True, and I suppose using median is also simpler. 

Maybe not the best example to use:

http://www.gamesradar.com/rise-tomb-raider-biggest-problem-may-never-be-fixed/
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/video-games/columns/experienced-points/15405-Rise-of-the-Tomb-Raider-s-Story-Keeps-Interrupting-the-Game

And still I'm not talking about "good reviews', I'm talking about "near perfect reviews". That's what I mean by a free pass, that is, all of the negatives are basically overlooked because they're not really considered negatives if Nintendo is doing it, it's just "Nintendo being Nintendo" as others have put it. Tomb Raider, is treated like the great game that it is but not a perfect one.

Now to be fair, there's other series that seem to also get similar treatment - the Metal Gear Solid series, and the Grand Theft Auto series to name a couple. But that doesn't make it any more acceptable.

Again, looking at the amazon scores should make it fairly obvious that exceptionaly few people that reviewed on metacritic actually played the game. There are also far more 1st 3 day reviews than would be normal, both positive and negative, which further indicates that the score is more a fanboywar than anything to do with he quality of the game. Look also at the number of reviews, well over twice as much as any other game selling similar amounts would have after a little more than a week of sales. This is an unusual case.

Horizon is a new IP but with a lot of hype behind it. Got 4000 user review scores which is again pretty impressive. Yet it has 89% critic and 84% user. your point?

Zelda had dozens, if not hundreds, of "0" review scores the day it released. Are you honestly going to believe those?

Can't say I've met a single other gamer IRL lately that played the game and really, really hated it.

Just my impression - seems to me the only fanbase really upset about Zelda is a certain one that is missing out on it entirely.

There are people that actually feel they need to rate Zelda "0" every chance they get to "counteract" all of the raving reviews of the game. It seems to me like a "rabid" fanbase brings with it "rabid" haters.

Both of those people aren't quite right in the head. I mean just look at this shit. Someone dares to give the game a "good" rating and a swath of a fanbase goes full psycho on him. If Jim gave this game a 9/10 no one would have batted an eye. It makes you wonder if other reviewers gave the game a higher score than they otherwise would have out of fear of the hate mob as much as you wonder if Jim gave this game a 7 than say an 8 just to get the attention. It has to  go both ways.

Don't get me wrong, this game is the best game Nintendo has put out in years, possibly ever. It will undoubtedly go down as one of the greatest games of all time, but let's just temper our enthuiasm just a little, on both sides of the fence, shall we? This isn't a perfect game. It's okay to criticize it. It's also okay to love the shit out it despite not loving every single aspect of the game. It's also okay to acknowledge that you can understand why someone might not enjoy the game as much as you because some of those aspects might hamper their experience more than it does yours.

True enough. I get that simplicity, nostalgia, and 'fun for fun's sake' is part of their core philosophy as a company and I don't mind that too much because those are the sorts of games I grew up on. I get that the idea behind this game was to simultaneously recapture the exploration-based essence of the original Legend of Zelda while simultaneously breaking new ground in terms of gameplay. However, my personal idea of the optimally successful achievement of that kind of goal for a Zelda-like game is best exemplified in the indie title Sword & Sworcery EP, which borrows heavily from '80s adventure and RPG franchises (especially Zelda) and keeps the story and game play simple, BUT WHILE ALSO actually breaking with major gaming conventions in a lot of ways.

In Sword & Sworcery EP, you gain experience points in that game, but they weaken you instead of strengthening you, thus altering the whole way that you might approach the possiblity of conflict. And the end of the game, the heroine sacrifices herself to save the world. There's not much of a story there, but it's still a different one than we saw 30 years ago and where video games are commonly thought of as power fantasies (which Breath of the Wild is another example of), Sword & Sworcery EP ruptures with this concept to become instead an empathy title. That's what I consider the "10/10 Zelda-esque" game standard for myself, personally.

All games on metacritic get a 0% as soon as the game opens for rating. Ofc games that have a history of 20 years arent comparable on the same degree as new IPs.

Haters gonna hate that's for sure. But then again haters aren't only in zelda territory. See CoD etc...

Damn, this turned into a long-ass thread! Jim getting some real attention over this, and everywhere.

Well, your articles have nearly nothing to do with what I said, look here instead: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/video-games/columns/experienced-points/10266-Lara-s-Damsel-in-Distress

But to explain further: the near perfect reviews come because for most (not all people) all the things in BotW click together and make a good experience. Single points don't detract of it, except for some. That's why you see the phenomenom, that people watching Youtube-videos of it dislike it, while people playing it mostly like it. Reviewers have to play it to give a vote.

I don't think the crackpot-theories of a Nintendo-conspiration among the reviewers is true. They sometime catch a good feeling with their games. If they fail, they usually get hell from the reviewers for it. But more: if there was a Zelda-nostalgic that influences reviewers it would have impacted the score of BotW negatively. Because it breaks with a lot of Zelda conventions. So, please, no conspiracy theories, the reviewers are not more likely to support Nintendo than Sony (and the conspiracy theory that reviewers are in league with Sony are also existant). To further my point, just compare this Meta of WiiU and PS4:

http://www.metacritic.com/browse/games/score/metascore/all/wii-u/filtered?sort=desc

http://www.metacritic.com/browse/games/score/metascore/all/ps4/filtered?sort=desc

Doesn't look like reviewers are generally boosting scores for nintendo games.

No, the thing is just, that many reviewers just liked BotW. Just because it is fun and makes them forget about story, tropes, framerates and stuff like that. Not everyone again, although I think Jim Sterling gave a pretty positive note with 7/10. Maybe some people here have to accept that this Metascore from reviewers is not a result of something sinister but a result of reviewers just liking the game. Even if some people disliked it.

Tl;DR: it's time to accept that reviewers have opinions, and that they maybe really have a good impression about BotW.