I really hate the over-emphasis and reliance [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.393040-Halo-4-gets-a-2-10?page=1] on scores by gamers. I hate that some people think that just because there's a number means its objective. I hate how Metacritic turn everything into a 100 point system (especially when the scale was a star system which the reviewers detail what each score means). And I hate how Metacritic gives some sites more weight than others (this recently became an issue with a factually incorrect Gamespot review of Natural Selection 2. They ended up re-doing the review, but the original score stuck because that's Metacritic's policy). I hate that bonuses, such as in the case of Obsidian's Fallout: New Vegas, are sometimes tied to the Metacritic score. Are these the fault of the reviewer? No. It's just a broken system. Individually the scoring isn't so bad. But Metacritic's "opinion stew" (that's really what aggregated scores are) has too much sway these days. But the blame for these really does fall on the gamers and publishers who are too damn obsessed with it. If I hear one more person whining that a reviewer is just "trying to drag down the Metacritic average", I will...well I won't murder anyone. But I will sigh, shake my head and perhaps even write a perturbed reply! I'll do it, I swear!
Me? I do ignore the score and focus on the written review. There are a handful of reviewers (Destructoid has three of them: Jim, Jonathan, and Conrad) who "I get". Even if my opinion doesn't always align with theirs (though it fairly often does in the end), I have a good feel for their biases and what they emphasize. So I can read about what they didn't like and then think, "Yeah that really would bug me too" or "Meh, not as big a deal to me". This method works wonders for me.