"Weapon ammo is bad"/"Enemies/bosses are annoying" - I have half a mind to wonder if folks who say this, especially say BOTH even use the beam weapons outside of opening doors. Four Dark Beam shots kills a Space Pirate. A couple charged Light Beams kills a Warrior Ing. That Rezbit enemy everyone says is annoying/badly designed is killed with charged Dark Beam shot and a missile. Blow up boxes with one beam and you get ammo for the other. You never have to fear getting softlocked because you can charge a beam on empty ammo to fire a normal shot still. Hell I didn't realize until my most recent playthrough that Bloggs are killed with a single regular missile. Enemy weaknesses are extremely easy to understand because it's dark world enemies weak to light beam and vice-versa. Use your damn resources. They have ammo because there'd be no point to Power Beam otherwise.

"The Sky Temple Key hunt is bad" - While I agree Dark Visor shouldn't be outright required to get Sky Temple Keys; so long as you know where they are and can get to them, you should be able to grab them. I think it's important to the narrative of the game to have an extended globe-trot around Dark Aether. This is the point where it becomes fully open-ended, if you're playing casually, you likely have expansions to pick up in the meantime anyway, and there was a whole half of the world that was relatively hostile to explore up until you get Light Suit and Annihilator Beam. This is the point where you turn Dark Aether into your stomping grounds as the Ing, once an oppressive force that were this close to winning the war against the Luminoth, are now desperate to hold you back now that they've lost so much ground.

Weapon Durability - Loss aversion side of the monkey brain dislikes losing something permanently, yes, but this is ultimately a game about resource management and picking up the pieces of a broken and battered Hyrule to save the day. It's more useful to think about weapons in the same way you'd think about mana. Especially since you can purposefully break weapons to deal a chunk of damage, knock some enemies off their feet and even make them drop their weapon so you can go around and pick it up yourself. Especially for an open-ended game like this, where I managed to get ahold of an Ancient Axe + very early on, which would've turned every enemy encounter for the next however long into a joke since I was still only seeing regular and blue variants at the time. No, I don't fight bosses in other games and think "this would be so much more fun if my sword broke", but I do think BotW combat would be significantly less interesting without weapons breaking. If I were to say RPGs should remove mana restrictions because I want to cast more spells, most of the gamer crowd would think I'm nuts.

"There's too much to do/Too big" - What's obliging you to see it all, exactly? Gamer pride? I've seen so many people claim it's "bad design" to have 1000 Koroks in the game and for the prize of getting them all to be Hestu's turd but is the reward for that being a literal piece of shit not an admittance of "honestly what did you expect?" And yet I haven't seen a single person say that the excess of Koroks IS the point. There's so many of them specifically so you DON'T have to get every single one of them.

"The Divine Beasts are lame dungeons" - As someone that is close to getting Ocarina of Time off my bucket list and is loving it so far: is it not on us for seeing the Divine Beasts as dungeon-equivalent formalities rather than their own thing that mostly just shares DNA with a traditional Zelda dungeon? They're such a footnote in BotW's overall play time that their place as bigger shrines, essentially, feels appropriate for the kind of game BotW is. Traditional Zelda dungeons are something of an antithesis for what BotW is, so it feels better to keep your time in them fairly brief.

This one's more for the KH series as a whole but

"The story's too confusing/hard to follow" - PLEASE stop listening to video essayists that explain it poorly, I would have half a mind to say on purpose to make it sound poorly written. Like seriously I saw someone try to explain the plot of Kingdom Hearts by timeline order, starting with fucking Union X and acted like it was on the writers for why this was so hard to understand. Like no, you fucking fool, play these games in RELEASE DATE order, for god's sake. That's the order they were inherently meant to be experienced in because that's the order they literally came into being. I don't even know where the "hard to follow" thing comes in. It's a light vs darkness story. It has very clear good guys and bad guys.

If kids can understand FNAF lore you can understand Kingdom Hearts.

