You should probably start reading entire reviews, man. I just read the review out of curiosity, and you know what they actually said? "I know it's not new complaint, but Hoenn is still imbalanced type-wise, heavily favoring water. It's especially noticeable in Alpha Sapphire, in which Team Aqua...use a lot of water types." "You also have to navigate many bodies of water, since much of the late-game involves the HMs Surf and Dive to get from place to place. Diving was really neat back in 2002, but I found it incredibly tedious in Alpha and Omega -- an obvious example of how superfluous some HMs are." Games age, and it looks to me like the reviewer took into account both how they felt about the originals, and how the redone version stacks up against current games. In an RPG, an abundance of enemies of a certain type will get tedious, and imbalance the game's difficulty by making it too easy. And moving around a map is most of what you do in an RPG, so if that base action isn't enjoyable, there's a problem. And then, in the Verdict, which I imagine is all you read, not only does the reviewer say the game does a fantastic job of reintroducing Hoenn, but also that small updates and tweaks help make the journey smoother. And as a remake, it's imperfections are still there. Sounds pretty straight-up to me. Remakes often carry the original flaws with them. Anything else you need me to debunk?

Maybe the fact that it is a remake? Most people who play ORAS had played the original and were willing to play the next iteration regardless of the amount of "water" in the game. Yes, water type is the most common pokemon type, and yes there is a lot of surfing, but the reviewer reviewed the game as a person who has not played the originals, or as someone who is planning to make their debut to pokemon in ORAS. If Gamefreak made changes to the actual Hoenn region, then people would complain that it is not a remake, but rather a sequel. The game was marketed as an updated Ruby/Sapphire, so IGN need to recognise that simply having "too much water" is not a solid enough reason to have a negative opinion on the game. What do you expect Team [b][i][u]AQUA[/b][/u][/i] to have other than Water Types? Pokemon Games are known to just be trainer after trainer, and having played every single Pokemon Game to date, I can definately say it is boring. However, the fact that IGN gave COD:AW a 9/10 for having LITERALLY the same game for like 10 years in a row, shows that IGN's reviews are biased. I dont mind the 7.8/10 for ORAS, but at least give us reasons that are valid? [spoiler]I read the whole review[/spoiler]

As a long-time RPG player, I view complaints like overabundance of the same enemy type/weakness and tedious traversal as serious problems. And multiple times throughout the review, the reviewer actually mentions the original games and specifically how the mechanics, while not bothersome originally, don't mesh with modern game design philosophies and advancements. [spoiler]Your reading comprehension sucks.[/spoiler]

Pokemon is extremely different to most RPGs. It is extremely hard to balance typing etc. as they need to think about levels of pokemon, species etc. Which all account for the overall difficulty of the game. Water Types are common because the early gyms are usually weak to water, and plus, as Hoenn is based a lot on water, People would need access to water types for surfing. Team Aqua is primarily based in a submarine, and it would make sense if they used water types. If they radically changed typing etc. then it would divert from the original idea of having a 3ds remake of the original games, and if this was the case, IGN would just say it isnt really a remake and perhaps give it an even worse score. [spoiler]Oi dont dog[/spoiler]