Yeah, I'm sick of it too. Both are far too hostile towards each other ATM.
Part of this comes down to the fact that many are here to debate their opinions IMO, and if someone presents an opposite opinion, they will debate that. However the passions of this debate have increased due to the ME3 ending fiasco, and each side has been painted with different labels due to their stances in the fight.
The "Games as Art" crowd generally are labelled as being anti-consumer as during the ME3 fiasco, many were. Many took the stance of "Its the devs game, they can do what they want with it, and you have to deal with it whether you like it or not because games are art". That IS anti-consumer. Its saying that sure, you purchased this. Sure, its crap and not what you thought you were getting, but its what the creator wanted to make, so you should be happy with it.
Was this the stance of every "Games as Art" crowd member? Hell no, many came out and said that the ME3 ending can't qualify as art as its that bad, or other statements that supported pro enders. Due to the defence of Bioware at the expense of the consumer by many though, they are now labelled "Anti-Consumer".
Likewise, the "Anti-Ender", or "Pro-Consumer" - or whatever you want to call it, these names are stupid - crowd are generally labelled as being entitled and whiny as many stated that they were OWED something by Bioware, and that Bioware HAD to make it for them. They acted entitled, and often came up with nothing but "I want my version of the ending", and thus came across as whiny too.
Did this reflect all [Insert Group name here] members? Again, Hell no.
The Retake movement originally started off quite good. They were not whiny. They did not act entitled. They delivered a perfectly fair Ultimatum - Fix this, or we won't buy your games again - a set of things that needed to be changed to satisfy them, and went about their protesting in a fair way. There was no "I want my specific ending", or "Wouldn't this ending have been better?" stuff, only "This is what us 66,000 people think needs to be changed in the ending. Do whatever you want with the ending otherwise, but these need to be changed". There were problems with some people in the Donation drive, and more recently their billboard idea was probably taking thing too far [Though I like the tagline: "To Clarify: We want a new ending"], but originally they were an organised and reasonable group of people. Many still are.
Honestly, this is one thing I can say with certainty that was bad about the ME3 ending - it has caused an even greater divide than normal within the Internet community. I doubt this will completely go away by the time the next crisis rolls around. Many are feeling intensely betrayed - IMO rightfully so - and will not forget this, or what they've learned from it, for a long time. They will likely bring up these points in future arguments on the subject, and each side will come out of the bombshelters for another war in each thread.
Its sad this has happened, but it has. I agree that people really need to calm down about it, but I don't see this happening across the entirety of the Internet for some time. Hopefully we can make some headway here, and form at least 1 safe haven from it - but only time will tell.
On the subject of reviewers being corrupt - I think its a fair rule of thumb that a reviewer working for a major company like IGN, especially a company with their own staff in the game being reviewed, will be writing a review trying to make it as positive as possible, and delivering a above-what-it-should-be-score, as they have to. There's a precedent for this thing, and its not too hard to see it happening elsewhere. I believe the Escapist did an article on the incident - A game reviewer was laid off because he wrote a negative review of Kane and Lynch 2 and the publisher threatened to pull funding.
You also can't deny that the scores given are waaay too high for what most games actually deserve. Even a lot of 'Hardcore' fans of ME3 - both siding with the ending, and against it - feel that the game deserved at best 7-8/10, whilst over 75 sources gave it 10/10. No matter what you think the game should have been scored, it is completely unreasonable to give it a 10/10 - label it a perfect game, nothing at all could be made better. That is dishonest. Yeah, there's nothing you might have had a major problem with, but there are almost always problems with a game - and ME3 had its fair share of them. A 10/10 should be a mark of absolute excellence, not simply "Above average made by a AAA studio".
