I personally do not care for the politics of creators of games as long as they do not influence the game negatively, but others do.
Why are you trying to frame this as mere political disagreement when Polygon journalist's statement that he would find it "“trickier […] to review this one if Doug is involved.” is quasi Mafia-style extorsion, along the lines of "Great business you have over here. It'd be a shame if you were to lose it to arson."
In clearer words, "You best not have him work on the game, otherwise I will make sure the score will reflect how I feel about his real-life off-game politics"
Yes or No question. Do you think the above is legitimate, rational?
It is fine if a publication exists where people who do care about such things can trust they are discussed in the product reviews
No no no. No.
Polygon has the right to exist and cater to whatever rabid demographic they choose. They can publish whatever they want and score games under whatever criteria they choose. That's not the issue.
The issue is whether or not it is legitimate and rational for Polygon to issue a veiled threat that the game is going to score poorly, not because of its quality, not because of the gameplay, not because of graphics, story, controls, UI, VA, not because of all of that, but because the journalist in question has an issue with one of the team member's political views on an entirely unrelated matter?
If you think that's reasonable and fair and rational, come out clean and say so. Don't beat around the bush,
so they can make an informed dicision. If you do not care for this perspective, read another publication.
Could you spare me the 50-feet strawman?
They can review the game fairly, according to its quality, and include a footnote on the politics of the individual, if they so wish.
This is incomparable to killing people.
I didn't compare the two.
Who has?
Why are you stating the obvious?