I love Dan and appreciate his unique views on the site, but damn, the way he goes about tearing down a game he doesn't like really rubs me wrong. The Red Dead 2 talk (in Most Disappointing, especially) felt like a repeat of his vehement attempts to tear down Dream Daddy last year.
He tends to not actually listen to the other side. He starts lobbying efforts to tear down a game's credibility in any way he can, latching onto anyone else's small beefs even if it's a complaint he never shared himself. He reminds me of a lawyer: where at some point I can't even tell if he believes everything he's saying or just thinks it'll help his case.
To be clear: his take on RDR2 is totally valid. I have separate issues with his narrow scope of what makes a game good. I think he'd benefit from confronting the idea that a visual novel is legitimate and RDR2 doesn't want you to sprint through the streets (those bounties you get for knocking ppl over aren't an accident, the game is telling you to stop running ppl over), but that's just me. He came around on Anime after a life of unfounded hatred, so who knows.
He's also not the only person I've ever seen do this, but he's the only one that makes a pattern out of it. 99% of GOTY arguments are civil while people still stick to their guns, but I don't like how Dan can sometimes go about it.