More Criticism of Philosophical Game Design

Mike Gamm writes in Gaming Journal #2:

"Earlier in the term we read the essay, "Philisophical Game Design" by Lars Konzack, in which he says that a game must have at least one dualist philisophical aspect in order to be successful in our society, because this is what gamers want."

My response: I have never made the claim that a game must have at least one dual aspect in order to be succesful in society.

Gamm states further:

"I will use Halo to contradict Konzack's argument: (Key Idea*) that the interaction between philisophical storyline and the choices that a player needs to make are what makes a great game."

That might very well be true, however, since I didn't make the claim in the first place the criticism seems inappropriate. Gamm is arguing against his own straw-man.