i honestly don't really understand why "some people prefer watching gameplay online rather than playing games themselves" is treated as such a taboo when being a spectator is considered a pretty mundane way to engage with most sports, game shows, reality tv or even just like. chess.
like the usual arguments are "not everyone can afford video games or have the software to pirate" or "you can be a fan of a game's story, but not it's gameplay" but also some people just have more fun watching other people be really good at starcraft or speedrun super mario 64, i don't think that's a particularly out of the box way to engage with the medium.
i know this argument is generally about story driven games rather than competitive multiplayer games, but alot of discourse is around how "gameplay is a fundamental part of video games as an artform" and i absolutely agree but i also don't think you need to hold a controller in order to appreciate a video game on a mechanical level in the same i don't think you need a driver's license in order to be a vehicle enthusiast, like it certainly helps but some people are just kind of autistic like that.
a weird trend in this discourse is people going "video games aren't like movies or tv shows you're supposed to play them not watch em" while also going "watch a playthrough of a video game is like reading a movie's wikipedia page" which like why are you claiming the mediums strength is interactivity while exclusively comparing them to non-interactive mediums instead of like. Sports. Or Books?
