Yes, but it is probably necessary. And.. I betcha that the space of commonality is far larger than many of us think.
Also... folks should think outside their own preferences a little bit. There is, "I like this," and there's "This is not my bag, but I can see how this would serve other people well." If you cannot accept serving the needs of people who aren't exactly like you... the market for your theory or other creations will be exceedingly small.
FYI, Fate Core (and Fate Accelerated) is Pay What You Want on DriveThruRPG and you can also find most of the contents for these two games plus a handful of their other works on the Fate SRD.Fate, for instance, is a prominent game that I have no personal experience with at this point. I plan on picking up a copy and reading it just for greater understanding when people discuss it here, but the need isn't as great knowing it's likely not going to be played at my table any time soon.....we have a queue of games we're waiting to play.
FYI, Fate Core (and Fate Accelerated) is Pay What You Want on DriveThruRPG and you can also find most of the contents for these two games plus a handful of their other works on the Fate SRD.
Good critical theory (or good criticism in general) can focus on what works (@Lanefan ) as well as what doesn't work.
When you apply it to what you're doing, often forcing yourself to consider, "Why does this game feel right to me," or "Why do I not like this mechanic in that game?" you are starting the process of interrogation that should lead to a better play experience.
It's little different than trying to shepherd teens through the transition from reading surface-level works to going to a slightly higher level. "Yes, you like that particular passage. But why?"*
The only issue that I sometimes see is the attempt to universalize a preference, which fails to account for the observable phenomenon that other people are not you, and may have different preferences.
Which goes back to the issue that good analysis should usually be aimed at seeing if the thing in question (the RPG overall, or the specifics within that RPG**) are well-suited for effectuating the intent of the RPG or the specifics within the RPG.
But the entire process of thinking about this- what do you like, what do you not like, and how can you best enhance the things you like (and avoid the things you don't like) should make people have a better experience overall. IMO.
*The answer, of course, will be, "Dunno. It has words."
**I'm not trying to obscure or use jargon, here. By "specifics" I mean "parts" - for example, maybe an RPG overall works for your preferences, but a particular specific (such as a particular mechanic within it) does not work as well.
My preference for any RPG theory would be one that's descriptive rather than any theoretical model is prescriptive or that imposes a sense of normativity on games. This was arguably one of the problems with the Forge, in that others felt that its criticisms were arguing for a normative perspective on what game should be, which you even touch upon this in the Is/Ought section (#4) of your original post. (Though this normative sense of what games should be is not exclusive to the Forge, but also found in a number of other TTRPG communities: e.g., OSR, story/narrative games, etc.).Good critical theory (or good criticism in general) can focus on what works (@Lanefan ) as well as what doesn't work.
The only issue that I sometimes see is the attempt to universalize a preference, which fails to account for the observable phenomenon that other people are not you, and may have different preferences.
Actually, if you throw that's a no ball. And you're a "chucker" (do Americans have the slang "to chuck" meaning "to throw"?)at no point can I choose NOT to throw in Cricket. I cannot walk down to the other end, past the batter, and kick over the wicket, can I? If I'm the pitcher (bowler?), I MUST throw the ball, down that line. I have no other options.