Though I'll admit I think they're biased due to their funding $ and whatever other factors, being biased is one thing--everyone is entitled to their opinion. What I don't like is the way they go about it, banning people, blocking people on Twitter, basically ignoring any and all criticism, pretending it doesn't exist so they can go on selling out while pretending to be okay with it.

Just looked it up. The hightest they have rated a AAA exclusive title for ps3/4 is The Last of Us with a 75 (average was 95 overall)

Because microsoft is playing dirty and he is giving money to crappy sites like engadget, kotaku, joystiq and polygon I wont buy any of their products anymore.

Is that the whole conversation, or is there more to it? It probably doesn't even matter to most people anyway. It's all about agendas.

Let me first say that I don't care much about low scores. Scores, to me, are so subjective that they're almost meaningless. I also have no idea if Polygon is biased or not. There is circumstantial evidence pointing in that direction, yes, but certainly not enough that I would simply assume it's true.

What I do care about, on the other hand, is the ability and credibility of the staff members who are actually writing the articles that appear on the website.

With that in mind, the Killzone: Shadowfall review posted on Poloygon, written by Arthur Gies, was one of the worst reviews that I've ever come across from one of the major gaming publications. I have no idea if the writer if biased against Sony or not but he made it crystal clear in the first paragraph that he has never liked Killzone.

What follows that is just a very bad article that I could not take seriously. Not because he didn't like the game but because it was obvious that he did not want to like the game and was actively looking for things to complain about. He attacked it for "failing to evolve," whatever the heck that means. He attacked it for having a different feel than most FPS games, then attacked it for being too much like CoD. In the name of all things cat, he complained that the enemy kept shooting him.

By the Power of Greyskull, goddamn.

So, seriously, biased? I dunno. Pro-Microsoft or anti-Sony? I dunno. Lower scores than elsewhere? I don't care.

Nonsensical reviews that come across as something written by an angry pre-teen? Yeah, that's not my thing. I don't really care about all the drama, I just avoid Polygon because I haven't been impressed with the quality of their work.

Read the reviews between TLOU, TR and Ryse. Its all from Phil Kollins on Polygon.

TR - 9
TLOU - 7.5
Ryse - 6

His complaints on TLOU are really really mind boggling when compared to how forgiving the other two reviews are (despite Ryse even scoring lower, you'd think the game should be scored 4-5 and TR should be a 7 going by his standards).

_______________________________

Phil on TLOU review:
"But I couldn't find any deeper meaning in the horrible events in The Last of Us."

"I wanted to avoid that violence in part because of its disgusting detail."

"It achieves incredible emotional high points about as often as it bumps up against tired scenario design that doesn't fit its world"

"Combat against the zombie-esque infected is especially frustrating. Not only are they faster, more aggressive and more unpredictable than human enemies, but multiple types of infected have an instant, one-hit kill if they get in melee range."

"Did I mention that Joel isn't terribly good with guns? Naughty Dog has given Joel's aim a semi-realistic shakiness which, when mixed with the erratic movement of the infected, makes keeping enemies at bay a serious - and not terribly entertaining - challenge. Eventual upgrades allow Joel to hold his aim slightly better, but the annoyance never disappeared."

7.5

_______________________________

Phil on TR review:

"outside of a handful of cutscenes and one particularly brutal (and effective) gameplay sequence. Tomb Raider becomes less narratively unique - it's not long before Lara is running through a village of enemies, guns blazing, screaming, "I'm coming for you!" like a blood-soaked action movie star - but the clichés serve the gameplay."

"The speed of these changes makes Lara's animations look awkward and unnatural, but it feels right."

"Tomb Raider's multiplayer mode is a strange inverse of the single-player. The latter pulls together many of the best traits of the current generation of game design; the former, many of the worst - specifically, shoehorning in multiplayer where it's not needed."

9.0

_______________________________

^It's like he's saying: This and that makes it weird. BUT IT WORKS! Whereas in TLOU hes pulling things out of his ass.

Exactly the point of my (not sure if serious) theory about Polygon cheating with their own metacritic average scores.

The important AAA Sony games of the year have been scored much lower than metacritic. (TLOU -2.5, Killzone -2) and in the same time they gave Microsoft AAA games of the year higher scores than metacritic. (Forza 5 and Halo 4 both around +1 than metacritic).

But as others Sony games (Resogun) have been higher scored than metacritic and others minor Microsoft launch games (Crimson Dragon and another) have been down voted then an apparently not biased average statistic arise from their whole scores.

I didnt say it is on purpose. Maybe it is just a serie of coincidences. But those coincidences match now perfectly with the hypothetical theory that Polygon is biased because of the MONEYYYY from Microsoft.

How do you know that Titanfall is going to be a good game? It doesn't come out for months!

This is EXACTLY the problem. I'm beginning to think that moneyhatting publishers are not the problem but rather fan expectations are the real problem when it comes to reviews.

You haven't even played a game and yet you've already decided its fate. If a review comes out that disagrees with the narrative you have already built up in your head you will not accept it. This is why many people screamed bloody murder when TLOU got a 7.5, even though at the time most of those same people had not even played. Those folks had already decided months in advance that the game was great. Conversely the court of public opinion decided months in advance that Ryse and Knack were garbage and lo and behold the reviews have come forth to fulfill that prophecy.

I feel that a lot of these reviewers and review sites are forced to conform to whatever the general consensus has decided about a game months in advance. Before GTA V came out people decided it was the greatest game ever. It released and got 10's across the board. Any reviewer who veered from that predestined path was sure to be crucified... Because the internet was absolutely not willing to hear anything other than perfection. That is not healthy. We shouldn't be so closed minded about anticipated games being good or bad. All it does is lead to review scores that are based more on peer pressure than the merits of the game. Thats not the publishers fault that is the fans fault.

Easy fix, don't go to their site.

But But.. they drag the metacritic score down........