Really, you're reaching here. When a game is heavily mentioned in an editorial by the same guy in which he completely lampoons the game and then finishes up his review with this paragraph:

"Deadly Premonition is beautiful. No, not graphically. Graphically it's atrocious. It's a beautiful trainwreck, and it's well aware of the fact. Despite this game being quite like everything ever made, there's nothing quite like the game itself. There is absolutely nothing in this industry that can compare to how weird and wonderful the whole experience is. Judged as a piece of entertainment, as a game that consistently surprises and amazes and leaves jaws hanging, I have no choice but to say that Deadly Premonition goes above and beyond. This game is so bad, it's not just become good. It's pretty close to perfect."

It's pretty obvious that the review is entirely in jest. He calls the game "a trainwreck", "so bad", and "graphically atrocious". Come on.

Everyone loves bad movies, even many reviewers I follow. On the other hand, not a single one of them has ever written a review that awards a trainwreck movie a perfect score. People may say they like them but when they break them down into a review piece, there's no way they ignore the massive flaws in dialogue, story, acting, etc. and give the movie a 10/10 because "they like it".

Loving a trainwreck movie really has little to do with not seeing its flaws. In fact, loving the movie is usally based AROUND seeing its flaws and laughing at them.

So he obviously doesn't take every review he writes seriously.  If he doesn't take them all seriously then why should I trust any random review written by him?  He wrote a overrated review for one game just for giggles, how do you know he's not underrating this one just for giggles as well?

Another good quote by Ebert.

"I have quoted countless times a sentence by the critic Robert Warshow (1917-1955), who wrote: "A man goes to the movies. The critic must be honest enough to admit that he is that man." If my admiration for a movie is inspired by populism, politics, personal experience, generic conventions or even lust, I must say so. I cannot walk out of a movie that engaged me and deny that it did. I must certainly never lower it from three to 2.5 so I can look better on the Metacritic scale.

I cringe when people say, "How could you give that movie four stars?" I reply, "What in my review did you disagree with?" Invariably, they're stuck for an answer. One thing I try to do is provide an accurate account of what you will see, and how I feel about it. I cannot speak for you. Any worthwhile review is subjective. If we completely disagree, my words might nevertheless be useful or provocative. If you disagree with what I write, be my guest. If you disagree with how many stars I gave it, you can mail your opinion to where the sun don't shine."

Everyone loves bad movies, even many reviewers I follow. On the other hand, not a single one of them has ever written a review that awards a trainwreck movie a perfect score. People may say they like them but when they break them down into a review piece, there's no way they ignore the massive flaws in dialogue, story, acting, etc. and give the movie a 10/10 because "they like it".

Loving a trainwreck movie really has little to do with not seeing its flaws. In fact, loving the movie is usally based AROUND seeing its flaws and laughing at them.

Evil Dead 2 is the greatest movie ever made, and one of my favorites. It's a "bad movie" despite having like a 100 percent on rottentomatoes.