It's enlightening, but awfully strange, perhaps more useful learning from his behavior as a whole than from any particular item he addresses. Tim seems like a designer on the outside, but the more he talks, the more imbalanced his perspective seems to be. Where I come from, a designer has to be a jack of all trades and is the one who sets the pace for everyone else, either a great manager or a solitary genius. In his case, there's clear emphasis on certain parts of design at the expense of others, but without much explanation as to why this is justified from case to case. There are excuses like colorblindness, but this doesn't explain how he approached concessions to those who might know better. Also, everything is couched in terms of the team rather than the designer's vision, yet FO1's team was mostly working independently, and their unity of vision was evidently a fluke. His response to the case of the art style was telling: If someone had the guts to tell the lead artist who established the style that something was amiss, then that deserved far more pause and credence than "mansplaining." Using FO1 as the reference rather than something more contemporary made it sound a lot more serious and well-considered than some catty nonsense, but we're just supposed to take his word for it that this was an absurd and humiliating situation? Or Leonard's after the fact? Why not elaborate? Why not explain what would have happened if the alternative had been taken? Why was this team member's part of the "shared vision" rejected?
Nobody's perfect, and I'm glad he's posting these videos. He admitted as much in his latest that some people will both hate and love him no matter what he does, so at least he's honest about that. Besides, it'll be fun to keep him honest. Happy to act as the foil, considering all of the one-sided praise in his comments.