Poll: Does anyone else feel like "Extra Credits" is full of shit?

[synobal]

I thought their mechanics as gameplay stuff was reaching with loneliness as an example. I wouldn't call loneliness a game at all it had no game like mechanics. Other than their bad example I typically agree with most of what they say.

 

[Joey Bolzenius]

Yeah, Extra Credits likes to push edgy, creative games sometimes for the sake of being different rather than good. The episodes often bring up important topics, but they are not always discussed enough or given possible solutions. Another problem I see with EC is their focus on conceptual ideas especially with the most recent episodes.

What makes the show boring and not as engaging is its often soft spoken, dull critiques that sound condescending without giving the viewer logical reasons what is wrong with videogames. I love the Jimquisition because Jim is so harshly critical of what he dislikes and finds wrong with a publisher, developer, or game trend and backs his argument up with good logic powered by strong emotions. This is also true of the Game Overthinker and MovieBob on The Big Picture, I'm not saying over-whelming emotion convinces me Jim or MovieBob are correct, but they sound so passionate and articulate that I want to consider their view. EC does not seem to have strong passionate views, at least the way the speaker talks does not present a radically different point of view like Jim, MovieBob, or the Game Overthinker that challenges my own thoughts and others' thoughts on games.

EC seems to want to start a discussion, which is great but they do not seem to have a profound or passionate view to really spark a discussion.With the exception of their review of Call of Juarez: The Cartel http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/call-of-juarez-the-cartel I have not seen an episode where EC really expresses a unique view with passion.

Point is, I like an almost confrontational review that is honest rather than a high and mighty vague discussion starter that skimps on specific examples.

P.S. I am aware that MovieBob and the Game Overthinker are the same guy.

 

[Zeraki]

They can bring up good points, but they can also be pretentious as hell at times. I haven't really followed them since they left the Escapist though.

 

[The Heik]

You might remember Extra Credits from this site before they moved on over to Penny Arcade. I used to watch their videos and then stopped, watching their latest one, I remembered why. To me they're just really pretentious, they talk a good game but don't seem to get results.

They'll talk all artsy about games like Loneliness but skimp on the examples and implementations. It just bugs me that if they think they know so much better then why don't they make a flash game themselves? (they were able to raise enough money for surgery or whatever)
Or talk about how they would develop their own game. It's not even a forum of discussion since you can only leave comments and emails, which they might reply to singularly.

They'll spend the episode talking about "X game does Y, and what Y could do for the industry". But never HOW, they talk in hypotheticals, how "that" mechanic would "pervade" the game without any examples or sources to back that up.

They bring up the Rat Man rooms in Portal and "that scene" Bioshock, but those examples (to me) are lacking and forbearing on the overall topic. Specific examples in a game can't be sources for good "metaphor mechanics" if the example is singular and not overbearing throughout the whole game. Otherwise I could say that the X scene in Y game was just as effective.

They also don't seem to offer any criticism either, rather than just glossing over That Game Company, they should pick apart their games and discuss what doesn't work just as much what does. WHAT concepts were presented and HOW they were explored in Flower, Flow, and Journey? Were these concepts successfully executed? Why not? How could they've been?
And I really hate to say it, but that's kinda why I like Yahtzee, he'll go into the details (like in his Silent Hill 2 review) and really explain why what works and how, and what doesn't and why. After the end of every Extra Credits episode I have the same "....so what do you expect to DO about it?" feeling.

Discussing Loneliness, I don't think it's some kind of Rorschach test that uses "mechanics as metaphor". The game has a d-pad, that's it, that's not mechanics, that's 4 buttons less of a controller. Loneliness I think did a terrible job of exploring what loneliness really is. Anyone who's ever suffered the depressing power of loneliness knows that you could've joined any of those groups and you would still have felt alone. They make all these assumptions about the player, I didn't have any fleeting thoughts of acceptance or rejection while playing. This might reflect poorly on me but I NEVER personified the dots, because they're dots. Not people. I just thought "wow, shit's ghey". I have an imagination, but you kinda have to provide a little context.

So you don't like the show because they skimp on details?

