I_smell

Polygon (internet website)

Recommended Posts

Polygon is a website about Video games, sponsored by New Clear Men Scalp Therapy, which is a breakthrough experience that stops dandruff at the source.

Incase you don't know: a few months ago, a bunch of people who cover Video games rounded themselves up and said "We're gonna cover Video games on this new website." and I don't know exactly who they are, but I RECOGNIZE them from people who used to be at 1UP, Kotaku, IGN and other Video game websites you've heard about.

Chris Grant' date=' editor-in-chief of Joystiq,

Brian Crecente, editor-in-chief of [i']Kotaku[/i]

Russ Pitts, editor-in-chief of The Escapist

Justin and Griffin McElroy

Chris Plante

Arthur Gies

Russ Frushtick

The reason I'm making this thread now, is because I just started posting here. Also this happened:

I don't know how far to dive into how much this whole thing turns me off from top to bottom... Here's where I go to hear about Video games:

I watch the videos on GiantBomb, I listen to their podcast, and I listen to Idle Thumbs. I like people being natural and conversational, I hate reading articles, and more than anything I love levity. Levity means being serious about something, but also being aware enough to admit what's dumb, and joke around with it.

Polygon feels like it's ticking the box for everything I DON'T like about Video games and the internet. Goofy 90s-sounding name, focusing on written text in 2012, using the word "gamer" as if it's a normal word that people use- I THINK they want to write serious, inside-baseball things about the industry, but I just checked out their Youtube channel and it's all corny reddit sprite animations and remixes and stuff, so now I'm not sure... but look, I could fumble around all day, I really just wanna hear a second opinion about this and see what people on this site think. People like us are the target demo, right? I think?

What do you think about the stuff they've released so far?

Do you read articles, or do you wait for it to come up on a podcast or video like me?

Where do you go to hear about Video games?

Is "Games Journalism" enough of a thing to not have quotes around it, to you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really think they're trying to appeal specifically to people like you, honestly. They're basically a "big video game website", a la Gamespot, IGN, etc. They have distinct, nearly equal parts news coverage, reviews, and personality stuff.

That being said, I do like to read video game-related editorial. Hell, part of the reason I began listening to Idle Thumbs is because I read Chris on Gamasutra covering "inside-baseball things about the industry" and "written text in 2009". There's clearly a place for all of these things, as far as reader/consumer interest is concerned, or these type of sites wouldn't exist.

I don't particularly care for the idea of them making a documentary about themselves, but I also don't think it's a horrible idea to give their potential userbase an idea of how they approach content and the space in general. If this video does that and doesn't bore the shit out of me, then more power to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John Walker from Rock Paper Shotgun wrote a piece on the videos which provides a reasoned discussion of the way they've been perceived. I showed the videos to my wife who took some convincing before believing that it wasn't a parody.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I first started reading "serious" gaming criticism (I hate those scare quotes, this is all going to be so damn po-faced) because (shamefully) Penny Arcade turned me onto Flash of Steel and Three Moves Ahead, which made me aware of Quarter to Three, Idle Thumbs, Rock Paper Shotgun, and No High Scores. I really don't differentiate between written and audio/video content, except for the circumstances in which I consume them. The difference for me is the site itself: Tom Chick rubs me wrong every so often, Three Moves Ahead veers into stuff I don't care about sometimes, No High Scores seems like it's dying by fits and starts, Rock Paper Shotgun throws up more articles than I can usually read in a day.

In the context of all that, the last thing I need is another game site, especially one that seems so self-serious. Hasn't that "coming soon" placeholder been around for a couple years now? I'd really prefer they just make some real content instead of trying to drum up their own celebrity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't read anything on the site (I didn't know they had launched it yet) but I saw the trailers and them were so god damn pretentious I just instantly wrote them off. Maybe it was just some overeager marketing people trying to tap into the Indie Game: The Movie/Kickstarter thing and make it real personal and intimate like, but I just found it terrible and painful to watch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I liked this re-telling:

I guess it was Ryan Davis from GiantBomb who put it together.

