there's no objective metric such that having this many frames as opposed to that many frames automatically detracts some amount from a score
if you accept this, then logically you have to accept that it's ultimately the overall subjective experience a game achieves for you that's most relevant, and we kind of maneuver through all the moving pieces in a somewhat arbitrary way
if the technical issues or limitations a game has noticeably interfere with the height or depth of that subjective experience, then they'll clearly deduct from the score
on the other hand, if the technical issues a game has don't noticeably interfere? if they feel like part of a compromise to achieve something that wouldn't have been possible with an emphasis on technical flawlessness? if it doesn't feel like they reflect a lack of technical competence (in fact, the game might be technically impressive in other ways) or an overall lack of polish, but merely reflect the limitations that the design of a game cut itself against? maybe that's a different story
i kinda feel like being a technical marvel tends to boost a review score more than not being a technical marvel tends to detract from one, because your capacity to notice the achievement is equal to your capacity to adjust to imperfect performance and aesthetics that don't rely on cutting edge graphics, depending on the quality of everything else
p) 
