This whole concept is flawed, and it's only going to take one example to totally destroy it. Nintendo do not get a free pass. Are we forgetting the 'Nintendo is lazy' reaction from IGN when they released NSMBWii?

Now, if 3DDGH was a Zelda game, it would be akin to the transition from Galaxy > NSMBWii. IGN seem to love Zelda more than anything, so if they reacted like that to NSMBWii, they would be even more outraged by something like this.

So no, I do not believe that it being a Zelda game would change anything, for the most part at least.

generally copies/ripoffs aren't as highly rated or appreciated as the originals they copied

try looking at sequels for example, it's a similar situation but to a lesser extent, they slam them for being too much like the originals, even though they might be great and even though they're technically not ripping off anyone

now imagine if a game copied an early version of a game with none of the improvements made over the years and the natural evolution of games since that day

3D Dot Game Heroes: 77 meta - copied really old version of Zelda
Darksiders: 83(X360)/82(PS3) meta - copied newer version of Zelda + God of War
still, both failed to get similar metascores to the originals they copied, DUE to them BEING copies

if it was an actual Zelda game it might have gotten a slightly better meta since it wouldn't have ripped off anyone, also it would have sold much better due to it's name, but by now means would have gotten a 90+ meta, do you HONESLTY think it would have?

Review companies do have people to do specific genres but the fact is the reviewer still presents the overall picture, for one 3DDH is in a genre that includes games like Zelda, Okami, ICO, SOTC and such, these games have specific audiences but have the appeal to pull in people from other audiences. If a game isn't enjoyed by the majority of gamers who play it then the's a reason for it plain and simple, it maybe the gameplay is too limited or what ever just because you like it it doesn't mean it should be rated higher, they do let people know who the game is aimed at and why it's rated the way it is someone even posted a quote from one review as an example earlier.

I have stated that I think it would have average ~85 on Meta if it was a Zelda title.

@Darth

Yes, my issue is that the game is being bashed for being exactly what it set out to be.

Metacritic user average = 8.6.   (15 reviews)

http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/ps3/3ddotgameheroes?q=3d%20dot%20game%20heroes  

GameFaqs reader review average = 8.3  (7 reviews)

GameFaqs Ratings average = 9.0 (109 reviews)

http://www.gamefaqs.com/ps3/971481-3d-dot-game-heroes   

Gamespot user score = 8.6 (161 votes)

http://www.gamespot.com/ps3/rpg/3ddotgameheroes/index.html?tag=result;title;0  

The fact that the scores of 50-60 are 19-29 points below the Meta average and 26-36 below the user average only add to my point here.

To add more I link you to N4G which contains 97 reviews for a total of 8.0/10. Many reviews which the likes of Metacritic choose to ignore.

http://n4g.com/tag/reviews/3d-dot-game-heroes_ps3    

Then add this little problem I have, even though it is different reviewers, which adds to my point that certain people should review certain games.

Eurogamer import review of 3D Dot Game Heroes, before the added Block Out upgrades - 7/10.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/3d-dot-game-heroes-review  

Eurogamers domestic review of 3D Dot Game Heroes, after Block Out upgrade + shortened load times + DLC loaded onto the retail disc - 6/10.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/3d-dot-game-heroes-euro-review  

Don't trust these reviews worth a shit, because which one do you trust? I would say the first one since the 2nd one takes way too much time attacking it for being exactly what it meant to be. Just sounds to me like a butthurt Zelda fan to be honest.

**yeah maybe, I'm sure it would be above what 3DDGH is at right now

**is it really that strange? there haven't been many parodies in the gaming world, most "copies" are viewed as ripoffs and i think that's why it's being bashed

i think it's a pretty interesting game though, it's too bad that it resembled an old, unevolved game too much for it's own good (i was curious so a watch a few vids), even if it's a nice parody, it might not have been a great game. the gameplay i saw didn't really scream "85-95" meta

Do you feel that is right though? Sometimes a parody and/or homage is what is needed and if it arises it shouldn't just be bashed to all hell. The game is something that many people like myself have been wanting for so long and 80% of the reviews reflect this. Unfortunately we have 20% butt hurt reviewers who instead opt to give it 50-60 because it is exactly what it is supposed to be.

Also, even though it is "unevolved", it shows just how great that style of gaming was. It is still fun, it is still rewarding, and most of all it is still worth all $40 of your hard earned dollars, especially since it gives you more than most $50-60 games do these days.

Also think about it, should they bash every single game that is based on the old old school PC FPS titles? It seems like they don't. They just ignore the fact that these games have been done over and over and over again.

CoD: Black Ops will release this year and most likely average 90+ on Meta, but other than some dynamic set pieces, what has it added since say, CoD and CoD2 in terms of the run and gun style gameplay?

I don't remember PS2 JRPGs being bashed because they were so similar to PS1 JRPGs.

i got an idea, check this out:

Megaman 9: 77(ps3) / 82 (X360) / 83 (Wii)
Megaman 10: 78(ps3) / 79 (X360) / 83 (Wii)

these *new megaman games didn't get free rides, they *copied gameplay from old, unevolved games in the late 80s/early 90s and look at the score they got, they didn't even copy anyone else, only sequels (copied themselves)

face it, games have evolved since the 80s and you can't just make games like those and expect to get positive responses from everyone

Bad rebuttal considering most Megaman titles have averages mid 80's- low 70's and high 60's since the Genesis, GBA and PS1. You're talking about lower scores for over 10+ years now. Not to mention the series has a history of getting lower scores based on difficulty.

http://www.gamerankings.com/browse.html?search=mega+man&numrev=3&site=

I think it could have been rated higher, I think if it was a similar game but put on the DS with the zelda name on it for sure it would have gotten the higher ratings, partially because of the weird standards for DS games and if it was still 3D Dot on the DS it seems like people would have ignored it.

But you could also say if it wasn't exclusive would it have gotten higher ratings or perhaps lower?

Really it's a lot of what if's, a lot of reviewers with questionable judgment, and none of it can really be proven ever.