Why do you say that Extra Credits is preachy?
- Thread starter 13CBS
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Answer: People are dumb.
Extra Credits is the best thing to ever happen to this site. Arguably the most enjoyable video series on the internet.
Extra Credits is the best thing to ever happen to this site. Arguably the most enjoyable video series on the internet.
I think there quite preachy. and i like them.
Because what there telling you are basically opinions. Not all of what they say are facts. There telling you there opinions of games, what the game market should or should not do. Were MMO's are going. Things like that.
Some people may like "new" survivor horror games and complete disagree with the video, and that makes them, at least in the viewers eyes, Preachy. I mean that?s basically what there doing, preaching there opinions via this video. Telling you what they think in a mainly biased way.
Because what there telling you are basically opinions. Not all of what they say are facts. There telling you there opinions of games, what the game market should or should not do. Were MMO's are going. Things like that.
Some people may like "new" survivor horror games and complete disagree with the video, and that makes them, at least in the viewers eyes, Preachy. I mean that?s basically what there doing, preaching there opinions via this video. Telling you what they think in a mainly biased way.
For me it's the whole "Games as art" or their personal favourite "Games as a medium". It drives me quite mad
They seem to believe that games should have the overall point of conveying a well told story, from the perspective of the main character/player.
Which is all well and good but honestly, not every game has to be. It doesn't have to be moving, or touching or teaching us a life lesson.
To me it's that very idea that's to a degree ruining gaming and ramping up the prices of such, because developers are trying their hardest to make a new A grade title, that's more like a movie than an actual game.
Remember when good rpgs didn't have all these morality scales and dialogue trees. Yes, they were great when they appeared at first but now the novelty is wearing off.
I don't want games to be looked at as art or as a medium for well told stories, sure I like those things. I just don't think they have a point in gaming without ruining the fun factor.
That's just me though.
Also, what's Daniel Floyds association with the gaming industry?
He better have something if he's going to talk about it, otherwise it's pretty much just wild speculation.
They seem to believe that games should have the overall point of conveying a well told story, from the perspective of the main character/player.
Which is all well and good but honestly, not every game has to be. It doesn't have to be moving, or touching or teaching us a life lesson.
To me it's that very idea that's to a degree ruining gaming and ramping up the prices of such, because developers are trying their hardest to make a new A grade title, that's more like a movie than an actual game.
Remember when good rpgs didn't have all these morality scales and dialogue trees. Yes, they were great when they appeared at first but now the novelty is wearing off.
I don't want games to be looked at as art or as a medium for well told stories, sure I like those things. I just don't think they have a point in gaming without ruining the fun factor.
That's just me though.
Also, what's Daniel Floyds association with the gaming industry?
He better have something if he's going to talk about it, otherwise it's pretty much just wild speculation.
They aren't preachy, until the episode where they tried to make us not use the word "gamer" and people went nuts. That was the only time.
He's not really associated with it, except people he knows. Which is better than most people. James is a game developer, that's where most of his insider info comes from for the show for the industry. But a lot of what they talk about...you don't have to be in the industry to know.Lyri said:
I'll hop onto this bandwagon, and ask why people DON'T accuse Yahtzee of being preachy.Hiphophippo said:
Will do. Let's see...maddawg IAJI said:
From "Symbolism 101":
HotFezz8 said:
From: "Gamer"
JourneyThroughHell said:
Ewyx said:
...though this search seems to indicate that there's a lot less of this sentiment than I thought there was. Nonetheless, I am glad that this thread is generating interesting replies, such as...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------Lyri said:
FYI, Daniel Floyd seems to be getting concerned about the possibility of being arrogant and preachy as well:
Daniel Floyd said:I'd actually like to know too. Not because I want to attack you or anything, but so I can be mindful in future episodes. "Condescension" is not the vibe we're going for at Extra Credits.CitySquirrel said:
I don't consider it preachy because I agree with it. Similarly, people that consider it preachy are likely at odds with what it has to offer. I might be oversimplifying, but that's how it looks from here.
Huh, ah well. It appears to be only a small amount of people who seem to be complaining about preachness, and even they seem to have trouble completely hating the show. I don't see much of a problem. It's an informative show, they're suppose to assume you don't know about the subject.13CBS said:
Well, you found me. I was the one who found the "Gamer" episode and a few of the others a little bit preachy. That's just how they seemed to me, and Daniel's speech in them seemed a bit overblown and really sounded like a "call-to-action".13CBS said:
I do think they're getting less and less so, in that way. And I've never found Extra Credits non-enjoyable. I just have minor gripes with the show.
I feel that the Family Guy episode with Rush Limbaugh is very relevant to this topic. Some people want to seem intellectual and are contrarians. If a vast majority are saying one thing, they'll automatically say the opposite.
In the case of Extra Credits, there is so little to be against, their stance of it being "preachy" is the only way they can show their contrary attitude.
This is a loose accusation because whenever someone expresses an opinion in an attempt for some sort of change, one can argue that the person is being "preachy".
In the case of Extra Credits, there is so little to be against, their stance of it being "preachy" is the only way they can show their contrary attitude.
This is a loose accusation because whenever someone expresses an opinion in an attempt for some sort of change, one can argue that the person is being "preachy".
the problem i had with extra credits is that while they deliver good information they had generally weak conclusions with out really saying how things should happen (well they did but not very well), yet now they do seem to be getting better as they now seem to give both sides of an issue but than have a precise opinion now which im liking.
and it seems preachy in the sense that the guy is a little patronising and i hate how he sometime has slight pauses to put emphasis on certain things particually when they dont need emphasising.
and it seems preachy in the sense that the guy is a little patronising and i hate how he sometime has slight pauses to put emphasis on certain things particually when they dont need emphasising.
Probably because its biased and thats why. If there was maybe a second extra credits taking the opposite view but relaying it in the same way (Daily Show/Colbert Report kinda deal), it probably wouldnt sound so preachy.
But then againi like extra credits.
But then againi like extra credits.
Nope, not preachy. Every time they say something they back it up with logic and allow that contrary ideas also have merit. Yay!
I assume this is because they (Extra Credits) often don't fully explain their arguments, but just make a statement and expect people to buy it without question. When talking about hypothetical scenarios and theoretical aspects of something there simply isn't a "flawless argument". Yet their arguments are presented as being exactly that.
Then there's also the point of telling people and the industry to "change", which might offend some people. After all, it's only programmer, who isn't even really successful. Why should anyone even listen to him let alone do what he says?
Furthermore, they have this underlaying tone that they tell you anything new or "exclusive knowledge" only James could come up with. Like suggesting a merge between Puplishers, professional devs and the indie scene. It is more likely to assume that we don't see it because the idea was suggested by some executive, analyzed and then dismissed rather than that noone else thought about it previously.
So yeah, they really are preachy, at least to some extend. Mind you, their points are perfectly sound arguments, but they aren't the one and only truth.
Then there's also the point of telling people and the industry to "change", which might offend some people. After all, it's only programmer, who isn't even really successful. Why should anyone even listen to him let alone do what he says?
Furthermore, they have this underlaying tone that they tell you anything new or "exclusive knowledge" only James could come up with. Like suggesting a merge between Puplishers, professional devs and the indie scene. It is more likely to assume that we don't see it because the idea was suggested by some executive, analyzed and then dismissed rather than that noone else thought about it previously.
So yeah, they really are preachy, at least to some extend. Mind you, their points are perfectly sound arguments, but they aren't the one and only truth.