Simcity reviews are in: the embargo is lifted!

[LillySatou 117]

The best quote..

 

You know, it's dumb. I have wanted curved roads for so long, but I’m only building grids, because space is so tight. Grids are more efficient.

 

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/03/simcity-impressions-we-waited-ten-years-for-this/

Props to Ars Technica for writing an actual in-depth and thoughtful review. They sound like they actually played the game, and you can tell because they actually posted their own screenshots.

[Ma8thew 77]

all the honest reviews are the ones not giving it near perfect scores. i mean really, that polygon review is a joke. they were ok with the fact that they couldn't even play the game properly for a while because of the always online thing. that is completely unacceptable. and almost every screenshot they used was from EA Maxis. some werent' even real screenshots and just promo art. what a joke of a review.

 

i'm sure EA paid all these premiere review sites well for their inflated markings.

Are you aware that what you're saying is slanderous? Unless you have evidence to back up your allegation, I suggest you don't insult a journalists credibility. I have been a reader of Polygon since its inception, and I can tell you that I have found no other gaming review site as transparent and well written. Polygon staff are not even allowed to accept free food from companies they are covering. And unlike many of their competitors, they will not allow gaming studios to pay for their travel to or lodging for events. They are one of the most principled outlets in the industry. Just because you disagree with a review is no reason to make baseless accusations.

[Helevitia 38]

all the honest reviews are the ones not giving it near perfect scores. i mean really, that polygon review is a joke. they were ok with the fact that they couldn't even play the game properly for a while because of the always online thing. that is completely unacceptable. and almost every screenshot they used was from EA Maxis. some werent' even real screenshots and just promo art. what a joke of a review.

 

i'm sure EA paid all these premiere review sites well for their inflated markings.

Are you aware that what you're saying is slanderous? Unless you have evidence to back up your allegation, I suggest you don't insult a journalists credibility. I have been a reader of Polygon since its inception, and I can tell you that I have found no other gaming review site as transparent and well written. Just because you disagree with a review is no reason to make baseless accusations.

 

It's a well known industry FACT that reviewers are paid off all the time.  He might not be able to tell you exactly which ones are being paid, but we can make educated guesses.  I haven't read the polygon review, but I personally trust Ars Technica as a highly reputable sight.  They've pretty much said what I've been thinking all along. 

[LillySatou 117]

all the honest reviews are the ones not giving it near perfect scores. i mean really, that polygon review is a joke. they were ok with the fact that they couldn't even play the game properly for a while because of the always online thing. that is completely unacceptable. and almost every screenshot they used was from EA Maxis. some werent' even real screenshots and just promo art. what a joke of a review.

 

i'm sure EA paid all these premiere review sites well for their inflated markings.

Are you aware that what you're saying is slanderous? Unless you have evidence to back up your allegation, I suggest you don't insult a journalists credibility. I have been a reader of Polygon since its inception, and I can tell you that I have found no other gaming review site as transparent and well written. Just because you disagree with a review is no reason to make baseless accusations.

Are you aware that paid reviewing in gaming "journalism" is indeed a thing? Keep in mind Polygon has a boatload of corporate sponsors and a revenue model to keep them afloat. You don't think that influences their "journalism" in any way? It's not even a matter of disagreeing - they can like the game all they want, but there's nothing positive about paying $60 for a game you can't play, and they managed to make a plus out of having to buy a new router just to make SC2013 playable. I mean.. you read the review, right? You're going to tell me that was a fair and balanced review?

 

Also, EA has said that their Metacritic score is more important to them than money. So what makes you think they wouldn't pull out some cash to improve their game scores if they can't actually make a better game? You better believe they would.

[Gurning_Chimp 398]

Disregard 'respected' reviewers. Follow independents.

[Ma8thew 77]

 

all the honest reviews are the ones not giving it near perfect scores. i mean really, that polygon review is a joke. they were ok with the fact that they couldn't even play the game properly for a while because of the always online thing. that is completely unacceptable. and almost every screenshot they used was from EA Maxis. some werent' even real screenshots and just promo art. what a joke of a review.

 

i'm sure EA paid all these premiere review sites well for their inflated markings.

Are you aware that what you're saying is slanderous? Unless you have evidence to back up your allegation, I suggest you don't insult a journalists credibility. I have been a reader of Polygon since its inception, and I can tell you that I have found no other gaming review site as transparent and well written. Just because you disagree with a review is no reason to make baseless accusations.

 

It's a well known industry FACT that reviewers are paid off all the time.  He might not be able to tell you exactly which ones are being paid, but we can make educated guesses.  I haven't read the polygon review, but I personally trust Ars Technica as a highly reputable sight.  They've pretty much said what I've been thinking all along. 

