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

[ThatDaveDude1]

I mean I have no problem with the fact that they gave L.A. Noire a 50, but just read how this review is written.

It's more about the writing than the review itself. Yuck.

http://killscreendaily.com/articles/reviews/review-l-noire

Am I missing something here? Because I enjoyed the review.

Also, Big Words =/= Pretentious. I've read this review twice now (once when it was originally posted, once just now) and both times I've found nothing at all pretentious about it? What exactly are you seeing here, if you don't mind me asking?

Too much style and nitpicking not enough information. The reviewer seems mote interested in his own prose than the games themselves. But it I a matter of opinion and I respect yours.

I just hope next time you'll give me the same respect and not assume I couldn't understand the"big words".

I wasn't trying to imply that you couldn't understand big words, I'm sorry if it came off that way. It's just that a lot of times people write off things which contain a lot of big words as "those words are only there because they want to seem smarter." I've had teachers do it to me in the past.

I see what you mean about him caring more about his prose. Personally I think it's more arrogant than pretentious, but now I'm nitpicking.

 

[Irridium]

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.

You can have an opnion Just don't tell any one else because THEY DO NOT CARE

Its obvious that the guy who asked for his opinion cares. Otherwise he wouldn't have asked for it.

 

[Nautical Honors Society]

I mean I have no problem with the fact that they gave L.A. Noire a 50, but just read how this review is written.

It's more about the writing than the review itself. Yuck.

http://killscreendaily.com/articles/reviews/review-l-noire

Am I missing something here? Because I enjoyed the review.

Also, Big Words =/= Pretentious. I've read this review twice now (once when it was originally posted, once just now) and both times I've found nothing at all pretentious about it? What exactly are you seeing here, if you don't mind me asking?

Too much style and nitpicking not enough information. The reviewer seems mote interested in his own prose than the games themselves. But it I a matter of opinion and I respect yours.

I just hope next time you'll give me the same respect and not assume I couldn't understand the"big words".

I wasn't trying to imply that you couldn't understand big words, I'm sorry if it came off that way. It's just that a lot of times people write off things which contain a lot of big words as "those words are only there because they want to seem smarter." I've had teachers do it to me in the past.

I see what you mean about him caring more about his prose. Personally I think it's more arrogant than pretentious, but now I'm nitpicking.

Yea this is now a matter of semantics, we are talking about the same basic thing here haha.

 

[Nautical Honors Society]

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

Agreed. While the L.A. Noire review failed as a review, in my opinion, pretentious isn't the word I would choose for it. The other reviews seem like well written expressions of his opinion on the game.

It seems like he is attempting to assign greater importantce to his prose and style rather than reviewing the game itself in an attempt to impress us.

Hmmm which sounds a lot like "Attempting to impress by affecting greater importance, talent, culture, etc., than is actually possessed" the dictionary definition of pretentious.

Thanks for assuming I don't know what pretentious means though...I mean was it really neccessary for me to get the actual dictitonary definition?

 

[Rhymenoceros]

Hmm. If he was doing it as a joke then he could kind of get away with it, although he'd still fail as it's boring as hell

And yes. He does come across as incredibly pretentious. Sorry Yahtzee, you appear to have lost the top spot!

 

[NotYetForsaken]

snip

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

-snip-

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.

-snip-

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.

-snip-

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

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

-snip-

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.

A) Deeper is subjective, if you already know most of what they say, then find someone that shows you how hardware works, or the tricks and tips of the industry. Oh wait, that's called a game making class.

B) Mostly Essays analysing books and general crap like that. Nothing important, you know.

C) The video was expanding on a premise which is interesting, but at the moment, unfeasible. The drastic change would need to call for board permissions and the swaying of the superintendent. I don't think that is to happen in a fucking budget crises.

D) That was actually laden with sarcasm. It was and is the stereotype of the elitist archetype. Also elitist =/= Posh English. Don't get those two mixed up. Very different things.

But I ask you this: Why do you feel they are talking down to you. Why would you be so offended that they ask people to do things? That they use "have to" in place of "could have?" If you are indeed how you present yourself, engage them on the level they present themselves. Take arms against that sea of troubles! Opposition ends them!

Passive-Aggression only makes people come off as pretentious. That somehow they are even above those who they want to fight. It almost seems like a race to belittle each other the most when one side does not even want to partake.

But look, we are getting off topic here. The argument has no more merit as neither of us will be swayed.

I concede.

 

[Ekonk]

Well that L.A. Noire review is particularly perplexing, but the rest of the site doesn't seem that bad.

 

[zeldagirl]

Nobody but gamers watch, at first maybe. But you realize how often that video was linked? It was even featured on a few news sites - it got a lot of TEACHERS' attention. So, more than just gamer. And yes, 6 minute video, but that doesn't mean it doesn't generate discussion - on and offline.

You're right, taste is subjective - but the overarching message is *demand good products* - technically, artistically, and entertainingly (don't know if that's grammatically correct, but it's 3am and I don't care).

Heh, you just sound like a curmudgeon. "Back in my day!" *waves cane* I've only ever seen EC be extremely affable and accessible. If that's pompous to you, good riddance.

I take it those teachers were also mostly gamers. You know.

Also, I just sound like a curmudgeon, huh? I guess you haven't seen many on this site. All in good time.

There's a difference between "accessible" and "condescending". This show is Escapist's Avatar.

...Except for the fact that the show was linked through different channels, and shared by people on this site, so no, *not all of them are gamers.*

Honestly, after I read your last post again, everything just sounds like you're bitter they didn't like Blacksite and called it bad (which has received average reviews *at best,* often due to technical shortcomings). And that's the point - as consumers, if we want games that will be high quality and play without bugs and other problems, we need to demand that with our wallets. If you are honestly going to sit their and defend those games and call EC for being pompous or pretentious for wanting well-made games, then sorry, I just can't take you seriously.

