To be fair, Metacritic is kind of a poor judge of quality. It's a review aggregator (much like Rotten Tomatoes), so the scores on the site don't actually mean what the vast majority of people think they mean. Very few people understand how review aggregators actually work.
A game with a Metacritic score of 90 isn't necessarily better (or even better reviewed) than a game with a Metacritic score of 80. A game can get nothing but lukewarm reviews that still count as "positive" and have a higher score than a game where the positive reviews are far more passionate and praising, but which is more divisive and has more overall "negative" reviews (even if those negative reviews are minor, complaining about nitpicky things, or are even protest reviews related to other socio-political or ideological agendas).
Then once you factor in things like reviewers having pro-corporate biases (or ones who've been outright paid to give positive reviews for terrible games/movies/etc) or the handful of contrarian reviewers who deliberately cultivate opposed views to most people so they can get hate-clicks to their site, the numbers get even more nebulous.
Sure, it can help give a rough idea of what people think of games (in the same way sales numbers can), but it doesn't really give any sort of objective value analysis (which way too many people tend to assume it does).
No I dont think games rated 87 are always better then 80 games but usually anything under 70 is trash and games above 80 are at least worth a try