Jimquisition: Better Does Not Mean Good

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

"Things in the game industry could be worst."

The subtitle/caption below the video.

He means worse, right?

The Raisin Bran made me laugh out loud, well played.

I think this is what I really like about Jimquisition, he actually reads his criticisms and addresses them.

Ragsnstitches:

When gamers chastise a developer about a game for being "consolised" or being dumbed down, arguing that the developers don't care about their franchise and fans that follow them, ignoring the fact that the "streamlining" is intended to make a game more accessible to people with less tolerance to inefficient/unwieldy designs, and that audience being just as entitled to the games as you (but not as patient with games as you) since they will pay for it with money that is of equal value to your own... . Ergo, Entitlement. Your investment is equal to theirs, you have no real ground to argue otherwise (beyond feeling entitled).

Funny. Usually when I see a complaint about games being "consolized" it's because of a UI design that might make sense on a console controller being used on a PC, where it BECOMES "inefficient/unwieldy." And if our money is just as good as theirs ("worth just as much as theirs, like you said"), why should we have to put up with a slapdash lazy UI simply because they expect to sell more copies of the console version?

You're exactly what Urh was talking about, misusing the word "entitled" to be a bad thing. Of course we're "entitled" to a game that works on our systems. We paid for the goddamn game.

Complacency. Now that's a word I loathe.

Also, great job in the introduction about the Extra Credits/Jimquisition debate. The blatant cereal box placement cracked me up because of how unexpected it was.

Revnak:

Aureliano:
Here's a comparison for you: the Jimquisition is to sushi like Extra Credits is to lead paint. You can consume both, but only one of them makes you dumber the more of it you take in.

Yeah, sushi has never done right by my digestive system. Clearly only morons would eat it.

Great episode as always Jim. However, can I still point out that games actually used to be more expensive when people start complaining about how much more expensive games are these days? I think that should still be totally legal.

If you live in the U.S., then it will probably be legal until Jim becomes president, and starts the ball cutting with his wooden sword.

In seriousness, you can still make that argument, but please add to it so you have a good reply for this "Better =/= Good".

Or don't. It is your choice after all.

Captcha: know your rights.
You know I am now ok with this now living machine watching me. Is that better, or worse?

The people in europe who whinge... Isnt just Europe, its the rest of the world, and even then its clearly a minority who says that games being more expensive in the rest of the world is a reason not to whine about prices in general, But I think they are more like the people who shake their heads at American who whine about theri gasprices, which are the lowest 'in the world' Their gameprices is also, just about the cheapest in the world if you dont take piracy into account. Ofcourse loweing them in the US would lower it for everyone else, but I still think they make a valid arguement.. Doesnt mean it aint a fact though. As you said, publishers do what they can get away with. And they noticed that they could get away with not making the price of games smaller, even though the type of money was worth more than the dollar. So Europeans end up paying like 30% More just because they pull a cheapasstrick like that.

Imp Emissary:

Revnak:

Aureliano:
Here's a comparison for you: the Jimquisition is to sushi like Extra Credits is to lead paint. You can consume both, but only one of them makes you dumber the more of it you take in.

Yeah, sushi has never done right by my digestive system. Clearly only morons would eat it.

Great episode as always Jim. However, can I still point out that games actually used to be more expensive when people start complaining about how much more expensive games are these days? I think that should still be totally legal.

If you live in the U.S., then it will probably be legal until Jim becomes president, and starts the ball cutting with his wooden sword.

In seriousness, you can still make that argument, but please add to it so you have a good reply for this "Better =/= Good".

Or don't. It is your choice after all.

Captcha: know your rights.
You know I am now ok with this now living machine watching me. Is that better, or worse?

I'm not trying to argue that the games industry is really good today. I just love to fact check people, even if I agree with them. I've gotten into a couple really weird arguments here because of this.

Worse. It keeps telling me to eat Little Caesar's. I loathe Little Caesar's. It also keeps giving me captchas with italicized letters in them that it appears they want me to type italicized.

I admit, I laughed my ass off when the Raisin Bran cereal box was presented.

