Follow TV Tropes

Following

Dethroning Moment / Extra Credits

Go To

Entry postage rules:

  • Sign your entries.
  • One moment per work to a troper; if multiple entries for the same work are signed to the same troper, the more recent one(s) will be cut. For subpages that cover multiple works, it's permissible for one troper to have entries for more than one work.
  • Moments only, no "just everything he said", "the entire episode", or "this entire work," entries.
  • No contesting entries. This is subjective, the entry is their opinion.
  • Advertisement:
  • No natter. As above, anything contesting an entry will be cut, and anything that's just contributing more can be made its own entry.
  • Explain why it's a Dethroning Moment of Suck.
  • No ALLCAPS, no bold, and no italics unless it's the title of a work. We are not yelling the DMoSs out loud.
  • Please no He Panned It, Now He Sucks!. Someone having a different opinion than you is not nearly a good enough justification for something being seen as stupid or offensive.
  • Creator's works only. No moments on the author themselves or personal experience with them.
  • Creators do not have the privilege to remove a moment regarding their own work. It's their own opinion and should be treated as a form of criticism. If they do remove it, please report it and readd the moment back.


  • BigKlingy: The third part of their "JRPGs vs WRPGs" series, and only the third part. The first two were pretty good, and did a great job of explaining the general differences between Japanese RPGs and Western RPGs in a neutral manner, with the main point being "JRPGs and WRPGs are entirely different genres, comparing them is like comparing apples and oranges". So what do they do in part 3? Compare them. Now, it's clear Extra Credits like WRPGs more than JRPGs, and that's fine. What's not fine is contradicting the main point you spent two whole videos arguing. The third video was one big Author Filibuster on why they think WRPGs are crushing JRPGs, exactly the kind of thing the previous videos said you shouldn't do. They also make all the typical cliched anti-JRPGs arguments, like treating Final Fantasy XIII as if it represents the whole genre, and then said the only reason the Shin Megami Tensei: Persona series (read: one of the few JRPGs they actually like) is successful is that it incorporates WRPG elements. What exactly about the recent Persona games is WRPG-like? The ability to name the main character? That's a trope that's been used in JRPGs for a very long time. But there, all you're doing is giving a name to a pre-existing character, a WRPG would have you create your own protagonist, customizing their appearance and backstory. Dialogue choices? Aside from one of two Bad Endings, dialogue choices in Persona don't shape the story in any way, all they usually do is affect Relationship Values. Romance Sidequests? That's not exclusive a WRPG thing.
  • Advertisement:
  • Vexer: Normally I love the EC guys, but sometimes they can really go off the deep end(I.E. their videos about "Hatred" and "Call of Juarez: The Cartel"), but by far their absolute worst episode bar none would have to be "The Division: Problematic Meaning in Mechanics" which is the worst case of Critical Research Failure and Political Correctness Gone Mad that i've ever seen. It's abundantly clear that the EC guys only played the game for a couple of hours, as they claim the game is about gunning down innocent civilians, which is a blatant lie as all the Non Player Characters you have to kill are hostile to you from the start and all belong to violent gangs which kill and terrorize innocent people. They also assume that the game is "racist" cause the enemies wear hoodies, they apparently did not take into consideration that the game was made by a Swedish developer, so it's very likely they did not realize that people would misinterpret it. The EC guys also painfully try and make a case about how the game is supporting Totalitarianism, which it clearly is not since society itself has collapsed, also their points about being "judge jury and executioner" fall flat considering New York is under martial law, which means due process is suspended. I could go on and on about how many errors that video has, but my overall point is that the EC guys were letting emotion overtake logic and completely failing to do any actual research on the game itself, and in the past EC were good about responding to criticism from people about their videos, but not anymore it seems, as they never apologized for the inaccuracies in this video or the ones in the "Cartel" and "Hatred" episodes.
  • humrh360: Probably the most blatant sign that they've gone off into being egocentric pseudointellectuals is their "Perversion Subversion - Examining Hentai Sensibility" video. The video more or less takes several gags seen in recent Japanese games at face value, overanalyzes it, and completely miss the main point that it's a gag and it's there for fun. It's become more and more clear of how puritanical they've become in their ideals, and how they don't truly understand gamers, only their own ideological echo-chamber. It makes me all the more ashamed to have been a fan of them in their early days, and grateful that I lost interest in them when I did.
      Advertisement:
    • Early on, they talk about double-entendres being "acceptable" whereas slapstick is "disturbing", when such a scale of measurement based on morality is pointless. The quality of the gag isn't about morality, it's about execution. Everything else comes down to personal taste. Proceed to overanalyze it as "exploring topics that are uncomfortable to talk about in public by using humor so that it's easier for people consent to it". What? It's humor. Take a bloody joke, god dammit.
    • The crew's "analysis" of sex-related gags and elements throughout Yakuza 0 amount to sexual-negativity reminiscent of Fundamentalist Catholic preachings. They treat the "idol cards" Side Quest as if it's straight up stalking, miss the entire plot of the Side Quest where Kiryu buys a porn mag for a kid, and let the humor of the Side Quest where Kiryu helps a timid Dominatrix become more assertive fly right over their heads.
