If he writes for himself, then why is he publishing it?
So people can tear it apart, and he can see what holds up.
He's probably an egomaniac, since, in my experience, they often make endless jokes about their egomania, but then also do something pretty brilliant to back it up.
In Malstrom's case, he properly analyzed the reasons for Wii's success before it occured, while journos, analysts and businesses couldn't. And since then, he's done a pretty good job of breaking down the different contexts that different groups look at the gaming market through, while continuing to predict how the future of Wii will shape up.
He's certainly not a technically good writer. I think (and hope) it's just shtick when he claims to be.
But the point is, no one else has a good, consistent explanation for what's going on in the gaming market from a business perspective.
This particular article does a pretty poor job of putting things into the wider context of art in general, and mixes general design rules (integrate the tutorial, make it fun right away) with things that are just currently at the end of their cycle and should be avoided because gamers are tired of them, not because they aren't ever entertaining (cinematics; story-driven games).
"[Our former customers] are unable to find software which they WANT to play."
"The way to solve this problem lies in how to communicate what kind of games [they CAN play]."
Satoru Iwata, Nintendo President. Only slightly paraphrased.
