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

[Bek359]

I'm a computer engineer because I never want to have to write like that again. It depresses me how much you can utterly bullshit a paper and very few people will notice. In my high school senior HONORS English class at a college prep school, I got a 90% on an essay on an exam for which I had not done any of the reading, just by making shit up as I went along.

EDIT: Never let this guy play Oblivion. I dread to think what he would come up with regarding the citizens' obsession with mudcrabs.

 

[JourneyThroughHell]

You can have an opnion Just don't tell any one else because THEY DO NOT CARE I try to keep my opnions from being dickish by not commentig on things I don't like and on the rare case I do comment on something I don't like I try not to be a dick no one cares about other peoples opnions

Overly-defensive much? Seriously, dude, people asked why Onyx and other people would find EC pretentious, I chipped in. I'm guessing the guy who I wrote a response to cares.

Also, criticizing a popular Internet video-game related show is being a "dick" now? D'aww.

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.

Well, obviously, it's my opinion, it was typed and posted by me.

I didn't say anything about the people who liked the show.

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?

I don't read many editorials - I'm more of a review guy. However, on this very site we have Shamus Young, whose column addresses something interesting most of the time, who's not afraid to say something that's not popular opinion fodder. I don't agree with him that often but at least he's entertaining.

Now - as for the less pretentious thing - any columnist who doesn't do the "call to arms" thing in his every article.

There.

 

[coldfrog]

What's really pretentious about that review is that he wrote a little story and is trying to pass it off as a review, thinking he'll sound so smart we won't know the difference. A for creative writing, C- for following directions. If you hadn't said it was a review I'd have passed it off as the type of pseudo-intellectual over-analyzation of something that exists for little more than entertainment, of the type I myself am wont to do when I'm bored. But no, somehow this was supposed to influence and inform my decision as to whether or not to buy a game?

That said, I plan on reading more of these, at least until I lose interest.

Edit: After reading two more, and then reading a couple earlier comments, I have a feeling that it is indeed intended to be a bit of a joke. It pretty much set in when I read this review for a game called Air Supply [http://killscreendaily.com/articles/reviews/review-air-supply]. When the first half of the "review" is mind-meandering about classic cinema and memories of childhood, and the review is for a rather simplistic, though well done (at least it appears so) [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjXsneD2sTU], Canabalt-style running game for the iPhone, well, you can probably figure it out from there.

 

[Canid117]

Oh come on he wasn't that bad. Sure he was trying a little too hard but that that doesn't mean we have to crucify the guy.

 

[NotYetForsaken]

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.

a) D: The hell? I was suppose to know all that when I don't work in the industry??????

b) TBH the "Gamifying" thesis has helped me a lot in school.

c)~d) Actually, that's just you being pretentious. (It's aslo called the "Call to Action" it's pretty staple on 99% of all written academic works. You should not take that to heart.)

@That Other Guy: Some people see gaming as just a hobby, yes. Others do not. If you feel like they are not adressing your ideals, then they are not. See? Try not to be so vain.



OT: Sounds like one of those "he is in a coma" joke stories.

 

[JourneyThroughHell]

snip

Okay then...

a) D: The hell? I was suppose to know all that when I don't work in the industry??????

Here I sincerely hope that you're not being serious. To answer your question - yes. Yes, you were supposed to know that. Anyone who's played games or saw a game review or somethin' is supposed to know that. No, it doesn't have anything to do with working in the industry.

b) TBH the "Gamifying" thesis has helped me a lot in school.

I'm guessing your students do random projects in class and earn achievements together, instead of actually studying?

c)~d) Actually, that's just you being pretentious.

I'm pretentious because I think that the show that is supposedly produced by guys inside the industry brings nothing that I wouldn't hear on any other gaming site?

Or because I don't like when the makers of my resident "Games R Art" show start ordering people around?

Yeah, sure. Dude. Your response was sarcasm, right? Cause... yeah, it just had to be.

 

[NotYetForsaken]

Captcha Error Screwup.

 

[NotYetForsaken]

snip

Okay then...

a) D: The hell? I was suppose to know all that when I don't work in the industry??????

Here I sincerely hope that you're not being serious. To answer your question - yes. Yes, you were supposed to know that. Anyone who's played games or saw a game review or somethin' is supposed to know that. No, it doesn't have anything to do with working in the industry.

b) TBH the "Gamifying" thesis has helped me a lot in school.

I'm guessing your students do random projects in class and earn achievements together, instead of actually studying?

c)~d) Actually, that's just you being pretentious.

I'm pretentious because I think that the show that is supposedly produced by guys inside the industry brings nothing that I wouldn't hear on any other gaming site?

