TW101 does hold back quite a bit until you get gun or whip (which isn't 20 or 10 or even 5 hours) and generally speaking how Platinum does unlocbles is rarely a plus. However, this is completely different from saying "game doesn't get good until x number of hours" when you really mean "you don't get good until x number of hours" (and not being good bothers you). People trying to equate the two are either talking passed each other or missing the point.
Tutorials like Saur's (and to an extent, all tutorials - for all games) are a crutch (hand-holding). It is essentially as if someone played the game for you and translated the knowledge of playing to you. It is a handy thing if you don't want to explore the combat system for yourself, pushing a lot of buttons to see what works and going through punishment for it. Maybe you really don't want to go through that kind of experience for a style of game that requires it (i.e., a style of game you haven't played before), so put in that cheat code and you are now where you want to be experience-wise. (As I said, this is true for all games, for example, this is common practice for any highly competitive genre, where strategy takes on the form of a science, for better or worse.) On the other hand, circumventing this is definitely not mandatory. It's really dumb when I hear someone use the existence and popularity to support their claims, like "Clearly, if the game requires a guide then...". It's so annoying it makes me want to say "No dummy, you just lack the effort or intelligence (since with intelligence comes less need for effort) of the guys who wrote that guide!"
The problem with basing criticism on "obtuseness" is the amount of changing variables that this is depended on (I hate saying this, you can think of it being highly "subjective"). A game's obtuseness is literally invisible to someone who "gets it" (although it would be more accurate to say it not being obtuse is invisible to those who don't "get it"). To demand they factor that into their criticism is asking them to stop thinking for themselves. Everyone has their own point of view to make judgments from, but these point of views are judged just as often as anything else. Unless we are small-minded and favor those who agree with us, we favor those who can demonstrate they see farthest, and rightly so. The comparison between point of views can also be temporal, as in you from ten days ago vs. the you now. Why is the old you important to the you now? Why do you respect your inferior, discarded interpretation? Consider that all that an elaborate to say this: Clearly games can be unpleasantly obtuse, mainly when they are more obtuse than "they need to be", but it is highly questionable how punished they should be for it.
And another thought: I'm sure I've said exactly this before, but TW101 does what a lot of games do these days: it fails you forward. The punishment for being bad is not just passed off into an extra, harmless grading system, but also giving the feeling of being bad. I think it was pointed out in this thread how shitty it feels to get your dudes knocked around; it really does suck! But that's the point and it's very preventable. What makes TW101 standout is that it actually demanding, it wants good answers for the problems it presents (the combat system is based around hard counters, kind of my favorite thing about it). Given the answers are most often so clear (not to say that games doesn't have any esoteric elements), I think it is fairer to say TW101 is more punishing than it is obtuse, except punishing in this case means feeling like shit while you get by, not getting a gameover (which is real bad to me, but arguably better than constantly hitting a brick wall for most of the playerbase).
Finally, perhaps as a tangent or follow-up to something else, there's a very good reason to immediately doubt someone's intentions when what they say can be perceived in anyway as blame-shifting. One may see this as fanboy-ism, but this is a highly necessary defense against bad ideas. The pervasiveness of scrubiness (resentment) in human nature cannot be understated and the power the sensation of frustration has over our perception is undeniable. All arguments, although based in logic, are influenced by psychology (although maybe you can even switch these). It doesn't mean they are always scrubs of course, but it's something you have to weed out in a public conversation anyone could contribute to. (I feel like poor intentions reveal themselves in language or tone, so it's easy.) This may come off as extreme, but it's most healthy to begin with blaming yourself and try to find any excuse for anything or anyone else before you change your mind.
EDIT: I think the Mathewmathewhatever review (the youtube link posted on previous pages) is a pretty good defense of the game (in addition to it being a critique that points out flaws).
