The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
[PATV] Extra Credits s3 ep13 - Call of Juarez: The Cartel
Bogey
I'm back, baby!Santa Monica, CAModerator Mod Emeritus
I'm back, baby!Santa Monica, CAModerator Mod Emeritus
Posts
I've seen some of this game through the Giantbomb quick look, it is pretty horrible in numerous definitions of the word.
And that Bad Guy achievement, I... what?
See also: the sex trafficking misinformation
BTW I found this on YouTube:
You might feel like criticising it after watching it.
And just curious, what are people's thoughts towards the previous two titles in the series?
Maybe it is just me but I expected a more in depth look at how the game is poorly made. The only point made in this episode seems to be 'This game did poor research on several subjects and it was especially bad because these subject matters are srs'. While the Extra Credit team did make a point, they focused on one idea out of the many other possible game flaws this game might have had. And I'm pretty sure there are plenty of games out there that suffer from bad design leading to bad content but I was really hoping that the Extra Credits episode would illuminate the less obvious reasons why this game worse overall compared to those other games.
EDIT: And while misconstrued information presented in a game is pretty awful, Call of Juarez: The Cartel is still a video game loosely based on the real world. For all intents and purposes, it is still a work of fiction and the designers of the game can meddle with the facts however they want to fit the game. It just seems to me that the argument made by the Extra Credits team is awfully similar to the age old arguments that the mainstream media make when they criticize video games for corrupting the youth of today, i.e. bad research/content == bad design vs violence and sex in video games == corrupted youth. As anyone who has ever played a video game should know, this just isn't true.
In the end, the whole episode seemed to go off course like a nerd rant about how the game misinterprets the drug war/human trafficking and could definitely have given a better argument about game design. Who knows, I'm probably missing the point that this episode is a follow up to the previous one that I didn't watch.
I am disappoint.
Streaming 8PST on weeknights
There you go. The entirety of this episode builds on the framework established in the previous one. Comparing Extra Credit's to ZP is like comparing apples to oranges. Both are fruits but their content is quite different.
STEAM
In my opinion I lost all respect and attention for Yahtzee when I realized he's less a person who hates bad games and more a person who hates things. I keep waiting for him to one day claim he's grown tired of food and slowly starve to death. It doesn't take much to point out this game's shoddy AI or poor shooting or co-op design based around being a stupid fucking foreskin to the person you're supposed to be teaming with...other than eyes. In fact ignoring the sort of blatant racism and misinformation that would have you banned on Fox News' forums seems like the mark of a really terrible critic. Imagine if this were any other medium. Imagine a film critic reviewing Song of the South and saying it's inappropriate for modern consumption because it has poor editing.
Yes you're right it really does only rally around one point (if you ignore the accidental racist indoctrination, portraying the heroes as people who start gang wars, and the general shitty hooker choking nature of the protagonist) but to be fair it is pretty srs bsns (which is to say the sex slavery business harharharhar).
Again, look man, pointing out how calls informing you of new mission objectives happen mid-combat when said mission increases your gamerscore for killing all the black people...that's just missing the point entirely.
No. Just....no.
Maybe you missed it but a previous episode made the very salient point that we can no longer hide behind "it's just videogamez lul". If you want the mainstream media to respect videogames enough not to instantly assume any game about Iraq is disrespectful swill that awards points for executing US troops or that Mass Effect allows you to rape people over the internet you don't also get to let something this reprehensible slide.
Huh, funny, I feel the same.
Call of Juarez is a game about the tragic drug war in that was catalyzed by racism and xenophobia that uses racism and xenophobia as it's rallying point. It gleefully ignores it's potential to expose people who otherwise wouldn't to a serious problem and instead misinforms it's audience in a way that only furthers the sort of attitudes and policies that keep said tragedy going.
Fuck Techland.
Fuck Blazej Krakowiak.
Fuck Dead Island.
Fuck the Chrome Engine.
Fuck Call of Juarez.
Being a work of fiction and creative license does not suddenly give it immunity to criticism, especially when it is inspired by actual events that are happening right now.
