• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Do LoZ games get inflated review scores just because it has Zelda in the title?

Do zelda games get inflated review scores?


  • Total voters
    138
  • Poll closed .

Kilau

Gold Member
Well Yes But Actually No GIF by walter_


Spirit Tracks is a garbage game tho
 

MagnesD3

Member
Yes and no, they are amazing games but not all of them deserve the 10s they got, Skyward Sword (still like a 9.5-9.6) and Breath of the Wild come to mind (even if it's the 3rd best zelda).
 
Last edited:

ReBurn

Gold Member
I don't think Zelda games score high just because of Zelda in the title. Nintendo puts a lot of effort into those games and they are generally very well made. A lot of people genuinely love the games.

I did not like BOTW. I think the open world is boring and I put it down after 10 hours or so. I think it has flaws and they kept me from enjoying it. But it's a well made game overall.

Review scores are subjective because they are created by humans. They can't be the only metric someone uses to evaluate the quality of a game because reviewers can be biased. The trick is finding reviewer reviewers who share your taste in games and reading what they have to say about the games you're interested in. A lot of publications let huge fans of a franchise write the reviews and I think that sometimes creates an incomplete picture for people who aren't already huge series fans. There's no fixing reviews so it kind of is what it is. Just don't trust scores as the only method of evaluating the quality of a game.
 
Yes, humans have bias...theres a few games I'd give higher scores cause I'm a fan of the IP. Alien isolation would have gotten a 10 from me even tho it's probably closer to an 8...same with signalis. So if you grew up on zelda, mario etc you will probably give them higher scores. and they put people who love the franchise on the review...remember when James Stephanie Sterling gave botw a 7 and everyone got on them for it not being high enough or the people who leave gow of their goty...humans grow attachment to many thing including ip.
 

Neff

Member
MGS was easily a better game

I dig MGS but I would strongly refute this.

Wind waker is all charm little substance

Agreed. It's under-nourished and none of the dungeons are particularly memorable. Still a fun, competent game but apart from the sailing it doesn't stand out compared to other titles in the series. I don't know what happened to Nintendo of Japan during the early '00s but they released some very underwhelming tentpole releases (Sunshine, the DS Zeldas).
 
Last edited:

UnNamed

Banned
EVery Zelda game is overly praised at launch, the real critic comes after some month.

Twilight Princess is a bland Zelda, not bad, just bland with few (not well implemented) new ideas and a bad overworld, but it has 95 on Metacritics. It's a 80 game at best.
 

Hendrick's

If only my penis was as big as my GamerScore!
I think it has more to do with it being a Nintendo game. BotW was a huge letdown for me.
 

22•22

NO PAIN TRANCE CONTINUE
Dearest thicc_girls_are_teh_best thicc_girls_are_teh_best .

If you can't notice the difference between sponsored "reviews" and random non affiliated footage/impression then I don't know what to say.

Enjoy your hyped up reviews I guess.

Ow and there's nuance at play. Most of the time negative stuff of TEH EXPERIENZE is brought in such a way it doesn't seem an issue. No name YouTube players aren't the same.
 
Last edited:
Dearest thicc_girls_are_teh_best thicc_girls_are_teh_best .

If you can't notice the difference between sponsored "reviews" and random non affiliated footage/impression then I don't know what to say.

Enjoy your hyped up reviews I guess.

Ow and there's nuance at play. Most of the time negative stuff of TEH EXPERIENZE is brought in such a way it doesn't seem an issue. No name YouTube players aren't the same.

I can spot the difference quite well, but you're making it sound like the former constitutes the bulk of reviews for ND/R*/Nintendo games and that's a big claim to make.

If you have some actual examples of reviews doing that, I'd like to see them. Not saying they don't exist, just that the majority are likely genuine even if they're also mindful of publisher relationships. And we have examples of reviewers who go in the opposite direction simply for attention as well, being contrarian simply for the sake of it.

