Extra Credits

[JFSOCC]

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.

Very much This.

 

I too watched them from the very first episode on the escapist. From what I read here there's a lot of dislike. I would say it's mixed for me.

I like that they're treating the medium as an artform and basically their entire show means to communicate this to the audience. They do this with mixed results, some episodes I find fantastic, while others irk me to no end.

No matter what though, I'm very happy they discuss the medium in an adult and serious manner, and open the debate on many interesting topics.

 

As for their pretension, I think it's partly true, and partly that they're the real deal speaking from personal professional experience.

 

I think they're a very worthwhile watch, even those episodes I didn't agree with or thought were too narrow in their focus.

[alanschu]

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.

 

 

I think you're attributed FAR too much to them simply because they have a video series (I see no shortage of pretentiousness on this board by the way.  Perhaps you just don't see it that way because the opinions that I often consider pretentious are opinions/perspectives that you agree with).  Hell, I'm pretty damn certain I come across as pretty pretentious half the time as well.  Lord knows on the internet everyone tries to convince the rest of the world that their perspective and views of the world have weight and merit (and I wouldn't be surprised if someone felt this post was a pretentious mess!)

 

It's an editorial, and they would love for the medium to explore and try new things.  This is exactly what I would also love the medium to do more of.  Games that can make me think and reflect (i.e. a game like Planescape: Torment) is something that I really enjoy.  Same with games that can illicit a genuine emotional reaction through its content.

 

You may not agree with their perspective on areas that the game industry should explore, but these should be the types of topics that broaden your own reflections as well.  It's easy (and insular) to block out perspectives that you disagree with.  The best thing a show like EC and Bull**** have done is have these episodes that challenge me, because it makes me reflect on my own personal perceptions of the world.  Then again, I don't find cognitive dissonance an intimidating thing and tend to enjoy those types of epiphanies.

 

Hell, in general I don't agree with many of the opinions/perspectives on this very board but people typically aren't royal ponces about it so I always find myself gravitating back (some exceptions, but I just find myself putting them on ignore).

 

 

EDIT: To follow up on JFSOCC's post, there's one part I like about it his post: sometimes their episodes "irk" me too.  I wonder if it's because they made a mistake or if I genuinely, and fairly, disagree with their perspective... or if it's because I may have some preconceived notion or bias that has influenced me to think that way unfairly and without proper consideration.

Edited March 15, 2013 by alanschu

[Calax]

Yes, some of us are pretentious, but the thing is that, I don't know, it comes off less insanely "I'm up here and talking down to you about what we're talking about" and if people become to pretentious they're called on it and torn apart.

 

I mean this

http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/aesthetics-of-play

Screams at me just how big a disconnect there is between them and the real world. They just parrot the paper that they reference at the beginning as their own, and completely ignore the fact that game mechanics, in and of themselves, are what set the video game genre's apart from Movies (which they use to say "THIS is what genres SHOULD BE in games!" at the start). I mean, just consider games in terms of movie genres. Action movies are about stuff blowing up, people hitting other people, and guns right? Well, you get that in everything from Sleeping Dogs to Call of Duty to GTA to Jak and Daxter 2, as CORE parts of the game. But they're all wildly different in genre because of how they play, and the fundamental designs.  

 

That's why I don't like them, points of their arguments just don't pass a basic test of "is this correct?" or end up being hypocritical. Another reason is that they don't even know who they're trying to talk to. In several of their episodes they keep saying "we, as designers should..." but then they also talk about several subjects from the players perspective, or try to discuss things as how the developers and gamers don't see the same things. And yet, they also are doing things from different perspectives to convey their personal viewpoint. In the second part of their religions in games discussion, they go on and on and on about Faith never being really seen (in terms of "a priest having to reconsile his belief in god with the fact that God isn't in the world" or "A scientist wrestling with the question of if their discoveries invalidate their faith") while ignoring the fact that religion can also be formed around people, and it's often seen in games, with characters loosing faith in their personal heroes, or feeling betrayed with the person they stored so much faith in is actually a dirty bastard. Similarly, they state that science is, at it's core, based on faith... which is ludicrous on so many levels I can't help but smash my head into my desk and desire to smack one of them (probably Mr. Portnow).

[TrashMan]

Meh, I like them.

Don't see any more pretensiousness than I see in general everywhere.