Like I said, I find them accessible, not condescending, because I find that their viewpoint is one I have not considered before. And you are free to disagree, but again, this just seems to stem from being bum-hurt that they didn't like a game you play.

 

[JourneyThroughHell]

And you are free to disagree

Which is exactly what I am going to do.

Honestly, after I read your last post again, everything just sounds like you're bitter they didn't like Blacksite and called it bad

Read it again. Blacksite is brought up once, as an example, with zero clarification.

I might be bitter over them disliking it - I don't know seeing how I never played it. What I do know is that it's one of the games that many people liked, but, according to EC, those people just didn't have friends that were good enough to prohibit them from buying it.

 

[Goofguy]

Wow, you know they have their priorities straight when their review for GIRP is just as long as the one for Portal 2...

EDIT: Actually, the DA2 review strikes pretty true to my opinion of it.

 

[zeldagirl]

And you are free to disagree

Which is exactly what I am going to do.

Honestly, after I read your last post again, everything just sounds like you're bitter they didn't like Blacksite and called it bad

Read it again. Blacksite is brought up once, as an example, with zero clarification.

I might be bitter over them disliking it - I don't know seeing how I never played it. What I do know is that it's one of the games that many people liked, but, according to EC, those people just didn't have friends that were good enough to prohibit them from buying it.

It's a game that's buggy and got average scores *at best.* I could make the same point again, but I already did and you ignored, so I'm not going to bother.

 

[Dr Jones]

I liked it, and I understood all his points from it. Its not a bad review, is just not presented the same as everyone else's. It still discusses the mechanics, but there's nothing wrong with discussing the feeling of a game.

If all you want to know about is mechanics, then that's fine, but the review is not bad because it doesn't discuss criteria specific to you. People must obviously read it, so obviously people feel they are doing a good job. Its not like he's writing for a massive site like IGN.

Well i'm happy he's not on IGN, i'm also happy that he only has 2 published reviews. Did you read the Stacking review? Granted he got motion sickness but way to fucking early to quit the game. He played till the second level second level! I mean, he may touch upon the bare feeling of the game (which in my opinion he does not, he only touches upon a granted interesting but slightly mad analysis of the game).

What i would find interesting is actually seeing this guy playing the game. I honestly thinks he "glorifies" his thoughts and actions in the game. The whole running and stuff.. I do not think that he actually did that. I think that he is a fake. I think that he played the game through then maybe thought up the rather cool but weird analysis and just wrote it down as if it was some lifechanging thing.

Also i dont get why L.A. Noire should get a 50. Did he at any point point out anything remarkably bad about it?

 

[Dr Jones]

Wow, you know they have their priorities straight when their review for GIRP is just as long as the one for Portal 2...
.

Umm... Why is Portal 2 more important that GIRP? I mean it's bigger and all, but it dont deserve special treatment..

 

[Woodsey]

I liked it, and I understood all his points from it. Its not a bad review, is just not presented the same as everyone else's. It still discusses the mechanics, but there's nothing wrong with discussing the feeling of a game.

If all you want to know about is mechanics, then that's fine, but the review is not bad because it doesn't discuss criteria specific to you. People must obviously read it, so obviously people feel they are doing a good job. Its not like he's writing for a massive site like IGN.

Well i'm happy he's not on IGN, i'm also happy that he only has 2 published reviews. Did you read the Stacking review? Granted he got motion sickness but way to fucking early to quit the game. He played till the second level second level! I mean, he may touch upon the bare feeling of the game (which in my opinion he does not, he only touches upon a granted interesting but slightly mad analysis of the game).

What i would find interesting is actually seeing this guy playing the game. I honestly thinks he "glorifies" his thoughts and actions in the game. The whole running and stuff.. I do not think that he actually did that. I think that he is a fake. I think that he played the game through then maybe thought up the rather cool but weird analysis and just wrote it down as if it was some lifechanging thing.

Also i dont get why L.A. Noire should get a 50. Did he at any point point out anything remarkably bad about it?

Well, if they're using the full scale system, then 50 would be an 'unremarkable'. I don't really see the issue.

And yeah, I imagine he did make some of it up. So? First you complain the review isn't good enough, now you're complaining his story isn't strictly true. He does it to demonstrate the point in a different way, and the point is demonstrated.

 

[Dr Jones]

Ps. To anyone interested, the reviewer's website...

http://kirkhamilton.com/

 

[Baneat]

That's even worse than this site.

And I find this site epically pretentious.

Woah, Nazi moderators.

OT: it was a rather irritating layout,

Own fault for not reading the rules.

 

[Dr Jones]

Well, if they're using the full scale system, then 50 would be an 'unremarkable'. I don't really see the issue.

And yeah, I imagine he did make some of it up. So? First you complain the review isn't good enough, now you're complaining his story isn't strictly true. He does it to demonstrate the point in a different way, and the point is demonstrated.

But shouldn't a review be a reflection of what you have played? In his cute story he barely touches upon any of the faults about the game yet still gives it a 50. That's like saying "oh the game was weird but there wasn't any really bad about it.. I give it a 2.". I mean ffs, in a review he should atleast give reasons for his score no matter if it's 1 or 100! You cant let the reader try and figure it all out!

 

[Mr Companion]

I decided to read this to myself in a homely upperclass southern English accent accompanied by Bach's 'Air on the G string'. If I am gonna read something pretentious, I might as well go all out yaknow?