Those examples don't make up the majority, either, but every once in a while you can see a pattern develop suggesting it's the case and then things get handled from there. I.e Stevivor (or for an older example, some Amiga magazines dinging late Team 17 games because they didn't get review copies or early access).
 

DeaconOfTheDank

Gold Member
Good answer. I would also add that the dedication to craft is also a major factor. Everything is, hardware permitting, of a very high standard, from design, to art, to controls and the robustness of the engine/code itself. The quality level for Zelda titles is difficult to match and you can see that in its many inferior clones.
Indeed. The level of polish + quality that Nintendo brings to the Zelda formula is another thing that further distinguishes it from all the copy-cats.
 

22•22

NO PAIN TRANCE CONTINUE
I can spot the difference quite well, but you're making it sound like the former constitutes the bulk of reviews for ND/R*/Nintendo games and that's a big claim to make.

If you have some actual examples of reviews doing that, I'd like to see them. Not saying they don't exist, just that the majority are likely genuine even if they're also mindful of publisher relationships. And we have examples of reviewers who go in the opposite direction simply for attention as well, being contrarian simply for the sake of it.

Those examples don't make up the majority, either, but every once in a while you can see a pattern develop suggesting it's the case and then things get handled from there. I.e Stevivor (or for an older example, some Amiga magazines dinging late Team 17 games because they didn't get review copies or early access).

Not my intention to set out any big claims. Lost my trust in gaming sites a long, long time ago, hence my cynicism.

There are so many "reviewers" whether operating from within a corporation or independently.
I don't know where the fuck to look to find someone which views/tastes resonate with mine.

Fuck looking for something that resonates.

Couple minutes of gameplay. Maybe read up on whatever and I'm done.


That whole IGN/Whatever preview/review part surely fueled the hype fire 20 years ago that's for sure.
 
Last edited:
You can answer that question by going to several N64 games when gaming online journalists were growing on sites like Metacritic, or even Game Rankings (look for the archive) and you will see the answer is yes.

In these you'll notice for many games incredibly high MC scores, including LOZ, but if you look through the lists that comprise of reviewers than you will find that reviewers that did review those games at the time of their relevance, were not included in the aggregates for those games, but were for other N64 games, and it's only when you take a dive into the weighing where you realize that the most likely reason that may be the case is because including those would make the scores lower. What's really odd about that is for some games the scores would still be 90 or above.

I've also noticed that some of these games have a lot of biased single series/platform focused sites making up the aggregate as well. I'm not saying the more credible of those shouldn't be included, but I think partisan sites should be limited in review weighing, and I think there needs to be some regulation in what counts as a "site" to be included when jimmys blog is one of those sites. The same blog that sometimes uses a spinner for news articles.
 
Not my intention to set out any big claims. Lost my trust in gaming sites a long, long time ago, hence my cynicism.

There are so many "reviewers" whether operating from within a corporation or independently.
I don't know where the fuck to look to find someone which views/tastes resonate with mine.

Fuck looking for something that resonates.

Couple minutes of gameplay. Maybe read up on whatever and I'm done.


That whole IGN/Whatever preview/review part surely fueled the hype fire 20 years ago that's for sure.

I understand the pessimism, but for me I tend to look at smaller reviewers or content creators I like to watch, who may have played the game, and see what they say. Another thing I do is wait until the launch hype dies down and see what's said afterwards when things have cooled down.

If it's a game in a long-running IP I also look at retrospective analysis of previous entries just to get a full-informed understanding of the IP's history, if it's one I'm not completely familiar with but may have a new installment releasing I'm interested in playing. That way I at least have a good bearing on if the new game will be to my tastes.

Some of the cynicism you have IMO, I'm sure older gamers back in the '00s or '90s had for game magazine reviews especially "official" magazines like Nintendo Power, Official PlayStation Magazine etc. So it's not a new problem, it's just due to the internet & social media there are a lot more reviewers than there used to be. Which means more BS, but you still have the genuine reviewers around.

