Two was to see how long you've played (on Switch). 

-The first and most accurate: Download the parental control app. 

-The second and not really accurate: click on your profile and look at your games you've played.

It says I've only played a few minutes of Fast RMX despite the fact that I already completely finished the novice cup. It also said I played about 95 hours of Zelda when I added up the parental control app and saw that I logged in over 150 hours days ago.

The Blood Moon is actually a legitimate problem with the game. Not so much because of the delay, although the decision to interrupt the game and show the player a cutscene (even if it is a skippable one) every single time is rather odd, but because of the glitches that accompany it. 

(First link has MAJOR spoilers, so be warned)

But yeah, Jim's review style tends to resemble a moderately less exaggerted version of Zero Punctuation. I wouldn't take everything he puts forth at face value (although he does raise a number of legitimate issues that other reviewers were a bit too willing to gloss over imo, but hey, those are opinions for you).

Well Im not downloading the app. It says I have "65 hours or more"

Why though? He has more review experience than most critics on Metacritic.

Why though? The point he made is that blood moons are annoying and then provided an example of another anoying thing in a different game. It's completely different games and the annoyances have a different quality to them, yet you are comparing them as if they were completely equal. If anything, your reasoning seems shaky as you try to use objective math on a subjective feeling.

I love speculating on motivation :P

I can easily say, I have NEVER seen a fanbase be so obsessed over a review that gave a game a "good." Not great, just good. I mean, Jesus, it's almost been a month since his review was posted, yet here we still are, making threads about it. He liked the game, but didn't love it. Get over it already. This obsession is not healthy.

Sorry, but no other base has given a shit about a good 7. Even if the game gets a 90+ on Metacritic. None. Maybe a 5 for a game most see as good/great, but a 7? And still caring about it 3 weeks later? Just sad.

Afaik, the blood moon appears always on the 7th night of the game and you can skip the scene. Jim is just desperately nitpicky.

I doubt that he even got far in the game in the first place. So, he probably watched the rest on youtube and / or was told about certain stuff like where he admits that people told him that weapons last longer later in the game. He didn't figure that one out on his own by playing the game.

Quote from his review:

"While others have claimed that late game weapons are durable enough for it to not be a problem, I maintain that some of the more powerful weapons in the game are still miserably brittle, able to withstand maybe a handful of enemies before players get a nagging pop-up notifying them their fun with the weapon they might have been loving is about to conclude."

You went through all this research to find something seemingly tangible in a review that you could disagree with? Go play games instead!