That doesn't sound like they are pooping on the game. They are stating their preference. Do you think my comment is that uncharitable?
Its difficult to tell hyperbole from nuance some times. I have sympathy for the idea that people will sometimes project how a game is designed or plays from insufficient information, but at the other end I'm actually not a believer as a universal in "If you haven't played it, you don't understand it." And I've seen phrasing like you used as a substitute for that.
Basically, there's no question you will have information you will be missing until you understand how all the pieces fit together, and sometimes that's hard to tell from reading. But I've also seen that used as a defense to fend off anyone outside the specific game community in a way that suggests its going to
always be the case, and I don't find that at all credible either.
(This is ignoring for the moment people who simply don't like the style of game something is, and are going to make claims about how such games play out that are, at best, overgeneralizing and at worst suggesting dynamics that don't seem to get seen except in degenerate cases).
But I think there's still some room for problems; its possible to go beyond simply stating preference (say, suggesting a particular style doesn't seem likely to work well for the majority of gamers) while coming to that position honestly. Then it comes down to phrasing and whether the critic is, themselves, being hyperbolic (note: I'm very much not a fan of hyperbole; I'm unconvinced it ever serves a good purpose in communication).