UrQuan, if you were really expecting them to give a basic review of the game, you've probably missed the point of the entire series. Extra Credits isn't about reviewing games, it's about analyzing video games as an artistic medium and ways to improve it as such. In addition, "fictionalizing" is something that can only work so far, especially when the source material is something that's happening as we speak. There's a fine line between creative license and outright falsification. The portrayal of sex trafficking in CoJ is clearly the latter.
Honestly, I'm having a hard time figuring out which scenario is worse. That the makers of CoJ actually believed the stuff they put into the game, or that they thought that portraying the realities of the drug war would actually turn people off from buying it. Neither paints them in a good light.
Steam: pazython
On the bright side at the end of the video EC said they hoped it would be the heaviest topic that they cover, and hinted at something more fun next week. YAY. Is anyone else still holding hope for that voice acting video topic?
Nope, you're horribly wrong.
Missing the point is an understatement. Discussing the mechanical issues of this game is like discussing the KKK's sense of fashion.
Again, I do agree with the points being made by the Extra Credits team, that there are lazy design choices behind CoJ:C and that the designers probably didn't think too much about the consequences of their design. However, I disagree with how they are over eager to put blame on lazy design and I still feel that they are addressing the issue from only one (weak) angle, missing other plausible factors.
For example, if we are to legitimize games as an artistic medium, how did we forget to compare it to the alternatives? I'm pretty sure that there are solutions to combat propaganda or misinformation, whether it is presented in books, tv or film. I believe that there are enough similarities that aren't brought up at all in this or the previous episode.
Judging by the reaction in this thread, the latest episode sought to and succeeded in pushing the emotion button. This is exactly the kind of behavior that discourages any sort of intelligent discourse. I do hope that Extra Credits steps away from the emotion, focus more on the analysis and come up with possible paths to take to solve the problem in the upcoming episodes.
As a side note, perpetuating offensive/misconstrued information has existed and will continue to exist, whether intended or not. It is good that people have a sense of outrage when things are such: This means that they do know of an alternate, more plausible viewpoint as compared to the narrow, singular viewpoint of misinformation. If having multiple viewpoints aid in uncovering the 'truth' in media, then I'm all for poorly designed games.
Streaming 8PST on weeknights
Like what? You don't point out anything that is another factor in your post. What did you want them to look at? How is it weak when the purpose of the series is to discuss video game design, and the ethics therin? Sure they could do a documentary on he drug war, but that's not what the show is about.
Such as bringing attention to it and educating the audience? That's really the only tool you can use. It's also what the show is doing this episode.
Only emotion here is incredulity that you are arguing against it. Your defense of a fairly reprehensible game seems out of sync with your assessment that there are other, more important problems with the game beyond the content of it's narrative. Are poor controls or whatnot more important with the perpetuation of lies about a real problem in the world? That's what your argument comes off as, whether it was your intention or not. I think the reaction is fairly justified.
So, by this argument, you would support a game to depicting the Columbine Shootings with the main characters being superheroes senselessly slaughtering other children in their righteous crusade. Because obviously everyone who will be playing this game knows about the shootings and be horrified, so that justifies it. Right?
This is probably the worst justification for supporting hatespeach I've ever heard of. It's ok to call someone in the street a racial slur because after all most people will be horrified so it's healthy, right?
This is what you are saying here.
Roger Ebert needs to see that people who play video games can think after all (although IMO this was probably never true until this episode was published).
Team Fortress 2 Backpack: Someone you love
Racist media is racist media, intentional or not all it does is harm public perceptions.
If you're worried about the mainstream media, then how can you justify the existence of any vaguely `real world' first-person shooter?
There will always be questions about whether you can have a war movie that does not, as a basic function of trying to entertain an audience, simply aggrandize killing. In the same way, I think there will always be questions about the veracity of a shooter game, whether it's tasteful like your Brothers in Arms, your Ace Combat, and your Bioshock, or just another in a long line of shooters where you literally get money for killing people. (I don't have any particular personal problems with games in this genre like Army of Two, The Club, etc. but they do tend towards the "turn your brain off" end of the spectrum, so they work as an example.)
I think it's important to remember, though, how many variables can create snags in game design. With video games in particular, it can be a practical impossibility to have two or three departments (animation/modelling/texture artists/voice over) collaborate and maintain the proper dramatic tone for a single scene. I'm reminded of an interview I read with Haze's scriptwriter where he detailed some of the original, more graphic things he wanted to include in the game in order to make the player start second-guessing the Mantel forces he's fighting with. There was even mention of a rape scene viewed as the player passes by a doorway in the original script that couldn't go into the game. Imagine how horrifying that could be if it was included in the game and not treated with the proper respect?
