A: Technical incompetence; the people who couldn't figure how to open an executable even if it was double clicked for them.

B: Elitist Snobbery; unfairly comparing games to impossible standards or insane ideals.

C: Tumblr incarnate, "The game is too political/not political enough/is political! Ragh!"

D: The Anti-Anime; where if there's even a hint of Japanese, they won't be having any of it.

E: Karen; complaining about content/genres they wouldn't be purchasing in the first place.

F: Obsolete data/outdated review; when time and patches march onward. (This is more the fault of GOG than the user.)

G: Don't buy THIS version; sniffling about features nearly impossible to replicate/revive.

H: Stop selling abandonware; people who don't understand that isn't a legal concept.

I: The slovenly rose tinted nostalgia goggles; unable to see the flaws in a 25 year old game they haven't played in 25 years.

J: The graphics snob; who demands that every game be a graphical showcase of 3D rendering, keep those ghastly pixels away.

K: I own a Mac; ergo gaming on this platform is a nightmare.

L: OH NOES EULA; a practically worthless document that isn't feasibly enforceable in most circumstances and is downright invalid in many countries!

Maybe you have some other circumstance of an annoying reviewer. I eagerly await your thoughts.

There is also the reverse Midas touch.

"The developer is rubbish and everything the developer touches turns to rubbish"

Beamdog is the canonical example, according to their reviews. (I can't speak from firsthand experience)

Good point. I forgot about Publisher/Developer mooing.

About point K, you could also make a similar category for Linux. I see complaints about that far more than Mac.

Also add to point I the people that review games based on their childhood memories. Like "I used to play this 20 years ago, 10/10".

I'd say this Because seriously, fuck all of that.

and this I actually agree with that sentiment 10000000%, but that's exactly why there's absolutely no point in writing a "review" about it. One look at a screenshot is enough for someone like me, and for people who actually like that stuff it's obviously useless.

More or less, all cases you covered are essentially "wrong" reviews.

What bothers me more, though, is an extra one:

M. Totally information-less; when someone reviews a game without actually describing ANY aspect or detail of the game. e.g. "OMG dis game so kewl get it now coz, you know, awsome!!"

Not sure I'd include "F: Obsolete data/outdated review; when time and patches march onward." Everything else, the reviewer is actively being problematic. In F, unless the reviewer is deliberately reviewing an older build, their review only becomes an issue because of things that are beyond their control (and, since GOG doesn't let people revise their reviews, they can't note that their concerns have been fixed).

No Man's Sky comes to mind: after release, it had serious problems. Since then, it has been updated and patched to make it playable and maybe even good. This doesn't mean that reviews of early builds are not valid; they document the game as it was at the time of review, and evidence that the developer cared enough to fix complaints. It's just that these reviews aren't applicable to the current build.

Some of the dumbest reviews are stuff like "Why you are you reading these negative reviews, go buy it" as a negative review on Steam or one word "sux". Having said that, several of your points are often a "double-edged" sword. Examples:-

F - It's kinda hard to edit your old GOG reviews when the GOG website has no review editing capability. You really can't blame reviewers for that one. Likewise when the delay in fixing bugs is measured in years rather than weeks / months, that's on the devs rather than the reviewer who will have long moved onto other games by that time.

G - That's true of some games though. Eg, UE3 based Bioshock 1-2 Remastered have been way more buggy than the UE2 based classics (see the "mixed" vs Overwhelmingly Positive review disparity on Steam where the classic vs remaster reviews are separated). DX:HR DC is based on an older, more buggier, pre latest patch build than DX:HR original was. Older Age of Empires 1-2 DVD-ROM Collectors Edition version is the only way to own the games DRM-Free. If a remaster of a highly moddable game broke old mod compatibility and newer updated versions of the same mods were "gated" behind Steam Workshop, I'd sure want to know about that in reviews before purchasing. There's plenty more examples of why "Don't buy THIS (latest) version" is absolutely valid & helpful in reviews as long as the reviewer explains why.

I - Putting everything that people prefer about old game mechanics down to "Rose-Tinted Nostalgia" ignores the fact that people can and do play old games for the first time fairly recently. Eg, I completely missed Planescape Torment when it came out and only played it for the first time in 2015. In my opinion, the hype as a great and highly creative RPG absolutely holds up without any prior "nostalgia goggles". Some old games really did just perfectly nail down "that gameplay loop" whilst disliking the effect of consolization in newer cross-platforms vs older PC exclusives ones is an entirely valid point vs simply saying "I hate anything new".

L - EULA backlash can be entirely valid (eg, people having to dig into EULA's on Steam to find out if it really does contain Denuvo when game publishers "forget" to include that on the store page can come across as being deliberately deceptive). Likewise, it's pointless buying a DRM-Free version specifically for offline use if a middle-man client that works offline today gets changed at a future date to need an online connection. The key difference there is old backed-up offline installers EULA's remain static whilst evolving store clients have equally "evolving" EULA's that could introduce future "gatekeeper" unknowns that could potentially screw with game preservation on a desired system.

The Hitman Absolution reviews that popped up after the giveaway by people who literally wrote "How do I install the game?" and gave it 1/5 stars.

By far the worst and most annoying reviews on GOG are the ones written by authors who hacked the GOG website in order to give themselves a vastly unfair advantage in terms of the huge number of characters that they are able to include in their reviews due to their nefarious act of hacking, which violates the GOG-imposed character limit that they are supposed to be following according to GOG's rules.

GOG should have deleted all such unfair, hacked reviews years ago, and still should do so today.

This would have to be the last place I would read a review for a game and frankly I'm surprised it warrants a thread about BS.

Wait what? There is actually a method to get around the 2K character limit? I just thought that those reviews were written before the limit was implemented.

The limit really sucks BTW. I usually have to leave out so much stuff I'd like to talk about because of it..

The limit sucks, so if someone actually gets around it - power to them, as long as they write a good review. Who cares about some "unfair advantege"? It's not a competition.

Well, I overall avoid GOG reviews because they seem to be very frequently biased one way or another, either being too enthusiastic or too harsh (often along the old/new divide). If I'm interest in a game here, I usually just check out Steam reviews.

I do like the enthusiasm for even mediocre old games though, so I might read the comments under the release post. :p

Right, you have a fair view; not every game is universally tailored, but you do the smart thing and just nod at the game while moving along.
Oh, I've just been going though my entire game library and amusing myself by sorting by critical, those which I listed I've found to be the most baffling. Since the report button does absolutely nothing/GOG doesn't have a review moderator FOR SOME REASON, I decided to get the public idea about it.
The limit DOES suck. I've had to make two of my reviews into forum posts, and then my review got buried because even though I said, "Here, go to this forum post to read my full review", it would seem nobody respects that idea. I mostly just feel there needs to be some kind of marker to indicate what version a review was written for. I wrote my Starbound Review for 1.4, but if the devs suddenly release the game to the community, it isn't going to mean much at all. True. That's actually one of the more common annoying aspects of the 5 star reviews. Given that I wrote the post at 0700 hours, I wasn't firing on all pistons.