OP seems to have a huge chip on his shoulder regarding Nintendo, or gets his jollies trolling Nintendo. Last time he was on here before now was to laugh at Nintendo over Wii U sales seven or eight years ago. He never posts otherwise.

And at that time Nintendo definitely wasn’t getting a free pass on anything.

Except for TP and BOTW, do whatever needs to be done with the post Ocarina of Time games, burn them to the ground, rape their sons and daughters and most importantly to ensure we don't get any remasters or remakes don't forget to salt the soil when your finished,but a word of warning don't you dare  touch my Twilight Princess and BOTW you hear.

Scores means nothing, it could have gotten a 0 and wouldn't make any difference to me, as long as I'm able to buy and play this masterpiece. Just like mario 3d stars, it contains 3 of the best games in the history of gaming, the best game from the 90's, the best game of the 2000s and one of top 5 best games of the 00s.

They could have just released mario galaxy on it and I'd still rate it a must have for the switch, the improvements are astonishing, jaggies are all gone, resolution is sharp, colors pop etc

Same with skyward sword.

If a game gets a zero on average I don't think you'd even be able to play the game :P

You didn't get my point. If a game is good, then its good no matter what kind of scores it gets.

Or maybe the game is from 2011 and standards have changed in 10 years? This happens almost all the time with older games. Games people thought were great or even masterpieces will look back and not think that anymore. Of course there are games that still hold up well and games that didn't get great reception overtime received more praise.
I guess since you started this topic with Zelda we will use that franchise as an example for all three scenarios.


Zelda A Link to the Past: Was seen as a masterpiece back when it came out. To this day it's still seen as a masterpiece.
Zelda Ocarina of Time: Was seen as a masterpiece back then. Now people look back at it as a great game, but not as a masterpiece.
Zelda Windwaker: Was seen as a good game and hated by some. Now it's seen as a masterpiece.

People don't seem to grasp this. A majority of games will not hold up overtime.

Nintendo is a different beast. They have a dedicated audience that loves these games no matter what. They could almost live without any other games. So they rate these core games very highly, and people who are not into Nintendo games will not buy a Nintendo system to begin with, so there will be almost no bad ratings at all, except for third party games.
What about professional critics, then? I don't think they're pressured into anything per se, unless they want to avoid the wrath of notoriously passionate Nintendo fans. Also, Nintendo has a certain hip factor, so it's cool to at least pretend to like their games.
Sony and Microsoft games are mercilessly dragged through the mud, especially nowadays with all the political agendas flailing about. Scores will take a hit for those reasons alone, whereas it's more challenging to attach political gripes to Mario, Zelda or Animal Crossing or whatnot.

Do people actually still believe the Zelda cycle? I know Aonuma and Iwata spoke on it a few years ago, but I just can't help but think there's glaring contradictions in it. Honestly seems like a somewhat silly summary of a series having peaks and valleys.

If anything, it seems like Nintendo is generally dismissed by professional critics. They tend to emphasize the latest games from Sony, MS, EA, Activision, Ubisoft, Bethesda, or CD Projekt.. There are some periods, notably the Gamecube and Wii U eras, it's seemed to be that people have been much harsher on Nintendo than on its competitors.