OP is being very dismissive of gamers because he doesn't understand the importance of time.
There have been many times when I've played a game with a novel concept and high artistic value and I've really enjoyed it...
...for a couple of hours. But as time went on, things that impressed me initially no longer had the same effect, and I started to get bored with the gameplay. If I had written a review after playing the game for one afternoon, I might have given the game 10/10. If I had written a review after playing for a few weeks, I might have given it 6/10.
On the other hand, there have been many times when I've played a game which seemed to be quite generic and uninspired at first. But after putting time into the game, I stared to notice little things that made me love it. With those games, I might have given them 6/10 after playing them for an afternoon and 10/10 after playing them for several weeks.
The amount of time you spend playing a game can have a big impact on how good you think it is.
That's why gamers often poo-poo certain kinds of "art" games that are loved by reviewers. A lot of gamers aren't looking for something to play for an afternoon. They want something that can keep them entertained for a long time: dozens or even hundreds of hours. High art is great, in its own right. But if it isn't accompanied by good gameplay, it's not enough to make a game worth playing for 100 hours.
