All I can say is that it's amazing what kind of market analysis game development companies do.

If you're not going to provide something tangible, I have no reason to believe you or care.

I don't have an opinion on the game's difficulty as I haven't played it, but that video does not do what you claim it does.
How many times did this person practice this fight beforehand? How much wiggleroom is there for making mistakes? Etc. Context like that is relevant when evaluating the difficulty of that particular fight. Let alone the overall game.

When playing Nioh, I've come up against bosses that wrecked me over and over again. Some times even instanteneously. (Example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FR2RAr4Rkl4 ) But by continuing to learn from my mistakes, I get better at fighting them, little by little. Eventually I've dispatched some bosses without even taking a single hit. If I upload such a video, is that evidence that Nioh isn't a difficult game? No, of course not. Nioh is a very difficult game.

Of course, I'll just break my NDAs and get my ass sued to prove a point on the internet! Again, it's the internet. I could not care less whether you believe me or not.

Ugh.  I'm not asking you to do anything.  If you have information you can present to back up your point, then present it.  If you are unwilling or unable to present that information, then just don't try to use it to justify your position.  Is that somehow unreasonable to you?

You asked me why I believed what I did. I told you.

Yes, but that is the case in Nioh as well, and yet I would label it as an unusually difficult game. The difference between Zelda and Nioh's difficulty may be how often you feel the need to excersize this type of cautious play, and how much practice it takes to do it consistently. But that is not apparent in the video.
The difference between the highest difficulty in Resident Evil 5, and the one before it, is that everything kills you in one hit. So in this case the increase in difficulty is defined by enemy damage output.

There's a trophy in Megaman 10 that's given to you only if you manage to beat the game without ever getting hit by anything. That means there is a way to avoid every single enemy and projectile. But in a normal first playthrough you're likely going to get hit a whole bunch of times.

The video shows that there is a way to avoid getting hit by that particular enemy. And that's probably true for every enemy in the game. But what it doesn't show is how easy or difficult it is to do this comfortably. Or how often you'd come across enemies where you feel the need to excersize this type of caution. How many mistakes will lead to defeat? Three? One? There is a lot of relevant context that is not detailed in that video.

I'm sorry for not specifying that I was only interested in information that you can actually present.  I figured that was implied.

Cloudman said: Hahaa~ totally called it. I knew he was going to bring it up as soon as the attacks on him happened. Back to the topic, I do think Jim's points have merits, but I don't agree that some of them are as bad as he claims. Sometimes I just have issue with the way he presents his points. He over exaggerates them to the point of being somewhat comical, and speaks in a way as if he's correct and it's absolute. Sure, sometimes it may be tied to his character, or for humor, but they're the same reason why sometimes I don't fully take his opinion. Also, I find it funny that now 7 seems to be a fine score when sometimes in the past it was seen as above average, and well, I think Zelda: BotW is more than that.

That's kind of his thing.  People are acting like getting this kind of reaction is completely unintended or that it's bad for him.  But it's really not.  He probably had this follow up piece in mind before he wrote the first one.  

With these kinds of guys (Yahtzee or AVGN) you have to take it for the entertainment value.   Once you know their style, you can glean some information that would actually be useful in deciding to purchase the game or not, but you shouldn't take it at face value.  The problem is that when he's doing reviews essentially in character (unless he's legitimately this insufferable in real life) it really shouldn't be included in metacritic.  But I doubt Nintendo's going to lose any sleep about their game having a 97 instead of a 98 rating.