OP is being very dismissive of gamers because he doesn't understand the importance of time.

There have been many times when I've played a game with a novel concept and high artistic value and I've really enjoyed it...

...for a couple of hours. But as time went on, things that impressed me initially no longer had the same effect, and I started to get bored with the gameplay. If I had written a review after playing the game for one afternoon, I might have given the game 10/10. If I had written a review after playing for a few weeks, I might have given it 6/10.

On the other hand, there have been many times when I've played a game which seemed to be quite generic and uninspired at first. But after putting time into the game, I stared to notice little things that made me love it. With those games, I might have given them 6/10 after playing them for an afternoon and 10/10 after playing them for several weeks.

The amount of time you spend playing a game can have a big impact on how good you think it is.

That's why gamers often poo-poo certain kinds of "art" games that are loved by reviewers. A lot of gamers aren't looking for something to play for an afternoon. They want something that can keep them entertained for a long time: dozens or even hundreds of hours. High art is great, in its own right. But if it isn't accompanied by good gameplay, it's not enough to make a game worth playing for 100 hours.

Gameplay > "Art"

I agree. I still can't believe that game everyone gone to rapture got good reviews. 

Yeah Ico got better the second time. The first time the attacks could get pretty frustrating while trying to look around to figure out the next puzzle and get familiar with the areas. I also sucked at defeating them the first time around. It did grow even a more on me than SotC. They're both in my top 5 best games of all times, with Grim Fandango in between the two. Another special game with clunky controls. Now I need to decide what to eject from the top 5 to make room for TLG :)

That never stopped other games from getting them. GTA being a perfect example with its insane number of perfect scores.

It's tragic that some gamers are more focussed about nitpicking and looking at all the technical stuff. That should never be the main focus of a review.
When rating a game you should only consider the value and experience it gives you, whether that comes from story, gameplay or atmosphere is essetially irrelevant.

I haven't played The Last Guardian yet, but both Ico and Shadow of the Colossus gave me more value than any Uncharted or GTA I have ever tried.

A game can be "perfect" and only deserve 7/10 and it can have 100 flaws and still deserve 10/10

The games as art argument has always been weak. To me, the "art" of a game is how great it is as a total package. Super Mario Bros. 3 is a work of art because of just how fluid, smooth and perfect his movement feels. When you combine that with level design, art work, music... it's absolutely art.

Claiming the Last Guardian is artistic when it has less than stellar controls is accurate in the sense that it is, indeed, art. But it's inaccurate to say it's of higher quality than something that controls like butter. It SHOULD have gotten 7's because it was flawed in one aspect.

If I had to guess, I'd say that even though those publications are not gaming oriented, the reviewers themselves are actually gamers which makes your point moot. It looks like you don't agree with certain reviews and are going to great lengths to discredit them by pretending "gamers" don't get it and are grumpy and mad.

From what I've seen of the game (admittedly haven't played it), the controls and camera are rather finicky, and Trico's AI can be really problematic. For some people, the story will be enough to overcome those flaws and make it an enjoyable and perhaps even great experience. For others, it won't. There's no reason to dismiss those other opinions just because they're focused more on gameplay.

Just because a game is pushing the medium forward in a direction it hasn't moved before doesn't mean everyone should ignore its flaws and instantly give it perfect scores.

I think you are confusing the difference between art and craftmanship. Mario games are expertly crafted (and very artistic too btw) yet this passage describes Fumito Ueda perfectly.

An artist I know, who comes from a 400-year family tradition of art-making, once told me that he considers the difference to be this:  "a craftsman will allow his material to limit his expression, but an artist never will." He says that all artists are craftspeople, but that artists go further in what they choose to accomplish - and that the crux of the matter is in this issue of their relationship with material. An artist will fight, transmute, transform - whatever they have to do - their material to bend it to their will - to get it to be the vehicle of expression that they need to achieve.  A craftsman will accept the limitations of their material and work within it to produce the result they're after, whether that is beautiful or functional or whatever. The questions of beauty or multiples or these other considerations are really beside the point.

Shigero Miyamoto accepts the limits of his medium, Fumito Ueda does not. I admire his vision and non compromising attitude towards realizing it. For that reason it is of higher quality to me. His vision is inspiring to me, and while I really enjoy the smoothness and craftmanship of a mario game, Fumito's games stick with me.