And later he challenged Ryan O'Donnell (and himself) to expand on why "the shooting felt bad" in Vanquish, "what does that mean?" All I remember was "you can't reload cancel." Of course, "reload canceling" isn't just possible in Vanquish, it's fucking brilliant in that it doesn't just reward dipshit assholes who realize they shouldn't have reloaded who then slap on a button and continue firing, even though the character was in the middle of an animation and it makes no sense. In Vanquish you reload cancel by quickly morphing to another weapon during the reload, making it so you never have to stop the action and adding variety as it encourages the use of different weapons. I also think they mentioned lack of enemy variety which is... more than laughable.
I've always loathed Arthur, but I used to at least respect his opinion on games. Between Vanquish, Uncharted and now Rage, I don't give a rat's ass what he says about anything. I haven't even played Rage and was GENUINELY INTERESTED in what he was going to say about it, as I can't stand to read his reviews. They went on for like 20 minutes about that game; his comments about the game being poor were it having baked-in lighting (so does Mirror's Edge, which he loved), some weird PR (what does that have to do with the game's quality?), and when other people say it's a very competent shooter he says "not really." Honestly, his main complaint about the game was basically how it doesn't look good. Yes, he said Rage, that beautiful-looking game running at 60 FPS, doesn't look good. He sucks.