I think you misunderstand me. I am not arguing against his point. I have tortured myself reading the rest of it and still haven't found it.
Here's what I got from the article. If the game has instructions it is broken. He says tutorial, but really older games didn't have tutorials because of technical limitations, so I expanded it to instructions.
Too much text. I agree for the most part. Notice the only argument that makes sense is also short. Hmmm, must be an accident.
Fun in one minute. The first time you play Super Mario Bros, it is fun in the first minute. That is about the only game I can think of. Every other game (that I can think of) has you meet some text, tutorial, or insta-death before the end of the first minute. These games aren't all broken.
Madden is an extremely accessible game, it is also one of the most nuanced when it comes to gameplay. (Not so much because of the game but because of the number of people playing. On a side note, I can't believe I said good things about Madden :) Just kidding)
Next, the crap about Shakey braking the Greek tradition is just not true. There were plenty of English playwrites before Shakespeare. He was writing in a very specific style that dictated meter and structure (he didn't invent that style). He wasn't that different than others, he was better.
Most of his argument has nothing to do with casual, and more to do with his personal taste. I still don't really see what he is trying to get at. I still think he is a bad writer. If he writes for himself, then why is he publishing it?
I would cite regulation, but I know you will simply ignore it.
