First, nobody is kissing BotW ass. Weapons are all over Hyrule. If there's a problem is space to save those. Secondly, zero stamina problems. You can climb Twin Peaks with the initial stamina ring. And that is one of the highest peaks in the game. No need to upgrade to explore Hyrule. Again, there's already a succesful speedrun.

Third, there's nothing difficult in combat. You can kill guardians parrying the laser with pot shields. Lynels are hard but flurry rush make it easier. Add in there buffs from cocking and even less problems.

About Ubisoft Towers, hopefully he is consisten that every game with a tower is a Ubisoft game. Lastly the weather system, especially rain, can be a problem for climbing and I agree.

Before you call me a butthurt child, you should try to ask in the first place what is my opinion in the game, because is nowhere to be my best Zelda game.

To re-itterate.

And if your stamina can't get you somewhere, there is another, possbily a half dozen other ways to get there. As someoen said above, they climbed a waterfall with the ice skill. You could also climb the cliff next to the waterfall, or you coudl use the armor that lets you surf up teh water fall in seconds. Or how about putting the octoballoons on a boulder and floating up the cliff. Ect. There are a dozen ways to do anything you want. 

Yea, kill the toughest things in the game with a lvl 1 shield. The weakest shield in teh entire game.

I don' get the weather complaint. We as gamers are now complaining about rain in a game making things act like rain? You know being able to shield surf super fast in rain weahter, or not being able to climb? I guess realism is just bad now huh. Bring on the bird poop ledges that I am telegraphed climibing I guess. But if it starts raining, I just change what I'm doing. As I said before, there are a dozen ways to do something. If it starts raining, do the other methods, or else move on to something else and come back. Find a little shelter, drop some wood, start it on fire and rest for half a day so rain is gone. Then start climbing.

The howlongtobeat isn't yet accurate. Only 81 people were polled. It took me 70 hours to beat the game, and I only have 20% of the content of the game completed after beating it. But in comparison, do you think a review in which all one does is Skyrim's main quest (https://howlongtobeat.com/game.php?id=9859) is accurate? 

In Castlevania II you can't instantly skip the text box. You have to wait for it to finish scrolling, and it happens much more often than the blood moon (every ten minutes rather than every few hours.) The blood moon also serves a proper function (upgrades the strength of all enemies in camps.)  The comparison is flawed, and he is either being intentionally disingenous here or doesn't know anything about it. I am trying to pretend he is not disingenous and is truly ignorant about how the blood moon works. 

Another example is how he tries to chalk up difficulty to enemies being able to one-shot you and not being actually difficult. In every open-world Role Playing game there are enemies that can one-hit kill you in the beginning. BotW is no different. Very early in the game you have access to revivals though, and can be revived as many times as you have fairies and a certain skill from a dungeon. He might have missed this if he rushed through the game, but it is there. Difficulty is instead focused on parrying, dodging, countering telegraphed attacks and enacting a fury rush. The better you are at this the easier it is to kill enemies. This has nothing to do with being oneshotted, although if you rush through the game you can miss this feature. 

Here is a reddit post that summarizes all that is wrong with his review. 

https://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/5yzcw5/the_jimquisition_breath_of_the_wild_review_open/

"My two cents, I'm still waiting for a truly great critical review. I like Jim's writing style but the content here is below his usual standard. tl;dr he makes factual mistakes and ignores some genuinely questionable decisions to focus on nitpicks and reaching arguments.

One thing that needs saying, it's fine for Jim to harp on his problems with BotW even if the score is a respectable 7. With dozens of perfect score reviews available Jim doesn't really need to repeat common praise. What matters is whether his criticisms are fair and substantiated.

Factual inaccuracies always damage a review's credibility. Visited but unfinished shrines are marked as such on your map, as others have mentioned. Shrine and blood moon cutscenes can be skipped. Jim shouldn't have wasted time complaining about such non-problems, and framing your critical opinion in relation to "raving 10/10 reviews" just invites speculation about contrarianism.

There's plenty of reaching for things to dislike. The short paragraph about shrines especially annoys me because the criticisms are not only unnecessary (Jim has more substantial issues with the game) but just wrong.

1. Shrines break immersion? Unlike most Zelda dungeons, they were designed by an intelligence for a specific purpose. Puzzles designed by sheikahs to test Link fit with the game world, whereas block/switch puzzles in a fish's belly or convenient key/door placement in enemy territory is harder to justify narratively. This small nitpick actually bothered me in previous Zeldas so it's disappointing to see Jim inconsistently criticize BotW for a positive change.

