It would be easier and cleaner just to link old posts dedicated to the subject, although finding the right one takes time. The simplest way I can put it is that "newness" distracts from an ideal quality and putting a priority on it is a case of submitting to the human weakness of growing hardened towards stimuli (it is the lesser solution). I associate novelty directly with the desire for instant gratification and a lack of discipline required to reach a deeper (yet more demanding) appreciation for something. This goes beyond favoring games with new concepts, but also includes willing to dedicate yourself to an individual game (or genre) in order to find deeper appreciation (i.e., to not carelessly "channel surf"). All humans are driven by novelty to some extent, but it is something that I would argue needs to be kept in check or it becomes a decadent process. In a larger sense (or in the sense of overall criticism), it is a highly reactive process of continually searching for "something that is not" even after you've found it, to constantly deconstruct or avoid construction, which overtime can literally mean going away (backwards) from what are considered virtues. That is what I would say is the path that leads to praising literal garbage as "art".
You can say that about any disagreement; doesn't work I'm afraid. Conflicting ideas are in constant battle and individuals are driven to place their impression onto the future, whether they realize it or not. Obviously those who would take aggressive action against others they disagree with are hardly in their rights, but that doesn't exactly diminish the fight itself. It is very unfortunate people, namely enthusiasts, choose to disown the intellectual debate and make themselves either extreme or isolated, because it means they can be walked all over upon when it comes to things they won't touch. This is my problem with "I don't want my game to have messages", because by saying that, you've given "messages" to those who you disagree with. Same with "art", and so on.
Let's remember I'm referring to the idea of imitating the dynamic I described earlier. The poorly-put together movie that sells a lot is first and foremost criticized for being a poorly-put together movie (putting aside any other issues one may have with film criticism). Now we have this idea that the game that follows similar aesthetic themes (or similar levels of financial success) are equivalent. Is that really fair? I could see a strong reaction to trying to establish that dynamic, especially in the midst of people being dissatisfied with the level of expertise in reviews (more so true when it comes to something like fighting games, hence my additional example).
I assume it is Dynasty Warriors enthusiasts? What are they actually saying?