It's absolutely not just a gaming problem. Movie reviews are getting more and more bandwagon-y. Only a few reviewers post in the first day or two, and everyone else says "okay, they hated it, now I have to hate it too or I'm going to lose credibility". I think it's the inevitable outcome of having less famous reviewers, a NYT columnist can post what they feel, but a small blog can fall into obscurity if they have one contrarian review.

The only part that's unique to gaming is that gamers are the most toxic community in the internet.

Don't forget the vocal minority problem. The subset of people who comment on things is much smaller than the set of people who consume them. And while the threshold of effort for making comment is low, it isn't zero, so people who hold more extreme views are going to be more prevalent in the selection because the people with moderate views aren't going to have the motivation to spend 20 minutes explaining the nuanced position they have, while the 'love' and 'hate' camps will gladly spend 10 seconds on posting their simplistic view.

Add on the way modern systems work, focusing on likes, upvotes, etc. and you get short form responses getting greater engagement purely because they don't take as long to read. It's always easier to get traction with a short, maybe amusing, rehash of a common opinion than with a long dissertation on niche, complex views.

That cycles back in at the top to create a visibility bias so the people making the next round of commentary/content see the wave of love/hate and try to ride it. The result is a feedback loop with a terrible signal to noise ratio.

People don't accept that, perhaps, something isn't just "not for them"

I think this is my favorite comment on this whole thread.