It's a fairly weak criticism if you ask me which fails to adequately consider the audience for this specific type of writing style. I like Jeff's games and generally simple writing approach well enough - but I would describe his style as mostly perfunctory with its sprinkling of dry quips and wry humour and certainly not in the same category as the more verbosely inclined tradition popularised by PS:T. But I digress, as the topic is Pillars of Eternity, not Jeff's works.
As described in the article, Hitting the "1 key" as fast as one can simply tells me that the writing in this particular game, wasn't for him. This is further reinforced by the fact that he blew through the entirety of the game in 20 hours which certainly doesn't mirror my own experience as for me, the game is simply much deeper than that.
His examples of attempting to pull apart the sections of character creation are entirely subjective and for me, not sufficiently argued as to be convincing. One might be more willing to accept his premise of course if one were so inclined against verbosely written games. Admittedly I'm somewhat biased as someone who has invested significant hours into PoE and enjoys the writing for the most part but I don't find his generalisations about "what an audience likes" at all compelling. Lore fans just might be able to recall the details that he couldn't on Ein Glenfath for instance and are more likely to appreciate the additional flavour or "purple prose".
A pragmatic and succinct style obviously has its place and virtues but forcing or homogenising such ideas and perspectives in cRPGs as a whole might not necessarily be the answer.
The only game in recent memory which has made me stop and reconsider if I have the time to adequately invest in it from a narrative and reading point of view was Inquisitor. This game had an extremely loquacious and detailed narrative to explore from multiple angles yet the game-play wasn't quite strong enough for me to keep me going as to make it all feel worth it. Never say never though; the premise for the game is still interesting so I may yet return to it.
As other posters have alluded to, there's no real "one size fits all" as far as the written word goes in role-playing games, particularly in narrative and lore exposition. Dragon Age: Origins' approach in using the codex to collect lore and information is another such example which players react differently to, as was Morrowind's quasi-encyclopedic NPCs.
I also think the expressive and wordy writing style of the mid-late period Ultima's isn't for everyone; some players enjoy such individual flair, others simply can't take to it. Thus, I don't think attempting to shoe-horn any one particular editing or writing style in games is necessarily the correct approach. It is much more dependent upon your perceived audience and how you work toward that.
In short, I think Obsidian were reasonably transparent about wanting to make a game for players who enjoy longer moments spent reading and this appeal for me at least, is plain to see. The merging influences of Torment and Icewind Dale (II especially in WM part II) are quite clear to me the more I play the game. I enjoy spending time thinking about the world I'm exploring and absorbing even the most insignificant details if that world is interesting and I like the game enough.
In personal PoE related gaming news; I'm ever so slowly approaching the end of my Path of the Damned run. I'll post another report in the Pillars forum once it's all wrapped up with some thoughts on the White March Part 2.
