Also the argument is really bad because it is essentially saying that basically an argument against the very concept of critical thinking?
It is an objectively terrible standard to say one needs to thoroughly exhaust all opportunities for something to be good before it can be judged. That isn't a standard held in ANY rational context.
You don't need to read and playtest the entirety of Cthulhu-tech to understand it is a miserable, terrible, awfully designed game set in a misserable, terrible, unfun to explore world with no real redeeming qualities besides its abstract high concept it doesn't even lean into.
A vital aspect of being... a functioning human being is to be able to extrapolate greater concepts from a dataset smaller than 'an all encompassing knowledge of something.' If you play 10 sessions of SR, and not a single one is fun, you shouldn't continue going 'in case' its going to get better, just as you shouldn't watch a TV series through entirely 'in case' it gets better after the first 10 episodes were truly awful.
It doesn't matter if you watched the series that it was a sequel to, in most situations compulsively doing things you don't like out of the concern of missing out on something good is a literal an anxiety disorder (Literal as in 'you would actually be diagnosed'), not a rational way to critique things.
This is a fallacious argument, and probably one of the more damaging ones you can make, because saying a critique should not involve critical analysis or thought is not a misstep in logic so much as an attempt to invalidate the concept of criticism, discernment, and critical thought. It literally can be sumarized by
this little chestnut of a video. You are saying, quite literally, that one cannot ask questions, think through ramifications of choices, or analyze a pretty compelling dataset to come to a negative conclusion against a media product without consuming so much and taking so long that you are fully consuming 100% of all media presented to you.
The ENTIRE POINT of a review, of a critical analysis, IS to 'bias people' based on a snapshot of the important parts of that product. That is, quite literally, the job of a critic. The fact that this is going to drive fans away is not the fault of the critic except in a very basic, examined sense, especially when the critic is being consistent with a dominant trend of criticism and thus is merely just another voice saying the same thing. A good critic will present an argument for a particular take or analysis of a bit of media (sometimes as a review, sometimes to explore themes, motifs, style, technique, or its place in the culture, 'critics' don't just do reviews), and will provide enough supporting evidence to justify their opinion so that people can make up their own minds.
That is exactly what Roll4It did. You can point out why the evidence was faulty, why their examples shouldn't be expected to be accurate to most tables, or why they may be biased or having trouble, but saying 'You should not think critically about a product to draw conclusions about that product and share those conclusions' is...
Well it would be a very happy day for some Horrizon social media memetic engineer if they got that concept to go mainstream, as it is literally arguing for the lack of discernment and critical thought in what products to consume and purchase as a virtue, which means no product would ever need to make any attempt at quality because, under that worldview, quality is, essentially, irrelevant, as for someone to conclude something is low quality they already have had to pay for it, consume it, and probably buy the expansions and splats as well.