I like how people throw out the "Jim comments bingo card" to try and act like general complaints lobbied against his review style are just oh so trite and ill-conceived, and never once stop to consider that maybe there's something to what people are saying. Jim really does review things purely on the basis of "how much did I enjoy this and how does this align with my personal views on game design". This is a big factor in almost all reviews, but rarely does it make up the entirety of the score. Other reviews often take the more "objective" aspects of a game into account, particularly how well it does what it's trying to do in the eyes of the target audience. It's the reason that you saw a lot of solid, yet antiquated, anime games in the 90's getting 6-7/10 (instead of 2/10) from guys who mostly just wanted to play Quake and openly hated those sorts of games.
Basically, Jim's reviews are a very poor consumer guide for anyone other than people whose feelings about video games align almost identically with Jim Sterling. That's not to say that the value of reviews don't go beyond just being a consumer guide, but the point stands nonetheless.
It's obviously his right to review things that way, it's his personal site and I don't even think it's "wrong", but it's not the sort of review style that lends itself well to a numbered system or inclusion in aggregate review sites, which is what causes most of the controversy. The number system has always been implied to reflect overall quality, not as a "personal fun meter". Maybe he should call it that, and use 10 different words, instead of a numeric score (that's not me being snide, I'm serious). Sure, it might damage his traffic, but at least it would alleviate all of the click-bait accusations.
Also, for the record, I'm not personally invested in this game and I think he was actually being reasonable with Zelda (I think the majority of reviewers were lacking objectivity in the opposite direction in not at least dinging the game's score a little bit on systems that clearly could have been better). That said, based on all of the reviews I've skimmed, giving this a 2/10 goes against the spirit of game journalism scoring as it has existed up to this point. Again, it's fine if he wants to go that route, but I think he should be taking a hard-line stance on that, as other sites have done, rather than acting like he's really "scoring" the game in any conventional sense. If metacritic still wants to include his scores at that point, then that's on them.