroll down the page with javascript...

Yeah, and it's spectacularly pointless. If you wanted to see days-old content you wouldn't sit there and scroll for minutes at a time, you'd go to the news section or reviews section and... uh-oh, I guess you go to the correct section and click "next" a couple of dozen times because that's convenient.

It isn't pointless because as you said, you can do that. It just makes it more easy to reach content for people who just want to browse the website instead of looking for specific reviews or articles (a lot of people). You can notice how the page loads when the transparency of the last articles starts showing. They made that so you know that content wasn't loaded before. I noticed it really fast and stopped browsing the home page, I went to the news page as you said and I didn't have to scroll to the top because the header is fixed positioned at the top for easy access.

Also, I can't wait to see people praising Giant Bomb when they see they are trying to go with the same magazine layout Polygon has. It's going to be hilarious. You can like more than one website you people.

It's O.K.

Kudos for trying something new but, as many have pointed out, lots of the stories/reviews have awful layouts. I'm sure they'll refine this "magazine on the internet" look over time, but right now the placement of some images is just straight up bad.

Having a giant scrolling front page is a bit of info overload. I'd prefer a "Load Older Stories" button to a page that just keeps going.

Just checked it out. I don't see what the big deal is. It just looks like another video game website. I'm not saying that while thinking giantbomb is designed better because this site also has some problems as well. I don't dislike it but I don't like it enough to visit it again.

@Deusx said:

@Coafi: @BananaHace: @MiniPato: Maybe you guys should stop using Opera/IE and living in the 90's. That's how web interfaces work now a days wether you like it or not depends on your ideas of improvement are. Magazine style user interface is slick and promotes reading. Websites have been leaving behind the page turning curiosity from magazines but designers are trying to bring that back. The fact that you actually have to go through the content only encourages you to read the articles throughoutly whether you want to read or not. If you look at statistics, most readers of gaming sites only care about the scores or the last paragraphs of reviews, Polygon isn't that kind of site.

I know I'm being a dick here but as a web designer I must say it's the most beautiful website I've ever seen and used. It's magnificent. Still has a couple of issues with the style sheets but oh boy is it just incredibly slick. The active comments are a great idea, the layout for the review pages is perfect and the home page is very intuitive. It's making me incredibly jealous of the skills and design sensibilities the guys from Vox Media have. Fucking amazing. I have faith in Dave, Alexis, and the other designers from CBS and Giant Bomb but that's it... They once said the site's redesign was in response to Polygon but they just won't be able to compete. I bet those guys are looking at Polygon right now feeling the same way I do now. That site is too fucking beautiful. Everyone who says the design is bad can go fuck themselves, that site is fucking perfect (design wise, not content wise). Also the content seems pretty good. I've read a few articles and it's much better than expected. Now I see why those guys were releasing those overly dramatic videos. They have a good thing going and everyone else should be afraid of that.

I use neither of those, I'm living in 2012 and I have a 1920 x 1080 monitor, so fuck your condescending tone and fuck you too. Sorry if I don't agree with you 100% in thinking it's a perfect website. I said it's very pretty and stylish, but they pushed too far in that area over actual functionality.

Well I think the automatic lomograph red-to-blue filter that is layered over every thumbnail of the site is indicative of the style they are going for and it's just a little too hipster kitsch for me. And I'm normally attracted to that kinda stuff. But I guess the combo of applying it to games and being so blatant and unapologetic about it... yeah it's just too cheesy.

As for the content itself, I'm sure it's fine, they are a talented bunch. But I'm not a fan of the approach.

I agree with those saying it's an objectively poor design. Good web design is supposed to get the information to the customer without any fuss and in the simplest manner possible, this is... not that.

@MiniPato: Daww I hurt your feelings. Calm your tits down.

I don't like the two giant images at the top, but I thought it looked quite nice overall.

@Deusx said:

@MiniPato: Daww I hurt your feelings. Calm your tits down.

Calm your tits down?

@Deusx said:

@MiniPato: Daww I hurt your feelings. Calm your tits down.

Says the guy who escalated the argument in the first place with insults. If people don't like the design deal with it. It's not like it's a piece of art that takes time to examine and determine the meaning of. One only needs to use a website in order to determine whether the design works for them. If it's a layout that only a webdesigner can appreciate, then the webdesigner has failed as a webdesigner.

@JasonR86 said:

@Deusx said:

@MiniPato: Daww I hurt your feelings. Calm your tits down.

Calm your tits down?

You know, fury tits, you have to calm those down or else... it's a bad thing.

