I'm not familiar with the guys who wrote this, but that second article, right there, is what annoys me about modern satire. The first one worked-- it ridiculed something that was ridiculous, speaks for itself, and does not hold up under scrutiny at all. But in an attempt to remain fair and balanced (or something-- I'm not sure what the actual point is), these guys awkwardly try to poke fun at the opposite opinion without actually having any real ammunition or irrationalities to work with. Instead, it just relied on a random dong joke at the end that had nothing to do with anything, cheap throwaway jokes/references peppered throughout, and straw-men (making every valid concern seem more unreasonable by tacking on words like "ALWAYS" and "NEVER"). It makes the whole purpose of satire feel lame, aimless/toothless, and unprincipled. SNL pulls that kind of crap all the time.
The accessibility/easy-mode argument has never made any sense to me (AAA games already cater way too much to casual audiences as it is, now you're going to complain about how the remaining niche stuff that's already been somewhat marginalized is not catering to your sensibilities as well? Go **** yourself) and the artistic vision argument seems very reasonable-- I don't see the flaw in it, nor do I see one being successfully made fun of in that joke-article. Maybe the joke is that "obviously things can't have an artistic vision if they're unrealistic, historically inaccurate, and gratuitous to begin with" or maybe "You don't want to see huge t*tties and think it would cheapen the experience rather than improve it? Get over yourself", but I really hope it's not actually making those points, because that would be really dumb criticism.