So what you're saying is that anyone that disagrees with you has been paid-off. Do you have any evidence that Polygon has been bribed, beyond your hunch?

 

 

 

all the honest reviews are the ones not giving it near perfect scores. i mean really, that polygon review is a joke. they were ok with the fact that they couldn't even play the game properly for a while because of the always online thing. that is completely unacceptable. and almost every screenshot they used was from EA Maxis. some werent' even real screenshots and just promo art. what a joke of a review.

 

i'm sure EA paid all these premiere review sites well for their inflated markings.

Are you aware that what you're saying is slanderous? Unless you have evidence to back up your allegation, I suggest you don't insult a journalists credibility. I have been a reader of Polygon since its inception, and I can tell you that I have found no other gaming review site as transparent and well written. Just because you disagree with a review is no reason to make baseless accusations.

Are you aware that paid reviewing in gaming "journalism" is indeed a thing? Keep in mind Polygon has a boatload of corporate sponsors and a revenue model to keep them afloat. You don't think that influences their "journalism" in any way? It's not even a matter of disagreeing - they can like the game all they want, but there's nothing positive about paying $60 for a game you can't play, and they managed to make a plus out of having to buy a new router just to make SC2013 playable. I mean.. you read the review, right? You're going to tell me that was a fair and balanced review?

 

Also, EA has said that their Metacritic score is more important to them than money. So what makes you think they wouldn't pull out some cash to improve their game scores if they can't actually make a better game? You better believe they would.

Did I say that? I'm well aware that there are many ethically dubious outlets in gaming. I'm telling you that Polygon is not one of them. The actual content of the review is not what I'm discussing. You can disagree with the review without making slanderous accusations about the reviewer.

[City Planner 121]

The best quote..

 

You know, it's dumb. I have wanted curved roads for so long, but I’m only building grids, because space is so tight. Grids are more efficient.

 

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/03/simcity-impressions-we-waited-ten-years-for-this/

We've all waited for curvy roads for so long and it's sad because that writeup hits the nail right into the coffin.

 

I'm actually a bit concerned about it because...

1. People get fed up of building town sized cities and they leave the game.

2. EA sees nobody (or relatively few) are playing and has no need to make larger city tiles 

3. EA sees even less people are playing and shuts down game server in less than 2 years

Total game life 2 years for SC5, Total game life 10+ for SC4.

 

I hope it doesn't work out that way but with what I've read so far today with the ban removed, it seems that tile size is the largest complaint, and of the Asian players over there on Twitch streaming, a good portion of them are saying they'll not likely be playing this too long unless larger maps come out

[Gurning_Chimp 398]

 

 

all the honest reviews are the ones not giving it near perfect scores. i mean really, that polygon review is a joke. they were ok with the fact that they couldn't even play the game properly for a while because of the always online thing. that is completely unacceptable. and almost every screenshot they used was from EA Maxis. some werent' even real screenshots and just promo art. what a joke of a review.

 

i'm sure EA paid all these premiere review sites well for their inflated markings.

Are you aware that what you're saying is slanderous? Unless you have evidence to back up your allegation, I suggest you don't insult a journalists credibility. I have been a reader of Polygon since its inception, and I can tell you that I have found no other gaming review site as transparent and well written. Just because you disagree with a review is no reason to make baseless accusations.

 

It's a well known industry FACT that reviewers are paid off all the time.  He might not be able to tell you exactly which ones are being paid, but we can make educated guesses.  I haven't read the polygon review, but I personally trust Ars Technica as a highly reputable sight.  They've pretty much said what I've been thinking all along. 

So what you're saying is that anyone that disagrees with you has been paid-off. Do you have any evidence that Polygon has been bribed, beyond your hunch?

 

 

> 

 

all the honest reviews are the ones not giving it near perfect scores. i mean really, that polygon review is a joke. they were ok with the fact that they couldn't even play the game properly for a while because of the always online thing. that is completely unacceptable. and almost every screenshot they used was from EA Maxis. some werent' even real screenshots and just promo art. what a joke of a review.

 

i'm sure EA paid all these premiere review sites well for their inflated markings.

Are you aware that what you're saying is slanderous? Unless you have evidence to back up your allegation, I suggest you don't insult a journalists credibility. I have been a reader of Polygon since its inception, and I can tell you that I have found no other gaming review site as transparent and well written. Just because you disagree with a review is no reason to make baseless accusations.

Are you aware that paid reviewing in gaming "journalism" is indeed a thing? Keep in mind Polygon has a boatload of corporate sponsors and a revenue model to keep them afloat. You don't think that influences their "journalism" in any way? It's not even a matter of disagreeing - they can like the game all they want, but there's nothing positive about paying $60 for a game you can't play, and they managed to make a plus out of having to buy a new router just to make SC2013 playable. I mean.. you read the review, right? You're going to tell me that was a fair and balanced review?