John Walker's piece was really good at nailing the silliness of the whole thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't read anything on the site (I didn't know they had launched it yet) but I saw the trailers and them were so god damn pretentious I just instantly wrote them off. Maybe it was just some overeager marketing people trying to tap into the Indie Game: The Movie/Kickstarter thing and make it real personal and intimate like, but I just found it terrible and painful to watch.

I think the "Presented by Internet Explorer" at the end is a pretty clear indication of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've tried to watch them several times, but my attention keeps slipping away. I'm sure there are dozens of similarly presented documentaries, but it feels like a cargo cult for Indie Game: The Movie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I write for a medium sized independent game site that does mostly news and reviews, and a little bit of editorial. Ive been doing it for a few years and I think people like Chris Remo, Shawn Elliott, Tom Chick, and some other prominent writers in the gaming industry influenced my style alot. Most of what you see on the web about games coverage (and Im talking about stuff done by "games journalists" not mainstream press) is pretty shit.

If you handed me a randomly picked review from a website it would probably have no substance and be a bland retelling of "the graphics are good not great, the sound is good. I like the shiny effects. Oh wait did I mention anything about character motivation or the actual experience of playing the game? Or did I effectively do the same thing as reviewing a screenshot? 8/10"

I havent really been following this Polygon thing since I am not yet sure what their content will be like, but I hope they are trying to do something which will one day mean you can take the quotes off of "games journalists". Now Im not sure if that is what they are going for based off the people they hired. I despite everything Justin McElroy writes, which is usually crap caught up in way too much hardcore gam3r metaness and childishness. I havent read much by Authur Gies but based off what he tweets Im gonna guess I dont like him either.

This "documentary" is just a way to advertise their new site. They make it sound like they are taking a big risk with this site, but in reality its a heavily funded and planned ordeal that is aimed at being profitable. They are not indie and you should not treat them that way. Whatever marketing person did this video though was smart enough to know that its better to try an indie angle then admit that they are a big, funded, corporate thing.

The ideal thing I want to see in a Video game site is something like what The Verge does. Introspective, well thought out, well researched, and original pieces. Not the same press release. Not blowing up two new screenshots into the biggest thing ever. Not being a mouthpiece for a publisher.

I_smell I take great issue with you saying that you dont want to see a focus on written text in 2012. I go to lots of sites multiple times a day to read news and content - and Im not just talking gaming sites. The LAST thing I want to EVER do is watch a fucking video. Even if a site is using Youtube I will more then likely skip right over it. Heaven forbid if a site is using their own content player and ad network that will take forever to buffer and then play a 30 second ad beforehand, just so I can find out that the whole video has been uselessly fabricated just to serve the purpose of showing me an ad beforehand.

Video content is my least favorite thing in the world. Times when you need video: showing off a live playing of a demo, doing an interview ON LOCATION, live coverage of a press conference or event, doing what the IdleThumbs do on their Twitch TV page. Times when you dont ever ever ever ever need video: EVERYTHING ELSE not listed above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I enjoy MBMBAM. Brian Crecente's credentials seem limited to having written embarrassing pageview bait for a gutter blog. Never heard of the others.

Those trailers are hilarious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ideal thing I want to see in a Video game site is something like what The Verge does. Introspective, well thought out, well researched, and original pieces. Not the same press release. Not blowing up two new screenshots into the biggest thing ever. Not being a mouthpiece for a publisher.

The Verge is a kind of frustrating example of exactly those tendencies to me, though.

When The Verge came out, I expected it to be pretty good: the number of people involved, combined with the care they took in the presentation, even gave me hope that it would be something more. That with more than enough people and talent to cover the daily news coming out of the industry, they'd get restless and start doing something new. Free themselves from having to post 7-14 news posts each day and instead work on properly reporting out the news instead of just paraphrasing it. But instead, they've stayed largely the same; outside of the occasional excellent feature and well-produced video reviews, they are if anything moving towards more click-baiting bullshit.

Maybe I should have been more cynical from the start, but The Verge has guaranteed that I'll have the same misgivings about Polygon when it comes out. And do we need another gaming site of record, that trumpets and gladly transcribes any new piece of gaming information while still marching in lockstep with a publisher's media rollout? I really don't think so, and the only way to break out of that cycle that I can see is to take the news out of the gaming news site and simply focus on good coverage.

