I've completed my Metacritic post and placed it below. The first half you've already read. Scroll down to the video embed to get to part two.
I see the point you are making - that basing payment for developers on metacritic scores is about the only incentive for the developers to put out quality work, when all other incentives run counter to that. However, I wonder if the solution of "leave things how they are" is really not the best solution to the problem. It sounds kind of unfair to the developers to say "Hey, you know how we wanted everything FAST and CHEAP? Well, triangle be damned, now it has to be GOOD too, or you don't get paid!" I think the only really good solution to this problem is to remove the disincentives to cranking out bad work. I'm not sure that's feasible. I think what the metacritic critics are getting at though is that the current measure of "did you do good work" is not a good measure. So even if the solution is "do it fast, cheap, AND good," then there should be a more objective, accountable measure of "good" than an arbitrary, mystical value cooked up by the black box that is metacritic.