I watched the video, didn't like it for a variety of reasons, then decided to watch it again to organize those reasons and post them here.
First of all, this is a video that defends Phil Fish in every possible way and dismiss as irrelevant everything that Phil Fish did or said that could be considered wrong, so this video really starts from a biased position to treat its matter, and it is my opinion that this bias is clearly perceived form the words of the author.
In the early days if his "fame" Phil had the chance of showing how arrogant and self entitled he was as a communicative human being: this is not a judgement about Phil in himself, I don't know him personally and even if I did I don't think I could be able to pass a judgement on his entire persona, no one can do that about anybody; what I'm judging is the Phil Fish that wrote on twitter, on forums, spoke to journalists and audiences when he was publicly speaking, and I'm judging what he wrote/said.
3:05 "Phil wasn't insulting a stranger, he was insulting the audience": that's simply wrong, and it's one one the main wrong points of the video (to me). Phil was still insulting a stranger, or to put it better insulting back a stranger, the only thing that changed was that Phil had become more famous, at least in certain circles, and being famous simply means that more people will listen to you, read what you write, pay attention to you. The problem with Phil's attitude was not that the attitude was targeted to his "audience" instead of strangers, but that his attitude was bad for a person in general. But because being famous means that more people will become interested in what you do, also what you do right will be amplified (releasing a good game and selling hundreds of thousands of copies, for example).
About being more famous than he deserved: well, I do think this is a legitimate criticism, even if I don't think you can blame the person that's famous if he/she didn't ask for it. The very complaint "you don't deserve to be famous" implies that there an intrinsic good in being famous, and that's actually true: the good of being famous comes with material perks (being payed money for speaking), feeling of being "important" (those people are listening to me instead of to others), chances of self-advertisement (buy this thing that I did). If Phil was criticized for being famous without deserving it, it was because people felt that those perks could have gone to someone else who actually deserved to have nice things, and I don't see how this kind of criticism could be dismissed.
About the Nickelback rant: he could have given the point in 10 seconds, this part is to me an actually badly written part of the video, because it's not necessary: hating a famous band that makes allegedly shitty music means hating the possibility that shitty music becomes popular. But this is a false equivalency: internet vs Phil Fish started way before he released Fez, and Fez is actually a good game, and even some people that find Fez enjoyable can't stand Phil Fish. Phil Fish was not hated because he became famous after releasing a shitty game: Phil was hated because he acted like a jerk, and the fact that the people that think shit of him either are only his closest acquaintances or half of the gaming internet is not relevant: the cause for the hate is different than that of Nickelback.
I do think the video author is right in saying that Phil was the embodiment of undeserved attention: he got a lot of hate just because people hated a series of concepts that gravitated around Phil, like the idea of circle-jerking with other indies, or government funding for pretty pixel art, but this not the main reason Phil got so much hatred. This has nothing to do with Phil saying that japanese games suck: backlash against a person that uses such a generalization such bluntly (especially in that context) has nothing to do with vapid prejudices about an indie developer become famous; it is instead related to the fact that that person says stupid things in stupid ways.
The video doesn't even considers those stupid Phil's remarks about the fact that apparently "PC are for spreadsheets" and "FEZ is a console game" when asked about a PC release for Fez.
But then Fez gets a release date on steam, and instead of apologizing for his ignorant remarks, the best way Phil finds to treat the "boycott" movement is to offend:
http://steamcommunity.com/app/224760/discussions/0/828936719094418300
The "choke on it" tweet: it was not really sensible, even if it was in answer to another offensive tweet, but he didn't just say "suck my dick. choke on it": he used as a justification to the offense the fact that he won the IGF grand prize, implying that since he won the prize he got a free pass against criticism. This is juvenile behavior, and I associate it a with a person that doesn't really like to use his brain.
"news, editorial, criticism has no repercussion: now it's the video author that's saying stupid things, and also when it says that the "they suck" moment didn't happen: it actually happened, and the problem with "you guys" is not related to an alleged generalization of japanese culture: is related to the
actual generalization that Phil made about japanese developers and games, and only afterwards, discussing with Jon Blow, there was some "clarification", that no one ever needed if Phil didn't say stupid things in the first place.
Discussions about racism and tokenism happen frequently both in forums and websites but even if they didn't it would have nothing to do with the arguments against the way Phil Fish acted: you can't dismiss a discussion by saying that another related discussion is not taking place.
9:35 "I won the IGF grand prize. suck my dick" is NOT STRONG OPINION. Again, this guy seems to not even understand why Phil Fish got so much hate.
10:49 The whole "right ways / wrong ways of being famous of the internet" part is, to me, completely misguided: the author is saying false things. First of all, there is a super simple definition of right or wrong way on the internet: right or wrong way in general. Behave well, don't be arrogant, don't have prejudices, be responsible, consider different points of view, you can pick and choose. In MANY situations Phil behavior was bad, and being famous simply makes it matter more, to more people: probably down the street in this very moment someone else is not behaving well, but it will matter only to the handful of people around him/her. And then, "no one can empirically prove whether Phil is or isn't an asshole": maybe he means "logically" or "mathematically" instead of "empirically", but you actually can empirically prove if Phil "acts" as an asshole: as I said, passing a judgement on an entire person is impossible, but it is very much possible to judge his/her behavior, words, actions. It is possible.
11:37 Marcus Beer part: I agree that Marcus said stupid things in that occasion, with 0 logical bearing. Phil was being famous "wrong" for Marcus Beer, that's true, but that doesn't necessarily represents the view of the majority of people who actually criticized some of Phil's behavior during the last years.
13:00 "psychologically necessary to hate Phil": pure bullshit, I'm not wasting time further commenting this
About the last stretch: ok on the internet sometimes you become famous without wanting or foreseeing it, but who cares? The internet fame package also includes the fact that if you want to bust the falsely perceived misdeeds of yours you can do it in a second... but of course you can't if you actually acted like a asshole, and in that case you can always search for an apology... but Phil didn't, he always arrogantly dismissed any criticism and always used his accomplishments as a shield against it.
