Although I said I would post in this thread, I don't really know what to say (rofl)

I personally feel like it would have been rated higher and I'm basing my argument by looking at the NSMBWii score on metacritic which shows that retro stuff is still hot.
It's kind of sad to see some critics complaining about how 3DDGH is "copying" stuff from Zelda. That's where you see who's a great reviewer and who's a poor one.

This ignores the problem of genre expectation on both ends. More, it ignores what may come down to a qualitative difference.

Pokemon is part of a very specific RPG niche, like Dragon Quest, where people do not expect changes that would be apparent to anyone who is not a huge follower of the series. Comparing Pokemon in terms of innovation is pointless, because the expectation of innovation is not there.

That expectation does exist, however, for Zelda and its ilk. What you saw leveled against 3DDGH was a measure of what would have been leveled against Zelda if Nintendo had had the audacity to release a LttP-style 2D adventure for full retail price on a home console. Scores would not be as harsh, maybe, but the surrounding critical dialogue would be absolutely corrosive and it would be the lowest-rated mainstream Zelda released in over twenty years (which is saying something with Spirit Tracks sitting at 87, largely for reasons already mentioned).

The NSMBWii example you cite only highlights the problem rather than countering it. A lot of the review dialogue centered around how it tried nothing new, played it too safe, in spite of hte fact that the game is a loving refinement of and homage to past game mechanics. That it has the score it does is testament to the fact that it's the most solidly-built 2D platformer in the business, regardless of whether or not reviewers saw it as being revolutionary or not (they didn't). NSMBWii was the most fun I had playing a game last year, is probably the best 2D platformer I've ever played, but that doesn't really matter much to reviewers in lieu of the fact that there is a genre expectation of innovation in platformers (apparently).

The premise here, that Nintendo titles are rated higher just because of the name, is fallacious.

Well his name was originally Onikis.

The reason why I say I think the scores would be higher is only based on what the largest con against the game is in the eyes of so many reviewers. That the game borrows so much from old school Zelda instead of incorporating it's own original stuff.

I have played NSMBWii and I will admit that I love it, and even more so since my Wii is modded and I have access to the user created stuff. However when I first started playing the game I realized that it wasn't much different what so ever to the Mario games from that same time period that 3DDGH is borrowing from.

I think this is why people think Mario gets a free pass. It borrows from an old formula and doesn't get ripped nearly as hard as 3DDGH did.

You could however make the argument and say "Well, they can't really knock it for playing like old Mario since it IS Mario!". This is why I say the reviewers would have been much more lenient on this title if it was originally made by Nintendo to cater to the old Zelda fans such as myself. 

I think they would have done the right thing and looked at what the game aimed to do and who it aimed towards and rated accordingly.

Yeah but I find that to be a problem. Why should all games aimed to old school gamers like myself be pummeled?

In the case of NSMBWii, yeah it doesn't do much new, but it was easily one of the best games released last year because that kept it simple and they kept if fun, which is why I loved NES Zelda and SNES Zelda and why I love 3DDGH.

I still however feel that 3DDGH got beaten down a bit too hard. 20% of it's scores are below 80, with majority of those being 60's and (1) 50. Those reviewers blast it for being like Zelda, which to me is a horrible reason to make a game look bad, especially when that very thing is what the game set out to do!

I just don't understand reviewers these days, which is why I predicted it to get a 78, which in all honestly I thought was a bit high to expect.

Well insofar as that goes I don't know. I haven't been able to play 3DDGH yet, though I hope to soon.

Agreed, being a big name game would of counted against it, people think big names get a free ride but they don't when you have expectations like what Zelda has, 3d DH is like Okami a good Zelda Lite clone but would of been docked if they had the Zelda name on them.

As do I. The game is sitting at 90k WW which makes me a very very sad old gamer and I would like to see it at 90,001.

From what I have seen so far I think Silicon Studios will give up on game development and stick to middleware engines.

If that happens though I will still be happy because they gave me exactly what I wanted for 15+ years and exactly what Nintendo wouldn't give me for 15+ years.

Plus you know what, you also have to take into account that it was a budget release, which these days grants a game some extra points on the review score. Make me wonder if it would be a 60 Meta if it was $60, which in all honestly the game is worth $60 easy. I am going to try and finish it off now and although I will still need another 2 playthroughs to get a platinum, my first playthrough will end up ~30 hours.

Not many $60 games give you that these days let alone a $40 game.

You know why I call bullshit on this? Other than the touch screen controls (which I do not enjoy), how much different is Phantom Hourglass, Oracle of the Seasons, etc...?

Not much to be honest. Unless of course standards change once you hop onto a non portable console, which to be honest would be complete and utter bullshit.

While many will not agree, 3D Zelda fans and old school 2D Zelda fans are not the same. While I still love every Zelda that releases and will no doubt get Zelda Wii no matter how much the change it, I will however always have a spot reserved for my trusty NES Zelda cart, which I still play because it is the greatest game ever made.

Wanna know how much I love Zelda?

I sold almost all my Wii games since modding it and copying them to my external HDD. You know what game is the only one that hasn't gotten sold? You guess it? Zelda: TP.

Zelda, whether 2D or 3D is the greatest series to ever grace the gaming scene. I just wish Nintendo would cater to the consoles gamers who enjoy both. We know damn well they have the money to spend just to make us happy for once.

3DDGH is only here to hold me off until the day (although I doubt it will ever happen) that Nintendo gives me what I have been wanting for majority of my gaming life, a top down old school retro filled masterpiece of gaming, an old school Zelda on a home console. Very simple, very fun. Easy pick up and play style.

I also believe this. If massively hyped games kinda live up to AAA status, they are praised as the second coming and over-rated. If they don't, they are flamed to hell and under-rated.

I believe if 3DDH had been a Zelda game, it would not have lived up to AAA expectations, and gotten an even lower review than 3DDH actually got.

I think the best use for metacritic is for games like 3DDH where the community is only moderately hyped, and the game gets fewer review scores based on predisposition and hype.

If you DO make a game that is a direct copy of another game, especially one from years and years ago, you need to make sure your game is at least as good as the game you are trying to copy, if you expect AAA reviews. Translated, that means don't try to copy one of the best games ever made and expect favorable comparisons.

The implication of this thread is that 3DDH is as good as Zelda, but Zelda is just rated higher because of its name. That's total bullshit. 3DDH is nowhere close in quallity to an actual console Zelda title, and even the most devout PS3 zealots(and every reviewer) will tell you that if they've ever actually played one.

Bingo. Glad some one said it.