I think the post was supposed to be satire. I didn't really get that either, but the reactions I'm hearing in other places seem to be along the lines of, "Ha ha, that was funny."
That's the part that ruined the entire article for me. To quote these games as hallmarks of emotional or intrinsic value in games is to me as clueless as to talk about paintings as 'things that you just look at', renders the person in the article clueless about both art and games, and destroys the sarcasm imho.
I took it more as showing the bare minimum that needs to be achieved, i.e. "these are the games that are at the lowest of the ranking list, that I still consider to be capable of eliciting an acceptably genuine emotional response from me".
