Extra Credits

[JFSOCC]

I was wondering, does anyone here watch that show?

 

I think any game developer, both experienced and new could benefit from watching it.

 

Here's the link for those who don't know it and would like to check it out:

http://penny-arcade.com/patv/show/extra-credits

They've also uploaded all their episodes on youtube, so you can find them there as well.

[Blarghagh]

Yep, I love Extra Credits. Been following them since before they left The Escapist.

[Oner]

We had a thread about them way back actually, but it died when they "suddenly" stopped posting episodes on the Escapist.

[C2B]

I don't really like Extra Credits. Well, I appreciate it on the informational level, but imo there's no interesting discussion to be found and watching it reminds me more of someone reading out of his self-written of a textbook regarding video game mechanics.

 

Also, I'm still sour on them for the infamous *narrative* episode. I don't really like arguments in internet videos were the facts aren't checked in general,  though.

Edited March 13, 2013 by C2B

[BruceVC]

I was wondering, does anyone here watch that show?

 

I think any game developer, both experienced and new could benefit from watching it.

 

Here's the link for those who don't know it and would like to check it out:

http://penny-arcade.com/patv/show/extra-credits

They've also uploaded all their episodes on youtube, so you can find them there as well.

 

I have never heard of it, thx for the tip

[alanschu]

Not as regularly, but I do enjoy them for the most part.

 

I loved their two on Spec Ops (the non-spoiler version convinced me to pick it up in large part so I could watch the spoiler version).

[Oner]

Also, I'm still sour on them for the infamous *narrative* episode. I don't really like arguments in internet videos were the facts aren't checked in general,  though.

I don't remember, what made it so infamous?

[AwesomeOcelot]

They're a bunch of idiots. I hope developers don't watch that crap.

[C2B]

 

Also, I'm still sour on them for the infamous *narrative* episode. I don't really like arguments in internet videos were the facts aren't checked in general,  though.

I don't remember, what made it so infamous?

 

Story Structure and Amnesia was it, not Narrative. Here. Mainly, because they fall into the trap of thinking the courier has Amnesia. And talking about how great Fallout 3 does it comparitavly.

 

Edited March 13, 2013 by C2B

[Rosbjerg]

Heh, exactly the same reason I stopped.

[Blarghagh]

Ah, so it's infamous *here*.

[Calax]

I stopped watching them because, while they make a few good points, it feels like they're getting wound up in their own pretentiousness about various topics. They end up sounding like they're reaching to far with "this is how the industry should move" and "this is how players should be". The way they laid out SpecOps in their article actually kinda pushed me away because it sounded like they were trying to play a game that's narrative actively HATED the player for playing video games.

 

Also, they seem to draw to much out of thin air. Amnesia is one thing, but IIRC they ended up talking about "story" in missile command, and trying to say that because the developer designed it with three specific cities in mind, we should all think about those three cities as the ones we're defending.

[alanschu]

I remember this episode.  I didn't mind it.

 

You're stuck too much on the term "amnesia."  FONV is used as an example for in media res.  The game doesn't bother with everything pre-Benny shooting.

 

 

Is the real point that they mentioned a situation where they preferred how FO3 did this aspect over FONV (A perspective I'm sure many would consider unfathomable).  In other words, were you following it until something was brought up that introduced some cognitive dissonance, and since you disagreed with that assessment, concluded that the show was no longer worth your time?

 

FONV was a vastly superior game narratively, but based on the context that they provided, I can understand his perspective (it's not an issue for me).  My favourite episodes for this show (and a show like, say, Penn and Teller's Buill****) are the ones that lead me to some sort of introspection (usually by challenging my perspectives)

[Serrano]

I don't necceserally think that they thought the Courier has amnesia, they were focusing on dropping the "1st act", "getting to know who you were" part of the story and saying that the story was weaker for that. It certainly could have been an implication but I the impression I got was that they were lazily using the "amnesia" plot device term to wrap up many different ways videogames have of dropping act 1. I disagree with what they were saying though in NV's case, I enjoyed New Vegas' story much more than Fallout 3 and think it was a lot deeper and more skillfully excecuted in every single way. Act 1 was surely everything that happened with the factions and the area leading up to the start of the game though?

 

edit: One minuet too late. Arghhhhh!

Edited March 13, 2013 by Serrano

[alanschu]

 

The way they laid out SpecOps in their article actually kinda pushed me away because it sounded like they were trying to play a game that's narrative actively HATED the player for playing video games.

 

It's basically postulating that SpecOps is attempting some level of "interpretive" storytelling through leveraging the medium (i.e. game mechanics) rather than pure escapism of most games.

 

Their SpecOps review basically pushed me to try the game and it was one of my favourites from last year.

