I imagine reviewers have to do this all the time. I'm sure organizations like PC Gamer or IGN or whatever try to place people into their 'preferred' areas, but what if nobody on the staff particularly loves racing titles? They still have to review it, and their reputation will be dinged if they don't offer a reasonably objective analysis. I'll admit it's a lot to place on the shoulders of forum-goers, but this is why I think SE has to take action themselves. They're the ones working on FFXIV, the ones who will be tangibly impacted if the game begins to falter or fail. Their livelihoods are on the line: they arguably can't afford to take a simple-minded approach (are people saying it's fun or not upon release).
I'm not so sure this is the case. The problem here is a lack of visible alternatives. SE would be making a massive assumption if they judged a 'this is fun' message as 'we did good, let's keep at it', which is something I feel they've done for quite some time now in XIV. To again use Eureka as an example, let's say someone tells SE 'yeah, this was fun.' Well, the next question would be, how fun? Are we talking a 6/10 review, 7/10? Is it an 11/10? Without knowing even that surface level of detail, the feedback almost has to be discarded entirely; it's useless from a development-guidance standpoint. So, yes, you're right that SE can view this as evidence of a job well done - but they really shouldn't.
I'd be interested in the source here, but I'd suggest that this actually worsens the situation. It means they're either lying to us to save face, or they actually outright ignored a strongly likely outcome from a balancing perspective in order to release content in a problematic state. I'd prefer ignorance to intent, speaking personally. I'd also hesitate to define 'broken' content as something SE didn't intend or foresee. I mean, Microsoft surely foresaw many of the downsides to imposing forced updates on Windows 10 users. That still doesn't excuse them from the myriad problems that arose from this process, particularly in the first couple of years of Windows 10's lifespan. Broken design is broken design: the intent and supporting design / development didn't match the outcome, in a way that proved problematic to a non-trivial population of end users. Foreseen or not, it's still a problem.
I think we are. I think if we contrast what we have right now with what we had when 2.0 was being developed and just after release, we'll note there's less player feedback, less community outreach. During ARR's development and aftermath, Yoshi-P stressed the value of not developing in a bubble. By all appearances, he's no longer practicing what he preached. Oh, sure, he's still doing the 'Live' letters, he's still doing the media appearances, but they're all so carefully insulated and controlled, they aren't achieving the desired result.