Well if it is your argument you'd like to discuss, then why not. Take for example your point that one can be critical of the food a chef cooks without being a chef themself. Indeed this is true. However, you are not arguing that the 'food' is of poor quality, but that there is not enough of it. A chef could no doubt make several grilled cheeses in the time it takes to grill and plate a nice steak, but the steak is much nicer at the end. I am sure that the developers could turn out several dozen maps in a week if quantity was all that they cared about - perhaps many versions of Feitoria with different coloured rocks would suffice.
In addition, while you do not need to be a chef to judge the quality of food, you do need to be one in order to appreciate the amount of work taken to make a dish.
While you say that you are refuting my points, you are in fact arguing against a position which I never took in the first place, also known as a 'Straw man' fallacy.
You seem to be unfamiliar with basic concepts such as the difference between quality and quantity, perhaps you would benefit from some English courses. Might I suggest:
https://www.coursera.org/specializations/improve-english
Additionally, so you can remove logical errors from your arguments I would recommend a careful reading of the following article: https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writing/academic_writing/logic_in_argumentative_writing/fallacies.html