I'm not going to let it go. Critics are supposed to evaluate the work that went into something, and in that process let the artist know what he/she could have done better.
This modern day re-definition of critic where it means "sadistic psychopath who enjoys calling people shit and demanding they quit their passion" is bull. That is absolutely heinous behavior, and I will never accept it as anything but. They do not deserve the title of critic; they deserve only bad titles like psychopath, sadist, and scum. We can disagree on whatever game's individual merits, but I at least hope we don't disagree on this.
edit: I did some digging around to show what I mean. This is one of the most highly respected critics in this country today, so much so that he was awarded a Pulitzer Prize for criticism:
from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_ebert
"In 1975, Ebert became the first film critic to win a Pulitzer Prize."
"In 2005, Ebert opined that video games are not art, and are inferior to media created through authorial control, such as film and literature, stating, "video games can be elegant, subtle, sophisticated, challenging and visually wonderful", but "the nature of the medium prevents it from moving beyond craftsmanship to the stature of art". This resulted in negative reaction from video game enthusiasts, such as writer Clive Barker, who defended video games as an art form, stating that they have the power to move people, that the views of book or film critics are less important than those of the consumers experiencing them, and that Ebert's were prejudiced. Ebert responded that the charge of prejudice was merely a euphemism for disagreement, that merely being moved by an experience does not denote it as artistic, and that critics are also consumers. Ebert later defended his position in April 2010, saying, "No video gamer now living will survive long enough to experience the medium as an art form." He also stated that he has never found a video game "worthy of (his) time", and thus has never played one. Cracked.com writer Robert Brockway responded by opining that this made Ebert unqualified to judge video games, and that debating Ebert on such a topic was comparable to "a structured philosophical debate on the importance of pacifism and restraint with a rabid badger: Your opponent is not only unqualified from the start, but it's obviously just out to attack you."
In a July 1, 2010, blog entry, Ebert maintained his skepticism that video games can ever be art in principle, but conceded that he should not have expressed this opinion without being more familiar with the actual experience of playing them. He reflected on the reaction to his blog entry, gamers' attempts to recommend to him games such as The Shadow of the Colossus, and his reluctance to play games due to his lack of interest in the medium."
Note that he only backstepped after it looked like this would ruin him, which IMO it already did since prejudice is always despicable and horrendous.
And if this is one of the good ones, what would a bad critic do? Commit a violent hate crime. I shudder at the thought of just what exactly a bad critic is, if this is a reputable, respected one.