To be honest, I wouldn't have said this at the time - but the dominance of 'realistic' military cover-shooters is such that I wouldn't mind a Kill Bill vibe instead. 'Big Crazy Characters' doesn't have to mean psychologically implausible writing. Often it means the opposite - by drawing the characters into stylised archetypes....then FUCKING with those archetypes....you can often end up with something more interesting (and easier to tie with the thematic content) and less cliche-driven than if you hadn't built it from the crazy cliched archetypes at all.
When you get down to it, that's every Tarantino film in a box.
It's also every good piece of writing that MCA and Obsidian have produced. PS:T was the KK--RRR--AAAA-ZZZ--YYYY-est of the IE games, and heavily archetypal (again, while being aware of those archetypes and fucking with them; compare Bioware's attempts at realism and resulting uber-cliches made all the more irritating by the sense that the writers don't KNOW that they're cliches). MotB was largely the same. KoTOR2 is when you take an entire setting built on archetypes and deliberately break it.
It's also Deus Ex and System Shock. Great characters that remain internally psychologically plausible, but are a lot more Kill Bill than the Hurt Locker.
I'd also say it's the characters that worked from AP1. Sure, if he means 'every character is Steve Heck', then obviously that's going to be shit. But I can tolerate one Steve Heck....who am I kidding he was close to my favourite character in the game and I lolled hard when he screwed up my stealth run with his 'distraction'. But you've got to keep that shit to one character max, and it only avoided being a Crazy-Sue because of the high likelihood of him actuallly fucking things up for you. If he means 'stylised characters from crazy archetypes...but knowingly and playing with those archetypes' - i.e. Kill Bill - than I can see that working.
Saints Row might now be a bad analogue for modern gamers either - as a distinction from GTA.