Steam reviews are concise by design and give you a better idea of whether you'll have the same kind of positive opinion (for example, if all the positive reviews are memey, that says something significant). So I'd say they're definitely better.
I think some people who were video game reviewers will go on to become popular youtube "video essay" producers like this guy: https://www.youtube.com/user/Matthewmatosis and the rest will get new jobs.
> users want them to quickly provide a helpful recommendation (which is represented by a number score)
Speak for yourself. I'm a "user". I also appreciate criticism that places a game in a historical, textual, and social context and that often tells me more about whether I'll like the game than "oh yeah, it runs at 60fps solid on my 1080Ti". A game reviewer might have put me off of Wolfenstein 2: The New Colossus or NieR: Automata because of gameplay ephemera they didn't like; game critics turned me onto both games because they were must-play experiments in how we tell stories.
For example, a stunning artistic videogame but boring versus a ugly game but funny.
I also think you're conflating "art" and "visual design".
Quake would be a better example, but I'd hold, too, that the decisions and the ephemera of that are art as well. Nothing says you can't play art.
As for your example, there are boring but beautifully shot films--2001: A Space Odyssey certainly fits that bill for me. There are engaging films with crude cinematography--the original Clerks comes to mind, for a certain time and audience. You are drawing a distinction without a difference.
There's a small section of games which try to be pieces of art. Maybe they are. But most people playing games don't think of them as art, they think of them as games.
The only reason to sniff at any game, even something like League of Legends, and declare it to Not Be Art is to deny the active artistic intent of the creators involved. It is exclusionary for no good reason.