Of course. It's a metric that has been here since many, many years. Thing is: this only is a good metric if games you like get good reviews. If it's otherwise and this happens too often, it's immediately bad, no matter how good it was before.
Not really. It's like the article itself says: There is no scale of 1-10.
Today's games are graded on a 6-10 scale, where even a 74 is considered a total failure as it's colored yellow. And it has become commonplace to call crap every game that scored below 8/10. Of course, people like some on this forum like to use those scores to fuel their petty fan wars, but anybody who managed to read and comprehend the article can clearly deduce that the 1-10 scale without lower five grades is very detrimental to the industry, developers in particular...
Because, to just put an ad that says 8/10 is no longer enough...your game needs to have at least 4.5 stars to be able to sell without a $50 million ad campaign.
It's how they are doing it. Not EG but reviews in general. They are allowed to use the whole scale.
Being yellow below 75 is of course crap but it is still up to you to decide. But let's not pretend that games below 80 are in any way master pieces, so saying the other way round. They are what they are, nothing more and nothing less. Add to this that it doesn't help that reviews of current gen games got scored way lower than last gen while the remakes of last gen games score like their "predecessors" which is absolutely ridiculous and shows the dilemma reviewers got in when they started into the new gen with their harsher reviews.
I have no problem with scores in any way, in the end. They can favor a game and can destroy it. But reviewers should be in general clear what they are going to hold for value. Is it fun? Is it the whole "package"? This should be clear. They should tell you by how much graphics go into the score or replay value, online gaming and so on. I think this is where many reviews and their scores fail.