Or because I don't like when the makers of my resident "Games R Art" show start ordering people around?

Yeah, sure. Dude. Your response was sarcasm, right? Cause... yeah, it just had to be.

A) I want you to know I am not kidding, call me stupid, call me an oblivious idiot, call me them all. There are some things I would not have remembered otherwise. Those sites do talk alot about the core mechanics, about the workings of the game, but are they suppose to? They are reviews. They should say if the game is fun or not, is it worth the price. It should not be a commentary show in the guise of a game review.

B) If you want it to look at it that way. Yeah we do read and perform excersizes for rewards. You know what we call those achievements? Grades. I mean yeah, we put up a prize for grabs to encourage better work. That's "Gamification." (Achievement Gained: Good Job - Don't receive a delinquency citation in the school year. Reward - Your share of participation points.) It's really a mindset of goals that drives it, and that is the basic idea around "Gamifying" anything.

C-D) It was not sarcasm, I want to reiterate: it is a call to action. An ending sequence often used in literature and other forms of communication as an easy way to bridge the argument and the meaning of the argument.

Now the more I argue on this the more I will become hypocritical, so let's make it short. I fully doubt you will come to terms with anything I say, but for the sake of my public image, I must try.

First off, if you really did think my reply was sarcasm, and that wasn't a definitive crack at my argument you would have replied with a simple connotation of amusement. This is text, you can edit, you have no need to put down your raw thought process.

Secondly, yeah okay, I fully accept you can find this on any other blog, and any other site. You would defend the people on those sites correct? If I called them as idiots, and obviously stuck up and pretentious. Of course, because they taught you what you know. You did not pick up your first game and analytically pick it apart. (Although some of us did but that's beside the point. [Specifically I'm thinking of one of you.]) Most people played a game and enjoyed it, then they played it again, maybe. Did they pick it apart to boos their own e-peen? Did they engage in silly Internet arguments about Gaming Purity? No. No one did. All that kind of behavior comes after, infected by the community itself and forced to defend what little respect you could obtain. Then it happens, you start to look down on people. You start to think your superior, that things you know should be common knowledge.

That is a fatal flaw, and one that has brought the downfall of many a man. That is hubris, no longer will those around seek to understand such gracious pastures your mind occupies! Nay, they will cast you out, away, ostracized for a seeming talent. You cannot fathom why that they do not agree. Why the mongrels are so ignorant! It's because those who learned would not preach! Then when those who do in turn try to uplift those around them you will look down on them! Associating with filth and urchins so common that they are worth less than the dirt upon your boot!

You can see my comment aobut hypocricy coming in at the end there.

 

[ATmatey36]

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.

Exactly, I thought the "I could not draw my gun, I could not use the phone, I could not even speak. I could only run." part sounded so corny that this could not be serious in any shape or form. Sure as a review it's not very good but it does make a point about something most reviewers would never mention. I haven't played the game yet, but if most citizens would seem to only exist to praise me I would feel pretty unnerved myself, that's not how an open-world game should work, unless there's a reason most people know you, like in Infamous.

Also, the theory of Phelps being stuck in his own eternal purgatory was hilarious. It kind of makes sense, too, if you think about for a little too much.

 

[J-Alfred]

um...so, would you like to review the game, sir, or would you rather just spout some more bullshit?

 

[AWAR]

Woah, a hipster gaming site!
Imagine that...

 

[RedDeadFred]

I kind of felt like I was reading a bad story....
Seriously though, who complains about immersion this much?
Does he award Tetris a zero because he doesn't feel like a brick while playing?

 

[zeldagirl]

snip

Okay then...

a) D: The hell? I was suppose to know all that when I don't work in the industry??????

Here I sincerely hope that you're not being serious. To answer your question - yes. Yes, you were supposed to know that. Anyone who's played games or saw a game review or somethin' is supposed to know that. No, it doesn't have anything to do with working in the industry.

b) TBH the "Gamifying" thesis has helped me a lot in school.

I'm guessing your students do random projects in class and earn achievements together, instead of actually studying?

c)~d) Actually, that's just you being pretentious.

I'm pretentious because I think that the show that is supposedly produced by guys inside the industry brings nothing that I wouldn't hear on any other gaming site?

Or because I don't like when the makers of my resident "Games R Art" show start ordering people around?

Yeah, sure. Dude. Your response was sarcasm, right? Cause... yeah, it just had to be.

A) There are many things that EC have enlightened me, or presented that allowed me to think about it differently. Sorry you disagree, but your opinion is not fact.

