So you agree the Metacritic user score can always just be dismissed as it is useless.

But there is a catch. A small difference if i may add: Previous zelda game were scoring high again AND users were also scoring it high. BotW doesnt' follow this trend. That is my point. I hope you get it this time. Can't explain it any better.

Stop it with the metacritic user score stuff again. It was already explained why the user score of previous Zelda games (the last of which releasesd five years ago) weren't trolled. 1. There were fewer troll reviews of Nintendo games overall until BOTW and 2. There were fewer troll reviews of games in general until this generation. 

But there is a catch. A small difference if i may add: Previous zelda game were scoring high again AND users were also scoring it high. BotW doesnt' follow this trend. That is my point. I hope you get it this time. Can't explain it any better.

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.

Don't you think it's a bit disingenious to tell others that they should just accept all of those "near perfect" review scores when you're having a hard time accepting that the people that are criticizing this game have played the game as well? How do you actually know that the people who gave these near perfect scores even played the game as much as the people who are criticizing it?

I don't accept that this is a 10/10 game to the vast majority of video game reviewers if they're holding Nintendo to the same standards as they do every other game any more than I accepted it for Metal Gear Solid V or Grand Theft Auto V. I feel certain series get special treatment and its not right. Nothing you've said has invalidated that premise.

You're right. I should have posted reviews of tomb raider. Here it is on metacritic: http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-3/tomb-raider
Don't you find it strange that only one reviewer gave it a perfect score? As opposed to dozens for Breath of the Wild? It's like the negatives in Tomb Raider are affecting the review score more than they're affecting the review score in Breath of the Wild. Wait.... I think that was my point. Not quite sure how your article really applies when it's not giving Tomb Raider a near perfect rating despite the use of that trope. I'm also not sure why you're comparing things with PS4.

You think I haven't accepted that reviewers have opinions? That's strange considering you say "That's why you see the phenomenom, that people watching Youtube-videos of it dislike it, while people playing it mostly like it. " It seems to me you're having a hard time accepting that many people who think that these negatives detract from the overall experience might have actually played the game. Jim Sterling is one one them. You know, the guy who got attacked for giving his opinion of Zelda to a point where people question whether he actually played it because they can't possibly believe those negatives detracted from his experience as much as he said it did?

Don't you think it's a bit disingenious to tell others that they should just accept all of those "near perfect" review scores when you're having a hard time accepting that the people that are criticizing this game have played the game as well? How do you actually know that the people who gave these near perfect scores even played the game as much as the people who are criticizing it?

I don't accept that this is a 10/10 game to the vast majority of video game reviewers if they're holding Nintendo to the same standards as they do every other game any more than I accepted it for Metal Gear Solid V or Grand Theft Auto V. I feel certain series get special treatment and its not right. Nothing you've said has invalidated that premise.

As you can see from the answers i'm getting about metacritic user score, we only have a problem about the 0%s and not the 100%s. I didnt hear ANYONE say smthn about all those 100%s on day one! maybe they played it 24h marathon, finished it and saw it was worth it.

go figure..........

As you can see from the answers i'm getting about metacritic user score, we only have a problem about the 0%s and not the 100%s. I didnt hear ANYONE say smthn about all those 100%s on day one! maybe they played it 24h marathon, finished it and saw it was worth it.

go figure..........

As you can see from the answers i'm getting about metacritic user score, we only have a problem about the 0%s and not the 100%s. I didnt hear ANYONE say smthn about all those 100%s on day one! maybe they played it 24h marathon, finished it and saw it was worth it.

go figure..........