 

About the "they don't know what they are talking about" thing - what makes you say that? Unless you are a game designer yourself, with a few games under your belt, then I don't see how you can add anything of value.

 

And they are right b.t.w. - everything is at it's core faith.

[AwesomeOcelot]

And they are right b.t.w. - everything is at it's core faith.

Love is a four letter word. Equivocation, it's extremely misleading. Faith in the context of religion is the irrational superstitious beliefs of people, they're using the word faith in another sense but applying it wrongly to religion. Axioms are the minimal amount of premises we use to model reality as best we can using observation. There is no absolute truth, but to say that there are not vast differences between science and religion is an obvious lie, you can't just say "everything is at it's core faith" because there's much more to science than axioms. Even some "religious" people and defenders of religion acknowledge this, they only accept the symbolism, ritual, and some of the moral teachings (AKA philosophy).

 

Also they repeat the stupidity of "religion can do no wrong". If someone does something "in the name of" religion they're perverting or misusing it, as if religion has nothing to do with it. Religions promote irrational beliefs and appeals to authority, they all rely on revelation one way or another, either internal or external, those can be bad or good, it's not "misuse" or "perversion" either way. This heads you lose tails I win stuff shows their bias towards religion. No, religion has to own the bad and the good. I'm a fan of democracy, but I'm not so delusional that I can't see it's not perfect.

 

So they're not just wrong about games, they're wrong about a lot of things. They seriously suggested a linear scale for "belief" and "scepticism". If "good" and "bad" wasn't the dumbest **** ever, they've gone total retard. Faith is all in the interpretation of natural phenomena, people have evolved paranoia, a hyperactive imagine for agency, the myths and theology applied to that are a part of culture. This is all happening internally, you can throw questions at the gamer, something like the movie "Doubt", but the subject of faith can't be explored directly through narrative. The terrible game Dreamfall was about faith, I rest my case.

 

You can call yourself a game designer but that doesn't mean your opinion is worth more, there are terrible games out there, like the Call of Duty series. CliffyB, I'd respect his opinion on FPS maps, but not on what makes a good RPG. Not going to respect what David Cage says about games, he's made some of the worst ever.

Edited March 15, 2013 by AwesomeOcelot

[JFSOCC]

Yeah the faith episode was a bit of a miss. But at least they take risks and discuss interesting topics. What they say is more true than you can imagine. Just because not every designer explicitly thinks about these topics doesn't mean their games don't have said elements.

Take the Episode on the Heroes Journey, (and the game Journey as excellent example) I thought it was a very good one.

 

And sometimes they are very coloured, which is OK, they're an editorial. they're allowed to be.

And sometimes what they say has already been said by others, and better. That's OK too, because they're communicating it to an audience as a hook to get more involved. 5 minute episodes are never going to be of scientific quality, but they get the audience interested and engaged, and provide them the tools for going in further.

[Calax]

Eh, I had problems with them declaring that the Hero's Journey is somehow the be-all end-all of every story arc. I've been very vocal about my enjoyment of Suikoden V specifically because of it's complete disregard for several of the Journey's tenants. Your main character isn't some average joe that's given special powers, the war isn't some "bigger thing" that he's drawn into, he doesn't just outright reject his quest etc. And yet they didn't even really acknowledge the idea that you don't have to follow the Hero's Journey to have a good story line. In fact they seemed to run opposite of that idea (You'll take your stale story design, and you'll LIKE IT DAMN IT!)

[TrashMan]

 

And they are right b.t.w. - everything is at it's core faith.

Love is a four letter word. Equivocation, it's extremely misleading. Faith in the context of religion is the irrational superstitious beliefs of people, they're using the word faith in another sense but applying it wrongly to religion. Axioms are the minimal amount of premises we use to model reality as best we can using observation. There is no absolute truth, but to say that there are not vast differences between science and religion is an obvious lie, you can't just say "everything is at it's core faith" because there's much more to science than axioms. Even some "religious" people and defenders of religion acknowledge this, they only accept the symbolism, ritual, and some of the moral teachings (AKA philosophy).

 

There are differences between science and religion - and no one is saying there aren't any.

 

But belief, a set of unprovables, lies at the core of everything.

 

 

 

Also they repeat the stupidity of "religion can do no wrong". If someone does something "in the name of" religion they're perverting or misusing it, as if religion has nothing to do with it.

