I think this is attacking the surface rather than the cause. Fundamentally, anyone with access to the material [assuming they have legal rights to do so] should be allowed to publish their opinion on said material, with the proviso that they make it clear what level of state the game is. [I.E. Alpha, Beta ect.]

The problem is that whilst this type of activity can promote consumer feedback, it can very quickly become a dogpile with a singular prevalent opinion [this game isn't X enough, there aren't enough X people in this game] ect. Basically it can lead to pre-judgements of what a game will or won't be, and people naturally try to fill any artistic void they see with their own preferences.

This would also be fine, if it didn't unfairly force developers to shift their visions in order to pander to potential but not guaranteed audiences.

And that's the real problem here - developers being forced to shift their visions of what their product should be, due to undue positive/negative criticisms based on non-gaming factors. In my view the way to stop this is to stop ideological bias of any kind in Journalism [which should be a standard regardless] and force said journalists to fully distinguish themselves as a blogger OR a journalist, not both or neither when it suits them.

Removing ideological pressures on developers allows them the assurance that they won't have to unduly censor anything - which is exactly what any art should be about. Representing whatever it is one feels so passionate about representing. And to be clear - this goes all ways. I fully support a dev creating a pro-feminist game as much as I support a dev creating an anti-feminist game ect. My views of the content should not be seen as a legitimate reason to shift the artistic vision of the devs, period. The consumer, directed most frequently by shoddy journalists, need to both lose that privilege, as it fundamentally is the antithesis of creative freedom.