It's really disappointing to see Quarter To Three and GameCritics placed in the same category of White. Like White's stuff is obviously trolling, while to call the other two trolling, you have to not understand that just because you like something or that there's a general consensus doesn't mean a thing on an individual level. It feels like people just look at scores and balk, instead of actually reading reviews.
Take the aforementioned Bloodborne review from Gamecritics. The reviewer really liked the game, felt it was well-made, loved the creepy Lovecraftian atmosphere of the setting, and praised the masterful level design. But the difficulty and aggressive nature of the combat felt like a jarring struggle compared to the Souls style he was accustomed to, and playing felt like beating his head against a brick wall. So despite its strengths, the experience was a chore and not as fun as he had hoped. Thus his score.
Is that not reasonable? Like that isn't some radical opinion. We've seen similar impressions on this very forum, players who feel like the game and combat is a frustrating struggle, complete with posters giving them advice on how to adjust to the pace of the game. Reviewers don't have that kind of resource when they're playing, so you could imagine something being really hard for someone without any help or guidance from other players could make for a frustrating experience
Same with Quarter To Three. I remember people calling Chick's Agents of Mayhem review trolling and just being contrarian. Except when you actually read the review and his other articles on the game, it makes perfect sense why he loved it. (He was finally recovering from cancer but then Trump and the GOP's gross actions made 2017 a shitty year, and he wanted to indulge games for pure escapism, that were fun and colorful and didn't take themselves seriously, to get away from the endless torrent of news and reality in America)
