Gamespot really measures games by their atmosphere quality. What I mean by this is games are judged by the quality of universe it creates.
All games receive a '9" if it gives the user the ability to daydream about them afterwards.
If a game does not grant the user daydreams about the game universe, it does not get a 9.
This is why shitty games, with slapped together universes, do not get nines. Also, comic book games and movie games do not get 9s, if the game does not relay the spiritual essence of the universe from which it was derived, or otherwise detracts from the quality of dreams.
The game is measured less so by its gameplay and logic, and more so as a coherent spiritual manifestation, judged by the supremity of its universe.
This is because aesthetics are far more important than mechanics. This applies to all aspects of life, not just to art.
The problem with video game critics, however, is that they fail to understand that in the case of video games mechanics are inseparable from aesthetics.
Try to think about it in the following way: purely mechanical games are too masculine and purely aesthetical games are too feminine.
There is nothing to be done about that because the cost of video game production, unlike that of traditional forms of arts, is too high. It requires too many resources, too much time and too many people with shared ideals to collaborate in order to create something meaningful. It requires an entire culture to be set in place, and since there are no cultures nowadays, there will be no meaningful video games any time soon.
So all you’re going to get is commercially viable excesses and niche caricatures.