Why does something have to be revolutionary to enjoy it? Why can't you just enjoy it because it's enjoyable?
Also, there's a huge difference between "it should be this way" and "it is this way." The fact that the person who made this made it the way it should be is impressive, when so few people seem capable of that.
If I were to mind read I would say the general objection is usually the over abundance of praise for projects that do not "deserve" it. I can't say that I'm not sympathetic to such viewpoints. For e.g. "You're great at math" can mean anything from you can do long division in your head to you passed college to you won the fields medal. Raising the floor of appreciation reduces the number of bits at the top end to accurately communicate the emotional importance of things. Its a fair criticism in general. The other end of the argument is that encouragement motivates people to greater things, and that certainly is also valid.
I'm not a diehard gamer, myopically focused on only AAA to the detriment of my livelihood. I'm a developer. There is more business for me in "casual" games--whatever that actually means, because it seems to only ever be used as a pejorative that means "not Call of Duty"--than is realistically possible in AAA.
What you're really really after is a single OS, single hardware platform world. That would require the least amount of porting effort which is your goal.
People (and you might not be one of those) think that the Web is going to bring about this great cross-platform revolution, but its a lie except for the basic UI, low-perf applications for two easy-to-identify reasons. First, the standards themselves are poorly specified and contain ambiguities (by design to give leeway to implementors on different hardware). No standard body even puts out a reference implementation. Second, each platform implementation will be implemented differently causing people shipping cross-platform to care about weird implementation quirks that cause the performance of their game to tank in weird ways.