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

[xPixelatedx]

These guys are like the most easy to get along with neutralists in the gaming scene. I find it genuinely amazing that people can try and find ways to be so critical of them.

They'll talk all artsy about games like Loneliness but skimp on the examples and implementations.

Loneliness was the implementation.

It just bugs me that if they think they know so much better then why don't they make a flash game themselves?

One or two of them makes actual games already. That's how they are able to give vital and important tips on staying out of trouble if you are getting into this industry. They are also giving you realistic expectations on what you will get out of making games, vs the romanticized party lifestyle and wealth so many think it you get.

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.

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".

My cat's name is mittens

I don't think they are pretentious because they're pretty damn honest. They tell you when they don't know, and tell you that this is what they have thought up.
It's all about the philosophy behind game design, if you think philosophy is pretentious you aren't going to like it.

Yeah, pretty much this. If anything introspective or philosophical is "pretentious" to you, you aren't going to have a good time watching Extra Credits. This isn't about making entertaining reviews. They aren't here to make jokes or boo bad games, they are here to have a serious, adult discussion about the business and the art of making games.

 

[BehattedWanderer]

Not really, no. On the whole, they are approaching games from an academic standpoint, the writer of the show being a professor of game design and whatnot, but also from an optimistic one. With a motto of "Because Games Matter", when games and gaming are still traditionally viewed as frivolities, you need to expect a certain amount of pretension, as they're also trying to change that idea as well as inform us of our beloved media. But, coming from an academic standpoint, they can only offer to teach the next developers what to do and what not to do, but they still have a rather limited affect on the industry as a whole.

That said, their gameplay as metaphor thing starting off with a two minute flash presentation was stretching the limits a bit, and not in the best way. They would have done better gushing about Journey again, because then at least we could all agree how amazing Journey is, rather than be wholly divided about whether or not dots can be representative of people, or whether it was even a game, or if that was really a great example of gameplay as metaphor.

 

[DugMachine]

Don't always agree with them at times but I don't think they're full of shit. They know full well what they're talking about and more often than not I find myself really listening and agreeing.

Edit: Actually gonna backpeddle here and take the word "pretentious" out of my post cause when I really think about it, they're not. Just cause they like to take games seriously doesn't mean they're full of shit. Games are like any other form of media yet its the only one that should be shrugged off as "never take it seriously it's only for fun."

 

[Baralak]

T
Yeah, pretty much this. If anything introspective or philosophical is "pretentious" to you, you aren't going to have a good time watching Extra Credits. This isn't about making entertaining reviews. They aren't here to make jokes or boo bad games, they are here to have a serious, adult discussion about the business and the art of making games.

Pretty much this. You hit the nail on the head. I LOVE how they approach games from an academic standpoint, closely analyzing things. They don't treat games a "toys", they treat them as an artistic medium, which it is, just like books, cinema, and animation. When they use their slogan, "Because Games Matter", you can tell they mean it, and explain that every episode.

 

[Lusulpher]

I think you may be watching the show with a different set of expectations to what they actually provide. But each to their mothers cats, or something.

As for the mechanics of Loneliness, it does have them. You control a dot, if you move that dot towards other dots the other dots fade away. They were just using Loneliness as a simple hands-on example to present their point of view that wouldn't cost the viewer anything other than five minutes.

I do kinda think that they have been rushing things a bit though, if they didn't need to release a new episode every week it might give them more time to better convey what they're trying to say. But eh, I'm probably still going to watch the show.

I did not know what the game was about, but your summary just depressed the sh** out of me. I think they succeeded with their game design/theory.


Trying to get close to something, anything, but always failing... Touche, Extra Credits, touche...

 

[peruvianskys]

I don't dislike them, but sometimes their pretentious, overly scholarly examinations can come off as a reactionary attempt to prove that games have intellectual or artistic value. Occasionally it can feel like they are digging as far as they can into the meaning or nature of a game, just to prove that you can. Still many good points.

 

[FalloutJack]

Since the OP can't answer a simple question, I'm rendering this whole thread invalid. There's no reason to dredge up this kind of shit.

 

[rockmanman]

so what if they are pretentious? dont we need all sides to an argument? and at least theirs is a positive one. Also they are actively working towards improving the industry through the meeting with microsoft and now with the launching of their first game. i for one like that they are one of the few optimistic gaming-shows

 

[lizabeth19]

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.

 

[TrevHead]

so what if they are pretentious? dont we need all sides to an argument? and at least theirs is a positive one. Also they are actively working towards improving the industry through the meeting with microsoft and now with the launching of their first game. i for one like that they are one of the few optimistic gaming-shows

+1 A bit of optimism is a breath of fresh air after watching 3 cynical Brits (I like them too)

Maybe if EC went on a few angry rants more ppl would like them

 

[Zhukov]

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".

 

[lizabeth19]

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.

 

[Guffe]

Haven't watched them sicne they left this site. When I watched their videos I liked most of them.

 

[aattss]

I disagree with the OP. I believe that Extra Credits is correct, partly because the members have industry experience.

 

[The_Echo]

I haven't been keeping up with them as of late, but from what I can remember they definitely made mountains out of molehills on more than one occasion. It was also very tiresome to be bum rushed by a mantra of "games are art, games are the future, games are our Lord and Savior" just about every episode. Like... I get it. Just calm down.

Also, the impressions I get of James as a person kind of leave a bad taste in my mouth. (Both from the whole debacle with the Escapist and the episode where he cries about how he let EverQuest or something curbstomp his life.)

I've learned more about game mechanics and design in three episodes of Sequelitis than I have in eighty one episodes of Extra Credits.

This is pretty much entirely true. I feel like Egoraptor has a much better handle on what makes a good game than James Portnow, while at the same time being more entertaining.

 

[deathzero021]

I don't think they're supposed to do anything or talk about HOW all that much. it's more of an educational show that's just informing people briefly on certain topics that relate to gaming, topics that most gamers might not even think about much. If you really want to learn more about such topics, do your own research. i think that's the point of the show, to introduce you to these concepts and to talk a little about it. each episode is only 5 mins long, that's not much time to go into detail.

also i think Loneliness was actually pretty cool. i DID personify the dots and it DID work for me. It may not provide an example of all types of Loneliness but it did it's job at least. However i don't think it was the best example of mechanics as metaphor as this game didn't have much mechanics at all, though it might be a good pick for them because of it's short length and easy access.

 

[Tanis]

Nope, and it's a shame they left this site.

They were one of, at least for me, MAJOR draws to the TE.

 

[Troublesome Lagomorph]

Very much so. More people seem to agree than I thought.

 

[Mr. Eff_v1legacy]

I don't find them pretentious in the least. I feel I have learned a lot from them; mostly, just looking at games as a whole differently. Not simply as entertainment, but something more.
They all have jobs. They are busy folks - they can't just go and make a game.
And you can't go into all the details required for a topic in 5-6 minutes. They give an overview of it, and I think they do a pretty good job.