That would require the existence of a critic who didn't like Apocalypse Now. A reviewer isn't going to pretend to hate the game and list all sorts of potential problems when he actually loves it, just for the sake of standing out. That's known as hit-whoring.

EXACTLY.

There were "critics" who hated Pulp Fiction. There were "critics" who hated Blade Runner. There were "critics" who hated Love Story. There were critics who hate everything about different forms of media.

At least they gave their opinions.

So the only way to succeed as a critic is to have a controversial opinion?

No, if you want to be a good critic, you should give your real opinion, and not be afraid of what people might think about it. I'm not a fan of Pulp Fiction, and no amount of praise, fanboy threats and whatnot will ever tell me that I'm wrong, just like no critic should be affected by it. Not for movies and not for games.

I hated Love Story. 

That woman was a bitch and I wasn't upset at all when she died.

So then, shouldn't it work the other way around? For example, I loved the Pink Panther movie. Other people hated it. I don't care. I loved Big Momma's House 2. I loved Yu-Gi-Oh: Duelists of the Roses and Lego: Rock Raiders.

A critic's job is to give an objective description of the game, along with their own opinion on why things work or don't work. When people complain about a great game getting a low score, 9/10 times it's because the review is shit, full of fanboyism, and completely ignoring huge parts of the game.

The written review might be shit, but unless the critic didn't play through the game, then he is still entitled to his opinion, which can frankly be anything he wants it to be. If you don't like the review, disregard it. The reviewer gave you the points they thought were relevant, and if you know that those points are irrelevant to you, then read another review that focuses on other points of interest. 

That's not to say there aren't "corrupt" reviews out there (or bad or console biased or whatever you want to call them), but people blow it out of proportion. If I were to review say MGS2, I would probably give it a 6 or 7 (going by the Eurogamer/EDGE/Boomtown scale), because I didn't like the game, but I still see what it does right and what it does wrong. Would people be crying foul? Many would. Does that make me wrong, even if my written review is shite? Not at all, it just means I made a bad review.

I had a bunch of people give me shit just for giving Mass Effect an 8.5...which is the same score it got on Gamespot.

I'll just add little points every so often.

Perhaps if the article contained a bit less waffle.  I was Summarizing the points you made, as much as I'd like to, I'm not going to criticize each and every bit word for word.  Let me use bullet-points to make it easier for you:

1. You say reviewers are entitled to their own opinions, if they think a game is shit, they're entitled to say so.

     -   I say I am entitled to MY opinion of reviewers, if I think they're shit, I will damn well say so.

2.  You seem to be under the illusion that pobody actually reads reviews and just look at the scores. 

     -  This is bullshit, we do read the reviews, but don't always agree with them, very much like your condecending article.

3.  You seem to think that a score does not matter

   -  REALLY??  Why do magazines bother having scores in the first place??  So it really wouldn't matter if a respected reviewer gave Halo:  2 out of 10?  REALLY?  That wouldn't grind a little???

I really hate the use of "objective" around this article. It's incredibly difficult to be objective when reviewing something. Yes, one should keep an even head while reviewing. On the other hand, one must also admit the emotions that you felt while playing the game. It's only fair to the audience.

We're not robots. The audience has to know that we have an opinion and that opinion CANNOT be removed, lest we're just cheating ourselves.