As much as I agree that Pikmin's in a better state now that the Pikmin themselves are a little less dumb, I do think there's something missed in this game where it felt a little more about wrangling a bunch of misbehaving gremlins together and keeping them from goofing off best you can. They felt a bit more like their own creatures that you're barely taming and less like weirdly obedient servants.

"Dude this game is so unfair" - Yeah and it's funny

Again, as much as I agree that Pikmin 2 is the least good of the series, there is something to be said about the absolute dogshit conditions these two working class fellows get thrown in because their boss is an asshole.

This sounds stupid but try playing this game like it's a Dark Souls. And I specifically mean that as in have a sense of humor about getting completely and totally turbo-boned due to the stupid circumstances the game lended you. This game wins when you feel laughed at and not laughed with.

"It's too easy" - Have you considered the difficulty of a Pikmin game aught to be a little less about how many Pikmin the Grimbled Snifflewort can kill in one attack and more about figuring out how to shave time off your personal best? That whole Dandori thing Miyamoto was waffling on about?

"Rainbow Drops are annoying to find" - I don't wanna boil down my argument to "skill issue", but like. Huh? They were? They make their location obvious is there's a puzzle to them, and the levels are so short and you can dip into other levels to grab the animal buddy and ability you need. They were pretty fun to figure out, actually.

Big the Cat's story - It's four levels and a boss that can be blink-and-you-miss-it if you play it right. They're not even that hard. Like yeah I agree that it's odd that they even bothered. But I feel like this one only got infamous in part because of Arin Hanson.

"Kirby's too slow" - Maybe you just had to be there when this game was new, but considering the fun and sometimes even esoteric scenery, Kirby's pace feels just right for soaking it in. Especially since it very rarely ever asks you to be in a hurry.

"It's a really bad Metroidvania" - I dunno who started spreading around the idea that Amazing Mirror is a Metroidvania but I'm replacing their carpet with Legos.

"It's too easy" - Have you considered that sometimes a game is more about selling a vibe

"Felt feature-incomplete" - I really just plain don't get this take. Pokemon Snap is an extremely short game. And this sequel adds just about everything I could've reasonably asked for and then some. It's got branching paths, alternate courses, night courses, expanded the Mew level into having more boss fights, and having a huge achievements list and catalog-able interactions that vary depending on how special said interaction is. And then they threw in some free DLC. It's at least a dozen times longer than the first game. What exactly is missing here?

"It's too big" - It has warp points in a lot of locations that make sense, so nothing in a level hardly feels like an extensive trek.

"Too many collectibles/minigames" - I think a lesson I got from BotW carries over to this where nothing obliges you to see absolutely everything in a game. It's hardly an insult to achieve the bare minimum and leave it if it would dampen the impact of a game to force it to keep going for you. Again, there's excess so you DON'T have to do anything.

I seriously feel like I just must have a super extra finished extra special copy of the game that nobody else has cause I have no clue where the hostility towards this game comes from.

"Bad controls" - Gamefeel is even more subjective than a lot of the things I address on this list. Sometimes you just don't gel with how something controls! And it's hard to reprogram your brain to gel with it. But I've almost never struggled with the controls. There was an initial hump with its equivalent to the Talon Trot, since I thought you HAD to be perpetually moving to stay in that state but turns out that wasn't the case, and I learned that while fighting World 1's boss. But after that it was relatively smooth sailing and I've never really had to argue with the controls or camera. And to be blunt I can't say I'm convinced by reviewers playing footage of what looks like them playing the game poorly on purpose.

"It's bad because it uses Unity engine" - Okay, I'll be sure to avoid Hollow Knight, Cuphead, Ori, Outer Wilds, and Subnautica too, then.

"Yeah but compared to Banjo-Kazooie-" - Maybe I'm just fortunate enough this game came out well after Paper Mario Sticker Star and with it I learned to never get overly excited for a new sequel ever again because of how harsh a disappointment it can be sometimes, but. I dunno, I agree it doesn't hit the same highs as B-K but isn't it a little unfair to compare a game to what's often regarded as the best of the genre? Even if it's wearing its inspiration on its sleeve like this? To me it's just the gaming equivalent of getting into Star Trek vs Star Wars arguments.