Polygon, Sim City, A Review, and the Implosion of the Internet

Everyone is fully aware of the embarrassing launch that Sim City has recently undergone. And while some talk is about EA and their ineptitude of having servers ready, the future of always-online games, and the overall frustration gamers normally vent; Polygon decided to open a new can of worms with Sim City and wrote a review. The review itself wasn't the problem, it was what they did after the review was written that caused a backlash.

The above score of 9.5 was the written review of Sim City before it's initial release. As you can see, it was a very highly regarded game and almost reached a perfect score. This was on 3/4/13, the day before release. Less than 24 hours later, it received an updated score:

Still a pretty good score, but why the change? As everyone is well aware, Sim City has...to put it lightly....botched their release day. The game is nearly unplayable to most gamers. A game being unplayable is a pretty big problem, and I would say warrants a worse score than an 8. That is if you decide that server problems like this should influence the score. Which it did...to an even greater extent:

This is the most recent score that Sim City has on Polygon. A 4. Within two days, a near perfect game is ranked as a game you should ignore. And the biggest reason is the server issues. Which leads me to the main point of this blog.



Perhaps it's because I'm not in the business, but I have no problem with a game getting a slight ding against it due to online issues. If a game has online problems, people who read the review need to be made aware of it since they will be throwing money at the game to play it. But perhaps online instability shouldn't be a large ding against the game on a review. Thanks to where we are in gaming, patches and fixes can come on a daily basis. What is broke today, may be fixed tomorrow. But how does a reviewer attack that exactly? Clearly server problems weren't evident before the game release which would warrant the score of 9.5. There are three ways I think this should be approached, both without touching the final review score:

1. Review Game but Update with Notes - This would be for reviews that come out before launch day. Which is the case for most big time games. Usually online problems are not persistent for review (and early leaked) copies of the game. It either works or it doesn't. Score the game based on what it deserves at that time. However, if the game releases and is unable to work online, you don't update the score. You update the REVIEW, and you do it at the top where everyone sees it immediately. Don't hide it in the original review and don't create a different section at the bottom. Let the readers be aware that there is an update to the review that doesn't go into the final factor of the score, but should go into the final factor of your purchasing decision.

2. Hold the Review Until Launch - Blasphemy. Sites need these reviews for unreleased games mainly for hits which brings in the money. This is definitely the worse of the two, but it can be considered. The problem is the competition with other gaming sites and who releases the reviews first. People care less about the accuracy of their reviews and more about how many views their review receives. This could be true, or it could be that they do care about their reviews but the higher ups don't. This would lead into discussion about embargoes, and that's not something I'm going to touch. Especially since I'm not too familiar with them.

3. Review Online Mode Later - While this wouldn't work with Sim City due to it always being online, some games have a functional single player mode and a broken multiplayer. In cases like this, the single player can be reviewed but leave a discretion to the reader that the multiplayer can't be reviewed yet because it's broken. Anyone who played Brink on the PS3 on launch day remember that you couldn't play online due to the Sony hack. In this case, review the single player and let the readers know that the multiplayer will be reviewed at a later date. Same can be said for any multiplayer that doesn't work immediately.

Polygon however decided to take their own route on it, and just change the score with a reason as to why. But I have a slight problem with it. For their score of 8, they listed that being unable to play the game was a big reason. Understandable, but if that was a huge concern, you would think an unplayable game would receive an unplayable score. Fast forward one more day and you receive more problems that stem from the same issue of server overload. So they lower the score again. But while you can actually get into the game, there are other issues such as the speed of which you can play it (no more "Cheetah" speed), crashing issues and no leaderboards. That caused the game to receive a 4. Maybe I'm a crazy person, but I would much rather play a game with some issues than not play a game because of issues. But scoring a game less because it actually works and still has problems as opposed to not working in general is completely ludicrous, and the reviewer should rethink the approach.

