There was the opening line in the Oblivion review where he said "You know me, I'm a twitchy, instant gratification kind of gamer; the sort who isn't happy unless there's a gun the size of a motorbike in his hands and a severed alien willy bouncing off the front of his space helmet."
But in his Halo: Reach review, he said he'd never really liked Halo - which is exactly the sort of game he claimed to like.
And in his Psychonauts review, he said "Psychonauts seems like a rather polarizing game in that some people seem to think it's the kind of think Jesus would make if he was alive and wasn't a pussy and some other people seem to think it's a chunky vomit milkshake severely overhyped by the people in Party A. Which group you'll fall into depends if you're the kind of misty-eyed, games-are-art hippie who can allow things like excellent storytelling and charming artistic direction excuse a few gameplay issues, or if you're the kind of twitching, Ritalin-popping X-Box owner who falls into a narcoleptic coma when they go without killing something for forty-five seconds."
There he is, claiming to be in Party A and making fun of Party B, while later claiming to belong to Party B.
Admittedly, these two quotes were made nine months apart, and opinions can change in nine months, but doing full one-eighties is a bit of a stretch.
But let's be perfectly honest here: He's not paid to point out all the good things and offer a counterpoint for every point he makes. He's paid to complain about a game's flaws in a funny way, or make fun of the game's good bits, even make fun of himself, and at the end, say whether or not he likes it when all the jokes have been made. So being inconsistent is pretty much unavoidable. And it's a necessary sacrifice for intelligent humor.
