I watched only the HL video you linked and was left unimpressed. His first major point is painfully obvious to anyone with a functionning critical ability and maturity higher than 15 year old. Stating it isn't a problem in itself, but he doesn't go any deeper with it, so merely stating that the HL serie has very little characterisation leaves you with a "duh!" moment. I'm not even sure he goes as far as to say that, given the very careful approach he takes to reassure everyone that the HL serie isn't bad and did great things to advance the medium, but is just "a bit" overrated. Why don the kiddy gloves? Is he afraid that people won't take him seriously if he states things the way they are? If so, I'd say fuck those people, because the dumb and insecure masses shouldn't be the target audience.
Then we have the trite "show, don't tell" statement, which never made much sense except for bad writers who want to teach rich kids how to be bad writers themselves. First, the statement is mostly applied to literature, and easily disproved by reading Moby Dick, which is almost all telling and no showing. Second, I've argued for some time now that film is not just a visual medium but very much grounded in literature where all begins with a script. No script, and you only have random visuals without any meaning. Sure, there are purely visual movies, one of the most obvious exemples being Koyaanisquatsi, but even those follow a script to develop their narrative. Terrence Malick is perhaps the only director to have developped a visual language that uses the images more than the words, but even then this language originates from the script, and the visuals tell much more than what they actually show — The New World is probably the best exemple of it, where Malick only displays very little of the emotions between the main characters to let the viewer complete it. And then, there are movies that show that telling is not only possible in film, but can be a great way to do it, although it likely requires more skill. The dude from the video claims that having two talking heads saying lines in shot, reverse shot, isn't an effective use of the medium, but that's exactly what My Dinner with Andre (co-written and acted by Wallace Shawn, who played Vizzini in The Princess Bride; yes, he is playwright) does while being successful at it. It's an almost 2 hours movie that takes place in a restaurant where two old friends reunite and have a very long conversation. That's it. Only the short opening and ending, centered on the Wallace Shawn character, take place out of the restaurant, and for the rest of the movie the camera is focused on these two people talking. This may sound boring but it's not, and that's mostly due to the great script by Wallace Shawn and Andre Gregory, and the evocative power of the delivery. Probably the best part is how the movie plays with the viewer's memory, so while the camera never leaves the restaurant, you may likely have the images of Andre's tale of being buried alive simply bloom in your head thanks to the great narration. And before someone claims that this is more theatre than film, it makes use of techniques unique to film, like ellipsis and time compression, though in an invisible way; the conversation between Wally and Andre may last only a couple of hours on film, but many clues in the film will tell you that a greater amount of time passed and the movie silently edited parts of evening. Just something like this can tell you that games as a narrative medium have a lot of ground to cover if they want to catch up, and the general infantility of the developpers and their audience won't help.
I don't criticise him for doing this video, but I do for the lack of depth and the suspicious care to not offend the potential viewers. His failed attempts at wit also do not help much at driving his point. I'm tempted to say that he should check out more adult stuff than kiddy stuff if he's really interested in the growing up of video games, like The Void, but then again I remember once reading the critic of a cookbook by Oscar Wilde and it was that much of a darn good read that a piece on pretty much any subject has the potential to be great and grow past the examined subject. This is not one of these.
