I guess to this I would say "maybe not", but is it really better to have the user have to actually go to the article to find out that the author thought that the game was fun for about five minutes and then became rather monotonous and unappealing? Either way, the game was unappealing, and that means that the author is probably recommending that people don't buy it.
To me, another reason for having some sort of quick system to see what reviewers thought of something is so that I can read one review and then scan for another review that has a different opinion. In this case, it's nice to be able to see a quick overview of what the reader thought, at least in some form. Admittedly, I don't really read game reviews very often, though, so I'm mostly drawing experience from the occasional reading of Google Maps reviews and such.
Yup! Ratings systems are for people who don't want to spend three hours reading about a game only to find out whether the fun will last more than five minutes. Some people don't have the luxury of time to read page-long reviews for games -- many of us are lucky to have time for playing games at all!
Long reviews are great for those who want an in-depth understanding, to make a really informed decision... but, honestly, how many of us will spend THAT much time reading long-winded reviews for every single game in which we are interested? I used to do this when I was a kid, but mainly because video games were my only friend. And I had time to read about games AND still have time to play them. Nowadays, I find it suffices to read a few scores and some highlights... and even then I usually don't have enough time to devote to the game to get very deep into it.
If we can truly get people to write reviews about the technical side of games, that might be cool, but do we think that we can do that? I'm not saying that we can't, but it seems like it would be significantly harder to write a technical review than a normal one if you're not the author of the game. Alternatively, maybe we could have authors of games try to write postmortems where they talk about what went wrong and right with their game development process, etc.? I used to hang out at iDevGames quite a bit back in the day, and they had something like that, although I don't know how successful it was.
Alternatively, if we're going from the technical side of things, we could try to get reviews on game engines, in addition to games. I think it could be pretty handy to some people to be able to look over a list of, say, 2D game engines and read some reviews on them before getting started using them.
Indeed, reviewing games solely on their technical qualities will be difficult, given that we can typically only guess what lies in that part of a game. Apart from gushing over the advances in graphics, the innovative game gimmicks, and being able to enjoy the game without the threat of crashing or other software glitches... about all that is left is commentary on "how did they do that" elements.