Savin has a rather deluded view that power fantasy means no stakes. He believes that if there's no severe struggle then the narrative has no stakes and isn't worth it. Here's a screenshot, lol have another one lurkers, of him trying to justify his stance I just found.
View attachment 5451503
Savin pretty much proves he can't comprehend narrative conflict with this though, or even his own stance. To address his point A, stories require conflict in most cases and genres but Savin seems convinced that if there isn't nonstop conflict then it isn't good. The "Too bleak stopped caring" trope comes to mind. If you add nothing but conflict and things not going the protagonist's way then the story is just torture porn.
To point B, this is directly at odds with his own game. You don't earn shit, you get told you ain't shit and the game world will be just fine without you. Additionally neither point takes into account him and his friends indulging their own power fantasies through their characters having everything go their way and only have good things happen to them and recieve things without earning them or the earning effort being on the player's end.
So Savin's own design views don't even actually manifest in game or in his own writing. But then he goes the extra mile by trying to use examples to back up his philosophy and in doing reveals that he's a dumbass who is just trying to justify himself. The Witcher is dark fantasy setting but it is a power fantasy. Geralt is enhanced beyond regular human limits and has access to things others simply don't. He's also an accomplished sword fighter and is involved in and with several key figures and events in the setting. That all sounds pretty power fantasy adjacent. Additionally the difficult choices are a narrative binary due to the game's RPG inspired narrative. Geralt is also friends with pretty powerful people who either deeply respect him, view him as a great friend, or want to jump his bones. Boom power fantasy. But the thing Savin took away is dark fantasy and bad situations=good writing inherently and just ignored everything else that makes it a compelling narrative. It also handles having powerful side characters better. No one overshadows the other and as important as Ciri's raw power is, so to is her emotional connection and self-esteem that the player and Geralt influence. Similarly the characters compliment each other's strengths and weaknesses. For all Geralt's strengths, he isn't gonna be building and repairing magical Skype artifacts. Similarly if you told Yennifer to sword fight someone she'd probably look at you cross ways, chuck the sword, and use lightning fingies. Each character has strengths and weaknesses. None of this is present in Savin's writings and shows he doesn't understand his own point or example.
The Dark Souls one is easier to talk about, he seems to think that the gameplay story separation is actually narratively important and doesn't consider whether or not those level 1 runs are canon to the narrative. Also killing Satan with nothing but your underwear, a rusty butter knife, and pure audacity sounds like a power fantasy. Also his crossed out part about being buthurt nothing in a prior game mattered speaks volumes about Savin himself.
TL: DR Savin is a dumbass who doesn't even understand his own design philosophy.
My writings may be amateur as fuck but I at least admit I'm better at the theory than the practice and don't lord brownie points over others like Savin does.
Maybe he hates mods so much because he fears they'll purge his attempts at making the player struggle and ruin his perceived artistic integrity.
