I believe that if the game did not contain the Zelda name, but was called something else, it would get far worse reviews. By having the Zelda name, nostalgia ampliflies reviewers good thoughts on the game.

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).

Wow one day before the game's actual release-before even playing it- and reviews by the same people who judge nintendo harshly alot and give arguments like too much water(IGN)-you come along and say its not great just because. It's like me saying that the new menu item on the world famous restaurant  that will be releasing tomorrow and has only been tried by critics who gave it glaring reviews are only giving it because of the name of the restaurant. Without even having a taste of the material you claim something that can only be said after fully trying it

See how you describe SS?  "Solid".  Is something that was "extremely solid in every aspect" deserve a 93 as one of the greatest games ever made.  I just can't agree with that, and I think if any other franchise had a game where the best people could say about it was it was solid it would not get those kind of scores.  

Really because many franchises that are solid like GOW get scores like that as well, SS was divisive because the approach was heavily different from other games. Gameplay was more compact and motion control was heavily, the game wasn't divisive because it was a bad game, most people say it's one of the best games they've played or it's not something for them as the complaints hinge on the different approach however change does not degrade a game's quality.

With such bland, unresponsive, and repetitive combat, Skyward Sword isn't anywhere near one of the best games. 

Combat was responsive for me but then I wasn't swinging mindlessly.

Swinging for 40 hours plus, with variation being hindered by the controls= 10/10.