    • When they get to Persona 5, it becomes possibly the most egregious case of them Complaining About Shows You Don't Watch, as they talk about how the sexually predatory nature of the game's Starter Villain were presented as revolting (as the game intended) only to talk about how later Yuusuke Kitagawa, an aspiring genius artist, requesting something of the same nature, though without the same motive, is presented as humorous makes it hypocritical. To go into early game spoilers: Yusuke requests Ann, the only female team member at that point, to model nude for him. Naturally, the heroes reject this. However, when the arc dungeon sees a dead end (due to the dungeon being a cognitive reflection of its master, who happens to be Yusuke's mentor), the team turn the nude modeling request into an opportunity to infiltrate the dungeon master's home and remove the source of the dead end. This results in one of the game's funniest comedy skits. However, it's clear the Extra Credits team barely took the time to actually experience the game's story as they miss out on this. This, as well as everyone about Yusuke's character, who as an artist, has a penchant for the dramatic, but is quite eccentric due to acting with pure and noble intentions, but being unaccustomed to social norms, resulting in his behavior coming off as intrusive or discomforting until he's directly told.
    • They also briefly touch on the character Sadayo Kawakami, the player character's homeroom teacher who becomes a Confidant and potentially a romantic partner. However, they incorrectly claim that the player can date Kawakami without consequence, when anyone who's pursued a romance with her (or just read the wiki) can attest how she tells the player character to come back after he graduates from high school to prevent undue pressure on him as she is completely aware of the unethical nature of having a relationship with a student.
  • FlashRebel: Following the scandal caused by Star Wars Battlefront II (2017)'s infamous monetization scheme and the big outrage of players worldwide, then Bungie's several attempts at taking advantage of Destiny 2's playerbase to force them into buying their microtransactions while forgetting to fix the game, and the greater and greater stigmatization of microtransactions in AAA games in general and loot boxes in particular, to the point that governments in several countries are considering regulating video game monetizations themselves, the Extra Credits team had the gall to make a video to defend microtransactions in games that cost 60$ to buy, even claiming that AAA video games are currently vastly underpriced and should cost more upfront. Following the reactions of viewers that didn't buy this and from other Internet personalities (Jim Sterling among them) calling out their bullshit, Extra Credits doubled down with another video detailing the creation costs of a typical AAA video game, again full of crap and misinformation. That's right: a Youtube channel claiming to love video games as a medium and to want them to be taken seriously defended a monetization practice that got so out of hand that governments worldwide are starting to take the case very seriously and threaten to take it into their own hands by forcing regulations on the video game industry, and did so via lying to their viewers' faces. Way to go, Extra Credits!
    • patriciovalencia117: Couldn't agree any less with this point. The most insulting thing about their vouching for microtransactions and lootboxes in $60 games is that it goes against everything EC stood for in the past. They've claimed that games should respect players, how psychological manipulation via skinner box systems are bad, and that better management could increase profit margins and improve player experiences. But here, they threw out every ounce of integrity and consideration even though it has been proven by scientific fact that loot boxes exploit gamers for making more money (thank you MatPat for explaining everything like a real human being). Talk about betraying all your ideals and disrespecting your fellow gamers.
    • Raygunguy: For me while the corporate apologizing was heinous, that wasn't what made me give up on the series. What did was how in the next video. In their follow up video, they did not respond to any of the criticism they had received. Instead, the crew treated what they said as gospel then made more stupid statements based on their faulty assumptions.
    • Psyga 315: This video always rubs me the wrong way because it just feels like they're saying that EA did nothing wrong. But it gets even worse when you listen to the horror stories of video games produced in that way, such as a guy who was a former gambling addict who had to stay away from his favorite game because they introduced gambling mechanics.
  • xenosnud: Their second video on Robert Heinlein. Where they summarized three of the authors major works and critiquing major aspects while mentioning their influence on science fiction primarily as a footnote. Then moving to commenting on the later period of Heinleins career as just pure criticism. Rather then performing a true summary and analysis of a influential authors work in the same vein as they did for for one of Heinleins' peers, Isaac Asimov. They wrote a video that started off as a analysis of the mans career only to veer it into saying what they disliked about the man's mentioned philosophy. While at the same time overlooking two of his major works. (the man who sold the moon and Time Enough for Love.) Bringing up a authors issue is perfectly fair and reasonable. (Like they did with Asimov and his less then stellar prose.) Yet when they made a video about a influential figure and his contribution to the genere. They summed up all his worlds with surface level details without further context which runs counter to the purpose of the video and illustrates EC absence of professionalism when it comes to detailing authors who messages they find difficult. Given only a tertiary overview of a influential figure who helped define science fiction in it's infancy.

Top

Example of:

/
/

Feedback