Like I said, that's going to be really impossible as he erased all the really bad ones with little to no constuctive criticism.  I think his video actually brought even more hate to his page, since he shows that it in his vid with only 1 upvote.  Then, again, he may have caught the screenshot of the comment before his review was hit by a ton of fanboys.  Either way, even ~150 upvotes is way too many.  And, really, I wouldn't mind all the trolls/fanboys.  They are everywhere.  No, what made this worse was not only the severity of their attack, but also the more sane Nintendo fans making excuses for their behavior.  Acting like Jim deserved it for not only giving it a 7, but also knocking the score down to 97.  Either way you cut it, it was a pathetic display.

Supposedly Link makes an ugly shocked face when he sees a supposed female character with beard or something (the character that gives you the Gerudo clothing).

That's it.

Can you point out the excuses these more sane Nintendo fans made? I'd like to read them.

Of course it should be considered, as it is also a fact.  Most notably when decent games get 4's or lower, which is below average.  I believe someone gave UC4 a 4, which is completely ridiculous.  Sure, the game may be average to you, gameplay-wise, but you can't ignore its graphical/technical achievements.  IMO, the lowest that game should get is a 6, or above average.  Unfortuanely, though, a 4 for a huge AAA title is guaranteed traffic to your site from fans who are going to voice their anger/disapproval for the score.

And it is somewhat concerning for gaming companies to advertise on gaming sites, as they may lead to skewed reviews.  However, I don't think that is too much of a concern.  Even if the site gives your game a lower score than you think it should have gotten, crying about it will only give you bad press, which could affect sales.  It also stands to reason that the vast majority of site goers are going to be gamers, so you are going to want to advertise on them, anyway, to reach the largest number of gamers.  Scores be damned.  And not all of those gamers go off of reviews.  Or think 6s or 7s make a game unbuyable.

It's all in here.  It basically boils down to how his opinions don't matter because "that's how the game was supposed to be" or "the weapons breaking adds variety."

As for the defending of the attack, they speculate he lowered the review two points on purpose, just for attention or because he's trolling and he wanted the DDOS attack for more attention.  Basically, he was asking for it.

Some even saying it's understanable to be mad because it lowered the Meta and they would have been fine if it hadn't lowered the score.  I guess cause a 97 is a shit game or something.

Our enjoyment of a game might be subjective but it's generally grounded by objective parameters.  Controls, camera functionality, frame-rate--there are any number of criteria that can be rated and compared to other games.  When I look at a review, I want the technical side to be considered as well because I'm the only one who can decide what does and does not detract from my experience.  The reviewer saying, "oh, but I don't care about X, I only care about Y," makes the article about the reviewer as much as it is about the game.

That's why many people, when they read a review of something, they're looking for as much objective information as possible, so they can apply it to their own list of likes and dislikes.  Reviews, in my opinion, should describe both sides of the coin.  They aren't simply an editorial or a tech analysis, they're a reflection of both.

To be fair, weapon durability complaints are actually pretty sad. The durability system is crucial to a lot of the fun aspects of Breath of the Wild's gameplay, and it would be completely broken if it wasn't for it - it would get boring as soon as you got 1 good weapon.

The game has lots of other things that could be considered problems for some. Saying the story is average, or the ending is underwhelming, or talking about the inconsistent framerate, among other things are actually pretty valid points. Weapon durability is just... not. I get that some people will never like a system like that where the weapons break all the time, but it simply isn't an issue within the game design - if anything, it makes the game better.

4/10 - pretty reasonable score for UC4 though. This game is scripted boredom.

Supposedly Link makes an ugly shocked face when he sees a supposed female character with beard or something (the character that gives you the Gerudo clothing).

That's it.

Yes they are sad.

People are entitled to their own opinions and as I said, it's completely normal and understandable that some people won't like it.

However, pointing that as a flaw in the game is simply ridiculous. It's a design choice that is completely coherent with everything else in the game and makes the game far more interesting, because it keeps that survival factor, and it keeps it hard. It keeps the player always on their toes and always having to make decisions and have a good understanding of what they're doing, rather than just going in without giving things any thought because they have an OP weapon.

It also balances the game because it makes it so you can't just get a super broken weapon in Hyrule Castle and breeze your way through the whole game because of it.

...and besides making the game more balanced, and making combat more interesting, it's also a crucial part of why combat is fun, too - because when you battle an enemy, and you defeat it, you want a reward. That reward always comes in the form of more weapons, which is always a good thing to have - except if weapons didn't break ever, in which case every enemy encounter in the game would be completely pointless by the point you get a good weapon.

tl;dr the destructible weapons not only make the combat in the game more interesting, but also rewarding. If it wasn't for that, combat would be completely boring and pointless.