"doesn't take long to learn the difference between a good and bad wine."
If you have to teach people to distinguish good and bad isn't that an admission that the whole thing is bullshit?
If you have to teach people to distinguish good and bad isn't that an admission that the whole thing is bullshit?
However, I have not immersed myself in the game enough to be able to understand what is a good play and what is a great play. I don't understand the lingo, I don't understand the strategy and I don't understand the tactics.
Am I in a position to judge then whether one player (or game) is better than another? I don't believe I am.
Substitute with chess if you like. A chess aficionado may find a lot of pleasurable excitement in a move that an amateur may see as pointless.
There are also concepts you've heard of such as a "musician's musician" or a "comedian's comedian" - wherein deep knowledge of the craft gives a different appreciation of the experience.
While I happen to agree that people should just "buy what they like," the path to forming an opinion is usually a guided one.
Chef: You stupid amateurs could never appreciate my noodles!
Tampopo: But people who eat noodles are all amateurs. So why make noodles amateurs can't appreciate?