I generally agree, but the cost of an attraction is not as easy to respond to as overly expensive food. If I find a meal too expensive for the quality, I won't pay for it again (or at all, assuming your hypothetical in which someone else paid for it the first time). The cost of a single attraction, on the other hand, doesn't have as obvious a correlation to my ticket price and only represents a fraction of my overall experience at the parks, which I may in totality deem to be worth the price of admission even if I don't have 450 million dollars worth of love for the shiny new thing.I think both perspectives are correct.
Imagine a friend takes you to dinner and pays the bill. (You don't see the menu or the check.) That night you jot down your thoughts about how the meal tasted. The next day, you friend tells you how much it cost, which turns out to be twice as much as you would have guessed. You do not go back to your notes and change your opinions about the taste of the food. The food itself "was what it was."
However, if you later are talking to folks about the restaurant business and what restaurateurs should or shouldn't do, you might want to think about the bad choices of that particular place you visited and how it could be much better managed. You might even decide not to go back.
The first scenario is like talking about the attraction itself. Is it good? Does it fit? Is it innovative? Does it have AAs? Will I want to go back? The second scenario is more about what could have been. How could that money have been put to better use? Was it worth it? I think it's fair to talk about both.