Maybe the reason the Galaxy games were given such a high score is because they were genre defining titles, showcasing unbridled creativity and imagination??
Criticising Mario for having the same story completely misses the point of playing a Mario game--you don't play to save the princess, you play to enjoy the mechanics within the game that are necessary to 'save the princess': to go from A to B via triple jumps, back-flips, obstacle courses, apples suspended in space, gravity puzzles, rotating blocks floating in the void, the power-ups and the puzzles and obstacles they allow, to capture the star or reach the flag. You play for the sake of playing, for the joy of playing--for cause and effect in a sense that isn't strung up by narrative or scripted sequences, the cause and effect of running and jumping and pulling and pushing on different parts of the level, for the play-ground feel of some levels, for the gauntlet and obstacle course styling of others, and for the one-shot wonder levels that Galaxy throws at you--amazing ideas that are used for 5 minutes and never appear in the game again.
To suggest that because they do different things to cinematic or sandbox games, they are automatically inferior, is utterly blind. I'm fine with you not liking Mario or Zelda--but to suggest that as series they haven't and that they don't continue to do amazing things for game design and gaming in general is an utterly empty suggestion. You argue that reviewers are blinded or swayed by the Mario or Zelda tag into giving games a higher score--but the truth is, you are blinded and swayed by the Mario or Zelda tag into believing that they're the same empty bag of tricks pushed out on an endless cycle, unworthy of the highest praise. The Mario brand isn't affecting critics judgement of a great series on a wide level, it's simply affecting your narrow judgement of a great series. If you were to play Mario Galaxy without the Mario paint, with the same ingenious level design, gravity puzzles, tight controls, excellent camera and orchestrated score, perhaps you'd actually love it.
Who knows??? Mario and Zelda are judged for what they are--and what they are usually tends to be fantastic games. Maybe you're just a troll and this is a waste of time on my part. Maybe critics realise that games are judged for what they do as a package, as part of their genre, and what they do with the features of the system they are built for--and not for what other games in completely different genres do, and that's why they score Zelda and Mario so highly. But like I said--maybe this is a waste of my time, because you won't even admit for one second that somebody else's viewpoint (whether mine or dozens of games critics) could be just as valid as your own, even if you don't personally agree with it.
