>>454619450>>454619167>if you were clarifying on avoiding politics, then you would be fine, I'd bet.
But what if a game is censored post-release because of political reasons? Would bringing up the censorship itself in a review be considered politics?
How about when people left negative reviews on Battlefront II's Metacritic pages (still 1.1 on PS4), and ganged up on EA's community rep to create the most downvoted post in Reddit history? An account that got so negatively karma-bombed, the account was abandoned by EA for community interactions?
What about when dozens of negative reviews were left on Town of Salem because they had a data-breach that exposed usernames/passwords/IP Addresses, and didn't inform anyone until they came back from their holiday vacations? The game might deserve some sympathy because they were previously review-bombed because they were accused of being "SJWs" with their chat filtering/bans, but isn't one of the largest gaming data breaches (7.6M unique users) worthy of a concerted campaign against them?
I could post a dozen more examples, but we all know what those situations were that ended up effecting positive change.. Taking away consumer outlets (or trying to hide them with an opt-in process) to voice their opinion is almost never an actual solution, and no one has yet come up with a way to separate the "proper" negative reviews and the "improper" ones, not even Valve.