I'm not entirely convinced that you know what you're talking about when you say that all he does is bash on the games... I really don't understand where people get the idea that all he does is nit pick, I think they expect it, and therefor take what he says out of context. This quote for example: Try joining a smash bros tournament and you'll instantly realize what he means. When four people are all only trying to win, it becomes a smash fest where skill means less then luck.ultimatechance said:(snip) And yes, I know that some people just don't like certain games, but the reviewer should at least give it a fair chance, and not say things like throwing your controller down a bunch of stairs is the best way to win. (snip)
The point to listen for is that he's giving a first-impressions hands-on, he spits out misc details that somebody considering the game might like to know. In most cases, at least for me, I very much like to hear of the flaws so that I can know if any of them would be game breaking for me. Other points of interest are usually glossed over by his critics, like how little of his review is actually bashing. He tries to go for fact, and fact of the matter is that most of the games he reviews tend to have glaring problems in design.
I dunno, maybe it just seems to me like you think he should be GameSpot sans the bribery. No opinions allowed, just talk about what's in the game. Another useless reviewer that won't tell me anything. He isn't so deep that I couldn't catch on when I first discovered ZP, either, it's obvious; he isn't trying to sell you anything, he's just chatting about what he got from it, and very rarely does he seem to exaggerate. So he didn't like SSBB. If he didn't like it, does that really make you think that you won't/shouldn't? If yes, I have some bad news for you...
[edit; 2nd paragraph was mostly re-written]