The author is evaluating other games and determining that they don't live up to his standards. One possibility is that the author is the best at what he does, a

The author is evaluating other games and determining that they don't live up to his standards. One possibility is that the author is the best at what he does, as he believes. Another is that the author is not competent to judge the complexity of these other games. A chess grandmaster may view the board and know the inevitability of mate in three, while a normal human might see the same board as favoring the eventual loser, based on some simplistic understanding of piece strength. Whole thing seems a bit Dunning-Kruger-ish. Crawford comes across to me as an eccentric artist, not a game designer, and with the accompanying ego. This has helped the industry, such as when creating (C)GDC. But, like many artists, he has strong opinions on what qualifies. I personally don't enjoy games that are "games as art", but I respect their place. Crawford doesn't seem to view "games as games" with such respect.