Games, like movies, are easily consumed but difficult to create. As a result, everyone and their grandma can critique them and publish on the Internet which only further self-selects for the highly opinionated to do so.

But not all opinions are equal. You can be well studied in your field and generally intelligent, but if you don’t have a relevant background in the humanities and the sciences, you can have complex reasoning but without having the depth, the breadth, and the relevance in the analysis.

Case in point the first replier. The analogy is fine and the deductive reasoning is self-consistent, but they didn’t show the relevance to game design. (Ie. Why must the author make the text size bigger for people who can’t enjoy smaller text, and why must the same apply to games.)

That’s why gamers seem to be notorious for having takes that miss the trees for the forest.

(I am aware that I’m very much at risk of committing this very error with my post.)