Why do you say that Extra Credits is preachy?

[bdcjacko]

I believe I see how they could be preachy in some people's eyes. It largely doesn't affect me and I still enjoy watching their videos. But they do seem to get high and mighty about how some things like diversity and stuff. But again, I don't care and don't feel like I'm being talked down too. If anything I see it as them trying to raise the bar for video games.

 

[Stabby Joe]

Extra Credits really DON'T come of as preachy since they're very thankful and emphasize other people's opinions when said.

Yahtzee and MovieBob, as much as I enjoy them on the other hand...

 

[13CBS]

And this is why I didn't privately message the handful of EC critics on the commentary threads; there wouldn't have been interesting discussion like this if I did.

Patronizing and preachy? Perhaps it's because all the information they give is a common sense truism that they use to smuggle in their constant moralizing and regurgitating of social reform values at every oppurtunity.

Common sense truism? I, and apparently a good number of people, learned a lot from watching EC, and while I wouldn't say that I'm a genius, I also doubt that I'm a drooling neanderthal, so I'm uncertain that a lot of the things that EC espouses are "common sense"--if they were that obvious, I'd suspect that more non-gaming industry people would know about the things that the EC crew says.

You have a better point about "constant moralizing and regurgitating of social reform values" (i.e. discussing games from a socio-economic standpoint), but I actually find that to be one of the draws about EC. Game mechanic essays are everwhere, even on the Escapist, but articles that discuss gaming from a larger point of view are rarer, and few seem to convey their points in the entertaining and easy to understand way that EC does.

And orders like " don't let freinds buy bad games," when the only games they ever talk about are narative focused pieces of shit and "artsy" indie garbage.

They actually said that friends don't let friends buy shovel ware--that is, we should raise our standards at least to the point where video game companies will lose the incentive to make extremely cheap, effortless, bad games.

What sort of "artsy indie garbage" are you speaking of?

I can't believe so many people learned anything from their show, no actual specialized knowledge is ever demonstated.

For people who play games from time to time but know little about how the industry actually works (like me), there's a lot to learn.

I'm certain I've watched most of their show and have yet to see one mechanic in video games anylized in any capacity. But I'm sure their to busy trying to please the people who want hear about art, storytelling and mediums.

EC doesn't strike me as a show that focuses on the technical aspects of video games.

You seem to be rather incensed about EC's focus on narrative and socio-economic issues. I'd understand if you simply found such topics uninteresting, but may I ask why they make you so angry?

 

[De Ronneman]

They aren't preachy, they just know what the fuck they're talking about.

Thank you, topic closed, all has been said: this man is right.

they're pro's, they all have experience in the world of videogames and developing them. They know the problems, because they handle them every day.
In the Mail Bag #1 vid, they explained who they exactly were, and honestly, I too questioned who they hell they thought they were at first, but they always made sense. And sure, they're preachy, but wouldn't you be? If you had the chance to eplain to people who criticise why their criticisms are either wrong or not quite on the money, it's hard not to sound like your explaining something. Why? Because they ARE explaining something. And for that I love the show and am eternaly gratefull for teaching us the dark side behind the shiny side we see in the stores and read in the reviews.

 

[rockyoumonkeys]

It's already been stated I'm sure, but I just feel like they trump up the importance of video games too much in order to make profound arguments about it.

Now yeah, they're all in the industry, so games are more important to them than they are to me, but still.

Not to mention that their videos take the form of, almost literally, lectures. I mean, they even have the little cartoon dude standing behind a podium. They're lectures, which gives them an air of preachiness.

They used to annoy the fuck out of me, but I've still started watching more episodes, maybe with the hope that they aren't always so preachy about glorified toys.

 

[Vancleef]

Preachy? Sometimes. I really enjoy the show, though.

 

[Iron Mal]

Patronizing and preachy? Perhaps it's because all the information they give is a common sense truism

Surely something that is common sense is known by everyone? (Which is weird considering how rare common sense is)

that they use to smuggle in their constant moralizing and regurgitating of social reform values at every oppurtunity.

For starters, it's their video, they're not 'smuggling' anything in, they're expressing their opinion (considering how all of the people involved in it have plenty of experience in the field I'm quite inclined to take it in and learn from it), they're not trying to 're-educate' or manipulate people, just convey their views, opinions and experiences.

And orders like " don't let freinds buy bad games," when the only games they ever talk about are narative focused pieces of shit and "artsy" indie garbage.

So what games would you judge as more worthwhile to examine? Just because you don't like a game doesn't mean it isn't worth the time of day (I'm sure some people would call your favorite games ______ focused pieces of shit, does that automatically make them right?).

I can't believe so many people learned anything from their show, no actual specialized knowledge is ever demonstated. I'm certain I've watched most of their show and have yet to see one mechanic in video games anylized in any capacity.

They don't go into the technical side of it that much because...for some of us that is incredably boring (I don't really care about the tech behind the games, but the thoughts, ideas and cultural impact of games do interest me), specialised knowledge is demonstrated, just not in the subject you wanted.

They should devote themselves to an article that demonstrates actual technical knowledge (like Seth Killian's Domination series) if they want my respect. But I'm sure their to busy trying to please the people who want hear about art, storytelling and mediums.

I doubt their thing is about pleasing people (even thought they do try to make it entertaining) and just because you place no value in art, storytelling and the medium itself doesn't mean that it's actually worthless (the tech is just one part of a game, the actually playability and 'fun' in a game is usually generated by the more creative side of development, which is what they delve into), but if they're not 'worthy' of your respect then your loss I guess.

 

[13CBS]

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.

I would assume working for a computer animation studio would give you somewhat of an insight on game design, though I think he's pushing his movie background on games far too much. Still, I suppose it's at least something. Yahtzee's gaming industry background consisted of hating Fable. So I guess you don't really need to know anything poignant to opine on gaming and collect a paycheck for it.

