I actually have a lot of issues with that article. Obviously a lot of the stuff is just opinions, but there are some things where I think he didn't think it quite through.
I do not see games as a single huge category for which you can create universal rules for. The rules that apply for Scrabble differ from those of GalCiv which in turn differ from those of Halo which differ from those of Geometry Wars.
The two big dividing factors I see derive from the focus the game requires (casual vs 'hard-core') and whether the game requires constant attention (real-time vs turn-based).
Certainly there's universal stuff, but that's more about understanding people than it is about understanding games.
7. I disagree with the playing with friends part. I take a well made single player game any day over a game that forcibly tries to include multiplayer. The result is almost invariably crappy multiplayer. And often the single player part suffers from it as well, due to misplaced resources.
6. Obviously the writer does not like open-world games. However, padding the length of the game means that you _force_ the player to repeat same tasks over and over again, with only minor variation. Open-world games are by definition almost immune to this, in the sense that they do not force player to do much anything. They can be boring, and repetitive, yes. But that's another issue.
Not to say the artificial lengthening of the game does not exist. I suppose I could blame Devil May Cry 4 of it. I'm easily bored, and I dislike Oblivion for a lot of reasons. But I do recognize the merit of the game. If you like hacking those monsters and enjoy those bland quests, as a lot of people seem to do, you can do that for a fair while. Depending on how much you like that stuff, you play it either for a short while or a bloody long while. And I thought the driving sequence in Half-life Episode 2 was a lot of fun. Haven't played Zelda or Metroid.
5. Regarding repetition I do agree with him, except that I think games need to force a degree of repetition on players. It's a wonderful tool for teaching players stuff. Valve has become really good at this, imo.
4. Most of the stuff regarding killing being fun was in the opinion category. If you demand graphical finesse (funnily the guy later says graphics don't matter, yet here he demands cuts to be visible in swordfights). I do however think that starting with a crappy gun is perfectly fine. A well known simple weapon establishes baseline. And the gameplay can still be fun. I thought the Half-life 2 crowbar trainyard run through was a lot of fun. Basicly it seems to me he's complaining about the cool factor here. A cool gun can have very boring gameplay. The end of Half-life 2 for example was rather boring gameplay with the super gun. Even if the stylish vistas of the citadel worked well. Gameplay is king, who cares if it's rubber dildo you whack the enemies with if it's fun to use. although I guess this is an opinion as well. Melee combat in games is about mobility, which I've mostly considered as fun. I guess the writer doesn't.
His 3rd point seems to be mostly about hyberboles, although I do recognize the basis from where it stems from. Although I haven't had a problem with 1st person jumping puzzles, the legs would be nice for the immersion, I agree. Even if it's kind of bitching about graphics.
2. Buggy games. Well, yes
1. Ignoring the exaggerations, the writer himself complained about graphics related issues a couple times. I don't have anything against graphics, per se. Gameplay is king. No one thinks that graphics equal innovation, even if the press releases might say something to that effect. Everyone, however knows that graphics do correlate strongly to sales. Comparing DS games to PC or console games does not change this fact. It does reveal that gameplay matters. And perhaps from a development perspective it's easier to concentrate on gamplay when working with stuff like PSP or DS. But if you made a game like the DS Mario Kart on 360, it most likely would not sell, compared to it's fancy graphics brother. (Strange how he has depicted as if PS3 would have sold more than X360, even if his own source material seems to indicate differently)
So the success of DS and PSP does prove that graphics are not an absolute requirement, but it doesn't tell us how things are in the horsepower category. Even Wii doesn't change this. Sure, Super Mario Galaxy has sold a lot. But if you'd make Halo 3 or Unreal 4 on 360 that would look like a DS or even a Wii game, I don't think it would sell. And I don't think Mike Capps is wrong in presuming so. The markets are entirely different. And Halo players demand graphics. Even if there are people who play both Halo and Wii Fit, the markets for the most part diverge greatly. I strongly believe that the industry is merely responding to the player demands and attitudes.
In the future, almost certainly, the market will diverge and splinter. How the hardware will respond to this, I do not know. I suppose with handhelds and Wii and Ps3 & X360 we already have three camps, so perhaps that too will splinter. Games are not a unified field, nor will the industry be unified.
And for the most part, this is a good thing for everyone.