By we shoot things, he means that controllers limit the design of gaming, so this last few generations of controllers just favor shooters.
Ok, suppose that he is saying that.
Suppose he is talking about how the limitations of the design of the controller favors shooters.
So... why are there no details about shooters?
Shooters emerged on the PC Keyboard/mouse controls, the dominate PC controller, predate shooters. There's nothing in this video about the affect of shooters on keyboard/mouse, or vice versa.
Keyboard/mouse arguably favors shooters more, and they aren't popular on consoles at all. There's more variety of keyboard/mouse combos, more price points, more history. They make shooters far more precise. Everything he says about how the controller favors shooters can be applied to the keyboard/mouse combo, and more strongly. So why aren't keyboards/mouse more popular on the console? For reasons not connected to this topic. (In short, because player expectations.)
He points out some games, like Katamari, that uses the controller for non-shooter ways. But he ignores how that mechanic predates the NES. (NES came out in 1983, Battlezone came out in 1980.)
Anyone who spent time in an arcade in the 80s recognized the Katamari controls immediately.
There are other examples of where his example "new" mechanics using the controller are actually much older than the examples he provides. I don't have the will right now to dig them up.
Why is there no alternative explanations for how shooters became so prevalent? The simplest explanation is that maybe more people just have more fun playing shooters, regardless of the control type. That doesn't into the idea of how "controllers limit gaming" at all.
Why is there no assertion that shooters are prevalent? If he is making the point you say he is, then he needs to at least state the assumption that shooters are prevalent. Because I don't agree with that assumption, but if you want to assume it for later points, you need to state it.
There are several alternative explanations for the prevalence of shooters that don't involve the console style controller, and he doesn't address any of them.
And most of all, why does he not argue the point? If your point is that "controllers limit the design of gaming", then you need to explain how controllers limit the design of gaming. Where does he once say, "controllers limit the design of gaming"?
And if he does say that, why doesn't he say that sooner, and then explain how everything he says afterward is connected to that thesis?
I agree that controllers do constrain the design of gaming in some ways, but they also liberate the design of gaming in other ways.
Furthermore, controllers have the most impact on gaming in one way that is more significant than this entire discussion: accessibility. Something you can control in your hands with a small amount of buttons and medium amount of precision is a sweet spot between several extremes. Other controller types favor shooters more, but those controller types aren't more popular
This youtube channel makes video love letters to games.
He doesn't make youtube videos about game design or making games. His videos look pretty, they have good sound quality, and he says nice things.
This is a "game design" subreddit, not a "love letters to games" subreddit.
This video doesn't belong on here.