 

Well, technicly, it is possible. Just because I say I am X, does that make it so? Religion can be used as a good excuse, without the person in question necessarily having any faith at all.

Perversion of religion? More like perversion of a specific one. If religion encompases all beliefs, then it's too broad of a net. Since everyones is included, thhen none can be really "perverted" in a sense.

 

But preciselys because it's such a wide net it's also a bit pointless. If someone does something iin the name of logical thought, would you blame logic? Or the person in question? After all, from his POV, his logic might be flawless.

[JFSOCC]

Eh, I had problems with them declaring that the Hero's Journey is somehow the be-all end-all of every story arc. I've been very vocal about my enjoyment of Suikoden V specifically because of it's complete disregard for several of the Journey's tenants. Your main character isn't some average joe that's given special powers, the war isn't some "bigger thing" that he's drawn into, he doesn't just outright reject his quest etc. And yet they didn't even really acknowledge the idea that you don't have to follow the Hero's Journey to have a good story line. In fact they seemed to run opposite of that idea (You'll take your stale story design, and you'll LIKE IT DAMN IT!)

but they didn't state that it was the end all of narrative design, rather that is was an excellent way to go. I don't think they've ever discarded other ideas, especially because narrative techniques (and the efficacy) vary by culture.

[AwesomeOcelot]

But belief, a set of unprovables, lies at the core of everything.

 

Axioms, a set of premises and possibly basic beliefs, are used in models, models used in science which seeks knowledge through observation while eliminating other possibilities to the best of ability, one way is to limit the amount as axioms as much as possible. Faith, irrational attribution of supernatural agency to natural phenomena, is not a set of beliefs but a way of seeing the world that generates irrational beliefs, sometimes on a daily basis, a religious person may be mostly ignorant of the canon of "their" religion. Saying that they both have the same sort of "core" is wrong because it gives a false impression of science and religion, science at its core is not axioms, it's a method. Organised religion might have "core beliefs" in the same way other societies have a charter or constitution, but that doesn't cover all religions, some of which do not, and it certainly doesn't describe science as it is a method.

 

Well, technicly, it is possible. Just because I say I am X, does that make it so? Religion can be used as a good excuse, without the person in question necessarily having any faith at all.

 

Perversion of religion? More like perversion of a specific one. If religion encompases all beliefs, then it's too broad of a net. Since everyones is included, thhen none can be really "perverted" in a sense.

 

But preciselys because it's such a wide net it's also a bit pointless. If someone does something iin the name of logical thought, would you blame logic? Or the person in question? After all, from his POV, his logic might be flawless.

 

It's possible but not reality. It's not "in the name" of one religion, it is often one religion. Even if the founders were often charlatans, some of them were not, people who suffer from schizophrenia and epilepsy can have visions, people through indoctrination, stupidity, or ignorance can take revelation to be true, there are true believers, and some of them have religions that are evil. There's so much wrong in religions as a consequence of what religion is, not because there's so many "non-believers" who would use it to their gain. Blessed are the cheese makers.

 

Religion does not encompass all beliefs, religion is superstitious beliefs, hyperactive agency detection, and the various organisations, rituals, and culture surrounding them. The difference is, whether someone is logical or not, the premises matter, so you can't say "I do something in the name of logic", they did something because logic dictated it or they did not even if they are mistaken. Logic is a tool, you don't blame tools for what those who wield them do, logic dictates that path A is the best way up the mountain, but it doesn't dictate that you should go up that mountain, so blaming it when the expedition dies is really stupid, hindsight trumps logic. Religion is only a tool for non-believers, for believers it's a way of thinking, a set of beliefs, a life-style, a set of rituals they must perform.

Edited March 16, 2013 by AwesomeOcelot

[JFSOCC]

that's a very one sided view though. No one thing is solely negative or positive, including religion.

I already posted my thoughts on that here

 

Any show or series that tackles this topic seems to get stuck in vitriolic argument, which is a shame.

[TrashMan]

 

 

But belief, a set of unprovables, lies at the core of everything.

 

Axioms, a set of premises and possibly basic beliefs, are used in models, models used in science which seeks knowledge through observation while eliminating other possibilities to the best of ability, one way is to limit the amount as axioms as much as possible. Faith, irrational attribution of supernatural agency to natural phenomena, is not a set of beliefs but a way of seeing the world that generates irrational beliefs, sometimes on a daily basis, a religious person may be mostly ignorant of the canon of "their" religion. Saying that they both have the same sort of "core" is wrong because it gives a false impression of science and religion, science at its core is not axioms, it's a method. Organised religion might have "core beliefs" in the same way other societies have a charter or constitution, but that doesn't cover all religions, some of which do not, and it certainly doesn't describe science as it is a method.

