And so i rest my case

You didn't even make a case. You just asserted things. 

If you feel like this is an attack, then you need to stop getting triggered so easily.  I think that "people should play a game before making an opinion" is a pretty good argument.  

If a reviewer said, "this review was based on watching gameplay footage" would you consider that an informed opinion?  I'm assuming not.  And if a reviewer needs to actually play the game to have a worthwhile opinion on it, then it stands to reason that you'd also have to play the game to know if that opinion is justified.

So, EVERY person should play EVERY game before voicing an opinion about it.  Man, a lot of shit games are going to be getting great sales if people adopted your view.  Thankfully, they don't.  And in reality, neither do you.  Unless you can tell me you have NEVER said a word about a game you NEVER played.  Also, reviewers have a different standard.  They have to watch/play the thing they are reviewing.  If you didn't know, it's part of their job.  I don't have to play Zelda to agree with him.  I don't like easily broken weapons in any game, so I know I won't like them in Zelda.

And I'm not the one getting triggered here.  Especially over a good review. 

People believe that everyone is mad for the score, when in reality is the bad writed and misinformed review the problem. Clearly, looking for attention that he got and then acts like a victim.

These kind of persons don't add anything worthy.

Honestly, I'm on a complete black out on anything Zelda for the most part so I'm going to skip this one too, I'm enjoying the game too much lol.

Make a clearer argument please, rather than juxtaposing quotes and oneliners. If I understand correctly, your thesis is that it is wrong to prejudge somebody by their avatar/signature. Well, that isn't what I did. I judged the content of their words, their arguments, and then discovered that certain people in this thread who haven't played the game somehow think they can agree or disagree with a review of a game they have not played. Then I looked at the pattern and further discovered a trend of fan content in these people's avatars/signatures which explains why somebody would think it is justifiable to judge a game or game mechanics they have not experienced. 

If that is "scary" then certainly you haven't experienced much of the internet. I suspect that game critics have more integrity than to change their review scores because a small base of gamers (proportionally) strongly disagree with them. That is just a silly conspiracy theory pushed by people who are either 1. bitter that they would have to buy a Nintendo console to experience a great title and feel as if they are missing out, 2. are bitter because the game has outperformed their favorite game of choice critically, or 3. dislike Nintendo in general. And yes, a conspiracy theory being pushed out there because of crappy intentions can certainly be annoying. 

The durability is à good systèm and à Bad systèm at thé same Time.

It forces you to have a fighting style à bit more varied, keeping away thé boreness for à Little longer than it would have Been witbout the systèm.

But at thé same Time it kills any value you could give to rewards, you jsut dont care about opening chests when you know itll bé most of thé Time à weapon that you will break in 20s, so et some point i just didnt care about chests in shrines or rewards from secondary quests so i just stoppéd doing secondary quests Because if they werent interesting as itself or for thé reward( éven thé Money reward is useless, you get tons of rubis by selling stuff you dont need), i didnt see the point to force myself.


So at thé end i still préfèr à system where you could at least fix thé damaged weapons

"So, EVERY person should play EVERY game before voicing an opinion about it.  "

Since you like strawmen so much, I put up a picture of one for you.  Not going to waste time defending things I never said.  All I'll say is that different opinions require a different amount of evidence to be justified.

A reviewer has to play the game to have a valid opinion of it.  You do not have to play the game to validly hold that same opinion (to agree).  You'll have to explain how that works to me.