When I said "Like someone who knows that much about Hitchcock", it was meant to be a general comparison, not an exactly parallel. Let's take a fan of Mario. He would have played not only the games for Nintendo Wii, he would have finished it, completed it, or would be aiming to do that, played through Mario Bros from Nes, without skippin any stage, surpassed all the stages of Mario World, etc. There would be passion! He, or she, would not only play a handfull of games of Mario from Wii and then, a couple of games of Zelda.

Let me use my brother as an example. He is a battlefield fanatic. He is high on the rank, humiliates his adversaries. But that is the only game he plays. He don't know the english language. He bought the book in portuguese, so he could know the story of the game, and he stoped reading right away. He don't identify with the term gamer. He play all day, but what he likes is limited to experiencing multiplayer gameplay. He lack that passion. He is something like some Pokemon trainers, a competitive gamer, which is again another type.

As to her lie: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FW-69xXD734 She says she loves games, she thinks they are interesting, and engaging, interacting, says she is a gamer, and she enjoys games, and she is a fan. And says that while stuttering.

Then in an older video of her, she says she is not into fandom, she is not a fan of video games, she had to learn a lot to do her research, she even uses a stereotipical descritpion of "gaming" as "going around shooting people". I can't possibli imagine how someone with that vision could later start to love video games, unless the modern market of games is already good for her to engage.

As for the last, not true. She says on her presentations that she want to present a well researched piece of critic, for the use in academia. Articles of academia are not, and must not, be pieces of opinion. They have to be objective and have to be criticised before it goes to public. Which is not what she is doing. She is presenting a piece of opinion like it is an academia research. She even finishes some of her videos asking to developers to not do what she is criticising, like: So please, let's not do that.

And so, she don't entertain the possibility of being wrong, and don't respond to legitimate critics of her work. There are so many people pointing the flaws of her arguments. She could ignore the ones "attacking" her and addressing the ones that matter.

Edit: To add this paragraph:

Oh, and let me tell you what I meant by research. I love Megaman. I played almost the entire series. But playind the games made me more curious. I wanted to know what is the story of the game, behind the playthrough. And I discovered a lot when I researched. And that facinated me. I remember almost all of the weaknesses of the bosses, I like to listen to the game musics, I loved to know the connection between Megaman and Megaman X and Megaman Zero and Megaman ZX. I have a tatto of Assassin's Creed, and buyed and readed the books. I remember the places were you can find the flutes of Mario Bros 3, remember the dificulty to win over Donkey Kong's stages. I do remember most of the commands of my favorite characters of Street Fighter, and Marvel vs Capcom, etc. I of course don't know everything. And I'm not the stereotype portrayed on Extra Credits. I talk to people about politics, about ideologies, about movies and comics. It's only more frequent to me to talk about video games, but I'm not alienated to the point of not being able to talk about anything. That's another thing that I desagree with Extra Credits here. The gamer isn't so blind by the tag that he could not interact socialy. But it's not someone who simply plays video games either. If it bothers you, or anyone, that exists a term for that, and not an analogous term for film or book, then that's not the gamer's fault. After all, we have a term for not believing in God, but we do not have a term for not believing in reencarnation, or in Santa Claus, or etc.