As someone who tends to buy video games months or even years after their release, I couldn't disagree more. The review score will not reflect the state that the game is in and that won't help me decide whether a game is worth my time or not.
I think story, gameplay, graphics, voice acting, fun factor, among other things are much more important than things that eventually get fixed. Especially when a game has a day-one patch.
It may be easier to avoid glitches and bugs when you make a simple game like most ninty or indie games, but not with games like Skyrim, Fallout 4 and GTA 5. Even Assassin's Creed games are huge and some bugs are to be expected in the first month or so, no matter how much time they spend testing them. The reviews of unity don't represent the current product with all the patches.
Whether forum people realise it or not, most gamers don't read entire reviews, they just look at the scores. And while something like an annoying bug can, and most likely will, get fixed eventually, things like the story never change. I'm not saying don't penalise them for that (there are examples like Unity, Driveclub), just that the score doesn't help people who are interested in the game, just not day 1.