And I find it hard to believe that some people accuse you of corruption. Then again, these are probably the people that see corruption in anything.

targren:

Ragsnstitches:

When gamers chastise a developer about a game for being "consolised" or being dumbed down, arguing that the developers don't care about their franchise and fans that follow them, ignoring the fact that the "streamlining" is intended to make a game more accessible to people with less tolerance to inefficient/unwieldy designs, and that audience being just as entitled to the games as you (but not as patient with games as you) since they will pay for it with money that is of equal value to your own... . Ergo, Entitlement. Your investment is equal to theirs, you have no real ground to argue otherwise (beyond feeling entitled).

Funny. Usually when I see a complaint about games being "consolized" it's because of a UI design that might make sense on a console controller being used on a PC, where it BECOMES "inefficient/unwieldy." And if our money is just as good as theirs ("worth just as much as theirs, like you said"), why should we have to put up with a slapdash lazy UI simply because they expect to sell more copies of the console version?

You're exactly what Urh was talking about, misusing the word "entitled" to be a bad thing. Of course we're "entitled" to a game that works on our systems. We paid for the goddamn game.

Well in the case of Skyrims UI, yeah you would have a right to complain. That system was slapped on generically for all platforms, not even trying to take advantage of a keyboards extra functionality. It's clunky and unintuitive, contrary to what the developers said it was.

But consolised is misused to describe simplification. Take skyrim again, they have slowly removed/altered/merged features from previous instalments in the series, taking out the clutter and adding more reward for level progression rather then the gradual imperceptible climb of games like Morrowind. They also kept the feeling of scale and grandeur that the series is loved for and crafted an amazing landscape to explore. As a result of this, the game has become increasingly popular with larger and larger audiences, while also upsetting some core fans. It's not unreasonable to have misgivings about these changes, but sometimes the criticism boils over into "you owe us this and that" when in fact, they don't. They offered a full game filled with original content made on a AAA budget and you (may have) paid for it, not only that but the developers have been regularly updating the game to fix the content already on offered AND have started adding content for free.

Just because you have been with the series for x number of years (though not many people go further back then morrowind) does not give you creative control over where the series is heading next. The developers saw their system as inaccessible to people who would have paid for and enjoyed their game otherwise and made alterations over the years to find a sweet spot where as many people can be happy with the product as is possible (hint, we're not there yet). You got what was offered and you paid for it, just because it may not have achieved your expectations or standards, does not mean the developers have to bend over and alter the game to your idealised image of it. For every one who didn't like the removal of hand to hand as a skill, there are others who didn't care for it or prefer skyrims approach to it (damage based on armour rating or your gloves, if you get the right perk).

Again, by all means, let the world know what you don't like about it. I won't stop you and I won't argue unless I disagree with the assumptions being made. But don't feel like they owe it to YOU and a you alone... because you are only one of hundreds of thousands, to millions of people who also paid for the game. If anything, they owe it to their customers so if people agree unanimously, let it be known. They will have to listen.

So what now? "Better does not mean good" or "better does not mean ideal"? Because I for one see a giant difference in both.

Good implies that it can be better. Ideal don't. And you yourself admittet it was worse = today the situation is better aka good in comparison. But it can still be better and it's still a long way to ideal.

Does anyone else find Jim's slowly developing "camp-ness" to be rather endearing?

Thank you, Jim.

And can we have a shout out for the "just because they're assembling a firing squad and blindfolding me, doesn't mean they intend to shoot me" attitude, while we're at it?

Hopefully I am not the first to post this... good points all around, but no one, NO ONE is EVER denied ER/ICU care in the united states as of a lack of ability to pay.

Revnak:

Imp Emissary:
[quote="Revnak" post="6.373432.14436720"][quote="Aureliano" post="6.373432.14436664"]

Captcha: know your rights.
You know I am now ok with this now living machine watching me. Is that better, or worse?

I'm not trying to argue that the games industry is really good today. I just love to fact check people, even if I agree with them. I've gotten into a couple really weird arguments here because of this.

Worse. It keeps telling me to eat Little Caesar's. I loathe Little Caesar's. It also keeps giving me captchas with italicized letters in them that it appears they want me to type italicized.

Oh, my bad. That is a whole different story then.

