I think I found the most pretentious video game review site ever.

[BreakfastMan]

That was actually pretty cool. I rather liked it. It was a nice piece of prose, and it was interesting to see how the author interpreted the gameplay mechanics around the story of the character. I really don't see how it was a review in any way, shape, or form though. There was nothing to indicate that it was a review beyond an arbitrary score slapped on at the end. It didn't feel like a critical analysis, it felt more like a short story.

 

[drizztmainsword]

I don't know. I kinda like this. Just don't take it seriously, and it's a lot of fun.

 

[BreakfastMan]

That's even worse than this site.

And I find this site epically pretentious.

How? We just have the majority ruling that games can be art and that if you say otherwise, you get stared at funnily.

What makes us pretentious?

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits

I have always meant to ask: Why do you think Extra Credits is pretentious? They never seem to act pretentious from what I have seen. Can you expound upon your opinion?

 

[JourneyThroughHell]

I have always meant to ask: Why do you think Extra Credits is pretentious? They have never seem to act pretentious from what I have seen. Can you expound upon your opinion?

Because:

a) They present blatantly obvious stuff as a revelation to their viewers and then helpfully explain that obvious stuff everyone already knew. It's a show that likes to repeat popular opinion fodder, but mix it up with complex words and a high-pitched sped-up voice. [EXAMPLE [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/3201-Graphics-vs-Aesthetics]]

b) They come up with absolutely inane stuff and expect people to take it seriously. [EXAMPLE [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/3167-Gamifying-Education]]

c) They're just not particularly insightful or clever.

d) Most videos, seriously, MOST of their videos have some sort of command in them - something we absolutely HAVE TO DO as an industry, as consumers, something developers HAVE TO DO. Sounds a little Glenn Beck-ish.

Oh. And they don't do their research too well.

 

[l3o2828]

I was expecting the Gamespot site, but well...this is fairly worse.

 

[ScoopMeister]

This is the kind of person who I like to call 'a great big twat'. He seriously needs to learn the difference between a video game review and a recount of a jog in LA.

And then that Stacking review! What's up with the paragraphs? And why the fuck is he saying: 'This ingenious mechanic could have opened the door for an exploration, however understated, of the nature of identity and social standing in modern society.'?!?!?!? Why would I want this in a simplistic puzzle game about Russian dolls?
This guy needs a new day job.

 

[Ashcrexl]

Wow, it looks like Yahtzee has lost the pretentious bastard of the year award to who ever wrote that. that guy is a grade A twat.

Check out his review of stacking...look how he formatted his paragraphs.

http://killscreendaily.com/articles/reviews/review-stacking

well, he does have a point with the motion sickness. stacking took me 2 months to beat because i could only play it in 10 minute segments.

 

[ScoopMeister]

Because:

a) They present blatantly obvious stuff as a revelation to their viewers and then helpfully explain that obvious stuff everyone already knew. It's a show that likes to repeat popular opinion fodder, but mix it up with complex words and a high-pitched sped-up voice. [EXAMPLE [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/3201-Graphics-vs-Aesthetics]]

b) They come up with absolutely inane stuff and expect people to take it seriously. [EXAMPLE [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/3167-Gamifying-Education]]

c) They're just not particularly insightful or clever.

d) Most videos, seriously, MOST of their videos have some sort of command in them - something we absolutely HAVE TO DO as an industry, as consumers, something developers HAVE TO DO. Sounds a little Glenn Beck-ish.

Oh. And they don't do their research too well.

And because the guy who narrates them has an annoying voice.

 

[Vonnis]

Personally I don't see any problems with the writing style. Are you sure you know what 'pretentious' means?

 

[Kahunaburger]

I have always meant to ask: Why do you think Extra Credits is pretentious? They have never seem to act pretentious from what I have seen. Can you expound upon your opinion?

Because:

a) They present blatantly obvious stuff as a revelation to their viewers and then helpfully explain that obvious stuff everyone already knew. It's a show that likes to repeat popular opinion fodder, but mix it up with complex words and a high-pitched sped-up voice. [EXAMPLE [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/3201-Graphics-vs-Aesthetics]]

b) They come up with absolutely inane stuff and expect people to take it seriously. [EXAMPLE [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/3167-Gamifying-Education]]

c) They're just not particularly insightful or clever.

d) Most videos, seriously, MOST of their videos have some sort of command in them - something we absolutely HAVE TO DO as an industry, as consumers, something developers HAVE TO DO. Sounds a little Glenn Beck-ish.

Oh. And they don't do their research too well.

IMHO, sometimes they have very good points, and at worst they re-iterate someone else's good points. I agree with you on the whole "gamifying" thing, though.

 

[BreakfastMan]

I have always meant to ask: Why do you think Extra Credits is pretentious? They have never seem to act pretentious from what I have seen. Can you expound upon your opinion?

Because:

a) They present blatantly obvious stuff as a revelation to their viewers and then helpfully explain that obvious stuff everyone already knew. It's a show that likes to repeat popular opinion fodder, but mix it up with complex words and a high-pitched sped-up voice. [EXAMPLE [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/3201-Graphics-vs-Aesthetics]]

b) They come up with absolutely inane stuff and expect people to take it seriously. [EXAMPLE [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/3167-Gamifying-Education]]

c) They're just not particularly insightful or clever.

d) Most videos, seriously, MOST of their videos have some sort of command in them - something we absolutely HAVE TO DO as an industry, as consumers, something developers HAVE TO DO. Sounds a little Glenn Beck-ish.

Oh. And they don't do their research too well.