B) You didn't understand the gamification segment, did you? It wasn't about not studying, it was about encouraging *more* studying through different types of engagement. Something that MANY teachers are interested in exploring, because as it stands, what the US education system is doing right now isn't really cutting it for *many* students.

C) If you think that what they do is "order around," then I'm sorry about how you perceive reality. They encourage others to take the media in a transcendent direction - not out of a desire to be pretentious, but because you can genuinely tell these people want games to be an amazing experience. They aren't arguing that games can't be just for fun and always have to be art, they just want the industry to be taken more seriously by society (because the truth is, it still gets flack from many directions). There is nothing wrong in that - they aren't trying to force it down anyone's throat, they are just trying to promote discussion about how to improve the medium.

 

[JourneyThroughHell]

snip

Again, I'll try to pick your answer apart thought by thought.

A) I want you to know I am not kidding, call me stupid, call me an oblivious idiot, call me them all. There are some things I would not have remembered otherwise. Those sites do talk alot about the core mechanics, about the workings of the game, but are they suppose to? They are reviews. They should say if the game is fun or not, is it worth the price. It should not be a commentary show in the guise of a game review.

It doesn't take any gaming experience to know that things can look pretty even if the technicalities behind them are relatively simple.

The show is called "Extra Credits", not "A Beginner's Guide to Gaming Terminology". The synopsis on their very show page says "Join James Portnow, Daniel Floyd and Allison Theus each week as they take a deeper look at games". A deeper look. Hell, it's what everyone on the site hails them for.

If you want it to look at it that way. Yeah we do read and perform excersizes for rewards. You know what we call those achievements? Grades. I mean yeah, we put up a prize for grabs to encourage better work. That's "Gamification." (Achievement Gained: Good Job - Don't receive a delinquency citation in the school year. Reward - Your share of participation points.) It's really a mindset of goals that drives it, and that is the basic idea around "Gamifying" anything.

So, I take it you've implemented the things suggested in, like, the first minute of the video and dropped the rest. That I have no problems with. Unfortunately, the video is not one minute long.

C-D) It was not sarcasm, I want to reiterate: it is a call to action. An ending sequence often used in literature and other forms of communication as an easy way to bridge the argument and the meaning of the argument.

I don't know what kind of literature you read.

Yes, that was a bit uncalled for. Moving on.

First off, if you really did think my reply was sarcasm, and that wasn't a definitive crack at my argument you would have replied with a simple connotation of amusement. This is text, you can edit, you have no need to put down your raw thought process.

False assumption. I felt the need to cover my ass in both possible variants. I still did think you were probably joking.

Secondly, yeah okay, I fully accept you can find this on any other blog, and any other site. You would defend the people on those sites correct? If I called them as idiots, and obviously stuck up and pretentious. Of course, because they taught you what you know. You did not pick up your first game and analytically pick it apart. (Although some of us did but that's beside the point. [Specifically I'm thinking of one of you.]) Most people played a game and enjoyed it, then they played it again, maybe. Did they pick it apart to boos their own e-peen? Did they engage in silly Internet arguments about Gaming Purity? No. No one did. All that kind of behavior comes after, infected by the community itself and forced to defend what little respect you could obtain. Then it happens, you start to look down on people. You start to think your superior, that things you know should be common knowledge.

That is a fatal flaw, and one that has brought the downfall of many a man. That is hubris, no longer will those around seek to understand such gracious pastures your mind occupies! Nay, they will cast you out, away, ostracized for a seeming talent. You cannot fathom why that they do not agree. Why the mongrels are so ignorant! It's because those who learned would not preach! Then when those who do in turn try to uplift those around them you will look down on them! Associating with filth and urchins so common that they are worth less than the dirt upon your boot!

You can see my comment aobut hypocricy coming in at the end there.

You know, you could've just called me an "elitist" and that would've carried the same exact connotation.

So. Am I one? I dunno. Is a guy who thinks CoD is the best thing in gaming one? Do I NOT play games for fun? Do I sit around all day, drinking tea, typing smug comments on the Escapist and twirling my moustache?

No? Well. How could that be? How could I possibly hate Extra Credits?

I'll tell you how. Because I don't like being talked down to. Because I don't like being commandeered. And because I hate the way they present themselves?

You like it? Fine by me. But you probably have noticed that you insulted the EC fans way more than I could ever do, basically implying that the show they like is basically "a newcomer's first foray in gaming".

It advertises itself as a deeper look at the industry. It promises insight. I think I have every right to criticize the show for it having none of that.

 

[GundamSentinel]

It wasn't a very good review, but I loved reading that. And in a way it was very true. I had a Truman Show feeling as well when playing LA Noire. It gave me the creeps.

