I suspect if you think this of most papers you've either stumbled into a really bad cluster, or you've missed something about the purpose of the papers you've read.
I would agree that some papers are terrible though, I've seen a few I would never have let through review including in the very top journals.
I like the Plos mega journal approach but we can't do away with peer review altogether otherwise what separates science from the conspiracy posts that circulate on Facebook ...
Of course, take my semi-anonymous random internet opinion with a grain of salt (I've dropped out of college not once, but _twice_, so what do I know?). However, I'm moderately good at computer science topics, and have spent the last year reading and implementing papers in detail in pursuit of a fairly niche topic, and, what I was dismayed to find, is that most papers are absolute, complete and utter garbage. Like, honesty embarrassing. And that's before you even get into the fact that _you can't reproduce their results_.
Encountering this has been something of a crisis in my entire belief system, to be honest. Although, maybe I've just been exposed to what "real" science looks like: a big, gross, often wrong mess of assumptions about the world that takes a long, long time to correct.