Also, I am pretty sure the captcha is suppose to try and trip you up every once in a while. You know just in case you are a very smart robot.

As for advertising something you don't like a lot. I think the machine learned how to troll.

Ragsnstitches:

Just because you have been with the series for x number of years (though not many people go further back then morrowind) does not give you creative control over where the series is heading next. The developers saw their system as inaccessible to people who would have paid for and enjoyed their game otherwise and made alterations over the years to find a sweet spot where as many people can be happy with the product as is possible (hint, we're not there yet). You got what was offered and you paid for it, just because it may not have achieved your expectations or standards, does not mean the developers have to bend over and alter the game to your idealised image of it.

I've personally never heard "consolized" being used that way, but I'm not so solipsistic that I'll assume it never has been.

So, a fair enough point. But, on the other hand, there are absolutely no grounds for finding fault in a gamer saying "I hate the way you over-simplified the TES series with Skyrim. If that's your new design philosophy, then I won't buy any more of your games." They may say it less eloquently, but it's a perfectly valid position.

The problem comes when you mix corporate marketing with a legion of customers constantly reeling from delusions of persecution. That's where this "entitlement" bullshit started. "Marginalize your detractors" is PR 101. Some corporate mouthpiece used the term to be dismissive of customers who took some objection to some (probably scummy) behavior on their part, and the fans, who rival politicians in making enemies of people who disagree with them, ate it up.

The Raisan Bran Thing: too obvious.

I've been guilty of that on the price thing, and probably join the corporate overlords that hear such complaints, not as "newer and niche properties need to be priced atractivly" but as "I want to buy Skyrim for 30 bucks." This perception is an issue as the ME3 ending issue went off with most commentators just jumping to the assumption that it was just another in a list of complaints that can be summed up as "tailor the industry to me and my deisres".

I say such things, not to build compalcency, but to at least give perspective that not all of the industry can be summed up in EA's corporate boardroom. There are a lot of people that have and do bend over backwards to improve the games and the industry, and you just have to look at how far we've come to see that. So aside from maybe a thank you e-mail for the 99.8 percent of ME3 bioware got right, we could at least quit acting like internet complaining is the last defense against an industry activly trying to rip us off.

Remember how people said that Transformers 3: Dark of the Moon and Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith were "better" than the other two movies in their respective trilogies? Yeah, pretty much the same basic thing here.

VonKlaw:

lord.jeff:
Truthfully I'm pretty happy with the $60 price tag, it seems pricey but I get ten plus hours of enjoyment out of games so it's worth it, plus games drop in price rather quick so just wait six months and get it at half price. Some of the other stuff that is crap.

Except the problem is that it isn't just good games that are $60, with the rest being priced based on how long they are, multiplayer.etc - they are ALL $60 at release. Just because you are happy to pay that for a game that might turn out to be shite, doesn't mean everyone else should be.

That's what research and reviews are for, not to say I haven't regretted but I never regretted a purchase before but I never regretted a full price game purchase before because I never paid full for a game I may enjoy, if your willing to pay $60 dollars for a maybe your either too impatient or a foolish consumer. The way releasing at fixed prices work is if you release a game that isn't worth $60 it drops quicker the fixed price helps protect us from games like Skyrim or Call of Duty for being released at $80 or above because people would be willing to pay it.

I'd also like to say that complacency is bad but that doesn't make the opposite of being a squeaky wheel a good thing, as Jim says in his Boycott episode.

I really hate that attitude that you because someone else has it worse you can't complain. Glad you addressed it.

This video seemed to be more of a counter to the whole "1st world problem" schtick I've seen getting thrown around more and more than a criticism about the gaming industry. And said schtick was just as retarded the first time as it was the last time I heard it.

So for that I'll thank jim.

