Games of this generation are getting much better year after year.With developers dedicated to learning more about how to use the Xbox 360 and PS3s hardware better and spending countless hours working on their game to make it the next big thing.And because of this reviewers usually tend to bump up the games overall score.Reviewers fawn over the big budget triple A games resulting in them praising the games in their reviews.And theres no doubt about it that some of these games are great but do they deserve the high scores reviewers give them when there so easy?

Take games like Modern Warfare 2,and Alan Wake for example,there all were very hyped,they all had big budgets,and they all got great review scores.But did any of you guys play through these games more then once or twice?Game reviews do touch on all subjects including how easy or hard the game is but even though this does get a mention it doesnt have a big enough factor in the overall score.I dont know about you guys but after i played through Modern Warfare 2 and saw how short and easy the game was i felt kinda mad.And even on the highest difficulty setting the game is still easy as he*%.Here on GameSpot Red Dead Redemption got a 9.5 on both 360 and PS3 and although i dont have the game i have heard from loads of people about how easy it is to complete the game now shouldnt that alone made that 9.5 come down to at least a 8.9 or so?Triple A titles are expensive these days and we shouldn't forget that we're in the midst of a global recession; reviewers have a responsibility to mark games not just on their graphical stand point or there story but on their longevity and replayability.Us gamers aren't made of money and i dont know about you guys but if i spend $60 i want it to be worth every penny.

~JordanizPro