"Guess I'll make this article about me rather than the game" - plenty of idiot "modern game journalists."

No, not at all. I'm very interested to see what the hell they can possibly change with this series at this point. And I'm taking it about as "seriously" as I am bothering to post this comment. If that's too serious for you, I'm not sure what to tell you.

@excast: The old saying of it being easier to be a "big fish in a small pond" comes to mind.

Regardless of how people feel about the article, I think it's safe to say Polygon's ability to generate views is nothing if not commendable.

The article isn't really well made and I love Rockband but, seriously, why are people getting so angry at it? Hell, the writer tried to do something different wich is commendable even if he didn't succeed completely. Do we really need to shit on the writer like he is some kind of monster for trying (and mostly not succeeding) at doing Gonzo videogame journalism? If you wanted an informative look at Rock Band 4, IGN ran a serie on it that just does exactly what you want it to do. Go there.

Also, I get most of the hate for Polygon. They do a lot of bullshit and the way they treated Hatred was beyond dumb ("We hate it but let's cover it twenty times and have an intervew with the development team") but a lot of their longform articles can be really good. Great read about videogames are so rare, it's worth noting that Polygon ran some good ones.

My least favorite response is people make a comment and it's "Wow why are you so worked up about this!?!" or whatever. You make a comment, doesn't mean you're so worked up or angry. We are on a forum, guys.

@bollard: The content of the game was embargoed and limited to an IGN exclusive so the author went another way with the preview. It sure looks like people are talking about this article way more than the IGN preview so I fail to see where the author failed if his job is to generate a response.

I would err on the side of not publishing anything if you can't really talk about the game, but this approach seems to have worked in some respects. It lets the people who hate Polygon rattle off their same list of complaints as always. It lets the people who like Polygon make their defense as always. And so this little cycle starts anew.

edit: In fact if the name Polygon wasn't in the title of this thread, I doubt it would have over 3000 views and 100 comments as of now. If their goal is to be distinct and polarizing, they've achieved it.

@thatpinguino: I mean yes, if you want to be a clickbait website like Kotaku, then go ahead and publish articles titled about something that isn't mentioned in the article itself. But any site which wants to have journalistic credability shouldn't publish articles like that.

@bollard: I mean if you want to talk about journalistic credibility, how about the fact that all of the people assembled for that preview, save the IGN employees, were told they couldn't write anything about what they saw. In that case the fancy preview venue serves no real purpose other than shmoozing and getting a first impression to draw off of when you can actually cover the game.

I would say that in a writing context where you literally cannot cover the game the way you would ideally like to, then more power to a writer for coming up with any angle at all. This clearly wasn't the best approach, but good on 'em for trying something different.

There's a lot of garbage on that site but at least in trying something different you get some occasionally fantastic work...however rare.

I guess my point is that there's a wide world out there between "total adoration of everything a site stands for" and "why would I read THAT article, it's on Polygon".

There's really nothing to be commended here, though. If his aim was to attempt Gonzo journalism, he's failed dramatically. If his aim was to irritate and annoy sensitive people into a clickbait frenzy, he's succeeded equally dramatically.

Plus are we at a point where trying something new is commendable anymore, really? Games Writing has been getting increasingly experimental and crazy for years now, especially with the transition of most factual or presentational exposes to video formats. Gonzo Game Writing, especially poor attempts at it, isn't new. I guess sure, on a personal level, congrats, he tried something new and it didn't work -- except it totally did, because it stirred up controversy among people who are already prone to being aggravated.

I don't think people are angry at all, really, but they certainly aren't angry because they wanted Polygon's gripping, detailed perspective on Rock Band 4. I think people are nonplussed because Polygon is, essentially, a kid stirring up an ant nest with a stick. The outcome is predictable, needless, tired, and ultimately doesn't change anything about either the target or the instigator. But, equally, it is also a timeless action that will be repeated again and again, as long as there continue to be anthills and children.

@turambar: Yea I don't totally disagree. Either way it Comes off pretentious as I said

Giant bomb thinks. Previews are dumb so they don't do them

Edit: apparently it's a joke about how Rock band didn't let them talk about a lot because of ign exclusives

If this is true it's a lot funnier

Polygon is the Justin Bieber of video game websites, everyone's favorite villain. It's never enough to just dislike it and move on, you need to make sure everyone knows just how much you dislike it.

Controversy gets attention. Polygon seems to desperately want attention. Mission accomplished.

