I suppose it’s really a question of style. There are some writers who can pull off acerbity with a deft turn of phrase, humorous imagery, etc. Charlie Brooker I suppose is a pretty good example. Walker’s moaning, like Brooker’s, is hyperbolic, but with the difference that his is unleavened by wit or eloquence (his tirades are often sloppy, rife with broken sentences and solecisms - he could really use a proof reader). With Brooker, you feel the intention primarily is to amuse the reader. With Walker, the feeling is that he is getting something off his chest, with nothing to mitigate the negativity but the occasional twee ‘good grief’. With this I’d have less of a problem if it were confined to self-consciously indulgent pieces like the above, but it often characterizes his reviews as well, where standards of objectivity really ought to be higher.
This from his Mass Effect: Andromeda review is a good example:
“The first few hours of Andromeda are a gruesome trudge through the most trite bilge of the previous three games, smeared out in a setting that’s horribly familiar, burdened with some outstandingly awful writing, buried beneath a UI that appears to have been designed to infuriate in every possible way.”
This paragraph just sags with the weight of negative, poorly chosen modifiers padding out vague, uselessly subjective phrases, such that it feels more like an emotional outburst than a review. The opening hours aren’t just a trudge, but a gruesome trudge; the setting isn’t just familiar, but horribly so (despite being in the latest iteration of a series he’s avowedly fond of). ‘Smear’ seems to have been chosen purely for its connotation to faeces. This paragraph says little more than that John was miserable playing the game; nothing useful is imparted to the reader about the game itself. And it’s not funny.