Good quotes and breakdown, here's the clunk of things that don't seem to have context or make sense though:
I'm not really understanding the complaint of repetition. Aren't videogames themselves an act of repetition? Aren't almost all series an act of a retread nature sometimes? What is Skyrim doing that was so different than it's predecessor? What is Saints Row doing that was so different? The fundamentals of what the game structure itself is repeats and repeats.
So we get that the game makes you go into areas different times, and the game has you do "fetch quest" which aren't exactly defined as to what is good/bad with them. You can break everything down to the most fundamental level and tear down everything in the same method the review does for Zelda, for any game ever made.
I think the last quote I underlined and everything sums it up though. If you want something not Zelda-ish, then you'll be disappointed. If you want an exciting adventure that is the same structure as what the Zelda series is, then you'll enjoy it.
I'm not really understanding though why a person is reviewing a series who has a problem with the way the series is. Like me for example, I really do not like first person shooters and really do not like RPG's. If I wrote a review stating a big time first person shooter game isn't that good because it relies on shooting things, death, and repeating that over and over then I'm basically just hating on what the type of game is, period. If I say I hate, I dunno, Chrono Trigger or something because it uses menus and I find them tedious and why can't the game let me fight battles without menus, then I'm tearing down the structure of what the game is. It's like playing Madden and hating it, because why isn't the game a baseball game instead?
That's my reviewer rant to last me a while, not just applying to this instance, but what I see often. No concrete example, and a reviewer who already holds a preference against the genre of something they're reviewing.