Well, if that is the case, nearly every video-game editorial writer in existence is guilty of being pretentious, for they all fall into these traps at one time or another (okay, maybe not the high-pitched, sped-up voice part), at least from what I have seen. Can you suggest any that do not seem pretentious to you?

 

[Palademon]

From what I could be bothered to read, this guy hasn't played a game before and therefore can't understand how only your actions accomplish anything.

 

[Meggiepants]

That's even worse than this site.

And I find this site epically pretentious.

How? We just have the majority ruling that games can be art and that if you say otherwise, you get stared at funnily.

What makes us pretentious?

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits

I have always meant to ask: Why do you think Extra Credits is pretentious? They have never seem to act pretentious from what I have seen. Can you expound upon your opinion?

I would say more pompous than pretentious. Although this is definitely splitting linguistic hairs, as they are related, but I felt the need to be more precise.

Pompous: Effectively grand, solemn or self important.

For one, they speak as if they are speaking for the entire gaming community. Although I don't doubt they represent some people, they simply don't speak for me and many of the people I know. Yet they take on this air as if gamers are children and they are the chiding parents, teaching us all how to be good little gamers.

For another thing, they often call upon gamers to do the "right" thing, such as sign a petition, write letters, or generally believe in a certain principle based primarily on some "wrong" they perceive in the industry. Calling people to arms over your opinions is pretty pompous.

Finally, what irks me the most about them, is they often make an argument supporting it only with their own opinions or their "Deep understanding of the industry and gamers" without doing minimal research to cite authoritative sources of information to back up their claims. For a show with as high a production value as EC, as compared to random people's posts on the Escapist, I would expect a higher standard of, dare I say it, journalism. Which comes back to the pretentiousness. Just because they say it's true, it must be, so why do any research to back up your claims?

When they do use statistics or other data, they fail to cite it, which is dubious at best.

I personally wouldn't have a problem with it if they didn't present themselves as if they were giving reports on the industry, as it were. There is something about the way they present their material that makes it hard to see it as merely an opinion piece. It seems like they are presenting opinions disguised as reporting.

Obviously, this is not going to be how everyone sees EC, this is just how I feel about it. I know I'm not alone on this. But I think I would like EC, if they actually stepped up their game, and had some evidence to back up their claims. Then they could become the journalists they seem to want, or at least to pretend, to be.

 

[OrokuSaki]

Wow, I've never seen someone drag out "the citizens make comments about what you do" into such pathetic pseudo-intellectual-sounding bullshit in my life. It's just a game dude, you don't need to make it sound like you're righting a book on human psychology.

I'm just glad it was a written article and I didn't have to listen to the smug tones of some douche who loves the sound of his own voice so much he probably masturbates to audio recordings of himself.

*Writing (sorry, you spelled it right the second time but the first one bothered me).

I agree to an extent with his opinion of the poor AI, but he did come across sounding like a pretentious douche. Especially when he stopped writing the review to post the silly things the AI was saying. It would have been fine if he'd informed us that it was a list, but it just looked out of place. Also he switches seamlessly from first to third person in a way that makes me wonder if he IS the main character or if he's a reviewer whining about the poor story.

 

[KanHanderan]

I literally have never seen a more pretentious person. I think we can all accept when someone tries to break into reviewing by developing a unique style, e.g. Yahtzee, but this guy's trying way too hard. Seriously, innovate, don't be Ebert.

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

That's even worse than this site.

And I find this site epically pretentious.

When you beat out Extra Credits and MovieBob, you really need to step down off of your high horse.

 

[Wolfram23]

I'm going to be honest here...

That review is a brilliant portrayal of LA Noire. I had fun, but it left a bad taste in my mouth by the end. Actually, by the time I got to arson desk.

It's the Truman Show. Well said.

 

[Onyx Oblivion]

I have always meant to ask: Why do you think Extra Credits is pretentious? They never seem to act pretentious from what I have seen. Can you expound upon your opinion?

It's not that Floyd and friends' themselves act pretentious...but the ideas they can put forward are.

They treat gamers as though we are all one unified group, clamoring for the same ideals as EC.

Just like with movies, tv, and other mediums, there are sub-groups.

EC fails to recognize many of these sub-groups, using the fact that gaming isn't as respected as other mediums as an excuse to lump us together. Like we all want to "rise up and be respected". Some people, like me, think that we have NOTHING to prove to the people who snub us, and should just keep on with the industry as is. And that gaming IS just a hobby.

 

[Dr Jones]

I'm going to be honest here...

That review is a brilliant portrayal of LA Noire. I had fun, but it left a bad taste in my mouth by the end. Actually, by the time I got to arson desk.

It's the Truman Show. Well said.

Aint really a good review, not matter how you look at it, no matter what game we're talking about. Imagine you had NO idea about what L.A. Noire is, and you read his review, do you think you would have the slightest clue about what it is?

 

[Wolfram23]

I'm going to be honest here...

That review is a brilliant portrayal of LA Noire. I had fun, but it left a bad taste in my mouth by the end. Actually, by the time I got to arson desk.

It's the Truman Show. Well said.

Aint really a good review, not matter how you look at it, no matter what game we're talking about. Imagine you had NO idea about what L.A. Noire is, and you read his review, do you think you would have the slightest clue about what it is?

Then don't call it a review. Doesn't really matter, I think anyone who read that without playing the game would understand that the game sits very firmly in the uncanny valley.

But, I do suppose you're right, a "review" technically should go over the game, but I hardly take issue with someone taking a few artistic liberties in their review and changing things up.