 

And the underlined is still a set of beliefs. You go on and on how science does X things with those beliefs, while religion does Y...which is irrelevant to the point I made.

They are beliefs...and by your own words. PERIOD.

 

So, no..it is not wrong. You only thing it's wrong becaue you look down on religion and think any comparison/similarity at all somehow pollutes science.

And as someone who loves science I say it's BS.

 

Why do so many people act like science and religion are some deadly enemies?

 

 

 

 

 

Religion does not encompass all beliefs, religion is superstitious beliefs, hyperactive agency detection, and the various organisations, rituals, and culture surrounding them. The difference is, whether someone is logical or not, the premises matter, so you can't say "I do something in the name of logic", they did something because logic dictated it or they did not even if they are mistaken. Logic is a tool, you don't blame tools for what those who wield them do, logic dictates that path A is the best way up the mountain, but it doesn't dictate that you should go up that mountain, so blaming it when the expedition dies is really stupid, hindsight trumps logic. Religion is only a tool for non-believers, for believers it's a way of thinking, a set of beliefs, a life-style, a set of rituals they must perform.

 

I can blame anyone and anything I want, just as you can.

 

If you blame religion for the Crusade and Hitler, I can blame atheism for Stalin and all states that tried to destroy religion. Why? Because the core premise is what ultimatively led to it

 

There is a god -> my god is the only one -> the one who don't worship him are idiots -> lets kill them

There is no god -> religion is evil/stupid -> religious people are stupid -> world would be better without religion -> destroy religion, burn down chuirches

 

See?

Justifications and thought processes can vary, but they stem from the same core premise. Could one come to the same conclusion another way, from a different belief/premise? Yes, probably. It is completely possible, and in fact more common than you'd think.

 

 

So let's just leave it at this.

The direction of this discussion is already heading in the wrong direction and continuing will serve no purpose.

Further attemtps to dissects each others post and examples and try to convice eachother of our worldvies is doomed to fail anyway.

[AwesomeOcelot]

You go on and on how science does X things with those beliefs, while religion does Y...which is irrelevant to the point I made.

No, they're not the foundations in either, that's your stance, that you can't even express mine means you do not understand my point at all. I suspect you haven't truly been reading my posts. Go back and read them, if not I don't think it's worth my time to respond.

Why do so many people act like science and religion are some deadly enemies?

Because science and religion are opposites. One assumes naturalism, one assumes supernaturalism. One works with reason and empiricism, one works with authority and faith. There is of course a conflict between these two views, someone cannot simultaneously hold these two views about the same subject, they are in conflict, they have to alternate between them.

If you blame religion for the Crusade and Hitler, I can blame atheism for Stalin and all states that tried to destroy religion. Why? Because the core premise is what ultimatively led to it

What do you even mean by atheism? Most atheists have a lack of belief, they don't have a negative belief in the non-existence of gods, a lack of belief never caused anyone to commit any act good or evil. Even given the premise, believing there is no god doesn't lead to the belief that religion is evil, that's a non-sequitur. Just because the world would be better without religion does not logically lead to burning down churches, that's another non-sequitur. Stalinism trying to purge religious organisations that were opposed to it is not different from Islam and Catholicism purging their lands of competitors. That conflict isn't about atheism or religious belief.

 

Religious belief undoubtedly motivates people to do bad things, because religion can manifest itself in many beliefs about the world, as soon as you allow for supernatural agents to dictate rules and beliefs about the world through revelation, then there is the possibility for good or evil acts. There's a difference between killing because of faith and killing people because they don't belief the same as you, that tribalism happens with or without religion, humanity certainly didn't need another way to separate ourselves but that's besides the point. Killing because of faith is people believing that they shouldn't go to the doctor because God will heal them, as it is written in the Bible, not just revelation but from God himself. Killing because of faith is believing that someone is possessed by demons. Executing people for blasphemy, that's about religious belief.

 

I have no doubt that you will not attempt to understand my position, but I hope other people will read and understand, and see how vapid and inane your posts have been.