I guess nintendo made them buy the pokemon games to review XD

Should the original score be knocked down those same points though?

Really, remakes should get 2 scores.  1 for those that played original and 1 for those that are new.

I mean how is someone who played the first one ale to percieve this score.  Why did it get 2 points lower than it did 10 years ago.  (or whenever game came out).  Was it a bad remake?  Was it buggy?  What made it so much worse than 10 years ago?  Playing most pokemon games I know that they always update the each new game with the new features of its most recent.  Meaning the rmakes will have all the new pokemon, it will have fairy type, ect.  So its not like the game mechanics would be outdated.  So why is the game 2 points lower.

Whats what I woudl be asking if I had played the game before.  

What's wrong with a reviewer being annoyed by over use of something and therefore factoring that into their score. Is this another "reviewers should leave their opinions out of reviews" threads.

If my enjoyment of a game was diminished because of too much water (which includes too much presence of water type monsters in this case), then I would reflect that annoyance in my score. It's also good to be open about that because for people who groove on the water types they will know it's actually a positive for them.

And what the eff is wrong with a 7.8 score? Gaddamit! Every time people talk about how reviewers are too generous with scores, next minute there's a thread that wants to burn a reviewer at the stake because they gave their favourite game a score in the high 7s. For fuck's sake! Bitch about reviewers that give games actual bad scores (like below 6) for trivial or minor points.

Threads like this are part of the problem.

IGN reviews are getting worse and worse. I can't believe a few years ago, I used to mainly base my purchase decision on IGN's score. :O

Depends if those things were considered flaws in the original I suppose. A remake is a chance to fix things that were problems in the original. But it should not necessarily be expected to completely modernise the game.

Having said that if someone were to remake a game like Icewind Dale I would want them to use more modern D'n'D rules for the game and not use the D'n'D rules that were in place at the time, merely because that's how it was in the original. So it's not totally black and white.

But how do you know the "water" thing wasn't just knocking the game down from an 8 to a 7.8. If the feature is annoying enough to the reviewer then the reason is valid. You might think the reason is weak, but if the reviewer offers a reasonable explanation for the things they don't like then that's all we should ask of them. We should not be asking them to only emphasis the things we see as legitimate strengths and weaknesses of a game for the purposes of marking up or down the score of a game.

But see that is the thing.  Pokemon always does update its game mechanics.  Pretty sure Omega Ruby has Fairy type pokemon.  They will have the new moves and all what not that have been added since its original release.

To me the review seems to be docking the game becuase it didn't like its setting.  That would be like docking Assasins Creed 4 because you are not a fan of sailing or water.  your biased.  And no, don't say there may be people out there like you that would like your review.  If there are people out there that hate sailing/water they will ignore AC4 the moment they see a 15 second trailer.  They don't need your review giving the game a bad score in order to pass it up.

This is the modern version of Watergate.

If I ran my own gaming media website, I'd tell my reviewers to write their opinion but that I'm still going to stick an 8 at the end.  Every single time.  No one ever complains about an 8.

That's at least a better than what I would've scored it. The name "Pokemon" on the tittle warrants the game to be at very least below 5 for me. :)