Metacritic's by far the worst way to get infos on a game. It outright refuses to change the scores of reviews after release, even if the game got patched up to a state that is far better than the initial release or even if they made factual errors in the first review that influenced the game's final score negatively. Not taking patching / constant evolution of a game or even the possibility of a reviewer screwing up into consideration, is just harmful to the games long term standing, as it gets promoted with scores that are in no way representative to the product after a certain amount of time. Not to mention that the way they weigh things is in no way transparent, so even the scoring shortly after release is highly controversive as no one knows how they ended up with that number. Then the tendency that they convert all reviews to a 0-100 scale, even those which don't give a rating in a numerical value at all, which in turn distorts or outright destroys the original meaning of a review that hasn't been gauged in the 100 point system.

For example in Dust 514's place, if the reviews were treated equally it would have gotten 63 instead of 59 points (it may not seem like much but people are more likely to play a game that has a 6 up front than a 5) - meaning that metacritic weighs the reviews of either Eurogamer or Gametrailers, or even both reviewers higher than some or even all the other reviewers. The user score (though more favorable for the game) is even more obstrusive.

So it is safe to say, that metacritic is questionable to say the least. Yet they hold an enormous amount of power in the industry to the point where people actively lose money / their job due to scores, because for some reason a lot of people value metacritic highly.