Do Review Articles Really Matter If There Is A Score At The End?

This is something that has always bothered me about the whole game journalist scene. If you spend your time writing a review for a game and it's a game you really liked and want people to play and it receives a score of (for example) 8.0. Yet when someone opens the article on IGN and just scrolls down to the bottom and sees the 8.0 and goes: "8.0?!? Why so low?"

When did a 8.0, on a scale of 1 to 10 be considered low?

Maybe it's a hype thing, maybe it's because we as consumer receive too much hype for a game, and this leads to an expectation that, if "IGN keep writing about it then it must get a 10 or an 9.0 at least." I know that sites like IGN need articles to create traffic so that they can create revenue and pay their employees.

But what if IGN just ditched the review score. As a site across the board just said "No to scores" and if someone wants to know if they should buy a game, then they can read the review article and then make an enlightened decision instead of basing their purchase on a number and then if the game fails to meet their high expectations because of the knowledge passed on to them by that number with its added plus or minus they feel let down by the (a) the reviewer and (b) the site.