If all you're looking for in your music for the evening is a steady beat, and that is exactly what the producer has provided, it will satisfy that itch. However, that doesn't mean it's immune to the critique of those who want something more, or even else, from their music.

When you read Roger Ebert's movie reviews, he reviewed movies by how well they accomplished what they set out to do. Like, take a screwball comedy. It's never going to win an oscar for best picture, but when he was reviewing a screwball comedy, he was judging how good of a screwball comedy it was. Reviewing it from the perspective of "will this win the oscar for Best Picture" is something you can do, but, I don't really understand the point. It ignores why people might want to see it, and flattens any distinction between good screwball comedy and bad screwball comedy.

To address a broader point, however:

Judging CAH / Apples to Apples / Dixit as poorly designed misses the boat. Clearly they're enjoyed by many people. The point of studying game design is to figure out what makes games meaningful, enjoyable, [whatever]. If you evaluate these games, and decide they're badly designed—when clearly they lead to meaningful experiences to a broad swath of the population—it seems like the failure is in your analysis, not in the game. Game design is not at the level where it can evaluate games from first principles; your first step should be to examine the evidence. And the evidence clearly shows that people find those games worthwhile.

You can say "I don't like them", that's fine. You can even say "I don't like The Ocarina of Time"! That's totally fine. But if you look at Ocarina of Time through a lens focused on the system that underpins the game, and feel it comes up lacking—then the problem is with your lens, not with the game.