I find it strange that they complain that this feels exactly the same as other Zelda games, when so many reviewers have commented on how different this is to other Zelda games. I understand reviews are reflective of different opinions, but surely, if the Zelda formula is so heavily ingrained and over-used as this review claims, then it would be easy to notice any changes to it???
The complaints about the controls are also quite bizarre--I haven't heard anything of the sort from any review. Obviously I can't judge that for myself until I play the game, but for outlets that would ping the game relentlessly for messing up something as basic as a control system (Edge, GamesTM, Eurogamer) to have praised the controls endlessly, it does make me wonder what's going on here. Granted, motion controls probably vary in effectiveness from user to user far more than button controls will, but it almost sounds like a professional reviewer has a faulty Motion Plus. Then again, he does mention problems with "infra-red aiming" which the game doesn't use--the game uses the gyroscopes and motion sensors, so I guess it's not much of a surprise he had problems with controls.
I can't judge this until I play the game, really. And that's a few weeks off. I don't think we can call this man biased--he gave Galaxy 2 a perfect score, I think. But we have the most experimental Zelda (structurally and in terms of gameplay) since Majora's Mask, and the odd critic still insists Zelda hasn't changed in the 5 years since Twilight Princess?? That genuinely confuses me.