• An anti-mod stance is bad for consumers and is generally frowned upon by PC gamers. The SP trainers offered on that site were used as bases for malicious cheats used in GTAO, they were not useful in GTAO when directly taken from the mod site. Shutting down the site meant collateral damage to the modding community. GTAV had deservedly received bad reviews beforehand for abhorrent monetiziation.

• The Firewatch devs abused a copyright enforcement system put in place to protect content creation revenue to attempt to censor language they didn't like. The DMCA system is not a censorship tool to use when you feel offended by language. Using it as such devalues its use as a way for people to protect themselves from content theft. I feel the review-bombing was justified.

• AFAIK the probability of getting a female general in TW: Rome II was actually unchanged, and I think the outrage was fabricated with a screenshot, so the negative reviews due to this were in fact not deserved.

Can't speak for Nier or KSP, as I wasn't privy, but the reviews are unaffected now. Most of these examples have had little practical effect other than some bad publicity. Outrage reviews such as these, (including Firewatch) generally had very few hours played.

At the end of the day, review-bombing is far more useful for players to express displeasure - the most justified example is probably Skyrim's paid mods attempt.