Thats exactly the case in Zelda. 

Depends on what you consider value. I mean how much value do other people's opninions have for you, especially if you do not care about the person.

Also your counter example is just terrible. You can prevent your hearts going down through planning and skill, you can't really stop your weapons from breaking though. When an action game is actively discouraging you from jumping into action, something is wrong. They might as well made it a survival game with food and drink meters and the necessity to sleep every day and stay indoors when it rains.

This is what Jim Sterling says of the game's difficulty in his review. 

"Given the additional “difficulty” of Breath of the Wild, it’s more crucial than ever to have a solid health supply, and I’ve put “difficulty” in quotes because the main way in which this game tries to be tough is to make most enemies highly absorbent and more than capable of dropping Link in one or two hits.

Rather than fully mimic the Dark Souls combat it half-heartedly aims for, Breath simply pumps up the monsters’ ability to do damage, resulting in a lot of one-hit kills even once Link finds and upgrades some decent armor or puts a lot of shrinework into gaining heart containers. It’s a cheap and dirty way of making any game more “challenging” and I can’t say I find it particularly edifying."

The video shows that the enemies teleprompt their attacks and a lot of the skill involved in the game relies on dodging, parrying, and fury attacks. Besides, it is very easy to get revivals in the game, because faries (which revive you when you die) are accessible since the first town, and there is a skill that automatically revives you when you die (with a cool down.) There is a lot more strategy in the game than Jim gives credit. For example, no enemy is "highly absorbent" for the whole game. All of them have weaknesses. 

The Legend of Zelda is not (and never has been) a pure action title. It is (and always has been) an action-adventure, which is a genre that has a long history of disuading direct combat when it is not necessary, with subgenres like survival horror, stealth, and just plain survival. All Zelda games incentivize shortcut taking over direct action. 

While you can't stop your weapons from breaking eventually, you can delay their breakage by actually playing intelligently (not using 1h swords when attacking shielded enemies, not using weak weapons against strong enemies, etc.) 

Except that good games deter you from fighting by making the enemies challenging and bad games deter you because you don't want to lose your weapon for no reason.

Zelda is not survival horror, it's a skill based game and should reward skill and not punish it by taking away your weapon after you defeated an enemy and giving you a shitty one as reward.

It seems people here don't know the difference between a challenge and a cheaply implemented annoyance.

Yet notriously tough sites/reviewers like Edge Magazine, Gamespot (8.6 Twilight Princess, 7.5 Skyward Sword), and YouTubers like ProJared who don't let fans sway them have given the game a 10. It is silly to think that ALL of these reviewers are just falling for the hype. It reeks of silly conspiracal think, rather than the Occam's Razor scenario where you just didn't enjoy the game as much as everyone else. 

I started this conversation with stating how unreasonable it was for you to present information that people could not verify and expect them to believe it, and seemingly getting upset when they didn't.  But even if I didn't, I think it should be clear that I wasn't just asking if you'd done research out of sheer curiosity,  but because I was actually interested in the research itself.  I thought that was clear.  If it wasn't, I clarified it so it definitely should be now.

You are playing the developer card, using that to make an argument from authority, and then refusing to back up the data.  And when I ask you to present the data you get indignant and sarcastic about it with things like  "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."  

To repeat myself, all I'm saying is that if you don't have the data or can't present it, then you shouldn't bring it up, because it adds nothing to the conversation.  If it exists, and you can talk about it, great.  Talk about it.  If it doesn't exist, or you can't talk about it, then ok.  Don't talk about it.  Which seems to me fairly reasonable.  And if your reaction to that is to get defensive and act like I'm demanding that you reveal super secret information, then I can see why your interactions with Nintendo fans can be unpleasant.

I never brought up the data. I brought up the conclusion based on that data.

It seems people here don't know the difference between a challenge and a cheaply implemented annoyance.

Have you seen the secret box episode of Spongebob?  If you haven't I'll give you a brief synopsis.  Patrick shows Spongebob his secret box and tells him they're something super secret inside.  Spongebob is naturally curious and asks what's in the box.  Patrick refuses because Spongebob is just not privy to the box's secret.  And he just goes on and on and on about how special his box is, and how valuable its contents are and how Spongebob must wish he was special enough to see the box.

If you don't get it, you're Patrick.  Instead of just dropping the subject like a rational person would, you keep going on and on about it and how special it is.  Talking about NDAs, then talking about how it cost thousands of dollars to do the studies, and then later upping it to hundreds of thousands so it's that much more special (don't know why game development companies are doing hundreds of thousands of dollars of market research anyway instead of a market research firm, but hey what do I know? ) The data keeps becoming more and more special.  And you keep getting more and more special for being "privy" to this special secret data.  And I just laugh more and more.

If this is how you normally act, then the problem isn't with Nintendo fans.  The problem is that you're acting like a pink starfish character in an episode meant to highlight how annoying he is.  If you can't talk about your secret box, then just put it away.  I promise I'm not demanding that you give it to me.  I'm not going to grab it from you.  I'm not going to break into your house to get it.

It's really simple... don't talk about things you're not supposed to talk about.  If you can't do that, then the problem isn't everyone else.  It's you.