I keep checking in on this thread, to see if after the hype died down, people would actually look at this game in a more objective manner, but I am still so surprised at the comments of how this is one of the best games or best combat systems people have played. Or maybe I'm just super out of touch.
I agree with a lot of what you said.
1) The difficulty is terribly balanced at the beginning if you want to try harder difficulties
2) There is a severe lack of epic moments in the game
3) Monotonous corridors and same-y looking forests aplenty - it hardly feels like a big open world with uniqueness
4) Side quests I thought were OK, mostly because the combat is good so I don't mind fighting different combinations of enemies
5) I actually just replayed Rise of the Tomb raider, and it handles this semi-open world much better. Better quest rewards. MUCH better puzzles (so satisfying and expertly crafted).
For those saying the combat system is amazing. I will say it is a competent combat system. It's fun but can easily get tedious. As someone who loves hack and slash, the close-up camera and general clunkyness of having to aim to throw the axe, kills it for me. ALOT of big compromises had to be made in terms of sucking the fun out of this game in favor of "cinematic" quality. The irony is that the epic moments from previous GoW games are just not here - so huge missed opportunity on "cinema". Where are the huge memorable set-pieces? The menacing bosses and rivalries? The game instead takes you out of the action to observe some mediocre to OK acting, carry a wounded pig, or pick some flowers in a garden. Or play dad with your son.
The game was fun, and a good first stab at reviving the GoW franchise, but I'm just a bit shocked at how blind people are to its many flaws. Then again, many people think Uncharted 4 is superior to Tomb Raider, so for a rather large subset of core gamers and casual gamers, quality of cinema has become the dominant factor in gaming.