 

Also, EA has said that their Metacritic score is more important to them than money. So what makes you think they wouldn't pull out some cash to improve their game scores if they can't actually make a better game? You better believe they would.

Did I say that? I'm well aware that there are many ethically dubious outlets in gaming. I'm telling you that Polygon is not one of them. The actual content of the review is not what I'm discussing. You can disagree with the review without making slanderous accusations about the reviewer.

 

 

Do you work for Polygon?

[Ma8thew 77]

 

 

 

all the honest reviews are the ones not giving it near perfect scores. i mean really, that polygon review is a joke. they were ok with the fact that they couldn't even play the game properly for a while because of the always online thing. that is completely unacceptable. and almost every screenshot they used was from EA Maxis. some werent' even real screenshots and just promo art. what a joke of a review.

 

i'm sure EA paid all these premiere review sites well for their inflated markings.

Are you aware that what you're saying is slanderous? Unless you have evidence to back up your allegation, I suggest you don't insult a journalists credibility. I have been a reader of Polygon since its inception, and I can tell you that I have found no other gaming review site as transparent and well written. Just because you disagree with a review is no reason to make baseless accusations.

 

It's a well known industry FACT that reviewers are paid off all the time.  He might not be able to tell you exactly which ones are being paid, but we can make educated guesses.  I haven't read the polygon review, but I personally trust Ars Technica as a highly reputable sight.  They've pretty much said what I've been thinking all along. 

So what you're saying is that anyone that disagrees with you has been paid-off. Do you have any evidence that Polygon has been bribed, beyond your hunch?

 

 

>> 

 

all the honest reviews are the ones not giving it near perfect scores. i mean really, that polygon review is a joke. they were ok with the fact that they couldn't even play the game properly for a while because of the always online thing. that is completely unacceptable. and almost every screenshot they used was from EA Maxis. some werent' even real screenshots and just promo art. what a joke of a review.

 

i'm sure EA paid all these premiere review sites well for their inflated markings.

Are you aware that what you're saying is slanderous? Unless you have evidence to back up your allegation, I suggest you don't insult a journalists credibility. I have been a reader of Polygon since its inception, and I can tell you that I have found no other gaming review site as transparent and well written. Just because you disagree with a review is no reason to make baseless accusations.

Are you aware that paid reviewing in gaming "journalism" is indeed a thing? Keep in mind Polygon has a boatload of corporate sponsors and a revenue model to keep them afloat. You don't think that influences their "journalism" in any way? It's not even a matter of disagreeing - they can like the game all they want, but there's nothing positive about paying $60 for a game you can't play, and they managed to make a plus out of having to buy a new router just to make SC2013 playable. I mean.. you read the review, right? You're going to tell me that was a fair and balanced review?

 

Also, EA has said that their Metacritic score is more important to them than money. So what makes you think they wouldn't pull out some cash to improve their game scores if they can't actually make a better game? You better believe they would.

Did I say that? I'm well aware that there are many ethically dubious outlets in gaming. I'm telling you that Polygon is not one of them. The actual content of the review is not what I'm discussing. You can disagree with the review without making slanderous accusations about the reviewer.

 

 

Do you work for Polygon?

 

Oh, so now you assume that anyone challenging the slanderous accusations on this thread has also been bribed. Are you seriously unable to comprehend that some people have different opinions of things than you do. No, of course I don't work for Polygon. I just hate seeing the internet peanut gallery insulting the professional ethics of journalists without any evidence whatsoever.

[Spatzimaus 77]

 Just because you disagree with a review is no reason to make baseless accusations.

 

But then what else will he complain about?  I mean, if other people like something he doesn't like (despite him not having actually played the full game yet), then it CAN'T just be a matter of taste, can it?  No, obviously the reviewer was bought and paid for by EA.  Yes, it's happened quite a few times in the past that game reviewers inflated a score, but we're not talking about score inflation.  We're talking about a reviewer who says "this is fun in spite of the flaws", and people still argue that what he REALLY means is that the game stinks and isn't worth $60.

 

This board is filled with people who loved SC4, and were hoping this'd be an update of that.  Instead, they got a game that's very different, and in their mind it'll obviously fail because of that.  And if a particular review agrees with them on this, then obviously THAT reviewer is honest and all the others are corrupt.  It's a lot like people who watch a certain "News" channel; the talking heads tell them things that agree with their personal worldview, so they take it as validation, and any other channels that disagree are obviously controlled by the evil (insert scapegoat here).  What you should do is listen to both sides' actual points, and then draw your own conclusions, but take a guess how often that happens.

