Why did he destroy his point half way through the video? After going to all the effort of setting up one moral, why does he then subvert it quite as badly as he does? I have no problem with listening to someone who has gone to an effort to make his opinion known, but when that opinion isn't even clearly formed, I feel resentful that he's wasted my time.
What he's saying could easily be substituted for anything else, apart from gaming, so in effect what he's doing is skirting around what the real issue is. Workaholics face the same problems, excessive partiers, hard-working students, writers, artists, musicians. The balance between work/play/life is something which gets addressed all the time. What this video strikes me as is someone not able to see the wood for the trees, blaming videogames for his personality. If he hadn't latched onto video-games, eh could easily have ended up in exactly the same place from having gotten obssessive about any of the things I mentioned.
I see gaming as positive, I also see work etc as positive, as long as they are all taken in moderation. Really, this video doesn't work as a statement against gaming, it works as a statement against obsession, but it's too easy to miss the underlying moral, because the creator of the video has missed the real point. (or he's buried it too deeply beneath an extended metaphor, in which case, why was he making the video to not be understood?)
There is nothing inherently better or worse about reading "The classics", or creating what you think is art. All things in moderation, there's a message, but it's got nothing to do with videogames.