Personally for reviews I read to see what things they were looking for out of the game, if I even prioritize those, if they stayed in the scope of the game when reviewing it, if there was any sly agenda-pushing in the review (either idpol or corporate shilling, or both), and take the reviewer's game preferences and past reviews into account before deciding whether to even acknowledge or discard their review for myself. Even if I consider it, those things will help determine whether I take their scores at face value or a point or two up/down (on a 10-point scale) considering whatever was actually said in the review.

You can still be optimistic about it all even while acknowledging the shortcomings of the review system today. At least it's somewhat better with games versus, say, the film industry (though yeah, they've been converging more and more with each year in terms of review credibility, to the detriment of the gaming side).
 

ByWatterson

Member
100%.

The cut-and-paste dungeon + camp + tower formula Ubisoft ran into the ground was somewhat updated in Breath of the Wild, and critics raved uncontrollably.

Don't get me wrong, it does a lot right, and is a solid 9 out of 10, but a lot of that score comes from nostalgic feels induced by its lineage, particularly Ocarina of Time. It's weapon durability system alone disqualifies it from getting a perfect score, and yet it received almost all 10s.

In other words, Breath of the Wild got 10s because its predecessors were important to the reviewers.
 

Kokoloko85

Member
Zelda has a magic feel to it, something most games don’t have. And most the time they bring it.
Yeah it will have issues but it is out weighted by the awesomeness.

Rockstar I think more but at the same they also bring a certain magic to alot of their games other cant replicate.

People trying to add in Playstation no lol. Spiderman, Ghost of Tsushima, Horizon never got 90’s, they deserved 80’s.
The games that got 90 like Returnal, TLOU, Uncharted, God of War, Bloobborne, Demon Souls etc. All deserve their scores.
Death Stranding deserved a 90, I know its divided but I loved it
 
Last edited:

Fbh

Member
I'd say that's true for classic Nintendo franchises in general. But yeah Zelda in particular.

BotW was awesome but had too many glaring issues to have a 97% metascore. And let's not get started on Skyward Sword (its fun but it's like a 8/10 at best)
 

Azurro

Banned
Zelda has a magic feel to it, something most games don’t have. And most the time they bring it.
Yeah it will have issues but it is out weighted by the awesomeness.

It does not have a magic feeling, it's all nostalgia. I never played Zelda on the NES or the SNES, and by the time I got OoT I was thinking the game was good but that I didn't understand why everyone was so hyped up about it.
 

Kokoloko85

Member
It does not have a magic feeling, it's all nostalgia. I never played Zelda on the NES or the SNES, and by the time I got OoT I was thinking the game was good but that I didn't understand why everyone was so hyped up about it.

Maybe its just not for you or probably the issues outweighed the positives.

I didnt play Zelda on Nes and Snes at the time, and when I played them years later I didn’t think they were amazing.
I started with OOT and had no expectations. Yes Twilight Princess and Wind Waker had tideos issues but the the way Zelda games puts the things I like together like puzzles, combat, music, a fantasy setting and the way it does side quests and NPC’s I enjoy alot, and different to alot of games. .

The magic feeling doesnt always mean nostalgia, you can get it from a new movie, or series/game etc. For me its when the world feels more alive and has charm, or it could be how realistic the voice acting and good the story telling is, or even music.

Games like Mario and Zelda has its unique feel and style, if your not a fan thats cool, but overall they do what they do quite well. Im not a fan of Mario Galaxy 1-2 but they still do a great job of Platforming with that Mario/Nintendo charm that most games dont have.

Rockstar, has some annoying mission structure and Im not a huge fan of the GTA series outside GTA4 and the Red Dead series but they are probably still amogst the best at putting it altogether in open world games, maybe not combat, but variety, story telling, decent gameplay and voice acting.
 

blacktout

Member
Nintendo games are primarily reviewed by Nintendo fans, and Nintendo fans tend to not play outside the ecosystem.

