The article talks about how web3 gaming is bringing back the old way of telling stories, where everyone can be part of it and change it as they want. It's like when people used to tell stories without any boss or rules, just sharing them with others who would then share them again with more changes. Read from source...

- The author uses the terms "web3 gaming" and "blockchain games" interchangeably without clarifying what web3 refers to or how it differs from web2. This creates confusion for readers who may not be familiar with the concept of web3 or its implications for gaming.
- The author also makes a strong claim that web3 gaming returns storytelling to its decentralized roots, without providing sufficient evidence or examples to support this assertion. While it is true that some web3 games allow for more user input and collaboration than traditional games, the author does not address the potential limitations or drawbacks of this approach, such as the need for consensus among players or the possibility of fragmented narratives.
- The author's use of the term "walled garden" to describe centralized gaming platforms is a common and somewhat clichéd criticism that does not add much value to the discussion. It also implies a binary opposition between web3 games and centralized ones, without acknowledging the diversity and complexity of both types of games and their relationship to storytelling.
- The author's choice of historical examples, such as Aesop, Homer and Herodotus, is somewhat arbitrary and selective, as they do not necessarily represent the most ancient or universal forms of storytelling. They also do not capture the full range of possibilities and variations that web3 gaming may offer, such as the use of artificial intelligence, augmented reality or non-fungible tokens (NFTs).
- The author's tone is somewhat nostalgic and idealistic, suggesting that web3 gaming represents a return to a more authentic and participatory form of storytelling, without considering the challenges and trade-offs involved in this transition. For instance, the author does not discuss how web3 games may affect the role of authors, developers or players, or how they may impact issues such as privacy, security, ownership or intellectual property.
- The author's conclusion is vague and unconvincing, as it simply restates the main thesis without providing any new insights or arguments. It also does not address the potential implications or consequences of web3 gaming for the broader society or culture.