I never fully understood that mindset, "It could be worse." Simply because you want more doesn't make you a greedy and entitled asshole.
I can't help but roll with my eyes when someone uses the word "entitled". It has been overused so much in the industry and mostly falsely used, that it has lost it's meaning to me. It's just a word that the companies throw around to try and shut up consumers who complain and many magazines are helping them for some reason.
That's why, whatever my opinion is on the ending of ME3, I really liked that the fans voiced their discontent and actually called the company out.

targren:

Ragsnstitches:

Just because you have been with the series for x number of years (though not many people go further back then morrowind) does not give you creative control over where the series is heading next. The developers saw their system as inaccessible to people who would have paid for and enjoyed their game otherwise and made alterations over the years to find a sweet spot where as many people can be happy with the product as is possible (hint, we're not there yet). You got what was offered and you paid for it, just because it may not have achieved your expectations or standards, does not mean the developers have to bend over and alter the game to your idealised image of it.

I've personally never heard "consolized" being used that way, but I'm not so solipsistic that I'll assume it never has been.

So, a fair enough point. But, on the other hand, there are absolutely no grounds for finding fault in a gamer saying "I hate the way you over-simplified the TES series with Skyrim. If that's your new design philosophy, then I won't buy any more of your games." They may say it less eloquently, but it's a perfectly valid position.

The problem comes when you mix corporate marketing with a legion of customers constantly reeling from delusions of persecution. That's where this "entitlement" bullshit started. "Marginalize your detractors" is PR 101. Some corporate mouthpiece used the term to be dismissive of customers who took some objection to some (probably scummy) behavior on their part, and the fans, who rival politicians in making enemies of people who disagree with them, ate it up.

I agree. It's a persons right and prerogative to do whatever they want with their money and say what they feel and why they feel that way. But I draw the line at demanding things from folks you have no grand investment with bar a few hundred quid of your pocketmoney (over many years). You have a choice as a consumer, buy or don't buy. It is this choice that affects industry globally. We as consumers speak with our wallet. Pro-consumerists will tell you this all the time... (that and transparency of the market, still not there yet though)

And yes, there is bullshit to the entitlement card.
When a Reviewer/journalist/critic/representative tells his audience they are being entitled little kids, pairing up the guys who are being whiney babies, with the guys who make valid concerns known, under one label. That's bull. It diminishes the value of everybodies opinion and makes the masses angry by association. It makes the consumer out to be some rabid animal that needs to be leashed and controlled for their own good. That's grossly offensive.

Here's an attempt to concisely define the proper and improper use of the entitlement argument: Anything that is demanded in excess of what you paid for, based on preconceptions of the final product that did not meet YOUR standard, or self-convinced notions of the importance of your presence to the company, is an issue of entitlement.

Anything that is officially promised but not delivered, or delivered in shoddy condition, or delivered underhandedly or lacking respect to the paying consumer, is an issue where a consumers entitlement is actually not being fulfilled. A person has a right to demand what was offered once money has been exchanged and has a right not to be shafted for a quick buck (or to be treated like a pirate etc.).

Of course, these are very rough and need some working, but I believe a distinction needs to be made between what a consumer gets and what a consumer expects to get. They are distinctly different outcomes.

Aeonknight:
This video seemed to be more of a counter to the whole "1st world problem" schtick I've seen getting thrown around more and more than a criticism about the gaming industry. And said schtick was just as retarded the first time as it was the last time I heard it.

So for that I'll thank jim.

I was literally about to write the exact same post, this would apply to those people who throw "first world problems,man" when ever someone brings up a legitimate complaint about something in their lives.

That was a very well thought out episode. It gets old when people throw "it could be worse" around like they do. It could always be worse, so that is just a stupid thing to say. It's not constructive in any way and it shows how single minded people can be. God forbid we should wish for things to be better today then they were yesterday. We should just be thankful that malaria isn't wiping us all out like it is for other people I guess. Maybe we should just be happy that we have food in instead of worrying about eating healthy. I should be happy if I get a job for $10/hour instead of trying to get the one that pays $22/hour. It's just a line of thought that is both never ending and utterly stupid.

Edit: I'm a hardcore optimist. I may be the most optimistic person I know, and sometimes the "it could be worse" attitude is helpful to maintain optimism, but that doesn't mean that is the way everyone should look at everything. We should never just be happy with what we have and never want more. It's not human. Even people who live in a monastic lifestyle don't sit there and say they should be happy with what they have. They are always trying to increase their overall spiritual happiness, which is a palpable thing. Likewise, people who are starving and then get food find other things to aspire to have when food is no longer their primary concern.

