(pictured: ¯_(ツ)_/¯, it doesn't actually matter)
I've covered video games on a relatively small channel for four and a half years now, and the one thing I've tried to keep constant the entire time is that when properly reviewing a game, I do not give it a score, instead ending with a final verdict that weighs the pros and cons and explains who I think would enjoy the game and what expectations to enter it with. When I do use review scores, it's almost always for a joke, because summing up the entire sum of a game's experience and how it connects both to the individual player/reviewer at a micro level, but how it interacts with the gaming world and beyond on a macro level, cannot be summed up whatsoever with just a number.
I feel the idea of a review score defeats the idea of a game review, and we've seen evidence of this mentality repeatedly. There are many a game where people question how it got as high a score as it did, leading to mild controversies like gaming YouTubers balking at the high scores Cruelty Squad attained due to its socioeconomic themes and nonconventional approach to immersive sim FPS gameplay, we've seen games get docked points for containing too much water or too many minions like these subjective ideals of what makes a satisfactory gaming experience can be quantified adequately, and Giant Bomb founder Jeff Gerstmann having been fired from Gamespot for one too many sour-scored reviews. The truncated, publisher-friendly scoring metric has its own TVTropes page, if it's any indication of how prevalent the issue is.
The review score is a convenience feature at best. Computer Gaming World infamously did not post scores until the mid-1990s, and only because enough people wrote letters complaining about the lack of a rating system. While it could be argued that they are convenient for the consumer, and they obviously are, it's become increasingly clear over the decades that who the scores seem really convenient for are the publishers.
A multi-faceted review that trades blow for blow, pro for con is a tough sell and requires a lot of reading to grasp fully compared to a score or rating, which can be plastered straight onto the box or key art without much thought and will look appealing. In turn, the game critics are not writing reviews for the consumers, but instead numbers for publishers to slap onto their box, which not only makes games press and reviews just another form of bizarre marketing, but it also hurts said press as it essentially means that the standards cannot shift, every game needs to be reviewed well and to the standards of now decades-old stunts; we cannot look at how modern games scale back on innovative AI agents or mechanical polish in favor of visual fluff and thus give newer games more concerned with their looks than their quality poorer scores, because the alternative is a company just doesn't get to review these games anymore and they cannot survive without that money for long.
It is no surprise or secret that game reviews are paid for. Gaming press companies keep a large number of employees on their payroll, and cannot make it on just ad revenue and fan donations alone; it's the work of publishers to keep these companies afloat by paying them for the reviews. This is inherently a problem, it creates a conflict of interest, and in the wake of deeply controversial titles it might mean having to swallow your pride and accept a paycheck from Warner Brothers despite a deeply flawed title (or giving Halo 5 a 9 as seen above for unknown reasons). It sets the standard that the reviews themselves are pointless; the scores are for the box and consumers more or less just get marketing blurbs printed at them because the alternative is having to rely on being entirely independent, which just is not feasible. It's a damn shame that that's the case, as fair and unbiased reviews allowed to freely wax philosophical and mechanical on the games before them without the expectation of a score at the end or with the fear that the whole ordeal had been bought out to help push copies would ultimately improve the reputation of games press and games themselves, and make making an informed decision as a consumer all the easier.