[Nonek]

Simple concepts over-elaborated, brevity is not their enemy.

[Calax]

 

The way they laid out SpecOps in their article actually kinda pushed me away because it sounded like they were trying to play a game that's narrative actively HATED the player for playing video games.

 

It's basically postulating that SpecOps is attempting some level of "interpretive" storytelling through leveraging the medium (i.e. game mechanics) rather than pure escapism of most games.

 

Their SpecOps review basically pushed me to try the game and it was one of my favourites from last year.

Well, they kept coming back to the "because you wanted to be a hero" and saying "everything after this point is the devs talking to the players". The view they gave was pretty grim overall. I don't like when somebody preaches to me about how things "should" be, and they are preaching about how stories should be told and development should happen. I don't want my entertainment to be an afterschool special... at least not obviously, which seems like something they're advocating some times.

[Malcador]

Simple concepts over-elaborated, brevity is not their enemy.

 

Fits in will the the whole Penny Arcade Report then

[Orogun01]

They are pretentious, self absorbed and accommodators which end up taking the high middle ground of non compromising for fear of offense. Which in turned makes me believe less in their opinion since it's not actually theirs.
I actually don't see much difference between them and other opinionated bloggers.

BTW, do they actually report on actual issues that the industry currently faces or do they just give their arbitrary opinion on what the industry should be?

[Calax]

They are pretentious, self absorbed and accommodators which end up taking the high middle ground of non compromising for fear of offense. Which in turned makes me believe less in their opinion since it's not actually theirs.

I actually don't see much difference between them and other opinionated bloggers.

 

BTW, do they actually report on actual issues that the industry currently faces or do they just give their arbitrary opinion on what the industry should be?

They don't report. They're not really reporters, more an editorial group. I think the issue mainly comes from the fact that basically all the "opinions" are ultimately written by their Dev, then the art is done, and the "speaker" is just assembling the final product.

 

 

These are the videos that spawned EC. It seems like it's overall less preachy because it was a school project so he was discussing the industry with people who weren't part of the industry. Also the fact that he wrote it himself rather than James, while using James to provide a few quotes.

[C2B]

I remember this episode.  I didn't mind it.

 

You're stuck too much on the term "amnesia."  FONV is used as an example for in media res.  The game doesn't bother with everything pre-Benny shooting.

 

That doesn't change anything. It's still bad research. And they activly mention it so.

Edited March 14, 2013 by C2B

[Nightshape]

Extra Credits - its good at doing one thing, communicating to the wider general public how things work internally and what kinds of processes take place at some companies.

 

I don't watch the show, I've seen a few episodes, and found it to be entirely irreverent to me - I'm an engine programmer - most of the stuff seems to be related to design, production and creative direction - it is - entirely useless for the average person in the industry. That said, I'd recommend people who are interested in design, and/or production to look into the show as there is some useful advice for n00bs.

[alanschu]

 

 

The way they laid out SpecOps in their article actually kinda pushed me away because it sounded like they were trying to play a game that's narrative actively HATED the player for playing video games.

 

It's basically postulating that SpecOps is attempting some level of "interpretive" storytelling through leveraging the medium (i.e. game mechanics) rather than pure escapism of most games.

 

Their SpecOps review basically pushed me to try the game and it was one of my favourites from last year.

Well, they kept coming back to the "because you wanted to be a hero" and saying "everything after this point is the devs talking to the players". The view they gave was pretty grim overall. I don't like when somebody preaches to me about how things "should" be, and they are preaching about how stories should be told and development should happen. I don't want my entertainment to be an afterschool special... at least not obviously, which seems like something they're advocating some times.

 

 

How on Earth do you tolerate being on these forums?  It's post after post about how things "should" be, including your post right now that I am replying too.

 

It's not an after school special.  It's just something done in a unique way that made me go "huh."  It was a refreshing change of pace and I disagree with the notion you have about how games "should" be.

[Calax]

Except that people aren't preaching. Even in the political threads, we don't have people talking about "the word" of a political stance, or taking their rhetoric to the level of pretentiousness that seems to crop up in Extra Credits. Nobody says I am flat wrong for liking the things I do, which these three (four?) do sometimes.

[Orogun01]

I think that after watching one of the videos that Calax posted I have a clearer idea of why I don't like them.
They don't know what they are talking about; they have the simplistic approach to problem and problem solving that every layman has. So instead of showing what they actual people who have an insider's view into the industry think the industry could be, what direction is moving towards and how to get it on the track to progress, they give opinions.
The worst part is that they appear to make sense, in the same way that whenever facing a problem asking "Why don't we fix it?" makes sense. Yet they offer no real insight or solutions, so I can't really say that they offer anything of value to the observer be them insider or laymen.