Dethroning Moment / Extra Credits

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.
• 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 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 exclusively a WRPG thing.
• 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 Overcorrectness 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 emotions overtake logic and completely failing to do any actual research on the game itself. 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.
  • 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. They then 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 to 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 was 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 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) and its infamous monetization scheme and the big outrage of players worldwide, then Bungie's several attempts at taking advantage of Destiny 2 and its 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 it was 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/Ubisoft/Activision 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. The best they can say about this controversy that government officials deemed akin to gambling? We should apparently be grateful for the fact that our "video game overlords" have been doing lootboxes and microtransactions.
• xenosnud: Their second video on Robert Heinlein. Where they summarized three of the author's 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 Heinlein's career as just pure criticism rather than performing a true summary and analysis of a influential author's work in the same vein as they did for one of Heinlein's peers, Isaac Asimov. They wrote a video that started off as an analysis of the man's 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 an author's issue is perfectly fair and reasonable (like they did with Asimov and his less than stellar prose) yet, when they made a video about an influential figure and his contribution to the genre, 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's absence of professionalism when it comes to detailing authors with messages they find difficult, while giving only a tertiary overview of an influential figure who helped define science fiction in its infancy.
• Mateu-san: After they hit the bottom of the barrel defending EA's shoddy practices, they dug to China with "Stop Normalizing Nazis," in which James goes off about the alleged problems in playing as the Nazis, terrorists, etc. in a Red vs. Blue style of match. The logic used to defend this viewpoint is the same used by Jack Thompson when he railed against violence in video games: the "depiction means endorsement" fallacy, which was proven false in Thompson's time and certainly doesn't hold up now. James also claims that being able to play as bad guys is offensive to real life bad guy victims, but no two victims are the same; commenters who had to deal with terrorist attacks told stories of playing games like Counter-Strike to cope. The proposed solutions aren't much better. As anyone who's been in a Splatfest can tell, letting people pick a side can cause civil warfare or longer wait times for the popular side (even James knew that), and while simple Red vs. Blue is always an option, it can take away from the game's setting and atmosphere. Special no thanks go to the claim that "you didn't ask for this" (you did when you handed over the 60 dead presidents for the game) and the claim that "games can change the world" (true, but games are meant to be fun, and "change the world" games like De Fobos y Deimos and This War of Mine are only one of many ways to be fun). To quote James himself, this is bad on so many levels. It's no wonder the video has a ratio of ~14K likes to ~190K dislikes as of this writing, and a testament to how the mighty have fallen.
  • Kappaclystica: To be sure, the Jack Thompson-esque ranting was bad enough, but as a Hearts of Iron fan, the video completely blew for another reason entirely. In our community, the matter of potential far-right recruitment via this game has been a major concern, and scrutiny has particularly been given to the way Paradox has dealt with the war crimes of the Axis powers, and the potential spread of hate speech via the game and its communities. The fact of the matter is, for at least that niche of the gaming community, this was a valid and very real issue. The fact, then, that the Extra Credits team utterly failed to do the topic justice makes it all the more worse, as any attempts to discuss the issue will probably bring to mind that video and give them the impression of bluenose Moral Guardians. Ironic, isn't it, that the video probably did as much to help the far-right as any concerns they may have had?
