Maybe he's just talking about TP's tutorial sequence. Seven hours sounds about right.

Well, I started a replay of the game again last week (after I hadn't played it in like 5 years), and I'm 3.5 gameplay hours in after doing the first horseback battle part. I definitely can see how the tutorial feels like 7 hours though. It is excruciatingly boring. The twilight fetch-quest segments are pretty boring too, but I breeze through them and use it as an opportunity to remember the layout of the land (which I guess was the intent.) I guess since I know that the latter half of the game is excellent, and has some of my favorite dungeons in the series (Arbiter Grounds, Snowpeak, City in the Sky) I don't care so much that the beginning is pretty slow and boring. 

Offtopic but still awesome:

I think we need both Links. If we only had the young like it would be like The Legend of Ash Ketchum. He is still 10! Every Zelda is different and so every Link is different, too. We need different Links with different ages. Even all the young Links are not the same age. So I want the old and the young Link.

Yeah a 90.4 (or 9.04 when converted from percent to whole numbers) is still smaller than 93 (or 9.3 cinverted to whole numbers). What point was there in that?saying that out of around 1700 people (making the averages even closer to each other than just compairing the more popular title) is worse than the 92 I was trying to give you. Something is telling me you seen 90.4 and thought it was a bigger number than 93, lol. 

Also Are you implying that Twilight Princess can't be beaten in 7 hours?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jn0JIM1nUDc

Now you could be saying he skipped through the text, which is true, but text doesn't take 3 hours to read, lol. That's all besides the point though.

I never said 90.4 was a bigger number than 93. I was trying to show you how easily numbers can be skewed and distorted and how arbitrary they really are (not much different from internet forum polls.)  You didn't post the 92 GC version anyway, you posted the Wii version which was a 90. Do you honestly believe that Twilight Princess GC ( with its 92) is closer to Ocarina of Time in quality and esteem than it is to Twilight Princess Wii? The same exact game? Of course not. And if you do, it conflicts with your original point that it is the content of the game rather than the interface which makes OoT more esteemed. Which shows that such a categorization of game quality is not objective nor is is it any better than many other means of doing so. An aggregate of arbitrary is still arbitrary. 

As for Twilight Princess being beaten in 7 hours, I doubt the guy did a speed-run of a game he hated so that he can use it for a review (in fact I doubt he even played it.) 

But to do a quality speedrun you must use tricks that allow you to skip certain cutscenes (not just the text.)  Like you said that is besides the point. My point was that people like that can skew the score just by giving a game a 0. 

Edit: To emphasize my point further. Look at the User Score for OoT 3D, which is supposed to be the best version of OoT. 

But that applies to both games, scores can be skewed. as for if you have two of the same game, you can base a game off of its controls. I didn't say they didn't factor in at all, but a game will not get a 100% score based on controls alone, unless that is the only consideration you are taking into account. You're trying to prove a point with something I never said in the first place, lol. 

I know you cannot do a quality speed run in 7 hours which applies to both games too. To get the most out of what those games offer you have to take your time, and I never said the guy hated the game I'm just showing it can be done in 7 hours, I seen it done in under 4 hours on youtube. 

On to arbitrary, this whole thread is based on personal preference (and therefore arbitrary). I am only showing statistically people prefer the games involving younger Link than older Link. 

The guy said he hated the game => he isn't a speedrunner. Which is why I was I didn't mention the 3.5 hour speed runners on youtube and why it was so ridiculous for him to say he beat the game in 7 hours to review it. 

Also, you showed two games, one of which has adult link in it (OoT) in addition to child link.

Let's use your same methodology to compare Windwaker and Twilight Princess. 

http://www.metacritic.com/game/gamecube/the-legend-of-zelda-the-wind-waker (8.9)

or A Link Between Worlds and Twilight Princess

http://www.metacritic.com/game/3ds/the-legend-of-zelda-a-link-between-worlds (9.0)

or Majora's Mask

http://www.metacritic.com/game/nintendo-64/the-legend-of-zelda-majoras-mask (9.2) 

If anything, what these scores show me (statistically) is that people who don't like the games are less likely to review older games, because they're less likely to play it. That is why OoT 3DS has such a lower User Score than OoT N64, despite being the superior version. 

They didn't like Windwaker's design nothing new about that, and still can only be speculatory. 

So the guy didn't like TP, point still remains. 

3D OOT is a remake (remakes always get lower scores) people didn't ask for that made changes that were unnecessary. (Same with Wind Waker, got a 90 where the other got a 96)

We could also look at the numbers for Skyward Sword (7.9).

All your points seem to be arbitrary as well. Even so, what it proves is if you take the worst score for young Link (8.9) and adult Link (7.9) as well as the best scores for young Link (9.3) versus the best score for adult Link (9.2) people still statistically like young Link games better.

Actually Windwaker's User Score is 8.9 (original) vs. 8.8 (number of reviews can make a huge difference, especially since they're rounded to the tenth's place.) 

You still haven't explained Majora's Mask (9.2), A Link Between Worlds(9.0), A Link to the Past (8.9), and  The Minish Cap (9.1) in your theory that child link must mean more critical acclaim (assuming your criteria.) There are so many factors involved in a Zelda game that it seems so infinitessimally unlikely that the age of link matters.