But even if The Last Guardian is really that meaningful artistically speaking, it has bad thing that interfere with that artistical expierence the player is trying to get. It's not a 10/10 and it shouldn't be.

That being said, almost all of the reviews point out that the game is an incredible emotional joruney, regardless of the gameplay mistakes it could have. Maybe a reviewer qualified the game with a 8/10, but in his text, he did nothing but praise the meaning of the game and how emotional it was.

We shouldn't just keep with the scores, we should read what the reviewer has to say.

I agre here

how could a game get a 100 percent if it has flaws though?

Art is also percieved, it isn't something someone should be telling you is great. The Last Guardian could be a work of art for someone, and meaningless garbage to another. 

Like music. Not everyone gets the same experience. It's perfectly fine for reviewers and gamers alike to play TLG and dislike it. Videogames are an interactive medium, and people should also be able to judge a game from an interactive standpoint. 

Yes, I agree.

OT: Where's the problem?

The game will sell a few 100.000 copies (predecessor Shadow of the Colossus sold more than a million).

Those "legit" non-gaming sources review all kinds of games, not just The Last Guardian. So your argument falls rather flat on its feet. The story is all-right, but there are much better Japanese story tellers out there imo. This isn't nearly as memorable as let's say Grave of the Fireflies, The Tale of the Princess Kaguya, Spirited Away or Princess Mononoke.

Game made for mass audience doesn't mean it's bad. Maybe a better example would have been the Marvel hero films (not transformer which are generally considered bad), they will never win any best Picture Oscars but they are entertaining and well received as they are aiming for the mass audience, not 100 critics.

Or Yu-Gi-Oh! Duel Monsters: Season 5