I think it has more to do with the fact that water areas are a pain to deal with unless you got a ton of repels (which any respectable trainer should) I've always found the water areas to be a chore and slow down process (granted, many goodies and hidden areas are unlocked after getting surf/waterfall etc) IGN did worded that very stupidly however.

As for too much HMs, I agree. There is no reason in this day an edge why HMs have to be battle moves as well. They outta be just items that a pokemon with certain features can perform outside of battle (water pokemon can surf, pokemon with claws can cut, flying pokemon can fly, etc)

Explain why the original COD has nearly the same score as Advanced Warfare then? People are just using that as an excuse.

Legend of Zelda sucks, it has too many dungeons.

Anyway, this is pretty funny. I've had friends tell me that was one thing that turned them off from the third generation of Pokemon but I absolutely loved the water puzzles in the originals. It was a refreshing way to keep the trainer occupied without having them run into a Zubat every 2 seconds.

I have never played COD (apart from the zombie co-op level of Black Ops) so I can't comment on it. Have you played all the versions? People who play them have told me that despite some ignorant comments from people who hate the franchise, each COD is not the same. There are significant differences in every version (some times they lead to improvements, some times they don't). Bottom line, I haven't played it so I reserve judgement. 

Good for you explaing why you can't judge. But Call of Duty on the PS2 was just a Medal of Honor rip-off, so it was like Killzone. It failed to grasp what made the original good. Advanced Warfare feels the same. It's trying to copy games like Halo and failing to deliver. Neither deserved the scores they got.

The IGN review tells me absolutely nothing I didn't know already, and I had to go to Siliconera to find out what water OR/AS held.

Actually, scratch that. The IGN review told me absolutely nothing I knew already in two pages' worth of words.

Could it be that maybe, just maybe, the persons opinion changed over the last ten years (Did this person even review the original games? lol). We need to remember that reviews are just an opinion of one singular person. Can we all sit here and say that we are the same person today compared to ten years ago? I didn't like Dr Pepper a few years ago, now I drink it daily.

PROBABLY NOT. BUT I STILL DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW PEOPLE SAY THAT A GAME THAT WAS GOOD A FEW YEARS AGO WON'T BE GOOD NOW.

Too much!

Because games evolve. When I played Tekken 3 I thought it was the best fighting game ever. Last time I tried it a few years ago after having played Tekken 6 and other fighting games, I didn't really enjoy it. Not sure what has changed over the years but I feel like it has changed for the better. When I played Super Mario Bros 3 (ok quite an old game, but still), it felt basic as hell. Quite slow and everything was predictable. 

Same thing happened with Pokemon. I was a huge fan during the first generation (blue/red/leafgreen but when I played them again 3 years ago, I found them annoying. For some reason random zubat/ratata encounters bothered me less than they do now. Probably because my standards have risen after playing games like Nino Kuni.