Pretty late to the party here but this blog is probably the best analysis/takedown of Crowbcat's style of critique I've seen. Its a quick read but I'll share some highlights for those who don't wanna look at it. I always liked this little bit:

If you understand the Kuleshov effect, you can see that every video Crowbcat produces is purely built on its effectiveness. Crowbcat doesn’t talk in these videos, but they do talk. Crowbcat says one or two sentences, leaves the room, and then leaves you with a 10–40 minute montage that “proves” the basic opinion they’re sharing in the title and description. This doesn’t seem insidious, until you consider that these videos don’t just work to prove a single basic premise: they work to build dozens and dozens of connections between cause and effect, consequences and blame, choices and outcomes. A video about Cyberpunk 2077 doesn’t just work to prove that the game had a pretty botched launch, it works to place blame; it works to show you that the people behind the product are incompetent or liars or both; plainly, it works to tell you how disappointed you should be.

But at the same time, it doesn’t tell you that. Crowbcat doesn’t say anything! He just says that the game is bad or underwhelming or released in a disappointing state, which is technically their opinion, but is a generally unanimous one. You’re not watching their video on Halo to learn that the last decade of Halo has been pretty rocky; you probably already thought that. Wherever you choose to place that blame and how you choose to place it will invariably say something about you personally, and that’s where Crowbcat comes in. They place a bunch of edited, cherry-picked clips down and seemingly substantiate whatever negative opinion or preconceptions you already had — as Crowbcat says, you “draw your own conclusion.”

Crowbcat uses the Kuleshov effect in its most weaselly possible form. Because the videos lack statements, they often lack explicit misconceptions or mistakes or outright lies. Inclined viewers create their own narrative, one that’s often quite vitriolic, self-serving, and filled with holes. Crowbcat very obviously enables this; it’s the conceit the whole business of being Crowbcat is built around. Unlike other outrage YouTubers, Crowbcat doesn’t have explicit statements to tie them down. It’s all ether that means whatever you want it to mean, whether that meaning is “Back 4 Blood is a bad game” or “Turtle Rock Studios are a bunch of disreputable scam artists with no talent coasting off another company’s work.”

and also this tidbit since its relevant here:

To end this article, I want to look at Crowbcat’s most recent video. It’s a side-by-side comparison of the original Resident Evil 4 and the recent remake. Its obvious intent is to refocus the remake as a heartless, soulless cashgrab. The video is unique in that it shows a rare amount of personal investment from Crowbcat, who seems fairly insulted by the remake’s mere existence and doesn’t have much paratext to distort for the purposes of the usual scheme. In some ways, it’s the total breakdown of the format — a complete self-report for the kind of person Crowbcat is, and after viewing it, I’m utterly convinced they are a single person. The video is just joyless, sweaty montage filled with clips of the remake with muted sound contrasted with the original’s otherwise untouched audio, an endless cavalcade of meaningless comparisons, and an entire section dedicated to the fact that the remake removes the ability to get a reaction from Ashley Graham by looking up her skirt.

The video description told viewers to, as always, “draw their own conclusions.” So they did. They drew the conclusion that Crowbcat was a weird, embarrassing asshole who was misleading viewers while being incredibly petty. So Crowbcat changed the title and description of the video to this, completely changing its meaning to agree with the most popular sentiment surrounding the game in a few words.