He is a Mainstream hater ?.

He likes to be different and values different things to a normal gamer. He scored UC1 5/5 but UC2 3/5 saying it was too predictable, the love quadrangle didn't work and there was a certain loss of innocense. UC3 he gave 2/5 saying only chapters 11 to 15 were great with the rest being pretty bad. 

Close enough to it. He seems like a pretty nice guy personally, but professionally he does seem privy to reviewing solely based on his tastes, not whether the game might appeal to others, so there are a lot of 2 or 4 out of 10s for quality games that he personally doesn't enjoy. He gave Halo 4 a 2 out of 10, Journey a 4 out of 10 and Forza Horizon a 2 out of 10. 

So he's a hipster?

looks like being on cocaine is standard practice at WashingtonPost

"Thank you for your note. I understand your disappointment with the opinions expressed in Michael’s review and I am aware of the petition. His opinion and those of all of our critics are their own and we give our critics a wide lane to express their opinions.

We post approximately one video game review each week, the bulk of them are written by Christopher Byrd, but Michael is a frequent contributor. Soon after we started posting reviews, about 1.5 years ago, Chris approached Metacritic to see if they would be interested in blurbing and linking to our content. They were, but required a rating in order to do so. Chris and I did not want to include ratings on washingtonpost.com for a variety of reasons, so we came up with a process whereby the critic writes the review and then, based on what they have written, we assess what rating the review implies. We discuss it a bit, and then provide that rating to Metacritic with the link and the blurb. Michael and I agreed that, in this case, the 4 rating fit his opinions of the game, which are expressed in the review."

.....

I grew weak... I'm sorry. Also 4/10? what a space cadet, all I can say.

Can you provide me with a source for this?

Saw that, nice!

After spending several days speaking to reviewers, spewing abuse at Mike Thomsen and reading reviews.... I suggest everyone move over to Opencritic. It is way more professional and transparent than Metacritic. Go over there and have a look if you havn't already!

They also answer and engage way more on twitter if you have an issue.

i emailed them and they responded with this:

http://imgur.com/a/RdaGp

i asked them why they added a 40/100 on meta and on their site there's no score, they said that metacritic requires a score for a review to be allowed, i told them that it's not true and they have a unscored section and they said :

"This is what we were told by our Metacritic contact. Every review we send to Metacritic has a rating based in that instruction."

"I reached out to my contact for further explanation. His reply: "Our partnership began prior to the creation of that unscored section (which we added in late 2015), and we continued the collaboration as initially constituted - with your team sending me your scores for each new review.""

Interesting.... his review was really poorly written. 

On Kinda Funny, the issue came up today. Gregg read out a message stating the score and Colin said whoever rated it a 40 was an idiot...

Little did they know, Mike Thomsen was the writer... they soon found out and asked "our Mike Thomsen?" (Mike Thomsen wrote in a section called contrarian corner for IGN previously). 

Funny calling him an idiot.....which I wouldnt not agree with. :P