Many seem concerned with Polygon's approach to changing games. But it shouldn't be that big of a shock as it is mentioned in their review guidelines:

Taken from Polygon:

Polygon's reviews and database have been built based on the idea of updates, or "bumps," as I've called them. If a game changes in a substantive way, we can add an update to our reviews that informs you how and why, and we can modify our scores accordingly. This will appear on the reviews in question as a timeline of that game's evolution and our corresponding recommendation (or lack thereof). The original review score will never vanish or go away, but our readers will be able to better understand where our opinions as a site reside over time for games we review.

We do not guarantee that we'll be able to do this with every game, and whether we do so or not is solely at Polygon's discretion. We will act in what we consider the best interest of our audience, while being as fair as possible to the developers and publishers who pour time and money into the games you play. If a game sees substantive improvements that make for a better experience, we want to reflect that. If a game is less worthy of your limited time, we also want to reflect that.

 Whether you agree or disagree, they have it on their site as to their approach on reviews. But one should question exactly what it would take for them to update their scores. Games have problems with launches. It's common. Everyone is well aware of similar issues Diablo 3 had upon it's launch, but it received a perfect score. What is weird though...it's online is STILL messed up....It hasn't been updated, it never received a docked score, and was one of the biggest releases last year. This idea of pick and choose what reviews will be updated is not something a professional site should use, even if I agree that a game worthy of your time should receive this attention. Clearly, it doesn't. It only matters based on what will create hits at that time. Even the creator of Minecraft made comments on it because he constantly makes updates that improves the game. Oh, and in case you haven't heard, Minecraft is a pretty popular game. Not just on PC, but 360, Android, and IOS.

Polygon has made some bad decisions in this review, and to make it worse, they don't even follow their own rules. Here is what it says about a 1:

A game that doesn't properly function, which is what Sim City was. Instead of giving it an 8, it should have received a 1. Bottom line based on the review guidelines that the site itself set up. If they don't follow their own guidelines for scores, what makes Polygon a site worth trusting with reviews? Back that up with their pick-and-choose approach to what games will get updated scores, and I wonder why anyone would go to Polygon for their reviews.

Despite this being a Polygon centered blog questioning their review not only for Sim City but review scores in general, I think it sets up a precedence for the possibility of future online-only games. But it's not only online-only games that are affected. Every Call of Duty or Halo release seems to cause problems on Xbox the first day or two due to sheer number of people online at any time, and I don't think there's been a single MMO that hasn't released without a hitch. It's not singled out to Sim City. But Polygon needs to think about their review process a little bit more before this happens again, because the Sim City review has painted them in a negative light. Especially if they don't treat this game equally to other games with similar problems on launch day.

Square Enix: How The Mighty Have Fallen

It's hard to believe that at one point in time, Square Enix used to be one of the biggest names in video games. It still is, but not in the same way. Whereas they used to be an acclaimed developer known for their amazing RPG's, they no longer warrant the attention they once deserved. But why?

Well, let's go back a ways first. You see, people don't have super fond memories of Square Enix, it's usually Square. Square is the company that came up with a little game series called Final Fantasy. Other gems include Parasite Eve, Kingdom Hearts, Legend of Mana, Vagrant Story, Xenogears, and Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars. Perhaps you have heard of a few of them? In 2003, Square was merged with publisher Enix best known for Valkyrie Profile, Star Ocean, and the other juggernaut RPG franchise, Dragon Warrior/Dragon Quest. Square Enix now appeared to be an RPG developer that nobody else could touch.

Too bad for Square Enix, they decided to no longer touch RPG's for the most part either. While Square was a developer, Square Enix became more of a publisher with some instances of developing games. Front Mission 4, Romancing SaGa, Kingdom Hearts 2, and Final Fantasy XII were some games that came within 3 years of the acquisition that were developed by Square Enix. Then, the turn for the worse started to become evident.

