That is very true, good example is Telltale, their games are mess in technical side, they still get away with it constantly since stories are so good and critically acclaimed. Not saying Bloodborne has problems like Telltale games but you get my point.
Well, there's the issue really. Reviews, and review scores, are really hard to normalize. A 6 or a 7 or an 8 looks like a 6 or a 7 or an 8 regardless of the reason.
For example, Game A might be bland, boring, and just bad and get a 6.
Game B might have some performance issues that only bother some and get a 6.
Game C might be amazing, but too 'short' for $60 (or whatever) and so the reviewer tries to incorporate 'value' into the review, giving it a 6.
2 months later, Game B was patched and works flawlessly, and Game C is now on sale for, say, $30, which said reviewer would have found a great value/price. Game A is still just bad.
And so trying to incorporate too many things into a review score sort of breaks review scores. Of course, if a game is utterly broken at launch, that should be called out. It's just not a simple thing, and there's no easy answer and certainly no industry standard.
Fallout 3 on PS3, or Telltale games on any device/console, are perfect examples of games that many adore, but have terrible issues. It's hard to rank those against games that are just plain terrible, or against games that get patched later to work well (as opposed to work worse, as is the case with FO3 GOTY edition).
Loading times of 45 seconds don't bother me. Anyone remember the Commodore 64 and loading games on cassette? Go eat dinner and maybe it'll be ready to play.