John Walker's take is a pretty great read, and thanks for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

gbrown I dont think you can have a site that dosent post something regularly. I think The Verge consistently puts out extended pieces of really high quality. Sure there is daily filler. But the amount of traffic that brings in is key to keeping afloat.

Now you could say, then how is The Verge different from any other site? And I think they are different because they want to do this long form content, but also realize that short, daily blurb stuff gets them the traffic they need for better content. Whereas sites like, Kotaku (which is the most aggravating, source-stealing, douchebag-filled, pathetic, sexist and largest piece of garbage site out of all gaming sites) ONLY posts daily blurb shit that borrows Huffingtonpost-style headlines to mislead you into every click possible.

Even Shawn Elliott, who I would say is(/was) one of the hardest critics of the gaming industry, did have to go to previews, write some crappy content, and whatnot. Part of the problem with things like previews, early-access demos, etc that the press gets is that the publisher wants you to pretend their game is the BEST game ever. In order to not completely mislead/lie to your audience, most games writers dial that back maybe 10%. Elliott would dial it back 50%, and acknowledge flaws but also features/aspects that seem rough now but show promise. You cant even be completely skeptical. You have to do a little bit of pimping, because to dial it all the way back and pretend that every game is crap is as irresponsible as believing all the crap the publishers tell you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uh... I was under the impression that theverge.com/gaming is Polygon. It's the same guys, right? They're just actually spinning it off into its own domain, effectively?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uh... I was under the impression that theverge.com/gaming is Polygon. It's the same guys, right? They're just actually spinning it off into its own domain, effectively?

It's always been planned as a separate site, but you're right that they set up shop at theverge.com/gaming to get into the swing of things while the design/tech is built—similar to how The Verge published at "This is my Next" for a few months last summer before launching.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like The Verge, I think they're doing a solid job,but the Polygon stuff turns me off as well. I have no problem at all with focusing on the written word in 2012. In fact, I would prefer to have more well written articles to read. However, Polygon offer me nothing I can't get somewhere else.

While saying that, I now get most of my game news on twitter, at Rock Paper Shotgun and here. I barely read Giantbomb anymore, and their return to the fold at Gamespot was the final nail in the coffin for me (even if the lid had been sitting on top only slightly ajar for several months). I do still like their podcast. I just have zero interest in their actual site these days.

I tried to give the Polygon podcast a listen one day, one of the earliest episodes. I know this is terrible of me, but I found their voices so annoying I quit on them forever. Not just the sound of their voices (not a lot they can do about that) but the whole attitude pervading their conversations. I found absolutely nothing about their conversation appealing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

gbrown I dont think you can have a site that dosent post something regularly. I think The Verge consistently puts out extended pieces of really high quality. Sure there is daily filler. But the amount of traffic that brings in is key to keeping afloat.

Now you could say, then how is The Verge different from any other site? And I think they are different because they want to do this long form content, but also realize that short, daily blurb stuff gets them the traffic they need for better content. Whereas sites like, Kotaku (which is the most aggravating, source-stealing, douchebag-filled, pathetic, sexist and largest piece of garbage site out of all gaming sites) ONLY posts daily blurb shit that borrows Huffingtonpost-style headlines to mislead you into every click possible.

... You have to do a little bit of pimping, because to dial it all the way back and pretend that every game is crap is as irresponsible as believing all the crap the publishers tell you.

I would strongly disagree here. Reporting on daily news may be a good short-term plan—and possibly the only model that can currently sustain the kinds of large staff and traffic they want—but if you pursue that, you're delivering a commodity and you're going to get beat some day. You may be able to hedge against that somewhat by delivering longer-form content right next to it, but your core model is just asking to be upset by the next site down the line. Magazines got upset by gaming sites, which in turn got upset by network sites (Gawker Media, AOL Tech, and Vox Media in the form of Kotaku, Joystiq, and Polygon). All three of those tiers are still around, but only because the audience for gaming has exploded, meaning that there are many more eyeballs to fight over at the moment. When it stops expanding—as it will when you start running out of people to convert—those publications are going to run into trouble.

