Odd that Gamespot consistently gives 3DS games lower scores?

Another review, and another surprising low score for a huge 3DS game. Yeah Pokemon X and Y received an 8.0 from Gamespot. I find it extremely odd that even with Nintendo's incredibly strong 3DS library, Gamespot seems extremely reluctant to give higher scores to 3DS games. There's only a handful of 3DS games with a score of 8.5 too. I find it very strange. 3DS in my opinion has an extremely strong lineup of games, and surely tons of games are worthy of a 9 score or higher. I know 9.0's should only be given to the very best games, but 3DS already has several amazing games already, so atleast a couple of them should be worthy of 9s. What I find even more strange is that the Vita has 3 titles rated a 9.0 or higher, and the Vita lineup is very weak compared to 3DS. I know you guys are thinking, well its opinion so the score doesn't matter, but seriously, has not one editor really not felt any games on the 3DS is amazing yet. Its not only that they haven't gotten 9's yet, its that games that seem to release on 3DS and Wii-U have underwhelming scores compared to other reviews. Its not like they are extremely picky with giving out 9's and 8.5's, other games on Xbox 360 and PS3 have been getting fairly high scores. Also when I read the reviews there are usually only 1 or 2 small issues about the game. Super Mario 3D Land got an 8.0 and the only issue with the game was that Spotpass features were limited. I don't know if anyone else notices. I just find it to be a bit bias, everytime a Nintendo game seems to come out, its almost like Gamespot takes what the score reall should be and deducts a point because its Nintendo.

Here's a list of 3DS games that I felt deserved a higher score from Gamespot:

Fire Emblem: Awakening: GS score: 8.5, Metacritic: 92

Legend of Zelda Ocarina of Time 3D: GS score: 8.5, Metacritic: 94

Pushmo: GS score: 8.5, Metacritic: 90

Pokemon X & Y: GS Score: 8.0, Metacritic: 89

Animal Crossing: New Leaf: GS Score: 8.0, Metacritic: 87

Donkey Kong Country Returns 3D: GS Score: 7.0, Metacritic: 83

Super Mario 3D Land: GS Score: 8.0, Metacritic: 90

Star Fox 64 3D: GS Score: 7.5, Metacritic 81

Luigi's Mansion Dark Moon: GS Score: 6.5, Metacritic: 86

Monster Hunter Tri Ultimate: GS Score: 7.0, Metacritic: 79

New Super Mario Bros. 2: GS Score: 7.0, Metacritic: 78

To put this into perpective, the average GS score of all the games I listed averages to be a bit under 77 or 7.7, while the the metascore however averages out to be a little above around 86% or 8.6. That's essentially an 1.0 GS score. Its quite a difference. All 11 of these games are also probably top 20 best 3DS games. These aren't the only games I thought gamespot underrated either, they are just the ones where the difference stood out the most to me. Please share your opinions.

I was thinking about this just a moment ago as I was reading the review for Pokemon X & Y. I think they would be better served to get rid of the score altogether or explain what it is that they are deducting points for and how the score is calculated. It seemed like the big complaint against Pokemon X & Y was thye frustration of the excessive occurance of random encounters. How many points are docked because of that? Two whole points? 

I always look at it as a minor thing, but then I realize many people make their purchases off of other peoples opinions rather their own opinion/what they enjoy. Quite sad really that people will openly pass up games due to scores without ever trying a demo or researching the game. Moving away from a score is possible, but there would be backlash due to the people who can't make purchasing decisions themselves and system wars "lol fl0p and AAAE" nonsense.

I have always bought or tried games that I think I would enjoy... even with low review scores.

It would be nice to see some higher scores for the sake of the developers though. Must be painful for games on Nintendo systems/Nintendo first party games whenever they get hit with the "rehash/not original/same as always" tag in reviews - potentially lowering the score. Yet certain yearly franchises or ones that have seen an entire series released in the same generation get flawless 9's-10's. That is why I ignore the number and read the review. If I'm still not convinced I'll wait until more info is available or listen to other gamers.   

Don't care, haters gonna hate maynee.

Gamespot has been giving low scores for years, reason why it's extremely idiotic to base how good a game is by only looking at the GS score. Actually reading the reviews beats whatever score anyone gives because you'll understand what about the games they liked or disliked. For example, those looking for a great story, a complete overhaul in gameplay, and a game that uses stereoscopic 3D all the time will be disappointed with Pokemon X & Y because those are the most common complaints in reviews. Those who don't mind these faults will love the games. Just looking at a score is not enough.

Another review, and another surprising low score for a huge 3DS game. Yeah Pokemon X and Y received an 8.0 from Gamespot. FPS1337

What I find even more strange is that the Vita has 3 titles rated a 9.0 or higher, and the Vita lineup is very weak compared to 3DS. FPS1337

omg...pokemon got 8.0?

damn... who reviewed it? mcshea or carolyn?

[QUOTE="FPS1337"]

Another review, and another surprising low score for a huge 3DS game. Yeah Pokemon X and Y received an 8.0 from Gamespot. Blabadon

Nothing wrong with the scores, just peoples mindsets and how they think anything other than a 9 is shit. 

All these games are great (which is 8) but I wouldn't say any of them are anything groundbreaking. 

I think the 8 was justified and the score itself shows it's a good game. But since a lot of other game scores feel inflated, when they have some of the same downsides (not enough "innovation" with game sequels being the core example here), it puts these games into a slightly more negative light than they deserved when people start directly comparing review scores. Which means that either 3DS/Nintendo games need to recieve that equal mild inflation at times or other reviews need to be toned down in score when appropiate, the latter of which I think would add more value to review scores in general. My main issue is not the scores themselves, but the lack of consistancy in how they score certain aspects they note as being downsides across many different games, systems, series, genres, etc.

I think the 8 was justified and the score itself shows it's a good game. But since a lot of other game scores feel inflated, when they have some of the same downsides (not enough "innovation" with game sequels being the core example here), it puts these games into a slightly more negative light than they deserved when people start directly comparing review scores. Which means that either 3DS/Nintendo games need to recieve that equal mild inflation at times or other reviews need to be toned down in score when appropiate, the latter of which I think would add more value to review scores in general. My main issue is not the scores themselves, but the lack of consistancy in how they score certain aspects they note as being downsides across many different games, systems, series, genres, etc.

Gloryfinder

I see CBS Interactive at the bottom of each GameSpot page. I always read rumblings of CBS being heavily affiliated with MS. Wind Waker HD was heavily advertised on IGN and look at the score the remake got...9.8.

This is the reality of associated press in specific industries. They are in bed with the companies of the products they review.

They rate handheld games low in general here. I really don't know why. I get when it's something like those crappy handheld versions of the Lego games or whatever since those games are legitimately bad but when the games are actually good, it seems like they are comparing them to some high standard set by PC and home console games that doesn't really exist in reality. In any case, I just add one to the scores given here to handheld games and that gives you a pretty fair comparison in my opinion.

For what it's worth, I actually like that GameSpot rates lower than other sites. They are critics being critical. That is good. Critics should disagree. The trick is to find one you like and go w/ them. This doesn't excuse treating handheld titles as second class citizens though.

they do this for almost every game on every system. don't go playing the bias game. Gamespot just hates games and their reviewers suck =P