In my opinion metacritic has become utterly worthless for judging the quality of games even in so far as the 100 point scale is flawed.
The problem is that the contributing reviewers are not uniform accross each release and are hel to no standard. Then you have some sites fishing for clicks by putting up shockingly low scores.
I sometimes see sites appear from nowhere and review one game (i.e. BioGamerGirl) and then disappear into the ether afterwards.
I have found myself buying games based on high metas such as Dragon Age Inquisition, which I ended up hating. Then games with (relatively) low metas such as Alien Isolation and Drive Club have been some of my favourites. One of the games I consider best in it's genre Infamous Second Son only got 80.
I find myself depending more and more on betas and impressions from here and NeoGaf for something I can depend on.
Do you think a curated list of reviews, with a maximum number (eg. 10) allowed would help give less *homogenous and possibly more reflective averaged scores / weighted average?
*By homogenous, I mean the meta's are more and more skewing towards in and around 80 (a range from low - 75, to high - 85)
