That is the case for 98 % of all sequels. Your point?

No doubt about it. Skyward Sword is nowhere near a 93 game, the user scores have it at ~80 which is a much more accurate score for the game. It's one of the least remembered Zelda games despite being the latest 3D Zelda game until tomorrow. I think it's kinda crazy how people never talk about the game. It's always OoT, MM, WW and to a certain degree TP.

I think it's a fair point to argue if this game was called something else and not a Nintendo exclusive launch title it would probably score around 90-92. Which still means it's a very good game so it doesn't really matter either way.

A weird thing about all the reviews i've seen is that they don't talk about the actual content. Barely any mention of the story, the voice acting, the side quests, or the actual quests. Instead they just focus on the gameplay elements and on the world, which is nice but usually open world games get defined by the sense of direction and by having a reason to do things. 

I can't judge the game without playing it, but i see how certain important topics aren't mentioned in reviews. 

Your statement makes no sense. A good game will receive high scores regardless whether it is a new frenchise or not. Because the same could be said to Uncharted 4.

I'll be honest, I think there's some merit to what you're saying, but at most I think the game would be brought down to 88 which is still a great score.

Yep, just like Zelda Triforce Heroes also scored a solid 9,5 on average

The people posting images and gifs instead of putting thoughts into words are exactly who I thought they'd be.

This is similar to my theory, which I wrote about several days ago.  Nostalgia might add a point or two to a game's ceiling but where I think it really applies is the floor.  With a series like Zelda, I believe that reviewers (or editors) from established publications are afraid, consciously or not, to go very low, partially because of the backlash.

In other words, an average-ish game from EA would score lower than the very same game with a coat of Zelda paint from Nintendo.  

There are a lot of factors at play, though, such as critical lineage, time between games, and the type of game.  Games that continue a story are often judged very closely against the last game in the series, something which doesn't affect Zelda.  The reception of the last game influences the anticipation of the next, as well, which then influences reception.  For example, I think The Last of Us 2 will probably fall under this effect, where some publications would be reluctant to post a low score.

It's almost like a form of intimidation, both by critical history and by the fear of fan overreaction (like the pathetic and fanatical reaction to a Pokemon review from a few years ago).

Why do people keep bringing Uncharted up? It's not like the first game as a completely unknown series got 9/10 mostly.... wait a minute.

The statement is very generalise and half arsed but it's kinda right, I mean the way it was put across was awful but would it be getting 10/10 is it was just a open world RPG like adventure? Rare is it a new series peaks the interest of reviewers so easily.

This said, I think the additional score is like going from 9.0/10 to 9.3/10 so... 

Yes. If UC4 did not have the name nor characters of Uncharted (nor Naughty Dog as a development team), nostalgia and expectations would not have been as present, therefor it would most likely have gotten a lower score. But lets stay focused on Zelda here, shall we?