No, actually, I don’t see the relevance of your comment to the article. The distinction between Games A and B came from the theorists I was writing about, and it’s a philosophical, psychological, and sociological one, not so much a strictly political one.
I must say your line of criticism strikes me as silly. Every single piece of writing that’s ever been written has focused on some subject matter and thus has necessarily left out some other topics or details. No one writes about absolutely everything, since such a text would be unreadable and woefully pretentious.
So if a critic thinks that’s a problem, it’s up to the critic to show that what’s left out of the article is relevant to the subject at hand. For example, if you’re writing a book about WWII and you don’t mention Hitler at all, that might be a defect in your book. Or if you’re writing about automobiles and you ignore the fact that they typically need four wheels to work, that could undermine what you’re trying to say about cars.
By contrast, this kind of criticism could be perfectly irrelevant. It’s like me saying, “I noticed in your comment that you referred to numbers. Well, I’m a mathematician, so I’d have preferred that you also refer in your comment to set theory and algebra. The fact that you neglected to deal with all aspects of mathematics undermines your whole comment.” Or how about this: “I noticed in your comment that you were writing in English. Well, I’m a linguist, you see, so I think it’s appalling that you didn’t deal explicitly with the finer points of syntax, semantics, and philology.”
Again, how is it at all relevant to the subject of that article that I didn’t talk about the way different countries’ governments are institutionally organized? How is that relevant to the distinction between Games A and B or to anything else in the article? The fact that a country is theoretically set up as a democracy doesn’t mean the democracy is well-functioning. On the contrary, the actual power may lie in that country with plutocrats, which would be consistent with the egoism, paranoia, and short-sightedness of Game A.