I fundamentally disagree with the distinction the author puts out.

1. Makes a distinction that video games "transform" the player in a way other media doesn't.

I would argue that every piece of art is "active" in this way, it's just that with non-interactive art, the activity happens within your own mind.

Don't art aficionados and art students sit and stare at a piece for an hour, experiencing something within themselves that goes beyond what they see?

Doesn't reading a book, whether fiction or non-fiction, take time to truly engage with the writing of the author and "learn" their style in order to appreciate it on a deeper level?

In the same way, engaging with the mechanics of a game and experiencing the ludonarrative cohesion is how one engages with a game on a deeper level.

2. Most game critique is just a cliff notes or description

This is the same for all mass media. Day 1 reviews of books and movies are not intellectual thinkpieces, and with the rise of "second screen content", most tv/movies are not meant to be experienced any deeper than at 1.5x speed while you're washing dishes.

It's asinine to compare pop culture reviews for a mass audience for video games to the highest form of literary or film critique.