No it doesn't. Gamespot prescribes to a different review system and allocate score based on the quality experience.

http://www.gamespot.com/review-guidelines/

Under their system, a game given a 5/10 is a mediocre experience. That's what they judge the game to be. Gamespot and other sites are well entitled to follow their own system and review games what fits them and their readers best.

Gamespot and other large media always provide their Review Guidelines, it is up to the reader to understant what the number means.What you are doing is interpreting the number to fit your beliefs and standards.

It seems Gamespot obviously give some games much lower scores than average. Don't know if this is only the case with Nintendo reviews or did they do this for other games too?

Have abandoned gamestop long time ago because their reviews doesn't seem to fit with me.

I guess they need clicks.

No hate from GS, just butthurt nintendrones that need to get over it.
Same with any PS4/Xbone exclusive that gets a 'poor' score. It's not hate, it's opinion.

They don't hate Nintendo, they just dislike their games.

The problem is that Nintendo games don't meet the high quality standards of a Gamespot critic, it's simple.

not really....  I am not fitting it my beliefs or standards.
What review sites are doing is interpreting the scale system  1 - 10 /10 wrong and fitting it THEIR standards. This results in a useless system of arbitrary numbers. We could very well just ignore all reviews. Every site having own "review guidelines" results in confusion.

This is also why you cant just use a 8/10 from site A and then whine about site B only giving 6/10.
I mean lets say I would start my own site and my guideline says "1/10 means perfect.  5/10 is almost perfect 10/10 is broken) Its MY fault when people dont understand that system. So I have to fix it or drop it. If I constantly have to clarify HOW my scores work and why I gave a game a specific score I am doing it wrong. The pure existance of the  "What do those numbers mean?" article on Gamespot shows how flawed their system is.

The reviewers dont really care about their own sites review guidelines and all those guidelines do is confuse people. Therefore its complete nonsense.

Either 5 means half broken (or lets just call it  "only half of the potential was used" becuase half broken sounds so harsh) or the scale system is nonsense.
Just imagine every game coming out from now on until the end of time will be perfect. Then every single game will be mediocre because mediocrity is the standard? Or what are they basing their understanding of "mediocre" on?

Seriously this alone "Please note that as the quality of gaming experiences naturally improves over time, we don't simply rate new games higher, even if they're technically better. Instead, as games come out that raise the bar, we adjust our expectations accordingly."  shows how retarded gamespots system is.
You cant just change your expectations because then you have to notify the reader EVERY TIME you change it.

Change the score system. You cant also just change the meaning of 5 you have to change the scale completely.   if 1-10 is not enough use a 1-100 scale. I mean these idiots even said it themselves "as games come out that raise the bar". Then raise the score bar accordingly  12/12 should be the new perfect or whatever.

Btw what they say is completely contradicting to whats actually happening. Mediocre games get the same or higher scores than great games got back then.

Or if you think "shit game from 2000 got a perfect score (lets say the scale is A-F)  Todays game is so much better but how do we show that todays game is much better than the 10 year old game?"
You do A+ A++ A+++ A+++ S S+ S++ S+++  or whatever. You change the scale not the meaning of the score.

The only way a system that is forever stuck at 1-10 works is if you add the "inflated score system" next to the normal score.
E.g  2000's game got 10/10  Todays game gets 10/10 (12/12)  Then sites like metacritic could use that INFALTED SCORE instead and would make perfect sense.

100 years from now we will probably have 1000/1000  scores on metacritic  but  thats still a much better solution than being stuck with 10.

Meanwhile they gave Super Mario 3d world a 9, Smash Bros U a 9, A Link Between Worlds a 9, and Bayonetta 2 a 10. And if I remember correctly they awarded A Link Between Worlds their game of the year of 2013... But no, they hate Nintendo.

Not absolutely everything Nintendo makes is gold. They've made quite a few mediocre titles imo.

This

Another conspiracy theory. I guess that it cant be that not everyone has the same opinions, I mean it happened even with the highest rated games.

The only odd thing is Donkey Kong and Rayman Legends.

Presumably they had someone different review Rayman on PS3. In terms DK they probably got someone bitter it wasn't metroid or someone is isn't a huge fan of platformers. I haven't heard one bad word about that game other then it not being vastly different from its predecessor.

Then again if I could be bothered to read the DK review maybe they have legit reasoning