 

So here's what's going to happen.  This game is going to make a metric buttload of money, because for every hardcore simulation junkie out there who played the old SimCity games, there are dozens if not hundreds of "casual" gamers who spend more time playing flash games (or Angry Birds) than buying AAA titles, unless they're buying a game in the Sims series or maybe a Madden game.  (Incidentally, how many copies of SC4 were sold, versus how many copies of Sims 3?)  This vast number of casual computer gamers will buy this game because it appears casual-friendly, in the same way the Sims games are, and they'll enjoy it.  The old-timers who really wanted SimCity 4.5 will scream that the game stinks, but it'll still end up making so much money that EA will insist Maxis follow the same blueprint for future SimCity games.  At best, you can hope they add enough mod support that fans can edit in more complex systems, but the core game will be like what we've seen already.

[LillySatou 117]

 

 

all the honest reviews are the ones not giving it near perfect scores. i mean really, that polygon review is a joke. they were ok with the fact that they couldn't even play the game properly for a while because of the always online thing. that is completely unacceptable. and almost every screenshot they used was from EA Maxis. some werent' even real screenshots and just promo art. what a joke of a review.

 

i'm sure EA paid all these premiere review sites well for their inflated markings.

Are you aware that what you're saying is slanderous? Unless you have evidence to back up your allegation, I suggest you don't insult a journalists credibility. I have been a reader of Polygon since its inception, and I can tell you that I have found no other gaming review site as transparent and well written. Just because you disagree with a review is no reason to make baseless accusations.

Are you aware that paid reviewing in gaming "journalism" is indeed a thing? Keep in mind Polygon has a boatload of corporate sponsors and a revenue model to keep them afloat. You don't think that influences their "journalism" in any way? It's not even a matter of disagreeing - they can like the game all they want, but there's nothing positive about paying $60 for a game you can't play, and they managed to make a plus out of having to buy a new router just to make SC2013 playable. I mean.. you read the review, right? You're going to tell me that was a fair and balanced review?

 

Also, EA has said that their Metacritic score is more important to them than money. So what makes you think they wouldn't pull out some cash to improve their game scores if they can't actually make a better game? You better believe they would.

Did I say that? I'm well aware that there are many ethically dubious outlets in gaming. I'm telling you that Polygon is not one of them. The actual content of the review is not what I'm discussing. You can disagree with the review without making slanderous accusations about the reviewer.

 

 

Well you can't prove that, and I'm not going to take your word for it. So your argument is as invalid as you think mine is. The bottom line is, the review is misleading tripe, anyone with a lick of common sense would come away with a sense of suspicion after reading such a glowing review of a clearly broken product.

 

But you must acknowledge the fact that Polygon is fully funded and paid for by corporate interests. In some way, this makes them less trustworthy than an independently funded review site. If you cannot agree with that, you are thinking outside of simple logic.

[Ma8thew 77]

 Just because you disagree with a review is no reason to make baseless accusations.

 

But then what else will he complain about?  I mean, if other people like something he doesn't like (despite him not having actually played the full game yet), then it CAN'T just be a matter of taste, can it?  No, obviously the reviewer was bought and paid for by EA.  Yes, it's happened quite a few times in the past that game reviewers inflated a score, but we're not talking about score inflation.  We're talking about a reviewer who says "this is fun in spite of the flaws", and people still argue that what he REALLY means is that the game stinks and isn't worth $60.

 

This board is filled with people who loved SC4, and were hoping this'd be an update of that.  Instead, they got a game that's very different, and in their mind it'll obviously fail because of that.  And if a particular review agrees with them on this, then obviously THAT reviewer is honest and all the others are corrupt.  It's a lot like people who watch a certain "News" channel; the talking heads tell them things that agree with their personal worldview, so they take it as validation, and any other channels that disagree are obviously controlled by the evil (insert scapegoat here).  What you should do is listen to both sides' actual points, and then draw your own conclusions, but take a guess how often that happens.

 

So here's what's going to happen.  This game is going to make a metric buttload of money, because for every hardcore simulation junkie out there who played the old SimCity games, there are dozens if not hundreds of "casual" gamers who spend more time playing flash games (or Angry Birds) than buying AAA titles, unless they're buying a game in the Sims series or maybe a Madden game.  (Incidentally, how many copies of SC4 were sold, versus how many copies of Sims 3?)  This vast number of casual computer gamers will buy this game because it appears casual-friendly, in the same way the Sims games are, and they'll enjoy it.  The old-timers who really wanted SimCity 4.5 will scream that the game stinks, but it'll still end up making so much money that EA will insist Maxis follow the same blueprint for future SimCity games.  At best, you can hope they add enough mod support that fans can edit in more complex systems, but the core game will be like what we've seen already.

