Can someone explain to me Gamespot's Nintendo hate?

[outlawauron]

shikamaru317 said:

outlawauron said:

I know there aren't any that actually use it. It was sarcasm because the claim is dumb. The reason why most games get 50-100 is because the majority of games aren't bad or mediocre experiences. Every site or critic is guilty of scores on both sides of the spectrum. Trying to qualify one over the other can be quite difficult.

In the end the problem is that there is no scoring standard for video game reviews. Different critics use different scales, and the gamers themselves have completely different expectations in their heads about what is a good score and what is a bad score. Thanks to metacritic, alot of gamers nowadays have it in their heads that a 50 or 60 is bad, and anything below a 50 is so broken that it's unplayable. But to certain critics (Gamespot claiming to be among them), a 5 or a 6 is average, a 3 or a 4 is bad but playable, and a 1 or a 2 is so broken that it's unplayable.

The discrepancy could be solved if all of the major gaming publications would get together and decide on a single scoring system, pass that on to Metacritic, and then publicize the new scoring standard across all of their sites in order to change gamers scoring expectations. The smaller publications would eventually follow suit and there'd be alot less confusion about what is good and what is bad.

This I can agree with. Metacritic/Gamerankings should have some sort of membership requirements in that the sites are required to use the same scale so that the averages actually mean something.

Meta would also have to stop weighting the scores of different reviewers.