It is strange. But I've noticed that when I finish a game and then do a bullet point summary of pros/cons myself, even though I really liked the game, the cons are way more than the pros.
That's interesting that you say that. I believe that when we love things, or merely enjoy them, we overlook the positive traits. We simply accept them. I think a bigger list of dislikes generally shows how well you liked something because these issues bother you being that you enjoy the subject. This notion is why I ask people for feedback by asking for POSITIVE information first as it causes the writers to think before they post. Helps the observational perspective as well as let's you relive the experience to express all the traits.
With that said, this type of information is for the "average human." Writers, particularly review authors, would be aware of this if they were actually decent (let alone excellent) in their profession. My issue is that we now take average observations of games as all the convincing we need to realize whether or not we like them. I still think we need to hold our critics to higher standards than the games themselves at times, only because so many have failed to properly express the one thing they have chosen in their profession, an observation as to whether the game is worth buying, renting, or skipping.
Is it weird that I think I had observed biased and more reliable reviews when physical print was common? They weren't all perfect, but I generally felt they weren't hyperbolic most of the time.
To get back on track: I generally look for older reviews that agreed with my playing of a game to determine if modern reviews fit the bill. Let's you look for bias or other traits of the author. I'm not so sure any of these reviews in OP fit that bill (needs more research), though few do now days. Odd.