You could not have put it better. It doesn't matter if the game is fun for a wide audience. It doesn't matter if professional reviewers praise it. It doesn't matter that Simcity 4 was a commercial failure. In the minds of some, EA should have made a game on the same model as Simcity 4 and this would somehow be far more successful, and anything that points to a different conclusion is evidence of bribery, money-grabbing, or the stupidity of the people who enjoy playing the game.

 

 

 

 

 

all the honest reviews are the ones not giving it near perfect scores. i mean really, that polygon review is a joke. they were ok with the fact that they couldn't even play the game properly for a while because of the always online thing. that is completely unacceptable. and almost every screenshot they used was from EA Maxis. some werent' even real screenshots and just promo art. what a joke of a review.

 

i'm sure EA paid all these premiere review sites well for their inflated markings.

Are you aware that what you're saying is slanderous? Unless you have evidence to back up your allegation, I suggest you don't insult a journalists credibility. I have been a reader of Polygon since its inception, and I can tell you that I have found no other gaming review site as transparent and well written. Just because you disagree with a review is no reason to make baseless accusations.

Are you aware that paid reviewing in gaming "journalism" is indeed a thing? Keep in mind Polygon has a boatload of corporate sponsors and a revenue model to keep them afloat. You don't think that influences their "journalism" in any way? It's not even a matter of disagreeing - they can like the game all they want, but there's nothing positive about paying $60 for a game you can't play, and they managed to make a plus out of having to buy a new router just to make SC2013 playable. I mean.. you read the review, right? You're going to tell me that was a fair and balanced review?

 

Also, EA has said that their Metacritic score is more important to them than money. So what makes you think they wouldn't pull out some cash to improve their game scores if they can't actually make a better game? You better believe they would.

Did I say that? I'm well aware that there are many ethically dubious outlets in gaming. I'm telling you that Polygon is not one of them. The actual content of the review is not what I'm discussing. You can disagree with the review without making slanderous accusations about the reviewer.

 

 

Well you can't prove that, and I'm not going to take your word for it. So your argument is as invalid as you think mine is. The bottom line is, the review is misleading tripe, anyone with a lick of common sense would come away with a sense of suspicion after reading such a glowing review of a clearly broken product.

 

But you must acknowledge the fact that Polygon is fully funded and paid for by corporate interests. In some way, this makes them less trustworthy than an independently funded review site. If you cannot agree with that, you are thinking outside of simple logic.

I'm not sure what constitutes proof for you. Unless I've followed every Polygon employee round since they joined the company I can't absolutely guarantee that they are not corrupt. The only evidence you've presented is that they have advertisers. Pick a newspaper that you trust. Do their advertisers diminish the paper's trustworthiness? How are these independent reviewers that you are touting funded? Do they have no advertisers and review games out of charity? You can read Polygon's ethics statement for yourself:

 

We have advertisements on our site, and they are our main source of revenue. Our company has its own advertising team responsible for selling ad space on our site. We do not accept money or other consideration from companies as a condition or incentive to write a review or story, whether favorable or unfavorable, on Polygon. All reviews and other editorial material on the Polygon site are based on our editorial discretion, and not based on the desire of any company, advertiser or PR firm. Advertisers don't ask us to cover their products, and we don't comment about their ads. Our policies do not permit placements of advertorial on Polygon. We will endeavor to clearly mark any advertisement or "infomercial" (videos, Flash animations, etc.) shown on Polygon as an advertisement.

 

 

I don't have much faith in that convincing you, given how far into the realms of fantasy and supposition that this thread has degenerated.

[LillySatou 117]

This board is filled with people who loved SC4, and were hoping this'd be an update of that.  Instead, they got a game that's very different, and in their mind it'll obviously fail because of that.  And if a particular review agrees with them on this, then obviously THAT reviewer is honest and all the others are corrupt.  It's a lot like people who watch a certain "News" channel; the talking heads tell them things that agree with their personal worldview, so they take it as validation, and any other channels that disagree are obviously controlled by the evil (insert scapegoat here).  What you should do is listen to both sides' actual points, and then draw your own conclusions, but take a guess how often that happens.

 

So here's what's going to happen.  This game is going to make a metric buttload of money, because for every hardcore simulation junkie out there who played the old SimCity games, there are dozens if not hundreds of "casual" gamers who spend more time playing flash games (or Angry Birds) than buying AAA titles, unless they're buying a game in the Sims series or maybe a Madden game.  (Incidentally, how many copies of SC4 were sold, versus how many copies of Sims 3?)  This vast number of casual computer gamers will buy this game because it appears casual-friendly, in the same way the Sims games are, and they'll enjoy it.  The old-timers who really wanted SimCity 4.5 will scream that the game stinks, but it'll still end up making so much money that EA will insist Maxis follow the same blueprint for future SimCity games.  At best, you can hope they add enough mod support that fans can edit in more complex systems, but the core game will be like what we've seen already.

