One thing I like about Rotten Tomatoes is that every movie gets a review summary. A synopsis of the main good and bad bits of a movie summarised from all the reviews in 100 words or less (more or less).

Like this for Catching Fire:

"Smart, smoothly directed, and enriched with a deeper exploration of the franchise's thought-provoking themes, Catching Fire proves a thoroughly compelling second installment in the Hunger Games series."

But with Metacritic and Game Rankings all they have is the PR blurb about the awesomeness of the game written by the game publisher's marketers. Like this for CoD Ghosts (which may or may not be complete bullshit):

"Call of Duty: Ghosts ushers in the next generation of the franchise, delivering a riveting all-new gameplay experience built on an entirely new story, setting and cast, all powered by a new next-generation Call of Duty engine."

To be fair Rotten Tomatoes also has the Distributer's marketing PR crap for every movie. But the review summary is there are a much more objective assessment of the game.

Like a CoD Ghosts review summary might read: "Another solid Multiplayer experience, albeit with a sameness about it. But the single player campaign in CoD is now suffering from total neglect and it appears the story writing responsibilities have been handed off to a highschool freshman; why do they even bother?"

Not only can review summaries be informative about the good and the bad as a collective view of the critics, but they could be amusing too.

I guess that would be OK, although it would probably cause consumers to avoid reading the actual reviews even more than they already do.

For me there are two fixes to Metacritic, neither of them easy: 1) a professional corps of video game critics with journalistic integrity and 2) fans with more realistic and more consistent expectations.