Depends on what you're looking for in a review.

Supposedly, the true purpose is to inform the consumer.  This makes giving a perfect mark to a game with issues potentially deceptive.  If consumers think that a score is a summary of the review--flaws included--then they might be surprised when a writer adds on the score as some kind of "personal enjoyment meter" instead.

That's what Jim Sterling does, which makes it odd that some of the same people protesting his scores are championing perfect 10s.  It's one or the other, people.  If you want the totally subjective "I enjoyed the game THIS MUCH" perfect scores then shut up about the "I only enjoyed it a little so it gets a 7" scores.  He's been doing that since he worked at Destructoid, where he gave games like Deadly Premonition and KillZone 3 perfect scores.

At some point, review scores became a thing unto themselves, where they were more about what the reviewer wanted than about informing the consumer.  Ah, the rise of "internet personalities."

Personally, I don't really have a lot of respect for that method.  I'm reading that review to find out about the game, warts and all, not because I want a completely subjective look at what strokes the reviewer's beard.  It's like I'm going in for an evaluation and get a note back from the grader that says, "you got several questions wrong but I really liked your answer for #83 so I'm giving you a 100!"  I would find that kind of lame because that score does not give me an accurate evaluation.

All of this, of course, is part of what makes meta-scores somewhat meaningless, as it combines scores with different scales, grading criteria, and philosophies. 

Beyond meta-scores, I don't think very much of scores in general.  If someone can't be bothered to read the actual review then they must not care very much to begin with.  The reason most people give so much attention to scores is because they're looking for validation, not information.  On top of that, as we've seen just recently, some fans aggressively try to create an atmosphere where reviewers can be intimidated into giving beloved franchises high scores, thus calling into question the honesty of the whole damn shebang.  

So, yeah, if people are so gung-ho about scores being personal enjoyment awards then the occassional reviewer pissing in their collective cornflakes is part of the package.

Depends on what you're looking for in a review.

Supposedly, the true purpose is to inform the consumer.  This makes giving a perfect mark to a game with issues potentially deceptive.  If consumers think that a score is a summary of the review--flaws included--then they might be surprised when a writer adds on the score as some kind of "personal enjoyment meter" instead.

That's what Jim Sterling does, which makes it odd that some of the same people protesting his scores are championing perfect 10s.  It's one or the other, people.  If you want the totally subjective "I enjoyed the game THIS MUCH" perfect scores then shut up about the "I only enjoyed it a little so it gets a 7" scores.  He's been doing that since he worked at Destructoid, where he gave games like Deadly Premonition and KillZone 3 perfect scores.

At some point, review scores became a thing unto themselves, where they were more about what the reviewer wanted than about informing the consumer.  Ah, the rise of "internet personalities."

Personally, I don't really have a lot of respect for that method.  I'm reading that review to find out about the game, warts and all, not because I want a completely subjective look at what strokes the reviewer's beard.  It's like I'm going in for an evaluation and get a note back from the grader that says, "you got several questions wrong but I really liked your answer for #83 so I'm giving you a 100!"  I would find that kind of lame because that score does not give me an accurate evaluation.

All of this, of course, is part of what makes meta-scores somewhat meaningless, as it combines scores with different scales, grading criteria, and philosophies. 

Beyond meta-scores, I don't think very much of scores in general.  If someone can't be bothered to read the actual review then they must not care very much to begin with.  The reason most people give so much attention to scores is because they're looking for validation, not information.  On top of that, as we've seen just recently, some fans aggressively try to create an atmosphere where reviewers can be intimidated into giving beloved franchises high scores, thus calling into question the honesty of the whole damn shebang.  

So, yeah, if people are so gung-ho about scores being personal enjoyment awards then the occassional reviewer pissing in their collective cornflakes is part of the package.

Couldn't put it better myself. And definitely agree with the evaluation analogy.  And that's not to say that a game can't receive high scores with technical issues, but a (near) perfect 10 should be out of the question.  That doesn't mean that an 8 or 9 is out, though.  And I think you are right that a big problem is fanboys not allowing their games getting less than a 9 (or cause the metacritic to go from a godly 98 to a shittiest of the shit 97), and if they do, they go apeshit over the reviewer.  It really makes future reviews for that franchise suspect.  I mean, are they actually loving the game that much?  Or are they worried about getting harrassed by 100s/1000s of fans and DDOS/hacked, so won't dare go below a 9?

If you want to open the floor to this level of speculation, the possibility that reviewers give bad reviews out for the attention or publicity should also be considered. The fact that game publishers buy ad space on game review sites is itself cause for concern. It's all suspect at that point.

Of course it should be considered, as it is also a fact.  Most notably when decent games get 4's or lower, which is below average.  I believe someone gave UC4 a 4, which is completely ridiculous.  Sure, the game may be average to you, gameplay-wise, but you can't ignore its graphical/technical achievements.  IMO, the lowest that game should get is a 6, or above average.  Unfortuanely, though, a 4 for a huge AAA title is guaranteed traffic to your site from fans who are going to voice their anger/disapproval for the score.

And it is somewhat concerning for gaming companies to advertise on gaming sites, as they may lead to skewed reviews.  However, I don't think that is too much of a concern.  Even if the site gives your game a lower score than you think it should have gotten, crying about it will only give you bad press, which could affect sales.  It also stands to reason that the vast majority of site goers are going to be gamers, so you are going to want to advertise on them, anyway, to reach the largest number of gamers.  Scores be damned.  And not all of those gamers go off of reviews.  Or think 6s or 7s make a game unbuyable.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but what you're saying is that certain games, by virtue of their technical prowess, should have a score ceiling and a score floor?

A technical marvel like Uncharted can't get a score below 6 and a game like Breath of the Wild, with technical hiccups, can't get a score above 9? That's fine for you, but a lot of fans and critics don't think that way. Resolution, lighting, physics, and draw distance might just be a small part of the equation for them.

I know, for me, a game is much, much more than the sum of its technical specs.