As a source of information, Metacritic is both incredibly helpful and disastrously useless if you're wanting anything other than a base "Yup, it's good/meh/bad!" takeaway. Because over time, the site has ostensibly become to games what Rotten Tomatoes is to film - an aggregate compilation of every major review under the sun, kicking out a reflective percentage regardless of reasoning, nuance or discourse.
Thing is, as all gamers know, if anyone's ever asked your opinion on a title, you're highly unlikely to say, "It's a 6/10 game" before walking off. These cumulative totals go all the way back to their respective developers too, as various executives monitor Metacritic scores as a means to award the dev team a bonus or reward.
Imagine that: You put the time in and finish the job after years of hard work, but it's only really worth something if the world responds immediately.
Such is one of the more subtler problems with the site, but you also have the issue of games being championed for all sorts of contextual/timely reasons that wouldn't hold up in retrospect, or for pioneering a certain mechanic that would then be perfected elsewhere.
Indeed, Metacritic scores are a solid starting point, but when it comes to analysing the all-round top 10 in 2017, just how accurate has it become?