It's pretty, but everything's too big, it's annoying to navigate, and I can't find the particular info I want. I'm pretty sure I'll never go there again.

@MiniPato said:

If it's a layout that only a webdesigner can appreciate, then the webdesigner has failed as a webdesigner.

My thoughts exactly.

I'm not really into these sites that just seem like they're slapping together boxes of content in random spots as you scroll down the page. It just feel like there's a lack of consistency

@AlexanderSheen said:

@JasonR86 said:

@Deusx said:

@MiniPato: Daww I hurt your feelings. Calm your tits down.

Calm your tits down?

You know, fury tits, you have to calm those down or else... it's a bad thing.

Yeah, milk will fly everywhere.

@JasonR86 said:

@AlexanderSheen said:

@JasonR86 said:

@Deusx said:

@MiniPato: Daww I hurt your feelings. Calm your tits down.

Calm your tits down?

You know, fury tits, you have to calm those down or else... it's a bad thing.

Yeah, milk will fly everywhere.

I don't really like milk...

@MiniPato: You and I have very different issues with the site so I'm not going to continue that path with you. Also, when did I use insults? I said "Maybe you guys should stop using Opera/IE and living in the 90's." and I also apologized later. You are the one saying "fuck your condescending tone and fuck you too". So yeah, calm your fucking tits down and stop being such a baby.

@Deusx said:

@Freshbandito said:

@Deusx said:

Just saying, design isn't art. It's not subjective, it isn't asking what your "style" is. It's bad or good and that's it.

Design can be incredibly subjective, I love fractal shapes, should a piece I design be based around fractals then people are fully able to love, hate or not care about it.

Function however is not subjective, if using the fractal pattern I deliver all the information and catch the eye of those looking at it and draw it to the intended place then it's functionally exactly what I want and doing what intended, people may still hate the design though. as a designer I would really hope you realise the difference between the two and how people can love/hate design layouts completely disregarding functionality. Form and function, this is something taught in week 1 of a basic graphic design course.

I don't agree with that, it is not subjective because design isn't what you like. Design is what works and what doesn't. People can appreciate a design even if the eye candy isn't what they are accustomed to. If they don't like it, you make them like it. The aesthetic part will always be important, that we can agree on, but it is not the main goal of a design. Design is about working fast, efficient, being comfortable, etc. It's the difficult part of design. Anyone can have a good sense of what looks good. That's the easy part. That is what separates design from artistic endeavors and from little kids with no education on the subject who get paid only $100 for a logo design. But hey, if you don't agree, I can't convince you. We have very different opinions about this and I respect that.

@rebgav said:

@Deusx said:

@rebgav: @Levio: @SuperJoe: It's procedural. The content loads as you scroll down the page with javascript...

Yeah, and it's spectacularly pointless. If you wanted to see days-old content you wouldn't sit there and scroll for minutes at a time, you'd go to the news section or reviews section and... uh-oh, I guess you go to the correct section and click "next" a couple of dozen times because that's convenient.

It isn't pointless because as you said, you can do that. It just makes it more easy to reach content for people who just want to browse the website instead of looking for specific reviews or articles (a lot of people). You can notice how the page loads when the transparency of the last articles starts showing. They made that so you know that content wasn't loaded before. I noticed it really fast and stopped browsing the home page, I went to the news page as you said and I didn't have to scroll to the top because the header is fixed positioned at the top for easy access.

Also, I can't wait to see people praising Giant Bomb when they see they are trying to go with the same magazine layout Polygon has. It's going to be hilarious. You can like more than one website you people.

Im sorry are you saying how comfortable the site is can be measured objectively?

Too serious for my liking. I might visit the site if someone posts a link to an interesting article or something.

I like it. However, there seems to be too much going on at once on the home page. Again this is a personal taste thing but I think the home page has a lot going on and doesnt really attract attention towards one or two specific stories. However judging by the current content this will be a terrific website. Like the Vice of video games journalism/news. IE: the gaming in the middle east story.

I think it looks incredible. It's very flashy and it's obvious the person who designed it is heavily into modern design and the new web aesthetic. I understand that in terms of usability it might not work, so I can see how someone who doesn't give a shit about design can think it looks bad. Like everything related to style or design, not everybody gets it and that's ok. The real problem might be that they went a little overboard with the look and sacrificed some usability features to make it look pretty.

This is one of the worst designs for a website I have ever seen on my monitor. Maybe their tech is great and all, maybe it looks good on phones and pads, but on my 24" screen? TERRIBLE. There must be 12 different formats for their articles if you scroll from top to bottom.

Man, I hope that's not what the future for websites looks like.