 

[JourneyThroughHell]

A) There are many things that EC have enlightened me, or presented that allowed me to think about it differently. Sorry you disagree, but your opinion is not fact.

It's not. Did I ever say it is? But for me, it's "Captain Obvious: The Show". And I don't have to like it just because someone might find it insightful.

B) You didn't understand the gamification segment, did you? It wasn't about not studying, it was about encouraging *more* studying through different types of engagement. Something that MANY teachers are interested in exploring, because as it stands, what the US education system is doing right now isn't really cutting it for *many* students.

More studying?

The guy was proposing to change the whole system.

I saw that video for what it was - a bunch of horribly underdeveloped missteps in an entire idea I don't think should be taken seriously. If there was some really deep "command" or "call to arms" there, I didn't see it.

C) If you think that what they do is "order around," then I'm sorry about how you perceive reality. They encourage others to take the media in a transcendent direction - not out of a desire to be pretentious, but because you can genuinely tell these people want games to be an amazing experience. They aren't arguing that games can't be just for fun and always have to be art, they just want the industry to be taken more seriously by society (because the truth is, it still gets flack from many directions). There is nothing wrong in that - they aren't trying to force it down anyone's throat, they are just trying to promote discussion about how to improve the medium.

Encourage - you "could do" something.

Command - you "have to do" something.

They use "have to". They use it all the time. It makes the show barely watchable.

Also, where did that "games r art" argument come from? I never said otherwise. Hell, I never even mentioned the argument.

The last two sentences I just shake my head at. If they want to preach on about how "trash talking is bad" and "buying bad games is bad", they can go right ahead. But their fans should not expect me to take them seriously.

In one of their episodes, there was a phrase along the lines of "Don't buy bad games. Don't let your friends settle for them, too".

That phrase sums up the show for me. It's pompous, doesn't encourage much valuable discussion and it's preachy, preachy, preachy.

 

[Uberpig]

That's not a review, that's basically fan fiction. Bad fan fiction.
He seems to spend the entire review trying to tell a story based on the game.
EDIT: Okay, just read the review all the way through. Now I want to punch this guy in the face. What a pretentious asshole.

 

[zeldagirl]

A) There are many things that EC have enlightened me, or presented that allowed me to think about it differently. Sorry you disagree, but your opinion is not fact.

It's not. Did I ever say it is? But for me, it's "Captain Obvious: The Show". And I don't have to like it just because someone might find it insightful.

B) You didn't understand the gamification segment, did you? It wasn't about not studying, it was about encouraging *more* studying through different types of engagement. Something that MANY teachers are interested in exploring, because as it stands, what the US education system is doing right now isn't really cutting it for *many* students.

More studying?

The guy was proposing to change the whole system.

I saw that video for what it was - a bunch of horribly underdeveloped missteps in an entire idea I don't think should be taken seriously. If there was some really deep "command" or "call to arms" there, I didn't see it.

C) If you think that what they do is "order around," then I'm sorry about how you perceive reality. They encourage others to take the media in a transcendent direction - not out of a desire to be pretentious, but because you can genuinely tell these people want games to be an amazing experience. They aren't arguing that games can't be just for fun and always have to be art, they just want the industry to be taken more seriously by society (because the truth is, it still gets flack from many directions). There is nothing wrong in that - they aren't trying to force it down anyone's throat, they are just trying to promote discussion about how to improve the medium.

Encourage - you "could do" something.

Command - you "have to do" something.

They use "have to". They use it all the time. It makes the show barely watchable.

Also, where did that "games r art" argument come from? I never said otherwise. Hell, I never even mentioned the argument.

The last two sentences I just shake my head at. If they want to preach on about how "trash talking is bad" and "buying bad games is bad", they can go right ahead. But their fans should not expect me to take them seriously.

In one of their episodes, there was a phrase along the lines of "Don't buy bad games. Don't let your friends settle for them, too".

That phrase sums up the show for me. It's pompous, doesn't encourage much valuable discussion and it's preachy, preachy, preachy.

A) My point is, just because it's obvious to you doesn't automatically make it pretentious.

B) Again, missing the point. Yes, change the whole system to develop *a new way to study* and more importantly, and new way to *learn* and retain knowledge. They didn't say this was a foolproof plan, but they are making an effort to step in the right direction for our educational system.

c) Oh. I see. You don't value people encouraging you to play *good* games? Because it's somehow wrong to want to encourage consumers to buy well-made products? And they don't encourage valuable discussion, despite the fact that many people on this site seem to disagree and actively talk about the subjects they discuss (and furthermore, share their videos with non-gamers to promote different kinds of discussions)?

And you're telling me *they* are the pompous ones?