dunno how old you are..but Mario 3 didn't wow me at all. that honor goes to double dragon 2.

But I'll agree with Midgar and Psycho Mantis.

I havent played TLOU or any other game this gen but I will say this

There is no perfect "GOTG" or "GOTY". A game may get the majority praise, but there will always.."ALWAYS" be a portion of the population who did not enjoy or even disliked a so called "GOTG" or "GOTY". 

I respect that and understand that everyone has their own taste. heck I hate Halo to hell..all of the Halo games. But that doesn't mean that I dont recognize its greatness. I can see why a lot of people like it and i wont go around saying that is just an "ok" game or a "meh" game. coz its not, its a "great game" and to others, the pinacle of greatness. 

I'm not refering to you in particular, but everyone should understand that just because a game didnt' hold up to your standards or taste doesnt' mean that it makes the majority's feelings for it wrong. it just shows that you have a different pallet that everyone else. 

Dont look at it with your own eyes but try and look at it with the perspective of those who feel that TLOU was really really great and that will help you understand. 

It is

It is not bound to a check list like school exams tho.
Was "X" answered and is it correct? if yes 10 points  if not 0 points. if half correct 5 points.
I agree that this is not how games and their reviews work

BUT
What they do is  analyze what the product is supposed to do/offer and then compare to what was delivered. Thats completely objective.

If a racing game is supposed to have 30FPS and then the game drops to 22 and has issues with controls (which is obviously a flaw) it cannot be perfect. Its obvious that the game tried to be a 30FPS game if 80% of the time the framerate is 30FPS. Dontpunish the game for not being 60FPS because it never tried to be that but you can punish it for failing at being a 30FPS game.

30fps is not an objctive criteria either, just an industry standard. If we lived in a world with less powerfull GPUs, the standards might have benn 20fps or 15,so the framerate isnt objective by any means

It would be more logical to not even try to implement something at all than doing it BAD. So a Mario Kart 8 that never even tried to implement the battle mode at all would theoretically deserve a better score than the Mario Kart 8 we got with a battle mode that is half-assed and nonsensical because the courses are way to large for what they are supposed to be. Devs might play it save by offering less complicated things then and less content because they might fear they could get worse score for offering more "not enough polished" stuff. BUT that can be solved with a "value score" (see below).

So by your logic a game where you lead a small black dot from a poin A to point B in and 10 second loop (at ROCK STEADY 60fps!!) would deserve a better score than MK and TLoU because its mundane mechanics are more polished?

If a game tries something it cannot accomplish or if the execution is bad then it failed at being a perfect product. You base the 10/10 on what it could have been and reduce the score until you reach the product you got in the end. That is the only plausible and fair way to judge and rate a product. (on its own tho!) Everything else is arbitrary. 

Maximum score (10/10) doesnt equal a perfect product. Even on a school test, you can get an A+ (an equal to 10/10 review score) and dont have 100% of all the points.Lots of reviews and reviewers mention and reflect that. This is a significant hole in your logic right here. 

The problem is if we only have the individual score that does not compare the thing to another product how does one know if a product is better than another one? Thats why we need several scores not only 1.

The "individual" score I just described above.
A value score that analyzes the offered content:price ratio (value).

Value is, once again, subjctive. So how are they supposed to ''analyze'' that?

And one that takes both into account and gives us a final score. There is still a problem here tho.

It would be better to have final scores for multiplayer and singleplayer (because not everyone cares about MP and not everyone about SP) having only a final score distorts the review. So we need a SP and MP score that review multiplayer content and singleplayer content independently.

(every type of score mentioned here should still be visible in the final review tho. Like today we have VISUALS, SOUNDS, STORY, REPLAY VALUE)

Of those aspects, only replay value and visuals can be rated objectively (technical side of visuals that is)

For the people that love it that's great. Everyone who plays games has certain titles that  they regard highly and there will always be people who agree/disagree. I will never tell someone their opinion is wrong. The Last of Us just didn't blow me away. There are tons of people who will disagree with how highly I hold the first Gears of War. But for me, it was the first title of the seventh generation that truly showcased what we could expect for the rest of the generation. At the time, the graphics, presentation, and cover system were amazing (I know kill.switch did it first, but how many people actually played it) and the online co-op campaign was something consoles never had seen before and Epic nailed it. If someone who had never played it and gave it a try now, I guarantee it would not have the same impact on them. That's were I completely agree with you. It does come down to perspective.

Also, I'm 36 years old and Double Dragon 2 was pretty awesome. Jumping up and doing the spin kick for the first time is another one of those gaming moments I will never forget. That's why it is so hard for people who did not play the games I would consider to be classics when they were first released to understand the impact those games had at the time. I used to play Wizards and Warriors for hours on end, if some one played that now I'm sure they would think it was terrible. But at the time, I thought it was fantastic. Perspective.

This.  I'll never understand a game getting a 10/10 rating when it has immersion breakingly bad AI.  The counter-argument that the AI is intentionally programmed badly because people would rather witness crappy AI than get killed because of what an NPC is doing doesn't hold water.    Rendering something atrocious on purpose doesn't make it okay.  There are so many better solutions possible than settling for garbage AI.  For example, NPC's could have been invisibly tethered to the players character.  Or how about something realistic like having Ellie climb on Joel's back rather than just having her wander around directly in front of clickers.  You can't choose to settle for horrendous AI that shatter the mood of your gameplay experience and then turn around and still call the game 10/10 perfect.  Whether a flaw exists intentionally or not, it's still a flaw.  And when you're talking about a flaw that completely breaks your immersion into the experience, that's a flaw big enough to merit knocking points off for.  So yeah, I feel the game is vastly overrated.