You're missing my point, probably because I explained it in a fairly over the top emotional way, which is my fault. But how can you tell whether a rating is fake? As a player, you can't even see them, as a dev, you just get given a number. The only way to tell as far as I can see is if the rating is either a word for word copy paste from the same guy given to multiple devs, or if the rating comes from someone whose comment history would imply an interest in something that clashes really hard with what you make. Like if you made something related to LGBT, and you get a 1 star review from a guy whose comment history is 99% him commenting on games involving alt right stuff. Fairly obvious they're not gonna like it, but they can rate it without justification anyway. The whole site is meant to be a platform for indie devs who tend to be on the smaller side, so individual reviews and ratings can matter. I suppose it's probably obvious that this is my non dev account, and my other account is a dev one. No way I'd be up in arms over this if I hadn't seen both sides.
My primary point is that I think people should have to have at least downloaded a game to rate it, and I think that developers should have the option to enforce "review required" when leaving ratings, if they choose. This isn't gonna be a full solution, but it's at least something. This way if someone wants to leave a bad review, they still can, but they have to at least type something. Worst case it turns out to be nonsense (Which could be ignored by the community if reviews were public) and best case it could be good constructive feedback that could help the dev to improve their game (And inform the community about the state of the game if reviews were public.)
Currently you could get a 1 star review and never know why. That's what the point of my example about the fps and puzzle thing was about. It's a fairly ludicrous example, but given how the review system is at the moment can you actually guarantee that it doesn't happen?
It isn't a huge issue, it doesn't even need to be the small issue that it is. The rating menu thing already prompts you for a review, and if devs just had the ability to make it so you're actually forced to leave a review instead of just a rating without any context then there you go, that solves it. Devs who want to take feedback from players can enable it if they want, and devs who like things the way it is right now can just not, and nothing changes. Plus, if players could see reviews, they could read them if they want, or ignore them if they don't.
All of that said, I agree with your point about showing distribution of ratings, and making it clear to players that their reviews aren't viewed by anyone other than the dev and the reviewer's followers. On the rare occasion that I get words in my ratings, they're often written for an audience of some sort, so I get the feeling the few people who do actually leave words in their reviews do actually think someone other than the developer might read them. I do still think that the option to enable "Review required" has no downsides, and whilst it may be difficult to enforce the "download required" idea is also not something I can really see a downside to other than the very specific circumstance of perhaps someone downloading and playing something and then losing access to their account and needing to make a new one, then deciding they wanted to rate the game or something. I just think that actually experiencing a product, if even for a moment, should be required before you're allowed to do your part to affect the overall rating of that thing. I'm no web dev, but these sound like incredibly simple features to add. Sure testing would be required, but still. It even works for the people who write reviews because they want others to read them. I just don't think there is anybody that these features wouldn't benefit, other than the web devs who would have to make them work.