I've got a few thoughts about this, and here they are in no particular order:
We're all going to buy the game, and most probably really enjoy it; so for our purposes, review scores don't matter beyond outside confirmation of how awesome we want the game to be. That said, there are circumstances that actually make review scores semi-important, and unsurprisingly they all involve money. In one manner, it's kind of like the movies; typically a person will take a chance on a film they don't know much about if the critics rave about it (film studios are aware of this, and have even concocted entirely fictional critics to give positive reviews to their films). In another way, scores can matter to investors too, as they want the company into which they've invested their money to make a product undeniably awesome and desirable (admittedly, they don't really care if the game is legitimately awesome; but it's far easier to sell a game with universal praise than without it). There's a couple other ways in which money can lend weight to review scores; but ultimately my point is that: when critics unfairly pound on games for shock attention, they aren't really enacting the 'merely their opinion and thereby victimless crimes' that some would claim. I've worked for a game studio or two, and trust me, when jobs are being cut because their last game didn't sell as well as was needed to keep everyone working, the shock-jockey lambasting of critical 'opinions' can certainly seem like its had some victims. That said, when a game is mostly heralded as being utterly amazing, the suspiciously lower scores don't matter nearly as much. If anything, they're just easier to ignore, which helps to not impair profits; ergo SS should be fine.
From a more personal and thereby grandly irrelevant perspective, I remember checking Gamespot regularly waaaay back when the N64 and PS1 were the pinnacle of console hardware, and even then I found their reviews in general a little too nit-picky. I developed a standing rule that whatever score they gave a game, I'd add a full half point in my head. I did this due to practical experience from playing their reviewed games myself, and finding almost without fail that it deserved (to me) a score closer to my off the bat 'adjusted' grade, rather than their original one. I used that standing rule as a helpful guide when deciding what new game to try out. However, as time passed that point-gap between Gamespot and my own opinion widened to the extent that their reviews ceased to be useful for me to ascertain whether a game was worth checking out (that's when I started to check IGN more regularly, but inversely, I find they sometimes grade a little too softly). When the reviews for SS started to flood in, I entirely expected to see around an 8/10 from Gamespot because of my past experiences with their reviews. A 7.5 from them isn't terribly shocking; but it does cement in my mind that Gamespot has decided to embrace the "we're hard-assed hard-core gamers" reputation they've sporadically attempted to cultivate around themselves, which I've always found kind of absurd. Their direct site didn't even get a hit from me this time anyway, Youtube did.
In terms of the video review itself (I didn't bother checking the written version), I couldn't decide if there was simply some poor reviewing practices going on, a-la the bizarre comments about IR control, or that the writer was simply trying to distinguish their site by standing diametrically opposed to their contemporaries. There were definitely a few odd things that stood out, the most immediate being that the first twenty seconds of the review were utterly negative. There wasn't even any exposition; instead it was just an immediate flow of criticisms, warranted or otherwise. I'm not a game reviewer; but I've spent an awful lot of time studying writing (I have an odd academic history given my current profession), and as far as I can see,the primary reason you'd want to format a piece of journalism that way, would be to make it clear you're creating an argument against something. That's a fairly odd course of action for a supposedly 'unbiased' critic to take; but then again, it could just be weak writing.
Ultimately though, Gamespot could score the game a 0 out of 10 for all it really matters to me. I only really care what I think about the game when I actually play it (I'm not expecting to give it a perfect 10 on my own scale either to be fair), and that the excellent work by those that make the games is recognized for what it is, as that's how more awesome games are made in the future.