I see a lot of drive-by "Good video, games critics suck" commentary, whereas the criticism against the video on here tends to be a lot more long form. It's almost as if there's a divide in the type of people who prefer to consume this short form "comedy-criticism" stuff and people who are more invested in games criticism. Not that they both don't have their place, but it's something I noticed.
The video strikes me as coming off as "I am on this platform and it is better than this other platform", a sort of YouTube vs. traditional games media, whether intentional or not. And I think both of them have places in the world of video game discussion, and both of them have glaring issues, but this is a really one sided and, through the editing, very misleading video. It's also just kind of lazy and extremely surface level. And it's not that Dunkey is bad at surface level criticism or discussion, and it's not that his style doesn't have a place, but I think he bit off way more than he could chew.
I was listening to the Waypoint podcast about this, and the discussions they went in to were far more interesting to me than "Boy, IGN sure is dumb huh!". Dunkey has his talent, but his format is not at all suited to take on this huge discussion, and I think if he went into a conversation or debate with someone like Austin Walker, he wouldn't have a leg to stand on.
The biggest problem to me is all the people watching this going "Yeah, the games media sucks!". As if there's not a more nuanced approach to this, and as if big sites like IGN aren't a collection of different people rather than some giant entity with one singular opinion. Honestly, I think the truth is that people on average don't really care that much about games criticism. For the most part, people just want their opinions or preconceived notions about games validated, which is why you'll generally find far more dislikes on negative reviews than positive ones. And that's where the "games critics just don't get it!" mindset might come from.