Well, i'm happy one of the major factors were "It was boring, just like every other zelda game" as i found every other zelda game to have (well, the majority) a good story line, so that doesn't worry me too much

I had no idea about the lack of heart peices, how does it work now?

And also, do they have access to more boo footage than us in mario galaxy, or are they going by the trailer?

Honestly: I hope they are wrong. I was clearly hoping the game would get 90%+... 

tThere are less than four bottles they said so 3 of them is the maximum. I´m not even sure if there are any bottles in the game.

But look at it that way: Even if there are as many sidequests as in previous Zelda titles, just without the heartpieces that would be much less. There are about 40+ heartpieces in every Zelda game, so 40 sidequests are missing in this one...

 But I really have to defend their SCL anticipations: 4,5 Stars means the game should get between 80%-85%... that  seems to be reasonable.

@Tabsina: Read again. They didn´t say it was "boring as every other Zelda game", they said the story is the same as in every other Zelda game and it is getting boring. Plus, the story seems to be not as epic as in prevoius titles. I hope I translated it correctly...

You seem to be relating this game to games like Wind Waker, OoT, Majora's Mask, and Twilight Princess, but it's really closer to A Link to the Past and Minish Cap. It's a 2D Zelda in 3D form, and from what I understand there is far more content in this game than any of the previous 2D Zeldas. Maybe N-Zone was expecting a 3D adventure along those lines and wound up playing something completely different.

Oh, and note as I said above that there are actually 16 islands in the game. I'm being told now that there ARE heart containers, just not pieces. So rather than get 4 pieces to 1 heart container you find full heart containers instead. Obviously this means there won't be as many sidequests based around that in specific, but there are some. I really don't understand their statements about this game. Like I said it completely contradicts everything I have heard.

Edit: and that doesn't mean 40 less sidequests, it just means that sidequest content was shifted to other objectives, rather than heart piece gathering.   

I really hope you´re right and the games features lots of sidequests.

I really love all the Zelda games out there and I love them because there is so much to do. They just gave a very clear opinion and I usually tend to give the same scores as N-Zone gives them.

Oh and they compared it to Link to the Past and Wind Waker - both of them have more items and sidequests according to them.

Phantom Hourglass doesn´t have upgradable items like in a Link to the past, the level design isn´t that good, there are not as many dungeons. That´s what they say.

Believe me, I´m the biggest Zelda fan alive, but I´m sure they are able to count the number of weapons and upgrades...

Heh, yeah I figure they can count (hopefully), but their review does seem sort of off compared to the majority of opinions.  Anyway, I'll wait for more info for now.

If i remember correctly, Minish Cap didn't have all that many sidequests either, but was still fine

Also, Louis, thanks for clearing that up about the 'boring', it was a little ambiguous, but even then, I don't mind them repeating the general theme of the story, if it is just the fact that "Link saves Zelda", but we won't really know until we play it ourselves

Tell me why I should believe some stupid review from some stupid review source I never hear of. Just sounds like a bunch of stupid complaints of someone who expects the Zelda formula to stay exactly the same forever.

@Tabsina: Well, my name is Louie but I agree with the rest of what you said

@christopher_G2: N-Zone is the biggest german Nintendo magazine and what they complain about is that the formula stays the same. So yes, they are your opinion - and that is the reason why they gave it 88%.

Come on guys, I mean: Yes I don´t trust one single source, too but even Nintendo can "screw up" a game. And it got 88% that´s not a bad score at all.

Louie said: @Tabsina: Well, my name is Louie but I agree with the rest of what you said @christopher_G2: N-Zone is the biggest german Nintendo magazine and what they complain about is that the formula stays the same. So yes, they are your opinion - and that is the reason why they gave it 88%. Come on guys, I mean: Yes I don´t trust one single source, too but even Nintendo can "screw up" a game. And it got 88% that´s not a bad score at all.

I'm not saying they are automatically wrong, just that it contradicts all other information I have recieved to this point.  As I said, I'll have to wait till I see more reviews on it.

LoL... 88%... = 8.8... Does that ring a bell? :D

The problem with game scores is that reviewers are effectively using a 1-5 scale. Even if they claim the use a 1-10 scale, only just about 1% of the games score under 5. So it's actually a 5-10 scale. An 88% is like a 4.4 on a 1-5 scale. Not much for a Zelda game, although Gamespot may agree. Anyways this is the first preview/review I've seen scoring the game so low, so I don't really care. The general consensus is that it's an AAA game.