I really don't like numbers for reviews, particularly with most game reviews considering 7 out of 10 an average (I'm not sure but as a Mathematics University student I consider the average is 5). With numerical values I see no particular advantage, If I am going to see a movie I want to know if it interests me not how good it is for what it is and how the camera work is, if I am buying a guitar I want to know what kind of sound it makes, how much it weighs and how durable it is, if I am buying a Camera I want to see test pictures, weight distribution and how durable it is; and I want the same with a game review (how it feels to play, whether it is completely linear or not, how it compares to its predecessor if applicable). Games journalism need to grow up a little in my opinion, which I reckon should happen soon, with the games industry becoming bigger in recent years, in Britain there are (on average) 40% of people have a console (this is with the consoles sold, so doesn't account for those with multiple consoles, PC gamers or imports). People may argue that gaming hasn't grown up that much in the past 5 years, this I disagree with, particularly those who bring up the addition of casual games to the market (including fitness games), I disagree with people because if you look at most forms of entertainment there will be many genres which different people will enjoy: People don't always consider casual gamers real gamers, but if you don't like all sorts of film that doesn't mean you cannot be a film fan does it? And if you only like art house films, you aren't a film fan? My point here is that if you play games, regularly or semi regularly you are a gamer.
I know numbers will never be out of all reviews in my lifetime with them being a pillar of that style of journalism. With this increased divergence in genres, such as films did as they matured, will hopefully encourage more diverse criticism, reviews now usually only say how it plays not how the gameplay makes the player feel about it. Language is a beautiful and constantly evolving thing, so why not use it in a more eloquent way?