While it's true that all reviews have subjectivity, most reviews I've found fall into one of four categories:
1) A reviewer who finds it exceedingly easy to give a game an inflated score, even if they admit in their review that the game has widespread and myriad problems, simply because it's "expected" of them to do so by the franchise's fanbase.
2) A reviewer who doesn't finish the game, gives it a high score, and uses vague adjectives to describe the last 3/4's of the content. This seems to occur more often with non-embargoed games, due to writers picking it up on street date and rushing through it to get it online.
3) A reviewer who bases their review on comparisons to only other popular franchises, instead of analyzing how well the game works in the context of everything within its genre and/or developer's output.
4) A fan-turned-reviewer employed by a major company, who is often oblivious to any perceived problems due to his/her ideals, even if the majority opinion is lower-than-expected.
I could see "paid journalism" influencing any of these categories. What a game "deserves" has become warped as of late because of fans that think everything that isn't a 9 out of 10 or higher is automatically terrible, and every user review is either a 10 or a 1 - the only thing that changes is which faction cries the loudest.
I find, in my personal view, that Eurogamer and Destructoid usually have a pretty good eye on how to judge games relatively fairly. They have their controversial moments, sure, but they don't hand out 10's like candy, and they often compare games to their older installments (to see if they've evolved) or other games in the same genre.
I always take vlog reviewers with a grain of salt. As far as the worst professional reviewer goes, I wouldn't know offhand.
