Meta is great shyte. I prefer to watch videos of the games myself (+ pics) to have an idea and 90%, I don't make error.
Everyone its taste

What I have seen is that the reviews are generally separated by a few percentage points. In light of that, does it matter?

Metacritic and Gamerankings are good for giving a general position for a game, and measure of its quality.  However, you have to factor in the range of opinions, and know there is a "Margin of Error".  If Metacritic says something is better by 10% or more, on one console over another, then that matters.  However, do you believe a few percentage points matters?

Most people said Metacritic didnt matter,now they are loving it! 

.....im still(if all things go correctly) going to get a 360.

CGI who exactly is downplaying metacritic?

Eurogamer does direct comparisons between 360 and PS3 versions of multiplatform games, and the 360 version almost always ends up being the superior version, with the exception of Burnout Paradise.

Eurogamer Face Off

360 vs PS3 Summary

• 95
•  46
• 15

Who's downplaying Metacritic? If anything is getting downplayed, it's the article, for not understanding how and why Metacritic reviews end up the way they do. It seems to me you and a handful of others in this thread that likely only read the thread title, are as clueless about this subject as the article writer is. For the umpteenth time, nothing is wrong with Metacritic. It's the article not understanding that 360 and PS3 specific publications are the reasons for the discrepancies. PS3 mags/sites are obviously more forgiving than 360 ones are. If I extrapolated only the publications that reviewed for both versions, I guarantee at least 95% of all multiplats would have identical review averages, down to the most minute percentage.

This story leaves out the possibility that the PS3 version has different review sources in many cases, and if those review sources are consistently added, and assuming they review in real numbers rather than letters or fractions, then yes, it would be inevitable that the PS3 version would be reviewed higher. It is the nature of the review sources, and not differences in game quality that this is due to, and that is obvious.

In fact, just look at Ghostbusters. Despite being hugely inferior on the PS3, it is only 1 point lower on the PS3 according to metacritic. Games that are equal are more highly rated on the PS3. That is because the common sources on the PS3 less often use the X/5 system, and don't give every game an 8/10, instead giving them a 8.5/10 or a 9/10.

It's called "Exclusive" review sources. Like exclusive games, they easily effect the difference between numerical scores.

You can't determine the difference between these games based on an overall numerical review score. That is completely ignorant.