leaving aside the fact that it argues for more realism and complexity that consumes less resources and costs less (i.e. MAGIC), it also rails against a lot of the elements that make games, games. be careful what you wish for.
do you really want open-ended plotlines where the player truly controls the direction of the plot? there are real problems to that approach. dramatic fiction (which is a huge element to the appeal of, say, RPGs) depends on a cogent story being told. one thing must logically lead to the next. stakes should rise as the game progresses. events should build to a climax. that sort of thing. if you give the player true agency in their decisions, you have to actually program a compelling story for every possible choice. assuming finite resources, the problem here ends up a choice between either coding a tiny number of "alternate endings", or giving the player a large number of plot-inconsequential choices. personally, i'd rather have one great story than a handful of prefabbed ones riffing on the same theme. and i dislike games that pretend they're giving me a choice when all roads lead to the same place anyway. it's a silly dance. if your'e making a game where the story element is important, tell a good story. the choose-your-own-adventure books were fun when i was a kid, but so incredibly limited in narrative potential. games shouldn't try to emulate that model.
another stupid gripe from that article concerns indestructible objects and other walls and limitations designers wisely implement in order to keep things actually fun and balanced. games are not intended to simulate reality. levels are carefully balanced to provide a stimulating challenge. pac-man would not have been improved by letting him smash through the walls of the maze. the best games, of course, do a good job of blending the walls of their maze into the scenery. but those same walls exist in every game, in the form of unkillable NPCs, an out-of-order staircase, or a thousand other incarnations.
