In a recent thread about the review process, someone brought up that they think review scores are bad and should be done away with.  I'm not familiar enough with the debate to know why anybody would think that, though. 
 
Review scores are obviously distorted by publishers and sites like Metacritic (which I don't think is a bad site in itself; you can't just take the numbers ascribed to products at face value), but so is the text of the review itself.  I've noticed this more with Rotten Tomatoes than Metacritic, but it seems like it's often the case that a film will recieve a Rotten rating from a critic while, at the same time, the blurb extracted for the website sounds totally positive.  The point is that reviews will always be grossly distorted by marketing teams.  Seeing "4/4 stars - Roger Ebert" on the back of a DVD case says much more to me than seeing a vaguely complimentary blurb that has a suspiciously placed ellipsis and could very well be followed by the phrase "but other than that, it's pretty much garbage" in the full text review. 
 
Because of review scores, I don't need to read about or play Starcraft II to know that it lived up to expectations (of sane people).  Similarly, a review score will let me know quickly if something is just as average (or just as awful) as I assumed it was.  I don't want to have to read three full-length articles (annoyingly spread out over multiple pages on most sites) to know I'm still not interested in a game.  If I see it has a 76 on Metacritic and I wasn't interested in the first place, I don't have to waste any time figuring out if it was surprisingly excellent.  The review text is for people who are on the fence about a game and need a detailed criticism to inform their purchasing decision.   I don't think there's anything wrong with going to Metacritic to find out if critics generally liked, were lukewarm about, or hated a game.  That's the point of a review score: to get a quick idea of a reviewer's reaction to a game.  If you're too curious or unsure about a game for that to be enough, you can read further and get the information you need.  However, not everybody needs or wants that information.
 
If you want to argue that people shouldn't buy games just because they have a score in the green on Metacritic, I totally agree, but this is the fault of lazy consumers, not irresponsible critics.  If someone doesn't know enough about their own tastes or care enough to read a few text reviews, they deserve to get burned on buying a game they didn't know they weren't interested in.
 
I really feel like review scores are necessary and I haven't heard an argument against scores that made any sense.  I'd really like to hear one, so if you hate review scores...fire away.