First of all, it's a 5-10 minute show. Not even the [a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2egGfd5j_k"]Micro Machine Man[/a] could cram enough words into 5 minutes to get all the details such an act would require.

Second, in order to get all the details that you require for many of those the topics, you would need a dedicated research team to spend weeks if not months analyzing data and preparing arguments. Extra Credits has a total 3 people, all of whom are taking time out of their already busy work schedules to bring us the show on a weekly basis. They do not have anywhere the the amount of time or manpower to do a full academic discussion every week, and expecting that of them is hopelessly unrealistic.

Third and most importantly though is that the show is not supposed to give us all the details. It's supposed to introduce ideas and mechanics to people who might not have known about them, and to raise interest in such topics so that we look into them ourselves.

And speaking as a game developer who uses many of the ideas and mechanics EC raises in their episodes, they're pretty on the ball for giving the good gist of an idea without bogging the viewer down in all the details. If you want more information on something, you have the almighty internet at your fingertips. A lot of the answers are just a Google search away.

 

[PrinceOfShapeir]

An annoying voice preaching at me about obvious shit. I wouldn't really call them full of shit, just not worth listening to.

 

[Lovely Mixture]

I only saw a few of their videos. The one that sticks in my mind is their "So you want to be a videogame designer" and it kind of irritated me, because it seemed to propagate the myth that "videogame designer" is one job. Instead they opted to suggest that one has to learn EVERYTHING (literally) to become a game designer, rather than focusing on the role(s) in game design that one wants to be.

If you like art, you could be the art director, if you like story you could be a writer, etc.

Not judging them based on that. Just wanted to get that off my chest.

 

[klaynexas3]

They do pick apart the good aspects of games and highlight them. Their show is more about getting the gamer community as a whole to work more towards pushing the boundries of games into something greater than what they were. They more so leave the criticisms to the critics, which is why I felt it was great having them on here, since we have Yahtzee, it was nice to have an optimistic view point. While some may find them pretentious, I don't see what's so wrong with wanting to see games become something more. For those that are fine with the way games are, and don't care to see a change, that's fine, but that doesn't mean others should have to stop trying to push more potential out of them simply due to your apathy on it. They actually do stuff, James is a developer and implements most of what they discuss on the show, and they started a kickstarter to help indie developers with new ideas get off the ground. Alice and the speaker(I can't think of his name) don't seem to be in a position to do much else, but isn't that the point of getting your voice heard? So you can spark others to do what you might not be able to do?

 

[userwhoquitthesite]

Nope.

I consistently agree with what they have to say.

There's no denying that they can lay on the pretentiousness a bit thick though. Also, some people find them to be condescending.

This.
It's rare that they are out-and-out wrong on any topic, but they can be hard to swallow thanks to the preachy way they come off.

 

[OldDirtyCrusty]

It`s simply not worth listening to those guys. The last episode i`ve seen was the "hard boiled" one. They stated obvious points about what "mature" means and then used MP3 as an example. Sorry ec, right (obvious) points but the wrong game. After it the whole thing turned into a whiny personal rant and it sounded like someone was disapointed with his first day buy and uses ec just to sound off, booofuckinghooo.

I really don´t need any pc-preachers in my favorite hobby and those guys bore me with their speeches.

 

[bdcjacko]

I vote full of shit. Not because I believe they are full of shit, but because they were asshats. At I liked them, but then they got more and more about how videogames will bring a new dawn of man and can solve all the worlds problems. Then they did that Christmas episode about how they went to the child's play gala and said that night made the video games industry golden gods. Quiet literally they had a picture that was a golden repsentation of a god like video games industry personified the way they do. That is when I checked out because it was obvious they had their heads up their artsie fartsie asses.

 

[Judgement101]

I despise them. They point out the obvious and act like it is some magical breakthrough. I'm sure they are all nice people but to me they will always be pretencious, self righteous jerks and petty theives.

 

[BeeGeenie]

Nope.

I consistently agree with what they have to say.

There's no denying that they can lay on the pretentiousness a bit thick though. Also, some people find them to be condescending.

Just because you constantly agree with what they are saying does not mean criticism of their analysis is not valid.

What?

I didn't say anything wasn't valid.

I merely said that I do not consider them to be "full of shit".

