After giving the issue a couple of days to marinate in my brain, I've come to this conclusion:
There's absolutely nothing wrong with rating a video game. Nothing wrong with saying, "Oh, the graphics were good but they could have been better" or "The graphics were the best that I've ever seen! On a scale of one to ten, I give it a 10!!" Nothing wrong with saying "That battle was so intense near the end--I had so much fun!! I'd give it a 9.5" or "I was sorta bored through the whole game. I give it a 5."
I think the problem is when we compare the scores between other games. Somebody complained that Brink got an 8/10 on the same site that gave Uncharted 3 an 8/10. Maybe U3 is miles better than Brink (I haven't played either) but the score could easily be justified based on expectations, context, and familiarity. When it comes to whether or not I want to buy a game, the review is extremely helpful. The score is helpful too, when it comes tempering my expectations. It helps if the reviewer has the same tastes as I do.
The problem comes from when we use these scores to compare game A to game B to prove superiority. Forza scores higher than Gran Turismo but there's a pretty solid argument for why GT could be better. Uncharted is scoring higher that Gears but there are a ton of reasons why people could prefer Gears. Zelda SS could be the best Zelda ever but score a 8.5/10 because it's too familiar. That doesn't make Super Meat Boy a better game because it scores a 9/10. We just need to stop comparing and everything will be okay.
