He always includes a general verdict on the quality of a game at some point in the review.
Dragon Age, he slated the dominance of Tolkienesque archetypes in almost all contemporary fantasy games but said that it was still an excellent game. The two comments held together point to the fact that despite the general limitations of an extremely stolid genre, Bioware dove headfirst into it and used it to its full potential.
The whole point is that he does *critical* reviews. Granted, the emphasis on comedy means that he can be extremely pedantic, but if you've a modicum of common sense then you can tell what's there for comic effect and what's there as a valid critique. The thing is, he's (usually) quite transparent about his prejudices, so you know what you're dealing with if you're watching it.
For me, his reviews are extremely entertaining and I tend to hold is criticisms in mind when looking at titles, but weighed against what I know my own preferences are. He's never saying you should accept his opinion as final. It's subjective, again one of the justifications he gives for never using numbers in his reviews. He's not attempting to be an ultimate authority on what games are. He's being a snarky arsehole offering his very personalised opinion on games. And it's the fact that he's being himself that makes his reviews so interesting to watch. There's no pretensions or hidden agendas (Well... That have been spotted so far.). It's refreshing when so often reviews are white-washed, lukewarm BS spewed out of corporate sponsored orifices.
Ultimately, if you're going to accept what someone says wholesale without the critical capacity to evaluate what you hear, then you're really not going to get too far in life. If you find the critical focus of his reviews too depressing, go and read the reviews on Gamespot instead.