Not at all. Craig, AFAIK, believes what he's writing and I, albeit to a lesser extent, agree with him in retrospect on many points. Crysis was a bit pants. Bioshock had problems, but did other stuff very well. Far Cry 2 was mostly a bit shite, but also some stuff very nicely. It's important to read the articles through. In the Far Cry 2 Was Underappreciated article, for example, Craig isn't saying that FC2 was perfect, merely that it did some bits very, very well and that people often overlook that because they like to hate on it for other reasons. Likewise, Craig doesn't claim Bioshock was perfect - he slates it for many of the same reasons the rest of you do - but he points out (rightly) that it had some very important, early strengths that hardcore gamers should be familiar with. There's a difference between something being controversial and something just having a different opinion to you. The title is definitely a bit provocative, but the content is no more controversial than some of the posts here arguing that Crysis was a brilliant game.