I've read a bunch of Tom Chick reviews...
He's bashed Uncharted 3, Skyrim, Journey, Gears of War 3 all to hell and back. Sometimes he includes decent arguments. Sometimes he doesn't. Sometimes he hates on a game for one reason, then doesn't mention that reason at all in another game with the same 'fault.'
All in all, his reviews are all over the place which makes sense given his philosophy, which essentially boils down to being a gigantic egotist. He doesn't really review games from any point of view except his own knee jerk reaction point of view. For example, if he's playing a FPS game and he hates FPS games, he's not going to say, "well, I don't like FPS games, but there are a ton of gameplay modes, a lot of replayability, the controls are great, the graphics are pretty good, singleplayer AI seems good, the multiplayer is well put together and there's an active community, so I can totally see how a FPS gamer would get a lot of mileage from this game, so I'll give it a 8.7," he's going to say, "god, I HATE FPS games SO MUCH they want to make me punch brick walls, 1.0."
So in a way, his reviews are very true to the meaning of a review. He's not reviewing for anybody else but himself. And that is a review. But that also generally makes his reviews pretty crappy because he's not you, he doesn't care about you or your viewpoint at all, and the guy bizarrely seems to hate games.
Honestly, its not worth reading his reviews outside of entertainment value. A lot of them read like the dude actually hates games, but somebody is putting a gun to his head ( or knife to his throat ), and forcing him to play games and then write about them. That or he just wants to be sensationalist troll.
For the record, I thought his Dragon's Dogma 'review' did a pretty good juxtaposition that I appreciated.