Say what you will about Tom Chick. I believe the guy has integrity. If he doesn't like something everybody else likes, he says so. (And as I understand it, he didn't even get a review copy of the latest X-Com - I guess they were afraid of him - but he gushes over it anyway.) Some people might call that 'being wrong' but it's crazy to think that everyone's going to have the same opinions about a work of art - reviews should be all over the map. With apologies to friends at 343, I dig it. And I miss Shoot Club.
There's been some talk lately about how game reviewing is broken - for various reasons reviewers aren't usually willing to give games less than 7/10. Because the dev is their buddy, because they're low-paid, because the publishers buy advertising space on their blogs, because they got a free copy of the game, and so on. And I agree, it's kinda broken, although maybe not such a big deal - you just have to renormalize.
Anyhow, guys like Tom Chick and Yahtzee Croshaw show that you can really dis on games and, if you know your stuff, get rewarded for it with lots of clicks. (You've got to know your stuff though - there's a reviewer some of my indie friends like to disparage who pretty clearly never plays the games he rips on. He's probably going to have trouble keep a job.) This anti-Halo review may even be the beginning of a new revolution, as a new school of journalists realize they can get eyeballs by being harsh. And maybe we can look forward to a day where videogames ratings have a mean in the fifties, like movies.
Side note: five or so years ago a younger me used to love almost all the games that got 90+ on gamerankings. These days, not so much; these days, 90+ usually means "highly polished retread"...