So? I guess if you're a game dev and your bonuses ride on it it matters but you'd probably prefer GB be low weighted anyway because of the 5 point scale...most good games only get 4 stars or an 80 and unlike a lot of publications GB isn't afraid to give you one star or a 20 anyway. I never look at the aggregate score, the only time I go to metacritic is if I'm looking at an older game/a game GB didn't cover and wanna read a bunch of reviews, Metacritic is convenient for that cause the links are all right there.
Developers and publishers need to chill the fuck out. Metacritic is a site that compiles review scores and links to reviews for consumers. They have no obligation to cater to whatever purpose the industry deems to use it for. If you insist on using scores as part of some reward/bonus scheme at work, then maybe go do the footwork on your own and spend an afternoon culling the scores from a couple dozen selected websites *yourself* and determine what is an appropriate overall interpretation of the scores.
Also, isn't it a little schizophrenic for these companies to focus entirely on their shareholders (as is a corporation's wont) to the detriment of the quality of games and the experience of gamers and then hold the actual game creators, themselves accountable for review scores that are often hampered due to shitty focus and hobbling by the publishers?
Anyway, who gives a fuck? I'm sorry if EA has to pay an intern or a Kelly girl to spend ninety minutes visiting websites and manually writing down scores of the games so they can make the determination themselves. Boo hoo.