No, your argument logic went:

(1) [If I agree with what they say and it is possible that their 'bull-shitedness' is because of pretentiousness, then I do not think they are full of bullshit]
(2) "I consistently agree with what they have to say."
(3) "There's no denying that they can lay on the pretentiousness a bit thick though"

Therefore,
(4) "I do not consider [the developmental crew at Extra Credits] to be "full of shit".

As far as I was concerned, you were associating feeling with strength of argument. Do not confuse the two.

lol wut?
No, I think he's saying
1) I agree with them, therefore I don't think they're "full of S***."
2) They can appear pretentious.

I think you can define the term "full of s***" in a number of ways, and pretense may be part of your definition, but maybe he's defining it differently.

Don't hate on him just because your made up logic isn't the same as his.

 

[spartan231490]

They always explain and have examples.

 

[darlarosa]

...."Pretentious"...I don't think that word means what you think it means. If stating their opinions based on their experience is somehow pretentious I don't see it. The videos are discussion starters reflecting the views of those involved and how they would like the industry to develop. They actively try and support indie developers, and I believe are in the process of setting something up now.

Part of the reason they try not to be overly specific is because while they seem to expect their audience to have played certain games they are well aware many people have not. It is actually rather nice in it's own way.

The OP seems to want the series to specifically detail things and the series is not set up to do that. They take general examples of interesting things they encounter and voice why they think a mechanic is successful. They never claim to have all the answers or anything. they just tend to be optimistic and hope that like other media video games can be recognized as bringing something to culture

 

[BreakfastMan]

Eh, sometimes. I find them to be about as full of crap as often as I find Jim Sterling is. More often than not they are good, but they do have the occasional episodes I completely disagree with. Doesn't mean I won't stop watching them.

 

[Samus Aran but a man]

I'm too cynical to buy into their "Games can be art! We can do it! Hope, man!" stuff. That being said, I think they have made some good points.

 

[Aeshi]

They're nothing more than yet another bunch of stuck-up idiots whose followers blindly declare any game that involves doing the same thing more than once to be a 'Skinner Box' and whine about how all games need to be 'art'

 

[Sansha]

Nope.

I consistently agree with what they have to say.

There's no denying that they can lay on the pretentiousness a bit thick though. Also, some people find them to be condescending.

This. They're usually right, but their righteousness gets irritating quickly. They sound like they think they speak for the entire gaming community world-wide, and it bothers me.

 

[random_bars]

They're awful. Pure trash. Every one of their videos falls into one of the following three categories:

-Pointing out the obvious, spending ten minutes explaining it, and treating it as a genius new revelation.

-Stating their opinion on a particular topic which can legitimately be thought of in many different ways, but insisting that their view on it is the only correct one because James says so.

-Making a point that's so utterly ridiculous that it's astonishing that they could actually believe it.

Most people who make videos like these are rubbish to some degree or another, but I find Extra Credits particularly irritating. It's their smug, condescending attitude that does it, I think.

 

[Crispee]

I find I always agree with them myself, all the speakers involved know what they're talking about because they're a Game Designer and an Animator respectively, two people in positions I'd be highly inclined to agree with. Making their expertise higher than many people on this website from that get go.

The impression they bring across in their videos is that they're both very optimistic and passionate about the topic of Game Design theory, and I think optimism is so much more important than the cynicism of most people in the Gaming Fanbae and Journalism. If people consider the process of making a game to be an art form, they can't afford to be cynical and assume something will be poor or misconstrued.

Anybody who disagrees with their facade of optimism has to remember one thing. People like Yahtzee or Moviebob or what have you are by trade, critics, and a critics job is to break down their topic logically and emotionally, the quality of the work they're breaking down gravitating, often, towards cynicism. But even people like Yahtzee have to be optimists sometimes, the simple fact that he defends gaming at all is due to optimism of the next big thing coming out.

Whilst Extra Credits is written by two people working in the industry, and as I said earlier, they can't afford to second guess themselves and their industry, because if they did, they'd never make anything worthwhile if they didn't invest themselves in it wholeheartedly.

That's just my two cents though, what some people see as pretention and naivety, I see as passion and optimism.