That's just nonsense to me; a game should have some objective qualifications but those should have nothing to do with who the dev team is, what their vision was, etc.
The product has objective things about it:
- A price tag that should be taken into account, don't judge a $10 game the same as a $100 game
- Things like bugginess
- Other technical aspects like whether the framerate sucks or the resolution is really low
- Amount of content, features, etc.
Why should someone judge a product differently depending on the creators "vision", their dev team experience, etc.? Those are facts to bring up for context, not something that should go into a review.
"This chef never cooked food before, and their vision was to create a burnt piece of toast. Due to these factors I give this burnt piece of toast a 9/10."
It's just utter nonsense to me. A good reviewer will attempt to understand what a creators vision was, but that's separate from judging the product.
A good review is one where the author thoroughly explains their opinion, where they are coming from, etc. Because if you explain why you did or didn't like something, the reader can take that into account. The purpose of a review is to inform a potential consumer, nothing more, nothing less.
Hell in a lot of industries they prefer the reviewer not even know who the creator is, to remove their bias. You do "blind" tastings of wine/beer/food, and review the product w/o any knowledge of who created it, on purpose.
In particular, compare the lighting of that game to the screenshot 
Is the framerate stable?
