This man better go into protective custody.

Darn that Gamestop!

the idea that you can't have fun with a game below 7 is a large part of why there is score inflation that people often blame the journalists for. 6.5 means decent, and a decent video game is still pretty fun.

I have no clue.

I just that because he gave a Nintendo game a 6.5.

I remember what happened when someone decided to be horrid and give Twilight Princess an 8.8, so this guy is even more danger.

Why should it get a lower score? Should be the same, or maybe v. slightly lower for repetition

While I am not one to normally agree with KylieDog, he has a point about the fact that Pokemon is essentially the same core game time-after-time.

However, that has not stopped reviewers from gushing over from many of the FPS and sandbox games which essentially are different window dressing on the same events.

So while there is a point here -- the point is that reviewers are biased and give better scores to games they like to play rather than viewing them on their own merit.  And no game is everyone's cup of tea.

Mike from Morgantown

PS -- it was funny to watch my 10-year-old son engage three Gamestop GSAs in a Pokemon conversation on Saturday. 

I pre ordered my Wii U from Gamestop. They aren't that bad. Now, GameSPOT, on the other hand.......

i agree with you 

dude GameSPOT not STOP :)



Btw. The score inflation happened becaue reviewers were dumb and gave shitty games higher scores than good original games. They devalued the meaning of a 7 8 or 9. 

Its the reviewers fault noone elses.  I mean I bought plenty of 7.5 games back in the day but alot of todays 8.3 or so games are still outclassed by old 7.5 games.

And another thing is reviewers give some games shitty scores because they didnt evlolve enough  but other games dont get low scores even tho they evolved even less.  The whole system is stupid. 

And btw  You cant just give a game a low score because its to similar to the previous game  because NOT EVERYONE played the first game. 

its just stupid to say  "VERSION 2 is slightly better but has not evolved enough to get the same score than V1"How the hell can the version 2 get a lower score then?  People who have not played 1 now think 2 is shittier  but its not.

They should come up with new reviews already.   Review  singleplayer  independantly from multiplayer  review the game  alone  and compared to other games. 

One single arbitrary number is not enough to tell people how good or bad a game is. (I mean you already rate story etc. so why not make it more fair?)

Just like COD/Madden/FIFA, (in fact, those three are worse) yet those don't get nearly enough flak for it.