Takenoko is by far the biggest miss, in my opinion. Mind you - I agree with mostly everything they said about the game, and am not a fan of it myself. But saying you shouldn’t introduce people to the hobby using it, that they’ll just get bored to death and never want to see a game again, was just plain bad advice… Many many people have been introduced to the hobby, or seduced to delve deeper, because of that game. It has many, many characteristics that make it very appealing to new gamers, or to introduce people to other games - especially those that aren’t usually attracted to common themes, like fantasy, sci-fi, or trading in the Mediterranean.
I also think the Theseus review missed the mark a bit. I already commented about it in the video’s comments, but it kinda bothers me that, when a game is centered around its mechanics and not necessarily the theme-mechanics integration, reviewers are ok as long as the theme is super bland. Splendor is the perfect example. But as soon as the theme is a bit more daring, even if it does integrate with the mechanisms (which Theseus does, maybe not through the board movement and combat - which I actually think it does -, but through the factions, their cards and victory conditions), it gets flak. The same thing has happened with Abyss more recently, which was called out on the theme-mechanism integration not only by SU&SD but also other reviewers (though Paul & Quinns had other, gameplay-related concerns). If they were gems being collected in those cards, everyone would be ok with it. I don’t get it.
I like Lewis & Clark a lot too. A lot of reviewers complained about AP, but that has never been a problem with us.