What. I might understand if we were talking about user reviews or something but do you really believe that the majority of professional game reviewers play only on one platform? Only a small percentage of reviews are from platform-specific sites like Nintendo Life. Maybe that's enough to impact the Metacritic score by a point or two but not enough to hugely skew it.

To answer the question in the OP: Not relative to other major first party Nintendo or Sony franchises, no, but there's probably some bias when compared to a new or less prestigious franchise. Reviewers can't go in completely blind, so they're always going to bring some bias to their work.
 

EverydayBeast

thinks Halo Infinite is a new graphical benchmark
Great series they struggle a little with cinematic cutscenes but it's a whole different animal.
 
I am thinking mostly from the Gamecube and Wii generation. Yes, Wind Waker was an achievement in graphics and deserves its high scores, but Twilight Princess and Skyward Sword did bring nothing special to the table imo. They are not 90-95+ games. It felt more like, here is a brand new zelda, it will score 10/10 automatically. yes some Zelda games are really awesome while it seems that others just surf on the brandname.

Do Review publications have a tendency to overscore Zelda games? What's your thoughts.
They score well because they are great games. I will agree that skyward sword sucked but I think TP is one of the best Zelda's out there. I'd probably put 3rd behind OoT and a link to the past.

Btw, can we stop with this whole "bring nothing new to the table". Every game doesn't need to innovate, nothing wrong will just fine tubing sequels.
 

StreetsofBeige

Gold Member
I can only go on the Zelda games I played which were old ass NES and SNES games. I didnt play more because I stopped buying Nintendo systems when PS1 came about.

But at that time, the Zelda games were great for action/RPG games on console. Despite many people and critics not liking Zelda II (which I found out when the internet came about), I thought it was the best one I played back then. I thought the game was much better as a side scroller and it was way harder than the overhead games, which I liked. The enemy knights with shields were such a pain in the ass!
 

Kataploom

Gold Member
It does not have a magic feeling, it's all nostalgia. I never played Zelda on the NES or the SNES, and by the time I got OoT I was thinking the game was good but that I didn't understand why everyone was so hyped up about it.
This is literally you saying the game art combination is not for you, which is ok, RDR and those realistic slow games bore me to dead and they're still highly regarded, it's ok to not like things
 

Aldric

Member
Skyward Sword was scored too high, the other games were scored properly. Zelda is objectively one of the most important and influential franchises of all time with at least four games that codified the action/adventure genre and are cited as inspiration by industry figures as varied as Dan Houser, Yoko Taro, Hideki Kamiya, Team Cherry, Hidetaka Miyazaki, Fumito Ueda, Amy Henig and countless others, a few forum dwelling idiots terrible taste and lack of knowledge about the history of the media notwithstanding.

You know what consistently gets completely undeserved critical acclaim though? Modern Sony's garbage nothing games like Horizon, TloU or nu GoW with their shallow automated gameplay mechanics, Netflix special tier stories for MCU enthusiasts and hideous protagonists.
 
Last edited:

AJUMP23

Member
I think most games get an inflated review at initial release. It is new and there is hype and the scores are based more on expectation than actual game. The best way to score a game is to let the initial hype pass by and then over time the consensus forms.

Skyward sword is inflated. But Botw and LttP should be 10s all around.
 

consoul

Member
Zelda: the Wand of Gamelon & Zelda's Adventure seem to disprove the theory that having Zelda in the name means a good review score.
 

Marvel14

Banned
Phantom Hourglass is the shittiest Zelda by far for me and its sitting at 90+ on Metacritic. I couldn't stomach having to go back to the same temple over and over retracing my steps. I never completed it.

There is definitely an optimism bias in Zelda reviews where negatives get played down or ignored completely.

But the flip side of that is that most Zeldas truly have magic, creativity and ingenuity in them that stands them apart in terms of quality.

