@geraltitude: I don't believe I did insult @courage_wolf, though I apologize that it seemed that way. I merely intended to say that he was reading things into the article that (in my opinion) aren't there, in a way that continued his metaphor of the article "reeking". I had thought that was clear in context, but apparently I was mistaken.
Nor was I "being defensive of something [I] agree with". In fact, as I said in my previous post, "Personally, I haven't played the game, so I don't know whether I agree with his assessment or not." (I also think it is rather rude to impute defensiveness to me.)
I disagree that quoting portions of the article is not a valid way to support my point. I cut only for brevity and clarity, not for any dishonest motive as you imply (an implication I very much do not appreciate). It would be dishonest had I deliberately removed quotations to the contrary, but I don't think there are any: I read the article three times before my original post to make sure. I couldn't find any quotation that I thought supported your reading of it (except, perhaps, the unfathomably awful title).