It's not even an entertaining article. It reads like some piece from the University paper that was turned in by a student who was trying to be avant-garde and not realizing he's neither as original nor as interesting as he assumes he is.

Well, whatever. They got my click this time. Good on them.

Replace clickbait with flamebait. Point still stands pretty well.

I am also a person who has no desire to ever play Rock Band or Guitar Hero, and if you asked me to write a preview for it, it would be incredibly uninformed, it would likely regurgitate a lot of the bullet points that their marketing department is trying to get across, and I wouldn't have anything interesting to say about it. I guarantee that everybody in this thread has a genre they could say the same thing about. Obviously he was trying to avoid this, which was probably a mistake, because instead of sounding uninformed he sounded pretentious. Really you just shouldn't send someone who has no interest in rhythm games to preview a rhythm game because it serves no one.

I think a preview from someone who isn't already interested in it is a valuable perspective, as well. What's not valuable is reading a piece that's written from the perspective of outright disliking a video game, and making a point not to actually preview the game. It doesn't help anyone as it is, and it's clear that he isn't the least bit concerned about doing that.

That this piece exists is not a problem. That it exists under the title "Rock Band 4 Preview" is. It's not a preview, it's a commentary piece on larger trends in the industry. Its title and placement on the website needs to reflect that.

Umm...sure previews are kinda dumb but if they really are so beneath it all then maybe Polygon shouldn't have wasted their time sending this pretentious idiot in the first place?

Jeff's coverage of it on the Bombcast was concise and to the point, "it looks and plays like Rock Band". And Jeff was able to say it just fine, no pretentious snobbery needed.

I never liked Polygon all that much but they seem to be on a roll at making me start to hate them with all the bullshit they've been shoveling out recently. Like seriously, fuck that website

I wish some of the journalists who keep saying that the industry can do better would look in the mirror for a bit and ask themselves if maybe they can as well.

It really seems like he complained at being given a game he had no interest in previewing and then wrote a kind of rebellion article just on principle. Polygon have just got so weird in the last few years with the whole need to make everything into some kind of social statement. They really need to take some time off.

That's about the size of it. I don't have a problem with Campbell injecting some personality into a preview piece, but he ladled it on extremely thick to the point where it becomes a distraction. There's a cynicism and anger here that doesn't belong.

I have 15 years in journalism and have covered plenty of stuff I wasn't interested in...suck it up and write up the piece, man.

I've got kinda mixed feelings about Polygon, I'll defend them on a lot of things. But this reads like somebody wasn't interested in their assignment at work so they half-assed it and defended it with a preemptive strike by arguing that their lack of meaningful things to say was actually because they were "above it."

Yeah the New Games Journalism could be a lot more interesting if it wasn't dominated by tragic narcissists who will never be happy about their profession because it's hard to impress people with. And you don't get enough opportunities to share your no-doubt-fascinating pontifications about politics in the Phillipines.

Whatever my reservations about Austin Walker, at least he seems like a person who isn't a constant trial to be around. His kind is rare.

@stryker1121: Guy needs a vacation.

I don't think a "pre-review" is a thing. It was just a guy talking about being at the event. Also, I don't know if it's been mentioned yet, but Jeff was asked about this article on tumblr and he liked it, take that as you will.

They didn't hand pick him to go to the event, he was just the person who happened to be there. That was his perspective as a guy who's not into Rock Band. He didn't trash it, just gave his perspective. If you want bullet points about a game there are plenty of places to get it. I think this is a non-issue.

I think it would have been more interesting if he went all in with the event stuff, or all in with his Rock Band rant. Mixing them kinda feels disjointed.. or something. Also, what is this, a Vice article?

As far as the preview, I don't give a shit. I didn't like the article, but it wasn't anymore boring than the normal rundown of features you get from previews. If it's so bad maybe stop talking about it?

Yo, that Tool review is pretty bad, but this review of Autechres Untilted is objectively the shittiest Pitchfork review.

I'm seeing the p-word get thrown out there in regards to Campbell's article. Pretentious seems to be the new wave criticism against any writer trying to be ah, expansive, in their work. But I don't see pretension in Campbell's piece, as that would suggest artifice, putting on airs, essentially acting "fake." I think he's genuinely bored by the proceedings and probably has some form of social anxiety. Fine. There could be some humor mined from this, and the line about his grandma is cute enough. But then he gets all dark talking about not liking rock music and video games being stupid. It's weird and out of place and twists the story in directions it shouldn't go.