• Nicolaln: Their video in which they defended lootboxes as "subsidizing" the game. One of the reasons I watched this channel back in the day was because they were a voice for the consumer. They spoke against these. I will never forget how they stated they hated the term "Whales"... but then they go around and defend the practices they called out as wrong. I get some people can change, but what the heck happened here. If people are spending thousands of dollars on the game for nothing but aesthetics which they're not guaranteed to get, that's not a good thing - at all. That person might have some serious problems. Yes, they are right in saying that there needs to be more studies on it... because he could site only one major study (Which was not named. Not cited. Just "The only major study".) Once more, this just sounds like them flat out justifying and explaining the things they used to call the industry out on. They also say that one way that these aren't gambling is because you cannot cash out your winnings. What. WHAT. There exist third party markets that let you cash them out - just as there are with trading card games that allow them to sidestep laws saying it's "Gambling". Japan literally does just this to allow Pachinko to exist and that it's legally not gambling. They also say that this is more like a crane game - which are deliberately rigged to not give you a prize every time specifically so you keep funneling in money. (How do they know this much about game design and not know this?) They also compare it to a blind buy box... except they were also criticised for the same thing, even before that article was published. Or even a raffle at the county fair... which, they apparently forgot, are considered gambling, even to the point wherein Canada regulates them as such and some home rule countries even ban them outright. (This is why Patreon does not allow you to offer raffle tickets as a patreon reward.) While the "Nazi" video may be the point in which they turned into Jack Thompson, this shows just how early the decay was setting in to flat out industry mouthpieces and apologists. How much money have they been taking from the industry to say these things? Because I would love to know how much their integrity was worth to them in the end. If the team of the early 2010s saw this, I'm pretty sure they would be cringing at the blatant justifications for abusive behaviours.
• Ruebensandwich: Their episode on celebrating diversity. Not only does their praise of Persona 4 sound like they are praising Kanji simply because he's gay and they think Naoto's trans (Which raises a load of Unfortunate Implications) but it made me legitimately question if they actually played the game they're praising. Or if they simply got all their research from the Misaimed Fandom (Which largely ignores what the characters actually say in favour of "Gay guy&Trans man go brrr") and called it a day - I get it, it takes quite awhile to get to just Kanji's part (Good lord is Persona 4 a very Slow-Paced Beginning) but come on. At least do your homework before praising the game. If Kanji and Naoto had heard you, they'd easily summon their personas and beat you silly - simply because that's not what their character arc(s) were about. They were about how society forces arbitrary gender and sexual roles upon people who don't fit in - which is why their shadows acted so drastic. Heck, Shadow Naoto even acts Childish.
• Master N: Surprised this has not been mentioned yet given the stir it caused, but I am going with their most infamous video since the Nazi one: "Evil Races Are Bad Game Design". In it, Extra Credits claims that they will not be saying that Always Chaotic Evil races are racist, and then almost immediately claim they are racist by comparing them to real-world races and racism. If you see orcs and goblins and think "Africans" and "Jewish people", and call the author a racist, it comes off as Psychological Projection. In particular, they focus on the example of orcs vs Always Lawful Good elves, when in Tolkien's original work, orcs are corrupted elves and there are several antagonistic non-orc elves as well. They also bring up Warhammer 40,000 and try to paint the Imperium of Man as the villains of the setting because of their xenophobia, when a major part of 40k is that every faction in the setting is villainous. They then give several complaints that have nothing to do with game design but are more about storytelling, so the title is misleading clickbait. Also, they seem to think that every game should be like Mass Effect (which has an evil race in the Reapers) and Undertale, massive and complex RPGs where all your choices matter and every enemy you fight is their own character, when many games simply do not have the time or resources to implement this and/or are of genres that would not mesh well with this kind of storytelling. Finally, they claim that treating every member of a race as monolithically evil is bad, but seem to have no problem treating members of evil organizations as such, using the examples of Nazis (of which many were conscripts and/or Just Following Orders) and The Klan (of which several members famously defected after an African-American man simply befriended them). Even then, it is perfectly fine to make members of an enemy faction just faceless bad guys you shoot at, like Nazis in the Wolfenstein series, but don't say it is "more morally acceptable" than evil races. The Mysterious Mr. Enter explains it well in this video and he is far from the only one to do so. Coming from someone who loved the earlier videos Extra Credits made and who actually does prefer stories where different species have the capacity for moral choice, this video is a poor way to argue in favor of such stories, and if you want to make an evil race, that is your right as an author.
• Valos: In the fourth video in their series on Sitting Bull, they talk about how Sitting Bull was murdered and work towards the video series' conclusion, with Matthew remarking that the end of the series "hit him like a truck"...until, in the same breath, he shamelessly used that to segue into the video's sponsorship section, turning an emotional reflection on the life and death of the video's subject into fodder for a cheap shill.

---