The review ends with the words "Let's put it this way: we wouldn't buy it full price." Then he gives it 8/10. That's the real problem - the writer has received a free game and then forgotten to put himself in the reader's shoes and decide whether the game's value for money. You simply can't say "well, I wouldn't buy it" then give it such a high score.
I think I'd disagree with that, actually.
The pricetag of a game varies wildly over the lifetime of the game; from $60 at the top end, through discounts and steam sales to the likes of "Free with a PS+ subscription" or something. If you talk solely in terms of the value for money *at the time the review is made*, that fixes your review at a point in history; it's going to be irrelevant
As an extreme example: Let's say a game was released that was *hideously* overpriced. Hypothetically, $1000 for Geometry Wars. A good game - an *excellent* game - but for the vast majority of people, nowhere near worth that asking price.
A review should, be all means, comment on that. That's fine. But should it be factored into how they determine the merit of *the game itself*? "2/10, terrible value for money", or "8/10, a great game but not at this cost"?
Now, if, two months later, the price of Geometry Wars was massively reduced to its current pricetag. At this stage, which of those two reviews is a more useful indicator to a prospective buyer?
Prices fluctuate over time. In general (and yes, I'm aware there
are exceptions!) the content of the product does not.
Edit: That said, I'm generally more in favour of just dropping review scores like Edge did for one experimental issue. Solves a lot of problems, but unfortunately the mass market wants those soundbites!