tbh frame rate isn't even the most serious problem, even though it's very annoying especially in hyrule castle and in villages. I don't really care about metacritic but still I'm very surprised how many critics overlooked some issues.

Maybe people should just see 10/10 in a different light, rather than impeccable perfection. Like I said somewhere else, GameSpot interprets their own 10 games as "Essential" rather than Perfect, which allows them to point flaws and still award such score. For me a 10/10 implies a masterpiece, not a perfect game, which still gives room to point out flaws (though I generally disagree about scoring a game because it only gives more problems than anything else). We can always go for the "no game is perfect!" argument, which is quite valid I guess, so this way you also save falling into that issue. 

That being said, people disagreeing with Zelda's 10/10 based on technical issues is a valid complain to have on their end, regardless of other critical-acclaimed games having the same treatment from the critics perspective. Just because something happens in the past doesn't mean people perception should get dismissed when it happens again now.

If distracting frame rate drops aren't part of a score, even if fans say you can barely notice them (which means for the average gamer, it will be noticeable), then I guess games shouldn't be rated on any technical aspects at all. Shitty graphics? Who cares. Bugs galore? Who cares. Input lag? Phh. I had fun with the game, so I'm giving it a perfect (or damn near it) 10. Can't have it both ways, yet fans and reviewers try.

Reviewers don't care that much about framerate. Gamers also don't give a damn, 95% of them don't have idea of the framerate their game is running. People play games and have fun, that's it.

Ocarina of Time, Shadow of the Colossus, all those ran badly. But they are great games regardless of framerate. A mediocre game at 144 fps still is just a mediocre game that nobody will remember after 1 or 2 years.

We just do care because websites told us what it was. When I was a kid, I used to love games with terrible framerates and didn't even knew what it was. Like Jeremy McGrath Supercross 98, it ran at the low 20s all the time. Honestly, I enjoyed games way more back then. Recently, I started to enjoy games like before since I stopped caring about it. I just check reviews to see if a game isn't broken or with severe performance issues.

If someone had fun with a game, why shouldn't he or she score it highly? Some people can tolerate frame-rate fluctuations and bugs. Others can't. Is one group more right than the other?

It still got good scores (it's an 82, come on). The points it lost weren't due to framerate issues. It was because it had outdated camera mechanics and some outdated paradigms. Its long development impacted the game in these aspects.

I agree with that. Stable high framerate is good for all games, but while some games get away with some drops and are still enjoyable, others like racers and fighters are hurt more substantially.

Because this isn't a Mister Universe contest. There you have several categories to be evaluated and each one has a score that's weighted to the end result. If you are perfect in all, but end up getting a 4/10 in one, you're probably done. That's why a lot of people disagree with the results of those competitions, they don't understand how a single mistake can impact the result so badly.

Game reviews are like movie reviews, they look at the full picture to get a subjective score. The objective of those medias is to entertain you. If a game that runs at 20 fps gave you the time of your gaming life, why should it score lower than a basically average game?

Skyrim is a buggy mess. You can make a list of RPGs that are way more stable and are also good. But Skyrim was a massively fun game that people could sink hundreds of hours easily. Most RPGS won't give you 10% of that fun.

Well, actually I see it differently. If the score-scale is used then around 10% of the games should get a ten. Even if you interpret score as a bell curve, then say 1% of the games should get a ten. That does not mean it is perfect.

The german magazone Golem noticed and measured the framerate-drops, but also noticed they recover always and that they don't impact game-experience. You may say that's irrelevant, but even so, in your opinion the game is a 1/10 because of technical issues. So what. It's your opinion. No game is perfect, everything has some flaws or another. Nethertheless some people like the game while others hate it. You should just accept that the opinion of some people (in this case many reviewers) differs from yours. That's all.