Abstract
Problem: The phrase "git gud" has become a common dismissal in gaming communities — but what does it really mean, and why is it harmful?
Approach: Tim Cain reflects on his personal experiences with the phrase, from Dark Souls discussions to comment sections on his own videos, and examines how it's used both innocuously and as a weapon.
Findings: "Git gud" often masks a personal attack behind fake advice. There's a critical difference between saying "this game isn't for you" as genuine guidance versus using it as exclusionary gatekeeping. The phrase shuts down conversation rather than fostering it.
Key insight: There is a big difference between saying you don't like something and telling someone they're stupid for liking it. Constructive disagreement makes games better; personal attacks just shrink your audience.
The Phrase Tim Cain Hates
Tim opens by declaring his dislike for the phrase "git gud," comparing it to the old internet newsgroup habit of ending posts with "nuff said" — a rhetorical mic-drop that invites mockery rather than respect. Just as "nuff said" faded from use because people mocked it, Tim wishes "git gud" would go the same way.
The phrase entered his life when he mentioned liking Elden Ring but not being a big fan of Dark Souls. The reasons he enjoyed Elden Ring — specific qualities like openness and player freedom — weren't all present in Dark Souls. When he shared this, the response was predictable: "git gud."
Two Meanings of "Git Gud"
Tim distinguishes between two uses of the phrase:
The Benign Version
Sometimes people genuinely mean "if you were better at the game, you'd probably enjoy it more." This isn't malicious — it's misguided advice, but it comes from a place of enthusiasm for the game.
The Weaponized Version
Far more often, especially in online PvP and comment sections, "git gud" is a personal attack. The winning team says it to the losers not as encouragement but as humiliation. It's the gaming equivalent of "you don't belong here."
"This Game Isn't For You" — Also Two Meanings
Tim extends the analysis to another common phrase: "this game isn't for you."
The helpful version means: "I don't think there's an appeal in this game for you — it wasn't made for the things you like." If someone doesn't enjoy puzzle games, pointing them away from a puzzle game is reasonable.
The exclusionary version means: "You're not good enough to be playing this. Go find a casual game." This is gatekeeping disguised as genre advice.
Games Shouldn't Be Deliberately Exclusionary
Tim references his video on "bad games" where he argued that not every game should be for everyone — but no game should be deliberately exclusionary. He clarifies a common misinterpretation: he never said you can't think a game is bad. He thinks games are bad too. The point is that you thinking a game is bad doesn't mean it is bad for everyone. You can hate a game; other people can like it. Both positions are fine.
What Fallout Was Really About
When people praise Fallout's character creation for its "wall of numbers," Tim pushes back. Fallout wasn't great because of numbers — it was great because it let you make genuinely different characters who faced different decisions, and then you had to accept responsibility for those decisions and actions. That's the core theme: "the entire world has been nuked — guess what, we did that to ourselves. Welcome to Fallout."
With The Outer Worlds, Tim deliberately lowered the learning curve while keeping the same peak experience, wanting a broader audience — not just for sales, but because he didn't want the game to be niche.
On Reading Comments and Personal Attacks
Tim shares that online discourse too frequently devolves into attacks on players and developers rather than discussion of the games themselves. On his Fallout TV show video, people attacked each other for liking or disliking it. On his Adam Savage career advice video, someone called him "shady AF."
His approach: when he sees an unconstructive comment, he skips it. When someone has attacked him before, he stops reading their comments entirely — even if they later make good points. Once you're known as the person who just yells, your engaged audience shrinks.
The commenters Tim values are the ones who ask questions: "Why did you do that? Why didn't you do this?" Those lead to real conversations.
The Actual Point
Tim's core message is simple:
- Disagreement is great. Some of the best things in his games arose because team members disagreed and talked it out, arriving at something better than either original idea.
- Attacks end conversations. Once someone attacks, Tim is done listening — and so are most people.
- Be reflective in your comments. Talk about the game itself, not the people playing or making it.
He closes with a self-aware callback: "Try to get good... at your comments."