The game can be fun at times, but we're talking about big flaws here. Things beyond even the basics they failed at like city sizes and missing features. Flaws like "I can't play the game I paid for", and "I lost 6 hours worth of city building because EA's servers hiccuped". 

 

I played every single beta and I did not play the same game as that Polygon "reviewer". It could not have changed THAT much between then and now.

 

Sim City has and always will be a niche franchise. What they're doing to it right now as far as marketing and profit goes only works once. Unless the fans are really that naive.

[Micah 16]

Both the good and bad reviews seem not to matter as much until the servers are actually kicked on. I remember Civ 4 having great reviews in the beginning but the game would crash every 5 mins for a vast majority of users the first few months. These servers are going to be put to the test... we'll have to see how they handle the traffic.

[Mac55 5]

Well I think it is clear that we don't have an SC4 game here.  Clearly its what alot of us wanted (myself included).  I guess we can hope that the modding community can make this a playable game in that regard, or just learn to live with it.

[Gurning_Chimp 398]

 

 

 

 

all the honest reviews are the ones not giving it near perfect scores. i mean really, that polygon review is a joke. they were ok with the fact that they couldn't even play the game properly for a while because of the always online thing. that is completely unacceptable. and almost every screenshot they used was from EA Maxis. some werent' even real screenshots and just promo art. what a joke of a review.

 

i'm sure EA paid all these premiere review sites well for their inflated markings.

Are you aware that what you're saying is slanderous? Unless you have evidence to back up your allegation, I suggest you don't insult a journalists credibility. I have been a reader of Polygon since its inception, and I can tell you that I have found no other gaming review site as transparent and well written. Just because you disagree with a review is no reason to make baseless accusations.

 

It's a well known industry FACT that reviewers are paid off all the time.  He might not be able to tell you exactly which ones are being paid, but we can make educated guesses.  I haven't read the polygon review, but I personally trust Ars Technica as a highly reputable sight.  They've pretty much said what I've been thinking all along. 

So what you're saying is that anyone that disagrees with you has been paid-off. Do you have any evidence that Polygon has been bribed, beyond your hunch?

 

 

>>> 

 

all the honest reviews are the ones not giving it near perfect scores. i mean really, that polygon review is a joke. they were ok with the fact that they couldn't even play the game properly for a while because of the always online thing. that is completely unacceptable. and almost every screenshot they used was from EA Maxis. some werent' even real screenshots and just promo art. what a joke of a review.

 

i'm sure EA paid all these premiere review sites well for their inflated markings.

Are you aware that what you're saying is slanderous? Unless you have evidence to back up your allegation, I suggest you don't insult a journalists credibility. I have been a reader of Polygon since its inception, and I can tell you that I have found no other gaming review site as transparent and well written. Just because you disagree with a review is no reason to make baseless accusations.

Are you aware that paid reviewing in gaming "journalism" is indeed a thing? Keep in mind Polygon has a boatload of corporate sponsors and a revenue model to keep them afloat. You don't think that influences their "journalism" in any way? It's not even a matter of disagreeing - they can like the game all they want, but there's nothing positive about paying $60 for a game you can't play, and they managed to make a plus out of having to buy a new router just to make SC2013 playable. I mean.. you read the review, right? You're going to tell me that was a fair and balanced review?

 

Also, EA has said that their Metacritic score is more important to them than money. So what makes you think they wouldn't pull out some cash to improve their game scores if they can't actually make a better game? You better believe they would.

Did I say that? I'm well aware that there are many ethically dubious outlets in gaming. I'm telling you that Polygon is not one of them. The actual content of the review is not what I'm discussing. You can disagree with the review without making slanderous accusations about the reviewer.

 

 

Do you work for Polygon?

 

Oh, so now you assume that anyone challenging the slanderous accusations on this thread has also been bribed. Are you seriously unable to comprehend that some people have different opinions of things than you do. No, of course I don't work for Polygon. I just hate seeing the internet peanut gallery insulting the professional ethics of journalists without any evidence whatsoever.

 

 

Then you can't say for certain that they're not on the payroll. I asked because you seemed to be singling Polygon out.

[stephanieGrey 3]

I suggest waiting for IGN, gamespot, gametrailers and such.. this seems like EA bought-reviews.

[Ma8thew 77]

 

 

 

 

 

all the honest reviews are the ones not giving it near perfect scores. i mean really, that polygon review is a joke. they were ok with the fact that they couldn't even play the game properly for a while because of the always online thing. that is completely unacceptable. and almost every screenshot they used was from EA Maxis. some werent' even real screenshots and just promo art. what a joke of a review.