I think you're also muddying the difference between artistic criticism and negative criticism. I'm not saying that the gaming press has to hate on every game—or even dial back what the publishers want them to say. I'm saying that they should be examining games carefully and not just following the typical flow right now. Rock Paper Shotgun does a really good job of stepping back and editorializing about different elements in games, or making arguments that can at least be discussed meaningfully other than saying "oh graphics were good" or "oh game was fun". Podcasts also seem to be a good way in which the existing sites are branching out into more thoughtful content—just because of the way that the medium works. Most sites simply don't, or they bury it under a bunch of bread-n'-butter content that communicates the exact opposite values.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would strongly disagree here. Reporting on daily news may be a good short-term plan—and possibly the only model that can currently sustain the kinds of large staff and traffic they want—but if you pursue that, you're delivering a commodity and you're going to get beat some day. You may be able to hedge against that somewhat by delivering longer-form content right next to it, but your core model is just asking to be upset by the next site down the line. Magazines got upset by gaming sites, which in turn got upset by network sites (Gawker Media, AOL Tech, and Vox Media in the form of Kotaku, Joystiq, and Polygon). All three of those tiers are still around, but only because the audience for gaming has exploded, meaning that there are many more eyeballs to fight over at the moment. When it stops expanding—as it will when you start running out of people to convert—those publications are going to run into trouble.

Even when gaming settles down there will still be plenty of eyes to sustain multiple sites. Especially when bland bread and butter articles arent looking for anything past easy clicks, and there are plenty of people from the internet at large and gaming audiences that go around trolling for articles to read about whatever they like. If the people running The Verge can be happy with a decent traffic steam and dont think they have to be the next Gamespot/IGN then whats the problem? There are plenty of despicable idiots that read Kotaku everyday. I will never be one of them, but that dosent mean they cant continue to make money and draw lots of hits. There is plenty of room for lots of sites. Just like in normal news there is CNN, MSNBC, Fox, etc.

I think you're also muddying the difference between artistic criticism and negative criticism. I'm not saying that the gaming press has to hate on every game—or even dial back what the publishers want them to say. I'm saying that they should be examining games carefully and not just following the typical flow right now. Rock Paper Shotgun does a really good job of stepping back and editorializing about different elements in games, or making arguments that can at least be discussed meaningfully other than saying "oh graphics were good" or "oh game was fun". Podcasts also seem to be a good way in which the existing sites are branching out into more thoughtful content—just because of the way that the medium works. Most sites simply don't, or they bury it under a bunch of bread-n'-butter content that communicates the exact opposite values.

Tru.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've read some of the written content at Polygon and it's ok. Not great, but inoffensive anyways and they do better presentation than the vast majority of sites. For some, that's going to not matter at all, but I dig what they're trying to do in that regard.

The first episode of their podcast is goddawful though (haven't checked out if they got any better) and that documentary thing (which I didn't know about until I saw it mentioned here) seems likewise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, good, we're all pretty much on the same page that this is really silly.

Making the first post in this thread I was definately feeling like I might accidentally piss everyone off, HAhaha.

Except you guys like to read articles more than me, which is fine. I read 3 articles at Penny Arcade's game news site recently, and they were all sad "click-bait" that made me feel bad for falling for it. But I'll read this RockPaperShotgun thing now, cos that seems good.

EDIT- I read it and it was kind of masturbatory, and harsh. I don't like Polygon either, but this is exactly the kind of bullying you see from a teacher who hates children, and takes his anger out in telling them off.

Or someone who absolutely revels in talking about how much they ruined Star Wars or something.

I also noticed in researching this that these guys aren't super independant, and were just hired by The Verge to be their games branch, which colours the whole thing in a different light. By which I mean it's not Indie Game: The Movie any more, and feels more like the silliness of "The EA Humble Bundle".

Being bored of GiantBomb is understandable, it's not got a tonne of momentum these days.

In the context of all that, the last thing I need is another game site, especially one that seems so self-serious. Hasn't that "coming soon" placeholder been around for a couple years now? I'd really prefer they just make some real content instead of trying to drum up their own celebrity.