2. Shrines break flow? On the contrary they are part of the flow. BotW, from its opening moments, establishes a routine of exploration, scavenging, discovery, and puzzle solving. If Jim doesn't like the game's structure he should have said as much instead of criticizing shrines for supposedly breaking flow, when they are a core part of it.

3. Shrines feel like a shoehorned substitute for traditional dungeons? They are totally distinct entities with different goals. Traditional Zelda dungeons are long, labyrinthine, enemy intensive, and typically involve puzzles centered around a dungeon item. Shrines are concise, straightforward, enemy light, and surprising and innovative in puzzle design. Beasts are a closer emulation of traditional dungeons but focus more on spatial reasoning than combat and puzzles.

BotW combat is more similar to the Souls games than Jim acknowledges. Enemies are reasonably durable and very strong, but attacks are telegraphed and success in battle relies on both creativity and systems mastery. I'm sure he knows better than to put "difficulty" in quote marks so I'm not sure why he did anyway. Again it feels like reaching.

His section on stamina makes no mention of stamina extending/restoring foods, odd since Jim praised the utility of life-expanding meals. (/u/ggtsu_00 points out I missed Jim's mention of elixers. I do think Jim should have emphasized this option more because it alleviates many of his concerns, like climbing during rain or having extra stamina for travel.) He also seems not to try and understand why the system exists. If Link could run without limit or started with three stamina circles, travel would be very one-dimensional. The stamina system gives rhythm to standard travel, adds decision making and even some strategy to climbs and swims, and provides incentive for locating stables and horses. And you actually can climb in the rain, it just requires leap timing and stamina food for longer climbs. I expect good reviews to demonstrate thoughtful consideration of mechanics before criticizing them.

Performance issues are fair game of course, but Jim is the first critic I've seen to complain about draw distance specifically for the purpose of scouting out enemies. Also the first I've seen to claim enemies pop in and out of the playing field. In my playthrough the sheikah slate had fantastic range and enemy locations were stable. I'm curious whether and where others experienced these problems.

Durability gets a lot of attention and that's fine, it's a divisive topic and Jim recognizes there's another side of the argument. I also really like his amiibo hate, while not quite a problem with the game itself the whole practice is anti-consumer moneygrubbing dressed up as a line of toys.

But there are more topics critics should be covering. Is food overpowered? Are fairies too easy to farm? Are flurries and parries appropriate rewards for systems mastery or are they imbalanced given how straightforward combat becomes once mastered? Does the unusual difficulty curve work for or against the game and its pacing? Does the dark story premise mesh with the frequently lighthearted tone?

Now I personally would defend BotW here, but I would respect a critical examination that focused on these elements as they're the most questionable design aspects. But they're not usually a topic of conversation and instead detractors focus on nitpicks or non-issues. BotW is in my top five and will probably stay there, but I'm actually hoping a respected Youtube game critic makes a good negative review so we can push the debate forward."

Let me pose a question about the cut scenes. Even with them skip-able. If an action is being repeated, over and over again. The blood moon, and the Shrine entry intros etc. Shouldn't the game just stop doing the cut scenes, in the first place. The majority of people will just skip them. After a few viewings. Making the skip option moot. The animation should not happen any more. It should be relegated to the playback archive. That's where I'm coming from.

I'm happy that everything is basically skip-able. But, I'd rather is be fully disable-able. Like Pokemon's battle animation.

As for the durabilty system. If it matched Minecraft's. I wouldn't complain. Since it doesn't, it's crappy.

In bold.

The bloodmoon is rare enough (every few 3 hours, perhaps?) and short enough (20 seconds, if you don't skip) that it really shouldn't impact the experience in a significant manner.

what concerns durability: the goal of a short durability likely was, primarily, an attempt to keep the game balanced while still allowing players to tackle any quest in the order you like - a short durability forces you to use the tools in tge area, which makes sense, from a design perspective.

You do realize that you're creating work-arounds for what others consider to be annoyances, right? The fact that you can work around it, or tolerate it, doesn't mean it's that tolerable to others, or that the work arounds make it less annoying.

Imagine if someone but a giant boulder in front of your front door that allowed you to only open the door a foot. When you complain about it, they say, "welll you can still squeeze through the door, or you can take your door off it's hinges and hop over the boulder, or you could you could just use the door on the back of your house. It's really not a problem having that boulder there if you think about it" I'm pretty sure you'd still prefer to have the boulder removed so you can use the door the way you'd like without the work arounds.

You know what's annoying? Running out of ammo in shooters. Why can't I just have infinite ammo? It's much more fun not having to ever reload my weapon and alway be shooting. Where's the fun in stopping the action for 5 seconds just so I can't have unlimited power and be unstoppable?