No, we don't. The outcry of some internet hipsters =/= professional review sites putting their horn rimmed glasses on.

It's simple. Nintendo is kiddy and thus not part of the cool kids club. Cool kids love to pick on kiddys to demonstrate their superiority. But it doesn't matter because Nintendo IP's like Pokemon and Mario have transcended the industry to a point where people don't even care to look up reviews for those games, because they are synonymous with quality. And they are right, because those games are good, just like Call of Duty or AC3 are good games. It's not the games fault that you played every itteration and are sick of it. I'll be playing Call of Duty for the first time this year and I have a felling that I will like it.

the typical "It is good, but it is bad" review... i think people think they are smarter when they give this kind of review...

Changing the core gameplay = bad. Basic battle mechanics, catching, trainers/wild pokemon, towns/routes.

Changing the content of the game = good. "You start in a house with your mom and then a professor makes you choose a fire water grass starter and then your rival picks the other one then you walk to eight gyms while fighting an evil Team and meeting rival, then the final battle with Team involves a legendary they've captured/harnessed, after which you face the Elite Four and go into the Hall of Fame". - every pokemon game, getting very tired now.

Can people distingush one from the other? I want the content to surprise/excite me, but I still want it to be the same game I enjoyed playing last time.

So I want Pokemon to still be Pokemon (and not, say, Colosseum or Mystery Dungeon) but I want to not know what the story/structure of the game is before picking it up, and I want to explore new and exciting places than just flat route -> flat cave. Huge snowy mountains/volcanoes/deserts you can get lost in would be awesome.

Well so you actially agree with me that reviews are stupid.  When the important stuff is written on all the I dunno 5 pages or is said in the 10 minutes before the score why do they use this stupid score system at all?  When the score cannot reflect what was written/ment by the reviewer there should not be a score at all!

Do you know what I like? The Kotaku reviews.  It has no stupid score system   sure it tells you to buy or not to buy a game which is also not ideal because it depends on the person you are but it at least ignores the stupid point/score system  and makes it a simpll yes or no  with a seperate Info box  about wahts good and whats bad  and the usual  block text.

I mean even just talking about a game would still be more usefull than giving the game arbitrary  numbers

And about the Fifa example. Well lets say Fifa comes out in october. Every game should have some sort of activation code you have time untill 31st December of the same year to register the game online.  And only the ones that bough the price game and registered it in time should be allowed to get the next fifa for 15 dollars as DLC  (because Fifa 13 is basically a Fifa 12 DLC when it comes to content) Everone else would need to buy it full price.

So just waiting for a game to drop to 5 pounds/euros/dollars and then getting the new version for cheap is impossible. If you bought Fifa 13 as a DLC for Fifa 12 you also get a code you have to register but they are different from the retail codes so your can be sure Fifa 13 as DLC donwload version is not bought for just 2 dollars or something. 
This could be some sort of "reward system for patrons"  I know this system needs alot of tweaks and some after thought etc But I am pretty sure it would work.

I'd prefer if Nintendo stuck to formulas more.

Then Zelda would still be good.

It still is good but they just made alot of mistakes.

 Making it 3 "levels" instead of a world sucked.

They should make more different areas again 3 is not enough. And more exploration is NEEDED! because the 3  "levels" felt like work from the moment you landed there to the boss battle inside the dungeon.  The only place to relax was Skyloft and 1 town is not enough....

I did not finish the game yet (I am almost done) but this was the first time I really cared about whats happening  because  Zelda was your friend not just a random rich chick. So storywise it was awesome  IMHO. I also have no problem at all with the length of cutscenes or "tutorial". (just two days ago I watched all the cutscenes up to the point where I am in the game. It was like watching a movie)

Summary:

I want (a):
-Bigger world.
-More stuff to find/do/explore (more secrets etc.)
-More towns.
-Finally a smart reason for all the rupees (I dont want to repair my stuff THATS WORK! I play Zelda games because I want be an adventurer etcl) I dunno let   me buy a house and alot of stuff to decorate it etc. Better than  buying new shields because they break or giving me a shitty red armor like Twilight Pricness that consumes money  WTF.... 

The reviews will always be bias, if the guy reviewing the game is a Nintendo/Sony/MS fan and that game belongs exclusive to either of those companies, the game will get a high score and vice versa (few exceptions are when the game really sucks, or it's really good). It's really hard to find a non bias game reviewer these days.

As for the game itself, I can see why people are "annoyed" by this game. There is no doubt Pokemon have changed over the years (more species, more Pokemon types, different areas) but for most people, those changes are minimal when you're trying to compare all the games in the franchise. 

A hardcore Pokemon fan can talk all day about the changes in stats, types and other stuff, but in the end those changes don't matter for the non Pokemon fan. In a way it's similar to the COD fans defending the franchise for adding more guns.

I have played all Pokemon games,  but I didn't liked gen 3 and 4 games. I did enjoy Pokemon Black and White because I felt (for the first time in a Pokemon game) that the story matter and it was really interesting (always reminds me of a more serious PETA lol) and I hope future games in the franchise continue that.

I agree.  Changing gameplay and changing content are two different things but people often lump them together when they refer to "formula".  Fallout NV is literally Fallout 3 in terms of mechanics; the content, however, makes it a completely different game and awesome in its own right.  If it had the same setting, characters, and story as Fallout 3, then it would have been guilty of offering nothing new at full cost.

I think that's part of what bothers people, when they're having to pay full price for something that clearly took little effort to produce.  It feels like you're being ripped off and used.  This, in my opinion, is the perfect use of DLC, to let people extend play-time in the original game with new content.  New games should offer new content.

Nintendo, I think, realizes that many die-hard Nintendo fans will give them a free pass on pretty much anything, though.

I haven't played B/W and B/W2, and I haven't played MW3, but I've played some pokemon before and COD:BO. I realize that MW2 is very similar to BO, and so I'd be surprised there would be much of a diff between BO and MW3. So, I'm not sure why gamespot sould judge COD more kindly for continuing what works and not pokemon. It seems unfair.

UltimateUnknown, would your point be applicable to MW3?

Games should be reviewed on jobs they are doing for the customer.

Example: Wii Fit did something that the customer didn't have before, Wii Music did not. Although both would score low in the traditional categories of graphics, sound, presentation and so on, and 'gamers' would hate both, they clearly deserve different scores.

Pokemon B/W 2 is clearly an expansion, people will buy it as an expansion (and skip it if they don't care), and it should be judged on that basis. If the next mainline Pokemon game doesn't have lots of new content it deserves these scores, but not now. It's doing the job the customer expects.