 

i'm sure EA paid all these premiere review sites well for their inflated markings.

Are you aware that what you're saying is slanderous? Unless you have evidence to back up your allegation, I suggest you don't insult a journalists credibility. I have been a reader of Polygon since its inception, and I can tell you that I have found no other gaming review site as transparent and well written. Just because you disagree with a review is no reason to make baseless accusations.

 

It's a well known industry FACT that reviewers are paid off all the time.  He might not be able to tell you exactly which ones are being paid, but we can make educated guesses.  I haven't read the polygon review, but I personally trust Ars Technica as a highly reputable sight.  They've pretty much said what I've been thinking all along. 

So what you're saying is that anyone that disagrees with you has been paid-off. Do you have any evidence that Polygon has been bribed, beyond your hunch?

 

 

>>> 

 

all the honest reviews are the ones not giving it near perfect scores. i mean really, that polygon review is a joke. they were ok with the fact that they couldn't even play the game properly for a while because of the always online thing. that is completely unacceptable. and almost every screenshot they used was from EA Maxis. some werent' even real screenshots and just promo art. what a joke of a review.

 

i'm sure EA paid all these premiere review sites well for their inflated markings.

Are you aware that what you're saying is slanderous? Unless you have evidence to back up your allegation, I suggest you don't insult a journalists credibility. I have been a reader of Polygon since its inception, and I can tell you that I have found no other gaming review site as transparent and well written. Just because you disagree with a review is no reason to make baseless accusations.

Are you aware that paid reviewing in gaming "journalism" is indeed a thing? Keep in mind Polygon has a boatload of corporate sponsors and a revenue model to keep them afloat. You don't think that influences their "journalism" in any way? It's not even a matter of disagreeing - they can like the game all they want, but there's nothing positive about paying $60 for a game you can't play, and they managed to make a plus out of having to buy a new router just to make SC2013 playable. I mean.. you read the review, right? You're going to tell me that was a fair and balanced review?

 

Also, EA has said that their Metacritic score is more important to them than money. So what makes you think they wouldn't pull out some cash to improve their game scores if they can't actually make a better game? You better believe they

would.

Did I say that? I'm well aware that there are many ethically dubious outlets in gaming. I'm telling you that Polygon is not one of them. The actual content of the review is not what I'm discussing. You can disagree with the review without making slanderous accusations about the reviewer.

 

Do you work for Polygon?

 

Oh, so now you assume that anyone challenging the slanderous accusations on this thread has also been bribed. Are you seriously unable to comprehend that some people have different opinions of things than you do. No, of course I don't work for Polygon. I just hate seeing the internet peanut gallery insulting the professional ethics of journalists without any evidence whatsoever.

 

 

Then you can't say for certain that they're not on the payroll. I asked because you seemed to be singling Polygon out.

 

I'm singling Polygon out because I read them, and they have higher ethical standards than most other publications. Of course I can't be certain. Do you know the expression 'you can't prove a negative'? You're the one making the positive claim, and you have yet to provide any evidence, other than the fact that they disagree with you.

[crashx 18]

New here, but I just had to chime in on this. I'm more of a 'Maxis' fan and that is because of Simcity, i'm also a huge fan of The Sims series...and what is happening here reminds me a lot of what happened between the transition of The Sims 2 and The Sims 3.

 

A lot of sims forums weren't exactly happy with all the changes, I remember the fact that Sims had to age all at the same time now because of the new living world they lived in was a problem. People were used to playing one household at a time while the other households were frozen in time. You see Maxis made a move towards making the game more realistic, in that sims would live their own lives without your direction if you weren't controlling it...but people were pretty much used to controlling several households. Eventually EA did patch in a option to go back to Sims 2 aging, but I doubt you'll find many Simmers that go back to it.

 

Of course people were also upset that they took things out from the expansions but I think people forget that they built an entirely new thing for this new sims game. They wasn't going to release Pets and seasons along with it...sure they could have and then that would have pushed the release date back.

 

Some of the people that played SC4 are never going to be pleased with some of the changes, just like there are still people that play and mod for The Sims 2...there will be plenty of people I suppose that remain on SC4. That's just how games are, sequels come out and things change. I know there are still people that play year old sports games because that years version was their favorite version.

 

But I think this Simcity is more like a base game, something that they will expand on as the years past. It does seem to be missing a lot of depth, but that was how Sims 3 was at first too. They basically stripped it down, took out all these little features that made TS2 great...and brought them back.

 

Also yes, as a Maxis fan I'm pretty excited for today with both a new TS3 EP coming out and Simcity coming out as well.

