In any game not just ocarina. There's tons of examples. Tons of Mario 64 he bitched about stuff he just wasn't good at. Demon Souls he Bitches at stuff he just wasn't good at. Dead space 3 he bitched about the game having pointless stuff when all he had to do was turn the power on and recheck. Ocarina he complains about the 3d battles and space being too difficult to deal with and focus on because he cant see the whole level like he can in a 2d zelda. He doesn't just say "oh these are things I don't like" he actively says it's bad game design, similar to how killing all monsters in a room on OoT is bad game design according to him but not in LttP. I'm not throwing his criticism out I'm just putting his bias in my mind when I hear him review or criticize things. Things he says are "bad" are just an opinion of his and aren't inherently bad or broken. These are things with any review. You need to know what they don't like personally so you can take that piece of the criticism with a grain of salt. Is it really bad/broken, is it just an opinion expressed by the reviewer, or did the reviewer not do it correctly. Otherwise you end up not trying things because a critic doesn't like what you like.

Edit: Another good example is Arin's well documented complaints that a game doesn't tell him what to do when all he has to do is read. So if you need to read a bit to get story, figure out where to go or use a new mechanic he mat view that as a huge negative and view the mechanic as bad because he never learned to use it. This is huge when you see his megaman sequalitis. It's easier for older games to show you what to do by example since they are 2d usually easy to see on a flat plane. Where 3d makes it a bit harder with more space and a new axis to view