No, they get a bad wrap because a few (none almost) good articles don't make up for the rest of crap they post indiscriminately. Most of it is juvenile, generates no worthwhile discussion and even among them, they have disparaged the opinion of the members who have written stupid reviews (namely, Phil Kollar's review of TLOU).
There is a disconnect and Polygon, while promising, looks to be run by each journalist, instead of a whole. Their structure lies in each writing whatever thethey want and it looks like nobody there is in charge of saying "What is this shit? No, we're not publishing that." Polygon could be better and that is why I am disappointed in them.

People continue to say this but can't provide the evidence to back it up. I'd like to think I'd notice if it was the case. We can debate all day what qualifies as "click-baity" crap but the fact remains they overwhelming produce some of the most comprehensive features anywhere. You can point to something like the TLoU review but even among us we have people who echo its sentiments. Perhaps examining why IGN and the rarely deviate from the same 8.0 scores is a better cause to take up.
@Professor What publication doesn't grant its writers autonomy? LoL, this isn't the National Review. I know I'd never work for one that required I agree with everyone on staff.
*NO OFFENSE*...but it just seems like whenever a publication such as Polygon breaks through things suddenly get reallll funny. Predictably devolving into absurd digressions and defensive posturing from people feeling persecuted or delusional about the truth of the gaming industry. Now, suddenly, websites are "click-baity" because they dare discuss diversity?!? The horror!
Last edited by a moderator: