Metal Gear Solid 4 is still the biggest piece of shit still in my collection, take that Metacritic average.
Dunno if I'd go THAT far, but it was an extreme disappointment and easily one of the most frustrating games this generation. Of course, I buy more games than most people; if you buy five or ten games a year, I could see MGS4 being the worst one.
EDIT: Shit! I forgot to respond to the question at hand! Brain fart!
Okay, so I agree that critics should be allowed their divergent and activist voices. And if 343 provoked such a violent negative reaction out of someone that they felt the need to drop the MC score by three points, maybe they shouldn't get their metascore bonus. But I hope Chick was absolutely, 100% conscious of what his review was going to do to that metascore and that he was probably going to affect the Halo 4 pay bonuses when he went with activism over objectivism. Obviously, objectively, Halo 4 is not a 1-star game. It functions, you can play it online, there's quite a bit of content, and it's technically very impressive. But he didn't just go with subjectivism, which would be a low score based on the fact that he didn't have any fun. He went with activism, complaining about changes that make the game rote, routine, and similar to every other game out there. I totally understand that choice, and if he understood the consequences he would inflict upon himself and 343 by doing so, then go with God.
But, let's just say I'm not about to trust Tom Chick to review a game through any lens other than activism down the line.