I guess my point is that having a design crew that is clearly concerned about the messages they're sending tends to earn points from critics, to a degree. And to an industry that is awakening to the possibility of self-respect...it trumps the designer who makes something passably fun but clearly morally bankrupt.
But as EC pointed out, it is possible to do justice to a somewhat sensitive topic...it just requires the crew to be conscientious of their material. If they take shortcuts, ("lazy design") you get disingenuous, inflammatory, exhibitionism entertainment like Juarez. Why they attempted any kind of story at all is beyond me, frankly. The game might have worked if it didn't give you such an irredeemable context for the whole thing.
Ka-Chung!
Ka-Chung!
Paths of Glory
Well I suppose that's the rub, isn't it?
Did you know that previous war movies covering Vietnam, Korea, WW2 and others have sold like gangbusters in the US but with the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, only The Hurt Locker gained any financial success? Not to mention the fact that the Modern Warefare series focused much more on a fight with russians than the Middle East.
This is where I would write something about a creative threshold for violent media and that relating it to the real world requires some special things. But I can't keep it simple because its a complex reality. I can't honestly critique what UrQuan says while much of America enjoyed Inglorious Bastards. What seperates that work of fiction for CoJ:tC or that band of brothers reboot? How is it okay to distort killing the enemy World War 2 and killing an enemy in CoJ:tC?
Its complicated and we can't take responsibility for other people's actions and what games they buy.
Call of Juarez: The Cartel is a bad game with lazy design. It fails as a video game. It also sets back our favorite medium because on the path to shitty game, they decided to take the story of Juarez mexico and use it as the vehicle to traverse the path to shitty game.
Its like taking a classic mustang, going clubbing, getting sex/booze/mustard stains on the vintage upholstry, and then wrapping it around a streetlight.
They could have taken any other vehicle/setting and done the same thing, but its extra insulting and detrimental that they chose THIS vehicle/setting.
Some people don't realize everyone has calmed down about video games. Those people also write long posts about how video games are under attack and will never enter the mainstream or something.
No don't look at these hundreds of millions of video game consoles sold with each generation. The mass adoption is imaginary.
More like the LAMEstream media!
I could be wrong about that last one, feel free to call bullshit, I'm thick skinned.
To be honest, the last year I've seen generally little blurbs about video games from, say, Fox News, but even though didn't blow up into, "LOOK AT THE POISON IN OUR SOCIETY." They were weak attempts to start that shit. I think a lot of us are just so on guard from that shit that we expect it at every turn. Things will mellow out with time. In the future every once in a while a video game will get massive negative attention, but at about the same rate as any given TV show or film. So meh. Things have gotten better.
Brilliant!
It's not so much the media as the population as a whole. There's a lot of people watching the news or FOX for their information about what's going on in the world. If videogames are depicted as children's toys then they will not be taken serious by people. Any other mass media that is taken seriously has produced works of art, pieces that have inspired people to do better and informed people about subjects we hardly knew anything about. It seems Extra Credits wants to do that with video games as well. They enjoy games, they make games and know they can do much more than what they're being paid to do now.
If you don't give a shit about this, that's fine. I guess that means you're fine treating games as simple toys? 's just that other people would like to play other kind of games as well. Being taken seriously just opens the door to more kinds of videogames.
It's not that I think the mainstream media is lame, it's that I just don't care about it. Games are still getting released and still selling more than movies or music, maybe more than the two put together at this point. Why do I give a fuck what some person I would probably never talk to out of choice thinks about them? Do you think movie fans give a shit when a new Human Centipede comes out? No, they ignore it and wait for it to go away.
What I'm saying is you shouldn't give a fuck whether other people like your hobby.
Anyway, I think that this fact should have been addressed in the video, especially since I got the feeling that it was just assumed that the developers were Americans familiar with American sensibilities.
I doubt that people who make World War 2 games/movies were alive during the war, or have even been to Europe/Asia. People don't have to have personal context to create something that is good. All it takes is maybe a day of research to get at least some basic facts straight.