I always found these kinds of answers to never be the correct way to respond to someone who thought a game was bad. Gamers alwasy seem to be quite good at identifying that there is a problem but never actually diagnosing the cause of said problem.
Except they didn't identify the problem, let alone diagnose it.
Spilled Spaghett may have just been expecting a different kind of game, or they were playing on a difficulty that they could not handle.
So the solution should be to turn the difficulty down, or get better at the game if you don't want to play on a lower difficulty, if it really was an issue with how hard the game is. Same as if a game is too easy, if you can increase the difficulty then do so.
Anything could be the cause of their displeasure but I doubt it's just cause they are bad at the game.
And yet here we are, with absolutely no input other than "dogshit campaign" and "worst experience I've had gaming in years" and "wouldn't had more fun playing Dustborn or Concord". Ironically, that last bit could be useful, if Dustborn or Concord were even in the same genre because at that point it might be possible for someone to identify differences since the player themselves couldn't be bothered to point out the actual issues they had with it. Instead, because they bring up Dustborn and Concord it's a safe bet that...
Obviously this discounts them being a troll but, c'est la vie.
And that's why they get the sort of response they do.
It's not as if I can't articulate thoughts or I'm unwilling to have something resembling discourse on the topic. I'm doing that with your post. But when you break down what Spilled Spaghetti posted, or even attempt to infer what they might have meant, it isn't possible to understand what the hell they were talking about.
I'll even give another example. Just on the previous page, people were complaining about 10th edition 40k. I don't have a problem with 10th edition, and have actually gotten more games in over the past year than I have in ages, and I think it's more balanced with far less reliance on a bunch of gentleman's agreements in an attempt to fix rules/datasheets/interactions that never got touched for years at a time. But if I assume those people had played previous editions, I understand the differences between 10th and say... 5th maybe or hell even 8th, that those differences might be what those players found to be more enjoyable even if I had problems with other aspects of the game. I can't do that with the crap that Spilled Spaghetti posted, especially since the comparison was fucking Dustborn and Concord rather than something relevant like the first Space Marine from 2011. Hell, without Dustborn and Concord specified, it wouldn't have been an unreasonable guess that maybe they preferred the first game.