Since January of this year, I think. You're right though, covering Video games is WAY too niche to be pointing out anyone as a celebrity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I also noticed in researching this that these guys aren't super independant, and were just hired by The Verge to be their games branch, which colours the whole thing in a different light. By which I mean it's not Indie Game: The Movie any more, and feels more like the silliness of "The EA Humble Bundle".

Yes, that's what I meant by cargo cult: they've borrowed the aesthetics and are trying to communicate vulnerability, but it's largely posturing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I respect most of the people involved. But unless they start putting out a lot of video and audio content, I doubt I'll read almost anything they write. Blogs just don't have that much time in my schedule anymore.

Besties is an alright twist on the weekly podcast, but not as good as the original Joystiq podcast IMO.

I still don't get why they don't just alias polygon.com to theverge.com/gaming. They've spent so long building this site, that it's hard to tell what a "launch" will look like. In fact, I have no idea what they're planning to launch. They must be going after the mainstream audience, because the internet hardcore will have been aware of their site and current blog for so long they will hardly care. I have a feeling we're on the verge of an extraordinary Ad buy. Maybe leaflets will rain down from the sky, or be sent into space.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know how fair it is to keep comparing this to GiantBomb, but it took them like 2 or 3 months to

, and... it's been 8 months since they announced Polygon. The site already has ads on it.

I do feel like I'm just bullying now, but- what the fuck IS goin on, right? There are 16+ people working there!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know how fair it is to keep comparing this to GiantBomb, but it took them like 2 or 3 months to

, and... it's been 8 months since they announced Polygon. The site already has ads on it.

I do feel like I'm just bullying now, but- what the fuck IS goin on, right? There are 16+ people working there!

Its not that difficult to understand that they are preparing everything for launch. They need to develop a web interface, graphics, style guide, mission statements, details for advertisers, connections with said advertisers, get the ball rolling with develop and publisher PR companies, work out their writing style and direction, plan regular features and everything else associated with a directed launch. Not to mention relocate staff, get them acquainted, and develop some sort of chemistry for a podcast which they will probably be doing.

Obviously its easy to do something basic. I could have a new Video game blog up within the hour. They are doing a planned launch and want to have everything ready when they do go live. They want the pace and efficiency that a regular blog would develop after a year or two, but at day one. Sure they could do it quicker, but what does it really matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the point isn't so much that they're taking forever, as to why they are trying to generate this mythos about themselves before day one. This would all be considerably less irritating as an exercise in self-aggrandizement if they actually HAD a site, although it would still be an odd exercise in self-aggrandizement. Speaking for myself, and only for myself, I couldn't care less about what the experience of starting a website is for these guys. Some people might care. I don't. Commissioning a documentary just seems silly to me.

Then again, I like The Verge a lot as a site, but those guys claim all kinds of ideological trappings that I don't see on the site, the exception being Paul Miller's "year offline", itself a rather annoying concept and makes Miller himself come across as a bit of a twat, really. I'm not saying he IS a twat. I just don't like that people at the site get butthurt when people point out the whole thing is a pretentious exercise that proves nothing except that Paul Miller can get a salary for not doing very much. Then again, I don't know anything about his personal situation, and to be fair a lot of the butthurt comments from Topolsky and others was in reaction to personal criticism from anonymous Internet people.

Back to The Verge, it's an awful name (the "on the verge" stuff always sounded silly) and their objective always seemed like a bunch of rubbish but who cares? It's got great podcasts, great writing and great coverage. I could just do without the whole "we're different" stuff. The real difference with The Verge is that they cover technology better than Engadget and the rest, in my opinion. This superior coverage is driven by the ideological centre they've worked at creating and maintaining, and if people ask why wouldn't they talk about it, but oftentimes it's just more corporate-speak, just from a smaller group.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really hadn't been following the emergence of this site at all, but the trailer for their documentary made me laugh. Beyond self important and indulgent were my first reactions. Knowing basically nothing before seeing that trailer I was immediately turned off of the website entirely.

Probably not fair, but what the fuck?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now