I agree that there is a trend among intellectuals and academia to use advanced terminology to obstruct rather than clarify. It's kind of like filtering a statement through google translate multiple times - each layer distills the actual meaning and leaves room for interpretation of the used terminology (which has no place in intellectual discourse). This of course works in your favor if your arguments can't stand ground in a simple form, since you can always blame counterarguments on 'misinterpretation', and repeat tautologies as some kind of a profound truth.
However, I think Austin has been doing a pretty good job of not doing that. He seems to have a genuine desire to have a dialogue with the audience instead of patronize them with 'stuff he learned in university'.
That's not just exclusive to game journalism though, most social sciences use convulated terminology to transform subjective conclusions into profound truths.
I can speak quite a bit to this as a social scientist myself and I think both sides are right on this one. Jargon inherently obfuscates and it does play a role in the barrier between any scientific work and public knowledge. The same argument can be said of any field so singling out any one in particular is incidental since they all have it. So yes, in a lot of ways jargon is not inherently a positive when translating the work's thoughts or arguments to a wider audience.
However the other side of that is jargon is important because it is information dense, particularly as a reader is intimately familiar with the concept. So when accuracy of an argument matters, jargon often matters and in attempting to split the difference the accuracy and jargon elements remain because they are important. Since you're mostly writing to a certain audience in University, you can lean into that even more and exercise your stuff at the high level but the best in that environment also emphasize writing and a sensitivity to this very problem. Some take no heed and others focus on it exclusively (look up "Public [Insert Field]"). With that said the quandry presents itself at every level because relative to my position in social science research (graduate level), there's some things I consider way too convoluted for its own good. If you can tell the research is good even if it escapes you, the tendency I think is to first put it on yourself first to step it up and then if multiple attempts fail, then it's at least somewhat on the author to take that into consideration.
Any obstruction that occurs due to the level of writing is largely consequential of the path to how it was done rather than any conspiracy to exclude. Believe me a lot of good researchers out there are weary of this and the many that aren't can get away with it because they largely only want to talk to their own audience of researchers, which is totally fine. It's a bit of a shame but at the same time the stuff gets around and eventually it works its way out.
With all that said I don't consider that a cause to dismiss the good work that is done out there because there's a surface level similarity between the two. I suppose that's the difference and I'll argue it's as much on the audience to be sensitive to the idea that there is such a good thing as good research and it may look similar to lacking research if you don't necessarily know it well enough. In other words it's not reading resentment into someone using certain terminology you might not be familiar with because I don't think that's a great attitude to take.