By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Johnw1104 on 17 May 2016
Edit Thread
Veknoid_Outcast said:
Johnw1104 said:

[snip]


There must be a number I'm forgetting, but it's actually hard to find franchises of any real length that haven't had missteps along the way. All of the above are superb, but if I had to pick the ones I'm most impressed by its the main console series of both Super Mario and Zelda. When one considers how long they've been making them and how many installments they've had, it's hard to believe there's really nothing that isn't at least "good" among the group.

Otherwise, Rockstar (with GTA) and Blizzard (with their three primary franchises) really hold themselves to a quality standard that most don't. That's just my impression, anyway.

Great post, thanks for giving it so much thought!

@bold: I agree. Considering both Super Maro and The Legend of Zelda are 30 years old, it's remarkable how consistently great they've been - excluding the non-canon CD-i games.

Out of curiosity I went and looked up all the console installmets of Super Mario and Zelda to see how many they made and what their average score was. First, I must explain the methodology. For the earlier games (essentially pre-N64) the scores are hard to come by. What I wound up doing was going through the available scores and averaging those specifically reviewing the Nes/Snes versions as opposed to some later Wii/GBA/VC version. I did this as many of the reviews are unfairly poor due to how recent they are, or they didn't like something about the port. Gamespot, for instance, gives the original Legend of Zelda a 72%, and he readily states that he's reviewing it with how the modern gamer would like it in mind as opposed to how good it was within the context of its own time.

The only two games I had real issues with were the original Super Mario and the original Zelda, both of which only listed 100%. As I read there WERE minor cricticisms (by crazy people), I've just counted both of them as 95% (the very early games are mere estimates due to a paucity of sources). Otherwise, by the time of the N64 there was a reliable metacritic for one or two of them, and from GC on that was the source I went with... I'd take the earlier games with a grain of salt as they typically trend towards a higher score than they likely would in a modern setting, though given most make "Best Games of All Time" lists they're not necessarily unfair.

Super Mario Bros Series (Console)

Super Mario Bros: 95%
Super Mario Bros 2: 90%
Super Mario Bros 3: 98.7% (this is when counting reviews specific to NES version, as later ports were not rated as highly)
Super Mario World: 99%
Super Mario World 2: 97%
Super Mario 64: 96.4%
Super Mario Sunshine: 92%
Super Mario Galaxy: 97%
New Super Mario Bros Wii: 87%
Super Mario Galaxy 2: 97%
New Super Mario Bros U: 84%
Super Mario 3D World: 93%
Super Mario Maker: 88%

Total: 13 Games
Highest Post-Snes Score (i.e. Reliable): Two at 97% (Both Galaxy games)
Lowest Score: 84%
Average Score: 93.4%

 

Main Zelda Series (Console)

The Legend of Zelda: 95%
The Adventure of Link: 82.8%
A Link to the Past: 92.3%
Ocarina of Time: 99%
Majora's Mask: 95%
The Wind Waker: 96%
Twilight Princess: 95.5%
Skyward Sword: 93%

Total: 8 games
Highest Post-Snes Score: 99 (Ocarina, highest all-time)
Lowest Score: 82.8%
Average Score: 93.7%

 

So yeah, I knew both were good but I'm honestly surprised by just how consistent they've been now that I've actually looked into it. Even accounting for the earlier Nes/Snes titles likely getting spotted a few points that more critical, modern reviewers likely would not grant them, the scores are still absurd.

That both could be averaging in the 90's after that many titles over the course of three decades and having never even strayed once into the 70's is one heck of an accomplishment.