I once stumbled across a game, The Pinball Arcade, which promised to recreate pinball machines I knew from my youth on PC, so I was intrigued and started reading up on it on game reviewing sites and their forums. Reviews were generally good, but the forums were more divided, with some players complaining that the ratings were too high for just a pinball game where there's no shooting and teamwork and recognizable characters and stuff. So I guess that's again universal.
You can only judge a game by its merits but also only by what it wants to be. You shouldn't vote down a game tagged "furry" because the furry content makes it bad for you - you're just not the audience. Of course I am biased here because I like development over the simple action of insert rod A into slot B, move back- and forward, release. (Though that can be a good ending for development) Thus I am partial towards this game in terms of gameplay. However, as I just wrote in I think a different thread (maybe this one, forgive me for repeating) it can be a
major tease if you're seeing how the game develops since you'll have to wait without being able to advance the storyline (unlike in game, where even the longest wait can be ground out).
But I think it's best to just ignore it, usually nobody's gonna change anybody's mind here. Even if it is such an obvious thing as pointing out the tags associated with a game (or not associated, as the case may be). Yes, people should judge a game by what it promises to be, not by what they think it should be. So you can talk about the story being dull or unbelievable because X (maybe mention that Lucania obviously is in the German speaking Alps region where people don't have Italian names in these numbers
). You can talk about the teasing being too drawn out or not drawn out enough. You shouldn't talk about the lack of rod A in slot B however if the tags don't mention any of it.
However, since I had a relevant experience after negatively reviewing a different game, if anybody was harrassing Phoenix or one of the other reviewers by PM, calling them names or similar, that'd be despicable.