IMHO, the whole "you're a noob, so you're not qualified to speak to the game" is a cop-out, anyway. If someone said, "I have logged 600 hours on Steam playing Civ V, and I can say with authority that Civ V sucks," then what would people say? How much expertise do people tend to acquire in games they don't like?
It's not a cop out, go read the forums of experienced civ players. They pick up on things in the game that people like you would miss because you're not experienced or intelligent enough to grasp the games fundamental flaws. Things like exploits for instance that make the game too easy and stupid behaviors of the AI in diplomacy, etc.
Expert players are part of what keeps game quality from dropping off a cliff. I've been gaming for 30 years and the game quality of PC and modern console games has gone down as games have been noobified to cater to the masses. First person shooters are a case in point. Halo with it's recharging shields and two weapon limits that every fps has copied, even duke nukem forever had recharging ego ffs.
No offense but you're just wrong. There's abundant evidence that noobs have brought down game quality because they don't know what makes a good game and will buy anything with shiny graphics and cinematics.
I'm not saying you can't like a game and buy it, but I'm saying you won't pick up on a games flaws because you are incapable of grasping what makes a game good and fun for a wide variety of players. Expert players don't hate noobs, they just hate that developers can get away with cutting features from games and noobs who whine and have no idea what makes a good game are a part of this problem. Instead of doing the thorough legwork of designing a better game for everyone they just cut features that they know a large section of the audience is too dull to even perceive.