Too much realism, hampers video games. Even now. some games don't even have ammo. They work under recharge. Healthpacks are basically gone.

We all knew that was gonna happen unfortunately, people take scores and reviews way too serious.

My point is that people who are taking longer to beat the game haven't entered their values yet. It released March 3rd, and only 80 people polled, when HowLongToBeat tends to have thousands polled. That is why its innacurate, not because it took me longer to beat (even though I am one of the first dozen to beat the game on Vghchartz.)

Shrines show up as a different color on the map when they are not completed, they are very easily trackable. I don't know what to say to you. You obviously haven't played the game so you can't see where he gets the facts wrong, and you are so intent on defending his really badly substantiated review.  None of the things I have criticized him for nor the redditor are "subjective" they are critiques on his understanding of how the system works. He thinks one-shot kills are common. They aren't. He thinks the blood moon happens often and it is comparable to Castlevania II's message box. It doesn't and isn't. He compares the towers to ubisoft towers without realizing the crucial difference of why people dislike ubisoft towers does not follow into this game. He ignores certain items which are meant to remove many of the obstacles he complains about, as intentional gameplay devices. So on and so forth. These are positive claims about what the game is, not normative claims about how it feels. 

But please go on, defend a piss-poor review of a game you haven't played. 

You realize that it's only an optimization for the gameplay I use. You can run as fast as you always could do in Zelda just by moving your stick completely to the border instead of just moving it a little from center. The option to run is actually added, so that you can even be faster than in earlier games. You also don't realize, that the main point of wonder is, that many people assume you have to stop and stand still to replenish stamina.

But you have all freedom to complain that you can be faster than in previous Zelda games, you can complain that you're too slow, you can complain that fast-running eats up a resource. If you dislike games with that mechanic, you shouldn't force yourself to Monster Hunter or Souls or BotW. It's free to you.

And you can keep on making fun of other peoples opinion by completely ridiculous comparisons. All that shows is that you're bitter some peeople are enjoying a game.

I get where you're coming from, but that's kinda his shtick. The cocky/arrogant way he presents everything? Hell, every jimquisition ends with him saying "and thank god for me." I can only hope he isn't actually like that in regular interactions and I haven't read his zelda review yet, but at least that's his general appeal, being a dick

He's pretty damn popular on his own, way more than when he was in destructoid, he's had way more than just a few minutes of fame. And again, his revenue doesn't come from ads or clicks to his page, he's got like $11K in patreon. Based on all that, i'd say you don't know his work all that well, mate.  

I read his review and it had some legitimate points. Other criticts and players have expressed their disdain for the low durability of weapon, frame drops and somewhat limited stamina that is available early on, as well as the Amiibo exclusive content . He mentions a lot of other smaller annoyances (weather preventing traversal, one-hit opponents, short draw distance, etc) that, during his experience, affected his play through so it makes sense that in retrospect he would deduct points.  You may disagree with him on certain topics but I don't see where you can call him clickbaity or attention seeking as he laid out all the things he praised and disliked

What I was saying is that that alone would not validate taking off points, since it is an absolutely insignificant par of the experience.

zelda 1 also has no diversity in the weapons. It is not inherintly wrong for devellopers to choose to force players into different playing styles. Take a mario game. It would be fully ridiculous to take off points because the devellopers decided to vary the mechanics ever so often. Forcing diversity of playstyle is positive.

Except reviews are opinions. So he has every right to take points off, on said areas. Because he found them annoying, or unaceptable. You didn't. I find the durability system crap. And a game that does it better, is Minecraft. I would dock points, because of this reason too.

It's not inherintly wrong. But, you have to also accept when you get hate for something like this. "Forcing diversity of playstyle is positive." Not all the time. Take fighting games. Characters usually share combo attack button layouts. Image if every attack, every finisher, every melee, was a different confugiration. IE: Chun Li's punches are on A. Ryu is on Y etc. That's where Forcing diversity of playstyle is wrong.

Of course. Because reloading your gun (something that's found in practically all shooters) is totally the same as a tedious, arbitrary stamina system that has plenty of work arounds that renders it more annoying than it does to offer a challnege. Nice false equivalence.

Doom had even iddqd. That way you could get rid of the annoying health bar. Obviously Doom was the pinnacle of game design.

To anyone thinking he was not doing it for the clicks, just look at there is another thread out that shows he has a new jimquisition already out talking about the backlash.

He is doing it solely for the clicks.