a "free-ride"?...lol

anywho, if this was an actual zelda game, i wouldnt buy it. i would be greatly dissapointed. dont get me wrong, the retro look is cool, but it just isnt what you expect from zelda now. and i think many reviewers would fell the same.

I could have sworn you were talking about god of war 3.

Hate to change direction, but according to the reviews, SMG2 plays exactly like SMG1...and it got praised to the heavens. I haven't played the game myself, but.....just a friendly observation....

Well I haven't played it so really couldn't tell ya what it deserves. But let's not forget, when you decide you are going to try and be like something, you better damn well make sure you are just as good otherwise comparisons will be more evident. It's like an artist doing a cover of a really popular song. Just because you do it, doesn't make it good. And because it is a popular song, critics are going to critique it more carefully.

On the other end, if it were a Zelda game, it also has quite a reputation to live up to. We are talking about one of the most critically acclaimed franchises in the industry, if not the top one. So maybe brand can help out review scores, but if it doesn't live up to the pedestal it has been put on, critics and fans are going to let ya know. Going back to the music reference, it's like releasing an album after a very popular and critically acclaimed album. They've seen what you can do and now you have to live up to that expectation and sometimes it can be very difficult.

But as I said, I haven't played 3D Dot Heroes so I couldn't tell you if it deserves that nor am I going to start arguing conspiracy theories on the matters of reviewers: I got enough issues with them. I do know a few people that have played it, and most well have not thought to highly of it but I can't say one way or another because I've heard people on the internet who love it. Just remember, review scores only represent their opinions. In the end, isn't it only your opinion that matters? I think so.

Guys, one of the main reasons why I asked this was because on Metacritic you will notice many low scores like 65's and many 60's and even a 50, which to me makes it seem almost unplayable. Anyways, even with all of the low scores the user impressions are incredibly positive.

The game has 50 reviews with 31 of them being 80 and above and 16 at 85 and above. The scores that weigh it's metascore down to it's current score of 77 are ones that seem to complain about it playing similar to something that is so awesome, NES Zelda and LttP.

I have no issues with the overall score, I predicted a 78 Meta. I just wanted to know what you all thought.

1. The reviews say nothing of the kind about SMG1 - some do, but the majority do not.

2. Super Mario Galaxy is 2.5 years old, rather than 18.

Interesting question.

I haven't played the game. I was extremely interested in 3DGH at first, but somehow (and independently from review scores) I completely lost interest with every new video I saw. I realized that there's something about this specific retro game I don't like. I think games like Half-Minute Hero, Bit Trip Runner, Cave Story and other modern retro style games take a more interesting approach. Maybe I don't do the game justice. I don't know.

Anyway. I tend to agree with all those in this thread who think 3DGH would probably have been rated lower if it was an actual new Zelda game (i.e. in SD for Wii). I have a feeling that many Zelda fans and reviewers would have called the retro graphics/gameplay a narcissistic idea and would have criticized Nintendo for developing a 100% retro Zelda retail game for the current console and not - say - as a fan service handheld game for DSiWare.

I think it's true to say that the critic's response would not be universal, but instead some would rank it higher and some would rank it lower if it was indeed a Zelda game. If it truly was Zelda game I doubt it would have received any 50s or 60s except from maybe 1 or 2 bitter sources.

This is what I believe.

Some say that it copies a tired old formula, but just look at Pokemon. Almost everything in that game is unchanged since what, 1996, yet the game still gets great scores because it is Pokemon. I believe the same would hold true if this game was a true Zelda. Ok, maybe they add some stuff like battle towers and more Pokemon to collect, but it is the same exact walk through the grass, get into an old school turn based battle with the menu reading fight, item, special, etc... and battle your way to take on the Elite Four and become the Pokemon Master.

Why does it keep getting rated high even though the gameplay is over 10 years old? Because it is Pokemon.

People say that NSMBWii got hit hard for being a retro styled game, yet it is sitting at 87 on Metacritic and 88% on GameRankings.

If 3D Dot Game Heroes had no character creation and only had Link, Onyx became Ganon and Fuelle was the Dark Magician from LttP trying to revive Ganon while Zelda was magically transformed and then split into 3 fairies, this game would be sitting at 85+, I am sure of it, because the game is a lot of fun and plenty of the low scoring reviews do admit it is fun, but they drop the score for being like Zelda.

This my friends is why you do not trust review scores, because in my case I was looking for exactly what they hated it for.

Any self respecting Zelda fan should play this game, especially if they are a fan from way back when on the NES/SNES.

Agahnim.  In addition you might not even need to change out Onyx, who was the final boss of Oracle of Seasons with virtually the exact same appearance (If I can believe the beginning of 3DDGH, don't spoil it for me!).

I'm not sure there would be a giant change in review scores, but if you released the same thing with the zelda cast on a Nintendo system you would certainly see much greater sales.  Either way, I mostly play JRPG's and avoid games involving guns like the plague, so I've never paid much attention to review scores myself.