NPR Posted, Then Deleted Its Ocarina of Time Remake Review Two Days Before Launch. There’s No Metacritic Score Yet, and I Think the Remake Lands Below the Original’s 99

Two days before launch, one of the most anticipated Zelda reviews of the year showed up on the internet and then disappeared. On Nov. 3, NPR published its review of the Ocarina of Time remake and deleted it, according to Notebookcheck, which wrote up the leak the same day. The review never put a number on the game.

I haven’t played the remake, so this isn’t a review, and I want to be clear about that from the first line. What I can do is separate what is actually known tonight from what is just noise, read the leaked review for what it really says, and take a swing at the question everyone is asking: will the remake match the original’s legendary 99 on Metacritic? I don’t think so, and I’ll show you my math so you can disagree with it.

I care about this more than a normal score story, and here’s why. A 99 isn’t just a number. It’s a legend a whole generation carries around, and remakes have a hard time living up to legends. Watching Nintendo try is half the fun of this week.

Where things stand tonight

Here is the situation on one board. Everything below is a snapshot from Nov. 3, and I only list what I could find reported. Anything marked “pattern” is a reasonable guess from history, not an announcement.

One detail I like: Notebookcheck points out that this schedule leaves undecided buyers very little time, because reviews are expected only a day before the game goes on sale. It also notes that Nintendo may not need glowing reviews, given how strong pre-orders have been. I think that’s fair. When a game is this loved, the scores feel less like a sales tool and more like a victory lap.

What the leaked NPR review actually says

NPR’s headline calls the remake “superb, streamlined and safe.” That reads like a very good review with a small cloud over it, and the cloud is the interesting part. Below is my plain-language read of the review in six rows. I’m summarizing, not copying, and I’ve left out anything that spoils the game. A copy of the text was still up on KASU’s website when I looked on Nov. 3.

Two things stand out to me. First, there is no complaint about bugs or performance anywhere in the review. NPR doesn’t cover resolution or frame rate, so I can’t tell you anything about that, but nothing suggests the game is broken. Second, almost every criticism is about choices: a cautious approach, a softened tone, a slower start. Those are the complaints you write about a game that works.

That’s why I think it matters for the score. To me it reads like a review that lands a few points under the legend, not far under it. That’s my interpretation of the language, NPR never gave a number, and it’s one writer’s opinion out of dozens.

Why a leak isn’t a score, and what “midweek” means

Metacritic posted on social media in late October that fans should watch for activity midweek, without naming a day or an hour, Notebookcheck reported on Oct. 30. The same piece notes that reviews of Breath of the Wild, Tears of the Kingdom and Echoes of Wisdom all appeared a day before launch. Put those together and Wednesday, Nov. 4 is the obvious guess. It’s still a guess. I could not find an embargo time from Nintendo.

A leak isn’t a score. It’s one critic’s time with the game, and the number that matters is the average of dozens of them.

I keep coming back to that, because the NPR review is already being read as a verdict. It’s a data point. When the real wave arrives, the interesting questions will be how many critics mention pacing, how many mention the art style, and whether anyone says Nintendo should have been braver.

The Score Ladder: remakes next to their originals

Here is the part I built myself. I took the Metacritic scores that Notebookcheck and Game Rant cite for the original Ocarina of Time, its 3DS remake, the last two mainline Zelda games and a few recent Nintendo remakes, and stacked them on one ladder. The bars start at 70, so the gaps look bigger than they would on a zero-based chart. That’s on purpose, because the gaps are what we care about.

Bars start at 70, so a 99 looks more than two and a half times as long as an 81. The blue band is my forecast, not a result.

Now the pairs. Notebookcheck lays out how Nintendo remakes and remasters have scored against the games they were built from, and the pattern is the same every time:

The original’s 99 comes with an asterisk

The number the remake is chasing may be softer than its reputation. In August, the YouTube channel Did You Know Gaming argued in a video that Metacritic’s Ocarina of Time score was miscalculated, a claim covered by CBR, TheGamer and Shane the Gamer. The channel’s case is that the original’s Metascore rests on reviews that were included or left out unevenly. Game Informer’s 98 and Nintendo Power’s 95 were missing, and GamePro’s 98 was entered as a 100. Using Metacritic’s own rules, the channel recalculated the score as 97.6, which rounds to 98.

Two bits of context matter. Metacritic didn’t exist in 1998, so it gathered the original’s reviews from old magazines after the fact and ended up with a pool of only 22, far fewer than the 70-plus that a modern big-budget release usually collects, according to Shane the Gamer. And Game Rant, writing this week, still lists the original at 99 on 22 critic reviews, so as far as I can tell the page hasn’t changed. I couldn’t find a public response from Metacritic. Guinness World Records recognizes the 99, which is why the stakes feel bigger than a bar chart.

Here’s my opinion. The controversy takes nothing away from the game, and the channel framed it as a data problem, not an attack. But it changes the question. If the benchmark is closer to 98 and rests on 22 reviews, then the remake isn’t chasing a perfect number. It’s chasing the memory of one, and that’s a harder opponent than any Metacritic page.

My forecast: 93, inside a 91 to 95 range

Here is my call, and I want to be honest that it’s an opinion with a method behind it, not inside information. I think the remake lands around 93 on Metacritic once the full wave of reviews is in, with most of the likelihood between 91 and 95. Game Rant’s writer guessed 95. I’m a little more cautious, and here are the three paths I can see.

Why not higher? My reasoning is that a modern release collects far more reviews than the original’s 22, and the more voices in the room, the harder it is to stay at the very top. Why not lower? Because Nintendo’s own team knows how to make a Zelda game people love, and nothing I found points to technical trouble. I’ll be wrong in some direction, and that’s fine. Writing the number down before the scores arrive keeps me honest.

How to read the score when it lands

Whatever the number is, here is a 30-second routine that works for any big release.

1. Check how many reviews are behind it. The original’s 99 sits on 22 reviews and the 3DS version’s 94 on 85. A score built on a small early batch can still move as more critics weigh in.
2. Read the lowest review, not just the highest. One thoughtful 80 will tell you more than ten 100s, because it names what could bother you.
3. Ask what the critic is judging. Is it the remake itself or the memory of the 1998 game? Those are two different tests, and a lot of the NPR piece is about the second one.
4. Don’t let two or three points decide it. In my view a 92 and a 96 both say the same thing: this is a strong game. The difference is mostly taste.

Who built it, and why that matters

One fact settled months of guessing this week. Nintendo confirmed in its Ask the Developer series, published Nov. 2, that the remake was built in-house, according to Notebookcheck. Retailers and rumors had pointed at outside studios, so this is a real answer.

Aonuma also said he was surprised at how little the team ended up changing, even though he gave them near free rein, as Notebookcheck summarizes the interview. That fits the cautious, faithful remake NPR describes. If you want one sentence for why the leaked review says “safe,” that’s it: the people making the game say they tried to protect the experience. Whether critics reward that or ask for more is the real question behind the scores.

What I’d do with all this

These are my picks, not rules. Prices and plans can change, so check your own store.

What nobody knows yet

• The final review scores, and the exact time the embargo ends.
• How the game performs. NPR doesn’t say anything about resolution or frame rate.
• Whether Metacritic will ever change the original’s 99.
• How long the remake takes to finish. I couldn’t find a number from Nintendo.

Quick answers