I tend to agree, and I (as evidenced by my history of posts) clearly fall into the Peterson camp. I would also say that he has truly grown as a writer since Playing at the World, in that he has learned to take his style and turn it into fairly compelling reading.
But yeah, while I appreciate what Riggs has done (especially w/r/t excavating data from the 80s and 90s), I do not like the "gloss" he uses in his writing. What he thinks makes it more readable, simply makes it more unreliable to me.
I read "Slaying the Dragon" first and, while I liked it, I was frustrated by the same thing.
Just finishing Game Wizards, which has also put me right into the Peterson camp.