This viewpoint has never, ever made any sense to me.
First off, I'm going to hazard a guess and say that most of us grew up with systems where "5/10", aka "getting half the things wrong" is a very, very bad thing, not just something which is "fine" or "middling". Doing half the things incorrectly is not the mark of a good professional in any system, anywhere, outside of baseball.
Second, a ~25 point score range - 75-100 - is plenty big (or 40 with 60-100, or 20 with 80-100, or whatever). There's already plenty of nuance that can be captured in such a range, and if that feels too limited, it's just as sensible to want a 750-1000 point scale; the numbers themselves aren't the point, and if it's about the context of what those numbers represent, well, see my first point.
Thirdly, It can help split our sense of ratings into tiers based on quartiles. We (and the rest of the gaming world) only really talk about games which we already know are going to be fine. We know it's going to be competent. That's just assumed. We don't really ever much talk about the 2/10s, the 5/10s, because why would we? We necessarily place more value talking about the stuff where, baseline, we can guess pretty consistently that they'll at least have a rough sense of what they're doing. So by splitting it up into 25/20 block point segments, we can say "oh, ok, the 75-100, those are what we should actually focus on; 50-74, those are the ones that got kinda close but still screwed up a pretty good amount", etc etc.