[Xenocity 343]

I suggest waiting for IGN, gamespot, gametrailers and such.. this seems like EA bought-reviews.

Just for you I post this famous gif about IGN

 

 

Also Gamespot and Gametrailers have been outed for being paid off this gen.

 

maybe should wait for CNN and USAToday?

[Gurning_Chimp 398]

 

 

I'm singling Polygon out because I read them, and they have higher ethical standards than most other publications. Of course I can't be certain. Do you know the expression 'you can't prove a negative'? You're the one making the positive claim, and you have yet to provide any evidence, other than the fact that they disagree with you.

 

 

 

 

At least you admit to your bias.

 

I think the business practices of other major reviewers make the claims of corruption more likely than the naivete on your part.

I suggest waiting for IGN, gamespot, gametrailers and such.. this seems like EA bought-reviews.

Just for you I post this famous gif about IGN

 

 

Also Gamespot and Gametrailers have been outed for being paid off this gen.

 

maybe should wait for CNN and USAToday?

 

Wait for indie reviewers. As I said. We got a (sort of) NerdCubed review, just wait for others.

[stephanieGrey 3]

I suggest waiting for IGN, gamespot, gametrailers and such.. this seems like EA bought-reviews.

Just for you I post this famous gif about IGN

 

 

Also Gamespot and Gametrailers have been outed for being paid off this gen.

 

maybe should wait for CNN and USAToday?

No way! Gametrailers and Gamespot gives honest option, also IGN.

[logintime 93]

I suggest waiting for IGN, gamespot, gametrailers and such.. this seems like EA bought-reviews.

Just for you I post this famous gif about IGN

 

 

 

Also Gamespot and Gametrailers have been outed for being paid off this gen.

 

maybe should wait for CNN and USAToday?

 

Wait for the Tom Chick review, as he's usually on the mark with how he scores a game and isn't afraid to hand out low scores if they deserve them.

[stephanieGrey 3]

 

I suggest waiting for IGN, gamespot, gametrailers and such.. this seems like EA bought-reviews.

Just for you I post this famous gif about IGN

 

 

 

Also Gamespot and Gametrailers have been outed for being paid off this gen.

 

maybe should wait for CNN and USAToday?

 

Wait for the Tom Chick review, as he's usually on the mark with how he scores a game and isn't afraid to hand out low scores if they deserve them.

Okey, lets not start a fire. IGN, gamespot and gametrailers hasn't given wrong impressions or over-rated scores, if you think so otherwise then flinging a stupid gif-pic in your comment, let me hear it. Also, I found your remarks sorta distasteful ,

[Towel 76]

The trouble I have with indie reviewers is usually they have a strong confirmation bias, or or often influenced by elements other than the specific game at hand ... Sure they aren't being bought, and fans of certain indie reviewers can trust that they will have similar tastes. However they are not always objective, and can be just as slanted as a paid for review!

 

The aggregate of indie and commercial reviews is usually pretty accurate to be honest however.

[stephanieGrey 3]

Towel, neither IGN, gamespot, or gametrailers is indie. So?

[Xenocity 343]

 

I suggest waiting for IGN, gamespot, gametrailers and such.. this seems like EA bought-reviews.

Just for you I post this famous gif about IGN

 

 

Also Gamespot and Gametrailers have been outed for being paid off this gen.

 

maybe should wait for CNN and USAToday?

No way! Gametrailers and Gamespot gives honest option, also IGN.

Joke Post?

 

All three have been outed by their employees for being bought off at many times because certain publishers threaten to sue them and/or pull large amounts of ad revenue.

 

 

 

 

I'm singling Polygon out because I read them, and they have higher ethical standards than most other publications. Of course I can't be certain. Do you know the expression 'you can't prove a negative'? You're the one making the positive claim, and you have yet to provide any evidence, other than the fact that they disagree with you.

 

 

 

 

At least you admit to your bias.

 

I think the business practices of other major reviewers make the claims of corruption more likely than the naivete on your part.

> 

I suggest waiting for IGN, gamespot, gametrailers and such.. this seems like EA bought-reviews.

Just for you I post this famous gif about IGN

 

 

Also Gamespot and Gametrailers have been outed for being paid off this gen.

 

maybe should wait for CNN and USAToday?

 

Wait for indie reviewers. As I said. We got a (sort of) NerdCubed review, just wait for others.

 

They aren't any better, many times they borrow information and lines from official reviews.

[stephanieGrey 3]

Can you give an example, guy with flashy gif?

[Gurning_Chimp 398]

I may as well post these while I'm here. 

 

 

[Towel 76]

Towel, neither IGN, gamespot, or gametrailers is indie. So?

 

Never said they were