Edit: Now that I think about it. The fact that Floyd works for a movie studio really sheds a lot of light on his views. I don't see that gamers or game designers really think in such terms.

To be fair, I think James Portnow is the one behind the actual writing of each episode, and in Mailbag #1 Floyd states that James was a game designer for a AAA publisher and was the head of a studio behind a MMO. Floyd mostly reads what Portnow writes and tweaks some stuff, so I suspect that most of the opinions we get from EC are from Portnow.

 

[TPiddy]

I think part of it is because they say things that some gamers don't really want to hear. Things like, don't pirate, or support smaller, independent developers, or, let's have less chicks with big tits in video games. They certainly use their clips to try to enhance the medium as an artform, and some people would prefer that it remain mindless entertainment.

 

[Dascylus]

It's like school.
Except a school where I care about the lessons and subject matter and I actually think the teacher isn't just quoting from a text book.

I feel similarly towards Moviebob and Yahtzee... They stand out as having something to say above the standard "Halo Reach is good because it is another Halo game and Halo games get alot of attention".
Their opinions come from their love of their media (and more than a little experience too).

So, preachy? A little bit.
Anything wrong with that? Hell no. Build a house with long rows of benches aimed towards a podium and lectern and I'll be one of many who attends every Thursday.

 

[DracoSuave]

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.

They're not claiming every game has to be. They simply wish for an evolution of the media, and for it to continue to grow up beyond its current adolescence. This is a good goal, as it means better games and a wider selection. It does not mean, nor has ever meant, 'Never make simple fun games.'

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.

Have you actually -watched- an episode of EC? I just don't understand how you could possibly hold the idea that EC is advocating more 'watch-the-movie' style games after one of their very first episodes was about exploring the idea of using gameplay itself as a narrative, and how that doesn't work.

If you're going to criticize a work of opinion, it helps if you display knowledge of what that opinion is, otherwise you come across as ignorant.

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.

You mean when good rpgs were designed with tons of cutscenes involving more watching the story unfold and less choice in how the story unfolds?

Or when good rpgs were designed where all you had was a bunch of stats hacking and slashing their way through a story-barren wasteland?

The genre's evolved, and it's always tried to be the one at the forefront of narrative.

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 like saying that intellectual or artistic movies make it so that movies about blowing stuff up and hollywood blockbusters and hong kong action movies can't exist. Your comment doesn't even make sense.

The ability of a medium to express complex and sophisticated artistic themes does not magically make it so that games that exist only as a fun persuit cannot exist. In fact, the opposite: A deeper understanding of the medium makes it so that fun-only games can be created with more savoir-faire.

The ability of the industry to make Silent Hill 2 did not suddenly prevent the entire industry from ever making Plants vs Zombies. Your opinion doesn't even float given the history of video games, never mind artistic media as a whole.

Moreover... there is a demand for higher concept gaming. Your argument that people who want these style of games should not ever get them because it stops you from having your favored style of games is selfish at best, and scaredycat 'fear and loathing' bs at worst.

You're afraid the industry will leave you behind; but you won't be. Comic fans weren't 'left behind' by graphic novels. Movie fans weren't 'left behind' by that genre's classics. It doesn't happen.

That's just me though.

It really is.

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.

He speaks on gaming from the point of view of it as an artistic media, not as a developer of code. Doing so requires knowledge of art, not knowledge of the industry itself.


Also... he works as a 3d animator for Pixar, if my googlefu is good.

 

[CAPTCHA]

I think the naration is delivered dismissivly as though not to excite and the art work seems designed to evoke something childish. The script however is poiniant. The combination of the two deliver the message covertly. I wouldn't call that preachy, just a sell.

ED: also, the guy above me is right about everythig he said.

 

[Loonerinoes]

I think they are preachy and I wouldn't want them any other way.

Granted everyone is free to accept or simply roll their eyes at anything that is preached.

People who often get annoyed at 'preachy' shows or such often enough really don't like to hear differing opinions. Had the preaching gone in their favour, I am fairly certain that they'd never even think of the show as 'preachy'.

Thus far I've found myself agreeing with their preachiness in most cases. Though I am sure there will be moments where I'll vehemently disagree. At least one such future topic was recently mentioned that I am almost 100% certain they will not offer up anything drastically different from the same tripe I've heard before. Not because they wouldn't be smart enough, but because in some ways their experience also narrows their field of view when it comes to the whole 'standing up for the gaming community RAH!' feelings that are all too common amongst anyone that likes a certain medium and percieves a 'threat' to said medium.

Still. Worth watching on and on I am sure. As I had said, for the most part they can at least present their preachyness in an amusing enough manner. And that's the decider for me.

 

[ChromeAlchemist]

Preachy?

preach·y/ˈprēCHē/
Adjective: Having or revealing a tendency to give moral advice in a tedious or self-righteous way.

No. It seems more like a lecture, because it's coming from someone who knows what they are talking about. I mean the guy is standing on a pulpit and talking to us, the audience, about his views and opinions of the industry.

Plus, he's getting paid for it. Why is this any different from Sessler's Soapbox or GameOverthinker?

 

[ChromeAlchemist]

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.

I would assume working for a computer animation studio would give you somewhat of an insight on game design, though I think he's pushing his movie background on games far too much. Still, I suppose it's at least something. Yahtzee's gaming industry background consisted of hating Fable. So I guess you don't really need to know anything poignant to opine on gaming and collect a paycheck for it.

Yahtzee is incredibly good at what he does. EC are just OK.

The feedback from the community really does say otherwise, especially considering the fact that they've only just started out on The Escapist (they've been on YouTube for a bit) and got thousands of comments and responses.