I'm not sure that's necessarily true.
I mean, I'm in that exact age category you've mentioned, and I think that I could form a reasonably valid opinion so long as I was informed enough about it. I could buy Freespace 2 here on GOG as well as a few similar games which were produced at the time, compare them to one another, gain insights from people who played the game back when it was new, and understand enough to comment on it.
Granted, I wouldn't know EVERYTHING, but nobody ever does. The story always changes depending on who the person was and where they were at while the era was taking place. It's all based on what you learn.

I agree with you, I've played FO3(it was ok for what it is) and FO:NV(really liked it) . I consider them part of the FO universe, like FO Tactics, but not part of the series because they didn't stick to the form of the originals and/or carry on the storyline. I haven't played FO4 but from what I've seen and heard it's kind of a stretch to even call it a RPG.
If a dev is going to put a number in the title, to imply that it's part of a series, then they should stick to the form of the originals. I've got no problem with Beth. putting out FO shooters as long as they don't try to make them look like they are anything other than just part of the FO universe. By putting the 3, 4, etc in the titles they are (IMO) trying to trick those who only know of FO by name that these games are somehow part of the storyline.
I'll stop now, otherwise I'll write a whole page on how much I'd love to see a true successor to FO1 and 2.

I think that even if we pretend that there were never any Dungeon Keeper games on PC, and that Dungeon Keeper Mobile was an original IP, there would still be plenty to complain about regarding that "game".

I think the main complaint was that there is lots of waiting in the game, even several hours/day, unless you pay. To me that indeed is a game-killer... but to my surprise I recall reading some people commenting they actually are totally fine with that, kind of game they just check once in a while and come back to it when the waiting time has elapsed. Go figure.

I think it wasn't strictly about Dungeon Keeper Mobile, but some other mobile game which has similar "waiting penalties" for playing for free, could have been Clash of Clans.

I am more concerned with games being released riddled with bugs, and then having to to wait for patch after patch for at least a reasonable package for a game. I refuse to purchase titles from some developers due to what seems to be a consistent practice of games filled with bugs, some of them which are day 1 game stoppers. It has gotten to the point now, regardless of developer, that I will wait at least 6 months to a year to purchase. This way, the game is at least playable.

I just think there should be some standard for using certain words, some criteria.
I am primarily thinking of reviewers, journalists and critics, concerning this issue.
My apologies if I forgot to mention this before. It was present in my head but did not get down in writing.

It's easy for these people to throw around the word 'fan' in order to add credibility to what they are saying; 'take me seriously! after all I am or was a big fan of X'.

It is a word that is easy to advantage of, like the words 'honest' or 'objective'; 'look at me ! I'm an objective and honest reviewer or critic'.

The way I see it: the more games you have played in a franchise the higher your credibility is when it comes down to voicing an opinion about that entire franchise. Yet journalists and others in the media often take short-cuts and base their opinions about a franchise on only a few selection of games. They rarely bother to do basic research.

You are perfectly right, it's hard to judge whether someone is an actual fan or not, but by having some standard or criteria does make it easier.

Again, I'm primarily talking about reviewers, critics and journalists. What the average gamer thinks of him/herself is not relevant to other gamers, but people who have the power to influence others should be scrutinized and not blindly followed.

What does it matter so long as the products are enjoyable?
Seriously, I don't get your aim. How does lower production time somehow make games worse? The reason they're spending less time on them is because technology has improved drastically. It's way easier to make a game like, say, The Secret of Monkey Island now than it was in 1990.

Not if it isn't enjoyable. After the first, say, million or so fans buy the game and realize it's horrendous, the reviews come out and nobody wants it from then on. Just look what happened to the last Arkham game upon release.
As the saying goes, you can fool some people some of the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time.

Isn't those million people buying the product a problem? It's telling publishers and developers that if they can hoodwink enough people, they'll get rich. Its deceitful, and if you want to be drawn into believing all the hype all the time and waste your money, go ahead.
The problem comes when it actually starts to affect game development as a whole, which it is. Which comes down to less and less time being spent on developement. Even though the techonology is getting better, at the same time they are pushing that technology to the limit. The problem with these developers is that they aren't spending them time to fine-tune the tech they are pushing, which leads to games like NMS, Arkham, Ark:, A:CM, etc.
And as I have said, I AM buying games. Good games. I will NEVER pre-order, and I will always vet reviews myself. Which means If i want a certain game, i go through as many reviews as I can find, I go through forums looking for problems and I don't take anyones word at face value, even good friends of mine.
I don't have time or patience to wade through a shitty game. Fortunately, there are a ton of really good games, just not new ones.

But that's the thing- they don't get rich. Arkham Knight probably cost some millions to make. The graphics designers, the coders, the voice actors, everybody has to get paid, and there's a lot of people working on it. If they didn't sell enough copies, they WOULD lose money, and, on top of that, give their company a bad reputation and make gamers less likely to buy from them in the future. That's why they fixed the game instead of just leaving it dead in the water.
A company who doesn't actually bother with quality ends up going the route of Digital Homicide - dying out.
There are really good new games out there, they just might not be really good to you.
It is, as you put it, your "little opinion".

I get where you're coming from. You're saying people shouldn't be stupid and just buy off of the principle of "OMG IT'S X DEVELOPER OMG OMGOMG INSTABUY!!!11!1!"
I don't think people are actually like that, though. Most people don't have the money to waste to buy an expensive AAA game without knowing what it's even like. The exception is with the whole preordering crap, but even that mostly occurs when it's a game in a series and the previous games have set a solid precedent.

It is true in 99% of the cases whenever you are discussing game within groups of gamers on the internet, there will always be dumb people who downvote correct views. Places like reddit where people slather love all over gabe newell when the man is probably the biggest enemy of videogamers rights on the planet outside of EA and activation, since Gabe newell showed other corporations how to take hostage game functionality and use corporate PR to "win" people to having their rights taken away.

The fact GOG.COM even exists, mean we already live in a sort of gaming dark age where corporations are trying to trap game software on servers they ultimately control for profit. It's a disease that's going to get much worse given that there is a constant stream of kids/ignorant people being born who have no memory of corporate wrongdoing of the past and will willingly and gullible give their money to these organisations hostile to their interests.

I have no idea how what you're saying has anything to do with what I was talking about.

Edit: Oh, whoops, I posted before you edited your comment.
Re-edit: Er....that edit of yours STILL has nothing to do with what i was talking about.

It's actually due to a massive carb coma from all of the mashed potatoes, dressing, gravy and pumpkin pie, much to the contrary of all of the wives tales blaming it on triptophan in the turkey (which is in roughly equivalent amounts in other animal meats as well).

I'm telling you, it's the carb coma!

What are you on about? Thanksgiving isn't until near the end of November.
Edit: Oh, right, I forgot you Canadians have it a month early.
Uh....happy Canadian Thanksgiving!

You are correct. Only one clarification - games you are talking about should change. If they are not changing (like CoD or AC series) then there would be no fans of old games, dissappointed in new ones. Otherwise, of cause there would be people, who don't like canges to the gameplay or some turns of the story or new style. However that doesn't neccesserily mean that game became worse. Just different and not everyone likes it.