It's way too high effort for that. He cites specific passages out of HoD and links them to FC2 and contextualizes it in colonial, neocolonial and postcolonial categories pretty correctly....except he seems to work backwards here.

I'll not reurgitate beforementioned points, but here's the basic problem that keeps popping up again and again:

At some point he talks about Far Cry 2s depiction of the african wilderness as a dangerous land, like in HoD, that gives the nature itself an agency that destroys people like Kurtz. You know, savage untameable land that breaks people and that's why the continent is always in some kind of war, ignoring material conditions and the role of colonialism. It's good analysis, he cites where he got it from and all but there's one major problem: The enviroment in Far Cry 2 contains 0 natural dangers. Nothing in it can harm you except falling off a cliff or drowning, neither of which strike me as specifically african nature dangers.