Indeed it does. Ven Analayo therefore surmises that the Commentarial explanation for MN 128 stems from the Gayasisa Sutta aforementioned. That explanation, in Ven Analayo's view, is difficult to reconcile with the standard model of the development of the iddhis based on the 4th jhana. In MN 128, the nimittas are mentioned as a prelude to the jhanas, rather than things done after the 4th jhana.
I'm also not entirely convinced that divine vision is needed to see and hear devas. Witness Ven Sariputta's mom, who saw and heard a train of devas when her son was dying.
To the above, I would add something about the Gayasisa Sutta. Along with the effulgence and forms, there is also conversation with the devas. Not really possible within a jhana (SN 36.11). The entire Gayasisa sequence of trainings appear to have been undertaken so that "knowledge and vision would thus be better purified" (ñāṇadassanaṃ parisuddhataraṃ ). I thought that divine vision, as an iddhi, would be pursued after such purification, instead of being a prelude to the purification. At least this much seems clear from the standard DN 2 account, where the iddhis are developed after the vipassana section initiated in terms of ñāṇadassanāya cittaṃ abhinīharati abhininnāmeti (he directs and inclines the mind to knowledge and vision).
All in, the Gayasisa account gels quite well with the Eastern Bamboo Park account in MN 128, where the effulgence and forms were in the lead-up to jhana, rather than pursuits of iddhi post-jhana.