While they were never opposed to releasing handheld games, it soon became a more reoccurring aspect to their releases. From the merger in 2003 to the end of 2005, they developed 15 games and only one was a handheld game with co-developer Jupiter. This release was Kingdom Hearts: Chain of Memories on the DS. In a similar time frame between 2006-2008, they released 19 console and handheld games. Only 7 of them were console releases. Not to say handheld games will be terrible, but considering some of these games are Pingu's Wonderful Carnival, Snoopy DS: Let's Go Meet Snoopy and His Friends, and Mario Hoops; they don't quite command the attention a new game in a successful franchise would warrant. And of the new Final Fantasy games released, it was 4 years between XII and XIII that were littered with Crystal Chronicles, spin offs such as Dirge of Cerberus: Final Fantasy VII, and in recent years have re-released many of the older games.

Then perhaps one of the worst moves they ever made was to tease a remake of Final Fantasy VII, one of the most beloved RPG's of all time. After the movie Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children was released, the idea of a sequel or remake started making waves. They then touched on the Final Fantasy VII universe again with Dirge of Cerberus, but the worse offender came at E3 2005. There, they tried to show what kind of power the PS3 was capable of. And to do so, they remade the beginning sequence of Final Fantasy VII with HD graphics. They let loose the hounds of hell with this tease, and they haven't heard the end of it since.

The Last Remnant was their "biggest" RPG release between XII and XIII, and it was released to weak reviews. Although it was received positively in Japan, many complaints about it's graphics and battle system led to many reviews in the west being disappointing. While the PC version played better than the 360 version, it wasn't enough to keep the game on the tongue of RPG players who wanted more from RPG's in the newest iteration of consoles. Especially when Square Enix teased other games...

Knowing that Final Fantasy was the cash cow most companies didn't have, they began work on several games. These games were announced at E3 in 2006. On the horizon loomed Final Fantasy XIII, Final Fantasy Versus XIII, and Final Fantasy Agito XIII (later renamed Final Fantasy Type-0). Final Fantasy XIII was not well-received thanks to the 8-hour tutorial filled with corridors and handholding. Final Fantasy Type-0 released in Japan but is nowhere to be seen outside Japan. Final Fantasy Versus XIII is still in limbo. Later came Final Fantasy XIII-2 that made improvements, but still didn't woo the audience. That doesn't matter though as Lightning Returns: Final Fantasy XIII is set to release next year.

Then, rumors started about an HD collection of Final Fantasy X and X-2. While X-2 hasn't been announced to my knowledge, HD Final Fantasy X did get recognition in 2011 that it was coming to PS3 and Vita due to it's 10 year anniversary. A few months later, development on the HD re-release started and then news fell by the wayside. Until last month. February 2013, Square Enix showed some HD models of Tidus, Yuna, Bahamut, and Yojimbo. And while Square Enix may be proud of where they are on the HD re-release, it has fans scratching their heads wondering why all they can show after a year of development are some HD models of a game that was released back in 2001.

And let's just ignore the disaster that was Final Fantasy XIV...

At the recent Sony press conference for the Playstation 4 reveal, Square Enix committed another act which left people confused. They showed a tech demo, which looked like a Final Fantasy game, to everyone in attendance. But what was weird though, was that they released the EXACT same tech demo the year before at E3 when they revealed their new Luminous Engine. Instead of showing more footage of Lightning Returns: Final Fantasy XIII or even something involving Thief 4 which was announced today, they decided to make themselves a laughing stock at the PS4 announcement conference by showing something everyone has already seen. Didn't attach a working title to it, didn't give anything else other than "Please look forward to E3!" And all I have to ask myself is...why?

It's baffling to try and construct some sort of explanation to figure out exactly what Square Enix has been doing in recent years. They have done little with some of the bigger franchises they have available to them, and some of the biggest franchises they have are plummeting to their demise or surviving due to re-releases. Perhaps with the next generation of consoles they can dig themselves out of whatever hole they have created and reinforce to gamers that Square Enix is a developer you can get behind. That Square Enix is a developer who understands the fans and release games they like. And that Square Enix is no longer the joke many see them as and become the powerhouse they should be. But until the stupid decisions are abolished, nothing will be changing.