Ego.  You can feel it in the anger and desperation of their attacks.  Otherwise apathy would be the expected response, not a burning desire to discredit someone.  When people link their ego to a video-game they stop looking for honest opinions and instead demand validation.  When they don't get it, they no longer consider disagreements to be a matter of opinion but instead something they can identify as "wrong".  

Once they've attached their ego, anything perceived as an attack on that game becomes a personal attack on their own identity, leading to outrage.  

Calling someone out for factual reasons, I don't mind.  Consumers should do that.  Desperately attempting to label all dissenting opinions as "clickbait", however, is ridiculous.  

These people, while pretending to desire honesty, are the ones who are doing their best to force the gaming media into just throwing out token 8s, 9s, and even 10s for anything with a major fanbase.

There is certainly loading involved in these sequences but they are also coupled with cutscenes. Jim is referring to these cutscenes but he fails to mention in any capacity the ability to skip said cutscenes.

He's perfectly free to hate an event in the game but I find it objectionable to complain about an event because the associated cutscene disrespects time without mentioning the ability to skip said cutscene thus presumably respecting time.

No game is perfect except for Resident Evil 4. BotW is a great game but it isn't perfect...

...

yet.

Yeah, that's another portion of his review I was shaking my head at.

Oh no, they had the audacity to click dislike, thus expressing their dislike. So, did they then do the rational thing and tell them to drink bleach and die and then DDOS attack their site and try to hack the reviewers personal accounts?  And did they continue to make threads almost a month after the review was posted? Or did they just speak their mind and move on? I'm guessing it's the last one.

This shouldn't really come as a surprise. Jim Sterling has a personal vendetta against the idea of objectivity and hes made a few videos about how he thinks objectivity is ridiculous. 

I personally disagree with him quite strongly on this point and it is one of the reasons I don't really like his reviews. He sometimes focuses too much on what annoys him personally while putting on a hypercritical lens which can blow up the most mundane of concerns which may not bother anyone else, while on other reviews he brushes over issues of a similar size because he feels like it. There isn't really any consistency, and as such his reviews aren't consumer-centric (despite him acting like the consumer's champion). If you want to know how Jim feels about a game, his reviews do that for you, but if you want to know if a game is good...not so much.

From what I can tell, that is what he is going for, so to each his own, but I don't really like it...

Yeah, when I read his review, I couldn't help be disagree with him and feel he does exaggerate things, but that's the sort of thing he does. Some of his points seem kinda silly, such as the bloodmoon part you mentioned. I think the 1st time you see it you have to watch it, but after that, you can just skip the cutscene. It's not really long at all and comes off as a nitpick. (I'm more annoyed the bloodmoon doesn't stay out longer for a certain side quest)

There are other moments, such as entering shrines is immersion breaking (loading screens are immersion breaking now?), having to switch weapons via a menu is also immersion breaking (just hold the right direction button and choose a weapon. It's not that time consuming), and several puzzles having motion control (I recall a few of them being motion based, and they're not really bad at all, especially out of 120 of them). Many of his points feel more like nitpicks than actual problems with the game.

I suppose there could be ways to remedy some of these, such as having the bloodmoon happen in game while you're moving, or having weapon switch without pausing the game, but really, they're not all that big of a deal. It feels more so of Jim making a big deal out of minor things.

I don't hate him or anything, but just disagree with them.

This isn't just Zelda, every great game has flaws and whenever those flaws are pointed out people get defensive.  Do you remember the 40/100 uncharted review last year?  There was even a petition to take it down.  It's sad, but it's just the way it is.

I don't disagree with the point you are making. However, you'd be surprised by the amount of reviews that are filled with inaccuracies and factually wrong statements, be it positive or negative, it's just no one bothers to nitpick. Some FF fans were very upset by the Guardian's review, they supposedly gave FF15 a bad score for some BS reason, and fans nitpicked that one paragraph they didn't like, forgetting that The Guardian's review just balances out one of the undeserved perfect scores it got when it's obviously a flawed and imperfect game. 

 In the end, you have the clickbaiters and the generous reviews cancelling each other out, so chill out

I understand there are things he didn't like but if a reviewer mentioned absolutely hating the gyro-aiming in Splatoon for example and that reviewer fails to mention that stick aiming is an option in the game, would I be out of line for mentioning that the option for stick aiming was available?

This thread's OP will be updated as time goes on. My objections to his review are not restricted to his point about the blood moon mechanic.

I can accept Jim's 7/10 just fine, I'm not asking him to change it. It's just that portions of his review I found to be objectionable.

Nothing wrong with providing Nintendo feedback provided the feedback is valid. For example, the framerate problem the game had is a valid criticism and recently, a patch was provided that helped to improve framerate.

Please do not lump me in with those people, thismeintiel. That's just not fair.

That's the reason I don't care anything for Sterling's work.  The emphasis is on him and his opinions, not the game or content he's discussing.  If I were a Jim Sterling clone, sure, then I might be interested, but I'm not.  With reviews, I'm looking for information that I can apply to my own likes and dislikes, so I want the filter to be as thin as possible.  

There are TONS of people who care more about being entertained, though, which is completely fine.  It's just not what I want.  

There's absolutely nothing wrong with Jim's review. He is the equivalent of a tabloid writer and so he writes what he feels, idiotic or not.

The only thing wrong with his reviews are that certain people treat them as real, objective reviews and that Metacritic acts as if his reviews should count towards some type of real "critic score." He is not that. That is fine, but that is all.