BOTW lacks enemy variety, more sophistication in weapon degradation and combat and more varied dungeons with better rewards. But it's the first open world game that truly has no handrails whatsoever: you can craft entirely unique playthroughs and adventures and tackle the game in a myriad of ways. Its the first game that truly envelops you in the primal joy of discovery That's a stunning achievement.

Skyward Sword is much maligned ..there are parts that are too slow and unsatisfying and QoL deficiencies that are achingly bad, yet it still has amazing motion based combat and some stunning dungeons and puzzles.


I guess for reviewers the good far outweighs the bad. Hence the scoring which for me IS justifiable. 100% can mean stunning experience which completely obliterates any flaws. But when they review the games they dont really explain that. They tend to pretend that the bad is minimal or nonexistent which is arguable at best. That's the issue.
 
Last edited:
Definitely. I thought about this recently, how Zelda is Nintendo’s flagship franchise along with Mario and yet there are so many stinkers in the series overall. I haven’t played ALBW but supposedly that’s good.


Good Zelda games:
Ocarina of Time
Twilight Princess
Breath of the Wild
Link’s Awakening
A Link to the Past
Oracle of Ages/Seasons


Mediocre Zelda games:
Majora’s Mask
Skyward Sword
Wind Waker
Minish Cap


Bad Zelda games:
Spirit Tracks
Phantom Hourglass
Adventure of Link
The Legend of Zelda (nowadays it’s basically unplayable)



If you think about it, aside from BotW there hasn’t been a good Zelda game since 2006. That is a really long time and there are only a few truly great Zelda games, period.
 

Sintoid

Member
A lot of exclusive IPs get higher review scores than they deserve... but none like Zelda and Mario Games.
 

ACESHIGH

Banned
Yep, Sony first party, some Nintendo games and rockstar are industry darlings and their MC scores are overstated.

Games are good though.
 

Dynasty8

Member
Yes. People saying it's gamers being "salty" are a bit in denial. You take a game like BotW and remove the Zelda characters and name, then it'll sit around 10-15% less on metacritic as a whole. Nostalgia plays a big part for all reviews, most just don't want to admit it.

BotW was a good game. But it still ran terribly on the "new" platform, had a very annoying weapon/item system, barebone dungeons, bosses, and a few other issues that were ignored by the salivating Nintendo fans.
 

22•22

NO PAIN TRANCE CONTINUE
I understand the pessimism, but for me I tend to look at smaller reviewers or content creators I like to watch, who may have played the game, and see what they say. Another thing I do is wait until the launch hype dies down and see what's said afterwards when things have cooled down.

If it's a game in a long-running IP I also look at retrospective analysis of previous entries just to get a full-informed understanding of the IP's history, if it's one I'm not completely familiar with but may have a new installment releasing I'm interested in playing. That way I at least have a good bearing on if the new game will be to my tastes.

Some of the cynicism you have IMO, I'm sure older gamers back in the '00s or '90s had for game magazine reviews especially "official" magazines like Nintendo Power, Official PlayStation Magazine etc. So it's not a new problem, it's just due to the internet & social media there are a lot more reviewers than there used to be. Which means more BS, but you still have the genuine reviewers around.

Personally for reviews I read to see what things they were looking for out of the game, if I even prioritize those, if they stayed in the scope of the game when reviewing it, if there was any sly agenda-pushing in the review (either idpol or corporate shilling, or both), and take the reviewer's game preferences and past reviews into account before deciding whether to even acknowledge or discard their review for myself. Even if I consider it, those things will help determine whether I take their scores at face value or a point or two up/down (on a 10-point scale) considering whatever was actually said in the review.

You can still be optimistic about it all even while acknowledging the shortcomings of the review system today. At least it's somewhat better with games versus, say, the film industry (though yeah, they've been converging more and more with each year in terms of review credibility, to the detriment of the gaming side).

Great post man. Well said. And yeah I can carried away in a very pessimistic and cynical state haha. It's good to hear other perspectives and I can stand behind yours.

👊🏼
 
Top Bottom