First, I would like to say that Metacritic.com is a novel idea. The concept of pooling the opinions of trusted indviduals and creating a number based upon those opinions is inventive and clever. It has created a tool for the average person to read the thoughts of critics and to browse through many reviews in a convienient location.
But who are these critics? What is this arbitrary publication that gave this piece of media a number score? Is there a face to Gameplanet, to The Onion, or to Armchair Empire?
There are a few critics whose opinions I always respect, if not at least agree with. But I feel that with so many publications giving out scores, it's hard to discern which critics have the same mindset a certain individual has. For example, I thought Inception was a brilliant movie, and made me fall in love with Christopher Nolan. Roger Ebert clearly loved it as well, giving it a perfect score of 4 out of 4. However on Metacritic Inception received a 74.
However Roger Ebert's opinion is vastly more important to me than the 42 other publications. Why? Because I've read his articles on other movies. His thoughts are precise, clear, and insightful. His experience expands over decades, and his words are ones that I respect, even if they degrade a movie I personally cherish.
Why does this relate to Metacritic? I'm saying that the opinion of a trusted few is stronger than that of the anonymous crowd. Read up on a few critics, see if their articles make sense. Maybe you'll find one that you agree with. One whose experience and insight you can trust. And even if that critic gives something you love a bad score, it doesn't really matter.
I mean, it's just an opinion.