I definitely agree with the OP. It saddens me greatly, because I was really into ZP earlier in his run. It seems to me that for quite a while now there has really not been any true insight in the reviews--in the earlier ones, he would discuss a game and almost use it as an opportunity to discuss more general principles of game design or aesthetics. The humor was abundant, but what made it even funnier was that it had a brilliant and very sincere point behind it. It was basically just a funny way of saying some interesting. Now, each review is just a succession of random "shock" jokes that don't give you an idea of what the game is all about, what his experience of the game was, and why any of it matters. The analysis, the education, and the observations of the game beyond just the initial sensory experience of it seem absent, and those were what I liked.
He also used to find the truly interesting or unique moments of a game and present them. I'm not sure whether he had more time to play with the games in the old days--if you only get a few hours with something it's hard to find the really unique bits about it. You need to get to know something before you can make truly funny jokes and observations about it. I understand that it is difficult to find the time, and that you cannot keep up the highest standard of writing indefinitely, but all I know of Mr. Croshaw are his reviews and games. I enjoy them/used to enjoy them. I don't really care about him personally. I hope he pulls the nose up a bit so I can keep having this very entertaining thing to watch every week. But the quality has certainly slipped over the months, and I'm not going to pretend not to notice.
To be perfectly fair, though, it really does seem like a LOT of the games he reviews are pretty cookie cutter and generic. If you review 4 games that were basically cut from the same cloth, have the same virtues and same problems and same plots and almost identical methods of play, then I can see how it would get hard to think of funny ways to present each one uniquely and with cutting edge wit. Imagine if someone told you to write 4 papers on WWII--not 4 papers each about a different aspect of WWII, but 4 papers just overviewing WWII. That would be pretty hard, because you'd put your best effort into the first one and then get stuck with second string stuff to say in the other 3.