There is no problem giving high scores to games that run like shit. It's all about preferences.

I would. But being a PC gamer, I tend to "erk" at the thought of sub-60fps.

Some games are okay being 30fps (I.E non-twitch shooters) especially if they implement technology such as motion blur to hide the 30fps framerate.

A game like Overwatch, Quake, Unreal Tournament, Smash Brothers, Mario Kart etc' at 30fps though would be absolute garbage... A game like Skyrim is fine at 30fps. If it's a solid 30fps. None of that sub-30fps dip rubbish seen on Playstation 3.

Each stable have framerate dips when you look at it. Game installed into internal Wii U memory, I have no problems with loading times nor textures issues, but optimization near borderline level. For me it's clear that Nintendo don't give a fuck about Wii U version.

I forgot about Moblins on the Death Mountain, yeah. That was reaally bad.

I don't think you understand how demanding and ambitious Zelda is for a console like the Wii U.

They should have downgraded the game a little to make it run better.

If i recall correctly, the last guardian was lambasted for its technical performance by a lot of critics. Irony here is it runs no worse than a docked switch running BotW.

Critics slam whatever they feel like. I do also find it funny how people think all game critics have more say than most of us that have actually gamed our entire lives. Most of these people are desperate journalism grads trying to get their foot in the door; theres nothing wrong with that mind you, but dont expect me to care for their opinions. How many bad gameplay videos from Polygon do we have to watch before people stop using game critics as a gold standard for quality?

Back in the day, game journalism was by gamers for gamers and I had a lot of respect for them, but post Kane and Lynch its been all downhill. /rant

I have evidience of Xenoblade Chronicles X with greater draw distance, proper online system, AI partners, Mechs which runs at stable 30 fps. Zelda heavily relies on physics, yeah, but they should polished it. No excuse for developers. Hyrule castle is so beautiful visually and musically, but barely playable due to performance issues.

1fps Moblins is clearly bug in both versions, and Nindendo didn't want to fix it.

XCX doesn't have the same level of physics as BOTW, the world isn't even half as interactive, the draw distance isn't greater either and the are things BOTW utilizes that XCX doesn't.

The fact is most critics and fans really don't care about some screen-tearing here or there or a few random frame-rate hiccups if the game delivers everywhere else.

Now I'm sure there are some tech heads who are dissatisfied with Zelda's performance (and would be dissatisfied with the other games mentioned in the OP). That's totally fair. What isn't fair is when fans celebrate all the "GOTY" awards TLoU (a game with its own technical crosses to bear) earned but complain about the biased critical reception of BotW, and insist it must be docked several points for frame-rate dips. It's just a double standard.

To be clear: all fans are guilty of this. The "controversy" over Breath of the Wild is just the latest sad example.

To be fair; people who disagree with perfect scores might just be thinking about issues beyond frame rate as well...