I always find this line of thinking hilarious. "Let's not compare our personal experiences because they're useless, but let's compare other people's personal experiences because... reasons".
Reviews aren't impartial or objective. They're just opinions. And they certainly aren't worth any more than other people's opinions just because they're posted on a website or in a magazine. Actually, I'd argue they're worth less than your own personal opinions. I mean, if you're debating something then surely the opinions of the people actually involved in the debate are far more relevant than the opinions of some rando.
Why is it funny?Reviews have been a thing since forever.It's made from people that dedicate their times to seeing the quality of a product so we have more information about it and make an informed purchase.I don't see how funny that is.
If the discussion was about your own personal experience about difficulties and such then yeah, reviews would hold small weight compared to your own personal opinion.But thats the point: It's not about you.We are discussing about how difficult games should remain unchanged for their games, affecting everyone.In this context, the aggregate of "official" reviews are more important, because they better represent the overall public opinion of a game.Or are you saying that your opinion alone is more important than hundreds of one to the general public, and we should just ignore them because they are trash?
Otherwise I could easily say: "I am of the opinion that hard games are the best and no easy game should exist.There, my opinion is absolute.End of discussion".And, as you should have guessed, that's not how a discussion works.