Jim Sterling just gave Resident Evil 6 a 3 out of 10.

I think I can handle a 6.5.

6.5 is a good score for pokemon game, IMO. What is the problem here?

As soon as you accept that GameSpot doesn't like Nintendo games, the sooner you can get on with life.

It's not really an outrage, it's just Jim Sterling. He does these things. It's getting generally disappointing scores from other critics, but more in the 7-8 range.

As for Pokémon, I'll wait till I've actually played the game before I make a judgement. ("I've never played the game before, but I know you're full of sh*t.") In particular, the line "You've played better versions of this before," has me unable to retort. Skyward Sword was a completely new and different experience for the series and the genre. This is still a Pokémon game, and that's fine, but if it's not "better" than previous games, I can see where he's coming from.

It still looks really excellent and I'm still going to buy it, though. The thing is, I haven't played a better version of this before. Haven't played a Pokémon game since Crystal. So maybe he shouldn't have assumed that Pokémon games only appeal to hardcore fans who play every iteration.

Destructoid, Polygon, and G4 also gave poor scores. And honestly, RE6 doesn't look that good to me.

Pokemon B/W 2 is my second favourite in the series after RSE, the premise itself is a change for Pokemon >.> The plot isn't weak, it's actually quite strong compared to the average Pokemon games, I really can't see this guys logic at all. It's worth a 9 at least. Gamespot seems to just like giving Nintendo games below-average reviews.

The same could be said about Halo, God of War, Call of Duty, Infamous, Metal Gear, Gears of War etc. Especially COD and Halo to an even greater degree. They don't have this problem with reviewers though. I wonder why...

Except all of these games have entirely new campaigns in often entirely new settings with often a multitude of new gameplay features and improved graphics, with maybe the exception of COD. And those games get low scores as well as high ones as well, nothing is being singled out. Not that I agree with KylieDog. 

Honestly guys, review scores are going to be pretty meaningless for Black/White 2. You already know if you're going to love it or not (Hint, if you liked Pokemon Black/White you're going to like Pokemon Black/White 2. Same goes for the opposite reaction.)

Already raising an all Dark team to transfer to the game the moment I start. Bring it on world!

Let's not forget that the main reason review scores seem inflated is because review outlets generally do not review shitty games (because they know no one cares about them). The review scale isn't broken or biased on the reviewer side as much as it is biased in the game selection side.

Anyways, on the topic of Pokemon, I think such a poor score doesn't make much sense. As others have pointed out, there are many, many other franchises (and genres, even) that have changed very little over the years. Pokemon has found its core style and it has been building on it ever since. I'm all for the advancement of the series (I sometimes wish they would push the innovative envelope more) but giving the game such a low score when they give madden, call of duty, etc. high scores seems wrongful to me.