GameSpot gave Knuckles a 6 because the best Knuckles episode barely has Knuckles.

The math aint mathing. GameSpot reviewed a show called Knuckles and somehow built the central positive argument around the moments where Knuckles is absent, which is like giving a restaurant six stars because the soup improved dramatically once the waiter removed the soup. The review admits the title character becomes a sidekick, mentor, and MacGuffin 'as the plot requires,' then calmly assigns a 6/10 as if that number was measured with a ruler instead of a breadstick dipped in vibes.

The funniest calculator crime scene is the quote itself: the show is apparently best when it focuses on Wade to the absence of Knuckles. That is not a criticism tucked inside a review; that is the review accidentally stepping on a rake and then awarding the rake 'Good slapstick fundamentals.' If the strongest episode of Batman was the one where Commissioner Gordon shops for printer ink, the correct response is not 'solid family comedy,' it is 'someone mislabeled the package at the franchise warehouse.'

Then the score arrives: 6/10. Not 4 for structural identity theft. Not 5 for 'this echidna has been replaced by bowling.' A clean, respectable 6, the numerical equivalent of shrugging while a mascot costume crawls out of a tax form. GameSpot's scale here behaves like a bathroom scale at a haunted carnival: it registers weight, but only after asking whether the brand synergy had a nice day.

Steve Watts does identify the problem, which is why this review earns two points instead of being sealed in a spreadsheet evidence bag. But identifying a fire and then complimenting the smoke for its confident choreography is still reviewer malpractice in a novelty hat. A review of Knuckles that praises the parts without Knuckles is not criticism; it is a hostage note written by a focus group with bowling shoes on. The math aint mathing.