Also, am I crazy for bringing up that this article is free to read? If they'd have said pay $9.99 for this in-depth preview of Rock Band 4, and this is what you got then sure. But in this case you go to a website (for free), read a short article (for free), and if it's not to your taste move on. I honestly can't understand why someone would be angry about this.

I guess it's just internet culture now to have extreme reactions/opinions about everything. Everything is either the best and you're an unforgivable asshole for bringing up even the slightest criticism of it, or it's the worst and it's bullshit and it's ruining (insert medium here). Isn't the non-crazy thing to do just saying "oh well" and moving on? It's a couple minutes of your life, not a big deal.

This. Also it's not like he doesn't actually describe the game and give relevant preview info in the article. He just also puts in his own experience of the event.

If you don't want to give them a "click", then maybe just suck it up and just don't read it instead of basically pirating the content. You wouldn't view a Giant Bomb video you disliked through someone else's Youtube page, right?

@octaslash: Or you could just not concern yourself with what he chooses to read or not read, or how he may want to read it. How does it affect you, and moreover, how does your comment contribute to this discussion?

@mb: It's just very disappointing to see people basically stealing content from a website just to spite them.

My problem only stems from the title of the article. If they hadn't called it a preview, as if it was like any other preview, I would have really enjoyed the piece (not that I didn't). I think it reveals a lot of the banality and strangeness that can happen at these previews and how uniquely odd they can be.

I absolutely loved this piece. Everyone and their mother seemed to misunderstand the "games can be stupid" bit as "Colin hates games." This could not be further from the truth. Colin is just saying that great games create meaningful context for themselves and the player. Mechanics, aesthetics, and [other things here] do incredibly powerful things -- perhaps their greatest trick is convincing you to engage with a game not as just a bunch of buttons, but as a meaningful means of reading and expression. He immediately follows up that commentby mentioning how Rock Band 4 very handily pulls off this feat of contextualization , which is high praise. By describing the worst-case scenario for a game -- a heartless experience that doesn't offer any real soul to the player -- Colin has a backdrop against which to juxtapose the seemingly invigorating and intriguing nature of Rock Band 4. So grow up, Colin probably doesn't hate games, but is more likely using the psychopathic case to note how Rock Band 4's leinency makes its rock star fantasy that much richer. And anyways, I'd rather hear from someone who can see the best and worst in games than someone who believes that games can do no wrong.

Plenty of good games can be made by answering "what?" Great games are made by answering "why?" Colin makes it sound like Rock Band 4 has that one covered.

Actually, his entire "all games are stupid" bit is saying the exact opposite of that. Colin argues that the plastic instrument genre lost its legs partly because it failed to stray too far from "press button X at time Y" structure. That is, previous Rock Band games sold a rock star fantasy while continuously having you focus (via very technical and rigid gameplay) on the here-and-now reality, which is a far less sexy "holding a plastic guitar with brightly colored buttons." The whole piece is about how despite the aforementioned problem and Colin not giving a shit about being a rockstar in the first place, Rock Band 4 might have something to it that gets him pumped.

I always preferred Dance Dance Revolution to Guitar Hero because at least DDR kind of felt like dancing (or super-awkward flailing, in my case), while Guitar Hero felt like that Simon Says thing from Tiger -- just pressing the color they tell me to.

WOW. Polygon has officially gone up its own ass.

I'll never understand why people get SO MAD at Polygon

I mean it's a completely useless website unless you want to hear about how sexist/racist Mario Kart 8 must be and how awful you are for not self-flagellating for liking Rock Band. Those guys have nothing but contempt for their readers. What did you expect?

Polygon employs Justin and Griffin McElroy who are two of the funniest dudes in the games press. even discounting those dudes, Polygon has probably the best all around roster of any major games site right now. they write really great features while still running a traditional high volume news focused site. despite all that, they run an opinion article dealing with race, sexuality or gender once and a while, so people decide they are a worthless site or just clickbait or whatever the stock complaint is for people who get uncomfortable and don't like to "be subjected" to other peoples views on some important topics.

I think that this had a bit of a weird tone, but i mean who cares? its a preview. even if it was written to the satisfaction of all the critics in this thread and elsewhere, it wouldve come and gone just like hundreds of previews do on dozens of sites do every year. but its Polygon and they're the devil so...