Long and short, I think the article is taking a limited scope of what gaming is. I think it's been in one of the most exciting states, and is using graphically intensive games as a bar. but those are still hellishly expensive to produce. However what would have surpassed as amazing graphics 10 years ago is cheaper than ever to produce and is being used for great narrative structures. It seems to only look to the top of the graphical scope as a judge, but of course there won't be a lot of creativity there, when these games are exceeding $100m to produce. It's a pitfall of all entertainment industries when budgets get that large, so no reason to condemn gaming in particular (not to say we can't gain anything by examining it, or recognizing that different forms of entertainment are...different.)