The thing that is being missed in the framing of the video is that thinking the “sense of accomplishment” from improving one’s skill at a game is the most important thing and that power progression detracts from it is a preference. Games are not better or worse for making an eventual victory – already an arbitrarily defined thing – a forgone conclusion, just better or worse for certain people.
Because it’s frankly silly to try to argue otherwise! Rogue Legacy, as the chosen negative example, is beloved by lots of people, and has been hugely influential. Looking outside of this small genre, grinding has been part of RPGs for decades. Progression systems have been added to tons of different genres, to the point that they’re expected as a given in most AAA games. It’s fair to not personally like these systems, and it’s fair to have really good reasons. I even really love hearing people’s reasons for disliking things! But it’s not fair to conflate a personal preference with some sort of universal good game design.
And then also, if the argument is that any given design element, or especially a lack thereof, is defining of a genre, that is as far I’m concerned a complete nonstarter. That’s just gatekeeping. The only quality something needs to have to fit in any genre is, if using that genre as a descriptor is generally useful to people. Language is malleable, definitions change, etymology isn’t destiny, etc etc etc. (This is why, as a shorthand, I actually really liked Mark’s definition)