People need to realize that Metacritic is only a very basic guideline. The whole idea is too deeply flawed to be anything except that. You have different people with different tastes using different scales and methodologies from game to game, it's never going to be perfect. If you had the very same reviewers using the very same grading system for every single game then you MIGHT be able to place more weight on the resulting score but it would still be highly subjective.
Personally, I always think of Metacritic scores as ranges of at least +/-5. An 85, to me, is roughly an 80 to 90 game, and even then, I'm only really going to pay attention to a score if it's extremely low.
Yes, if a reviewer is bad or unfair you should remember and avoid them, but people are getting too outraged over this. I wouldn't trust Jim Sterling to review cat food but it's not like I'm going to stress out over his scores. It just doesn't matter that much.
