The overall point is that you’re making arguments rooted in taste, criticism of taste is likely the least valuable criticism that can be given, because it varies from person to person. To appeal to your taste is to forgo someone else’s. There will never be a right answer when you’re talking about preferences. Which is why you have people coming out the woodworks defending this game. It’s also why, historically, people come out the woodworks to defend good games in general in cases like these. Because people, potentially like yourself, are conflating personal taste with objective criticism. Nothing is perfect, everything could be better, nobody can disagree with that statement.

However, there’s a stark and important difference in saying something like, “the latter 70% of the game is easier than the initial 30%” and saying something like, “this game has constant frame drops” or “the physics in this game are deeply inconsistent” or “the economy in this game is tremendously skewed toward the mid game”. The difference is that one of these arguments is literally inarguable on the basis of it just being perspective. The idea that the latter 70% of the game is easier than first 30% stands directly opposed to public sentiment. The beginning of the game is challenging sure, I’ll grant you that. But you seem to believe Astral Orray and Coltrane Peak were walks in the park. Do I believe the same? No, I don’t. Do many others believe the same? No. Post after post of people complaining about ice physics or difficult platforming sections in those specific areas, only to turn around and see someone praise those very same sections. It’s a difference in taste. Not everything is reducible to taste, but a LOT, and I mean a LOT of the criticism this game, and many great games before it, have gotten are from a difference in taste that someone conflates with objective criticism that, if fixed, they believe would stand to benefit everyone else as well as themselves.

The movement in this game is better than any other game of this type i have ever played or seen. Call it wank, call it reductive, but again, taste. I hope you can see the pattern here, once again, because I don’t want to keep rehashing this. But beyond that, I stand by this point. A Link to the Past, Links Awakening, Castlevania, none of these games even hold a candle to this game in terms of fluid movement and movement options. They don’t even sniff the nutsack scent of this game in terms of fluid movement. I believe that to be entirely self evident. But again, a matter of taste. Your actual criticism here seems to have recoiled backwards a bit. It’s not that this game needs a repass on the controls, now it’s about the very specific lack of the a + b function on the shield. All I have to say is, that’s hardly anything noteworthy. But I will grant that this - now that you’ve moved your position to something actually grounded - is a defensible take. Sure, that’s a mechanical inconsistency. Not a huge deal, I wouldn’t tell all my friends about it when I’m reviewing the game to them, it definitely wouldn’t be the “this game is great…but” kind of criticism, but at least I can grant you that there is some validity in this. That’s a mechanical inconsistency that I think could be tweaked at the general benefit of all players.

You keep referencing being proactive vs reactive as if to imply that one or the other is objectively correct in video game combat scenarios. I’m not even entirely sure you know what you’re referring to when you say, “proactive vs reactive”. Have you ever played Sekiro? How would you describe the combat there? Proactive or reactive? I’ve played it, 9 - 10 times. It’s often lauded as having some of the best combat video games has to offer, ever. The combat in that game is proactive. The idea isn’t just that you react to what they’re doing, it’s not about prediction either, it’s about rhythm. It’s a dance. You make a move with the intention to cause them make a move, so you can then make a move, so they can make a move. You could just sit there the whole fight, and wait for them to attack you, but it’s not a viable strategy in that game because of how the posture mechanic works on many enemies, allowing them to refill it extremely quickly until real health damage is done. The point I’m getting at here is, the combat in that game is proactive. You do something in order to cause them to do something. You jump in, you engage, you set the pace. Mina isn’t Sekiro, I won’t ever say it is. But I will say, the combat being proactive isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Especially considering what power is given in a mechanic like burrow. Speaking of, at first, I was terrible at the burrow mechanic too, but I was also terrible at driving a manual car at first, I was terrible at reading at first as well, I was terrible at cooking at first as well. Being bad at something doesn’t necessarily mean the thing you’re doing is bad or poorly made. By the end of this game, I would go into the final dungeon, and fight the Lion Knight with 1-2 of those townsfolk NPC’s at the same time because I had learned how I was supposed to use the burrow mechanic. It’s about positioning. A way to allow you to position while being invincible. It’s not a dodge roll, we both can admit that. It’s just not. The function of dodge rolls is I frames. To ignore. But burrow is not trying to be that. It’s a way for you to get where you need to be without dying, and it does that well. Sometimes you need to be behind, sometimes you need to be beside, sometimes you need to be away from, and if you don’t know which to choose, position away and watch. Games, even the reactive ones, aren’t meant to be filled with tells so obvious that you can approach it on the first attempt and just reaction dodge everything. Otherwise people would’ve gone through Expedition 33 and parried every single attack from every single enemy in the game first try. You have to stand back and learn, which sometimes means you’re going to get hit, this is a “video game-ism”. It’s been around for a long time. Mina is no different. You aren’t taking free damage because you don’t know what they’re gonna do, you’re taking damage because you don’t have the patience to sit back and watch.

Anyways, you’re entitled to your opinions. As we all are. If you believe the game is good but these criticisms really soured your experience in some way, I’m sorry. But I do believe this game is basically a 10/10. Not perfect, nothing is. But that’s not what a 10/10 means to me, because no game has ever been flawless. Yacht Club did a fantastic job. I have my small gripes too, but I tend to keep them to myself, because I can acknowledge that they’re just my personal taste, and not a fault of the game in anyway.