Oh yes, suuuuure the critics are giving it a lower score because the game has some extra content that WWHD didnt had.  If TPHD had less content then it would be scoring higher. lol. That's so desperate.

It's scoring lower because it's not an impressive game. Unimpressive lighting, unimpressive textures, unimpressive models.

And the only thing that could compensate (higher difficulty and new content) is locked behind "amiibos", something that everyone doesn't have. Basically, an unimpressive port, unlike the past Zelda remasters.

Except the texture reworks is 10 times better than the texture rework in WWHD and the game it is not easier than WW. Still 5 points behind.

TWWHD had also a hero mode from the beggining, and doesn't have to lock anything behind amiibos.

Also textures are something needed for TPHD, not for TWWHD. They needed to do a better job, not this.

Yes that is not what I wanted to say, I mean they both have the same difficulty modes unlocked (and about the same amount of unlocked extra content), I expressed myself badly.

And exactly, they put the work where the work must be, on the textures, and they improved them as much (or more) as WW improved his lighting. And most reviews point that the game looks surprisingly good for a remaster, it just doesnt have the brilliant artstyle of WW.

We have 2 remasters with very similar level of improvements in all aspects, yet one is 5 points lower. Ther is no excuse, a cooler looking lighting system is not 5 points, critics think WW was better to begging with, thats it, and they still give TP a great score for a remaster because is still a great game.

A pretty good score so far, and about what i think it deserves.

I realize that this is a thread about a Metacritic score but....I think people are taking Metacritic scores too seriously. Citing MC scores for why a game is better than another is a little silly. I understand why people do it, but it's an oversimplification.

The problem is WWHD benefit itself with a timeless art style, while TP art style looks ugly nowadays. That's unsolvable. Maybe with more time to make TPHD, but time isn't what they have, and still they managed to do a competent remaster, with a nice texture rework. For what I've read, it could have been better with some more graphical changes here and there, but the vast majority of them point that there are some impressive work done (boss battles are the hightlight), but it could never look better than WW. 

Yes, then they agree that with a very similar amount of improvements, one is better than the other. Wich means, they think one was better than the other to begging with. That doesnt mean is true (i do agree is true though) but is what critics think. To say that the score of this game is 5 points lower because is a huge disspoinment of a remaster jsut because the lightining of the other looked cooler even when the texture rework of this one is waaaay better, it sounds just an excuse for me. 

But a 85 for a 10 year remaster is a great score, it means is a very good remaster of a game that stills holds, even if is a bit outdated here and there.

Those are some good reviews and a nice overall score on metacritic