DVS BSTrD:
This episode could have been a lot worse.

It could have been. It could also have been better, much better, it could have had a free bowl of raisin bran.

templar1138a:
My response to someone telling me "It could be worse" on any topic:

By that logic, only one person in the world is allowed to complain, and that's the person who has it the WORST. So if I have to shut up, so do you.

I hate being told it too, so condescending. Like there's always that one cunt who, when you're having a shit time of everything, will come along and say "oh hey they're starving kids in africa you should be thankful". Maybe he should should shut up before I feed him to the starving kids in africa.

For those wondering, that box does indeed come from my own private Raisin Bran reserve.

The Australian accent was freaking hilarious.

Valid points all, Jim... but this isn't just a problem in one industry. You're essentially complaining about unrestrained capitalism and not offering up any sort of solution other than "have the game companies stop being dicks".

If anyone wants this shit to change, they'll have to organize worldwide boycotts... and even then you probably couldn't get enough people on board to make a difference. Too many people are content with what they pay. Still, by all means, bitch about it. Who knows who might be listening?

I admit that I do often have an "it could be worse" attitude when it comes to games (not everything, this is specifically for games) However, not to get snooty, but I feel like I'm allowed to say that because I'm not in the group of people adding to the problem. I'm fine with waiting for a price drop for new games, I'm fine with not paying for DLC that I don't really need. I have very little sympathy for people who do things that they don't have to do and then complain about the outcome.

So yeah, it can be a lot worse...but we all have the ability to make it better on ourselves without the big bad developers having to do anything.

When I see someone complain about paying sixty dollars for a game, I usually just roll my eyes and tell them "Then don't pay sixty dollars for it. You CHOSE to do that. No one forced you."

If everyone in the world suddenly stopped paying $60 for games and waited until the game becomes 40 or so, I'm not gonna say it could totally change the way things work, but at the very least we'd have less people complaining about $60 games because nobody would be buying them. It'd be like complaining about those albino baboon colonies on Io.

Also, I know this isn't the place for this, but even before the giant thread popped up, I've always liked the contrast between Jim and Extra Credits. Because even if they're on completely opposite ends of an argument, they both usually bring up some very valid arguments. Which just goes to show you that there really is no right answer to a lot of these issues.

My capcha here is "easy as cake" apparently it agrees with me.

Ragsnstitches:

targren:

Ragsnstitches:

When gamers chastise a developer about a game for being "consolised" or being dumbed down, arguing that the developers don't care about their franchise and fans that follow them, ignoring the fact that the "streamlining" is intended to make a game more accessible to people with less tolerance to inefficient/unwieldy designs, and that audience being just as entitled to the games as you (but not as patient with games as you) since they will pay for it with money that is of equal value to your own... . Ergo, Entitlement. Your investment is equal to theirs, you have no real ground to argue otherwise (beyond feeling entitled).

Funny. Usually when I see a complaint about games being "consolized" it's because of a UI design that might make sense on a console controller being used on a PC, where it BECOMES "inefficient/unwieldy." And if our money is just as good as theirs ("worth just as much as theirs, like you said"), why should we have to put up with a slapdash lazy UI simply because they expect to sell more copies of the console version?

You're exactly what Urh was talking about, misusing the word "entitled" to be a bad thing. Of course we're "entitled" to a game that works on our systems. We paid for the goddamn game.

Well in the case of Skyrims UI, yeah you would have a right to complain. That system was slapped on generically for all platforms, not even trying to take advantage of a keyboards extra functionality. It's clunky and unintuitive, contrary to what the developers said it was.

I played elder scrolls IV and Skryim both on console (my sister wants to play, her computer is shit) before the PC and I have to say, the skyrim UI isn't even console-centric, it's just horrible shit all around, worst UI I've ever seen or used. I think it is so bad that I think bethesda should just pay the guys who made skyui some amount of money and patch it in on consoles (although for all I know that's impossible for some reason)

The gamers that are so eager to let the big publishers fuck them up the ass are usually the younger ones from what I've seen. Well, compared to those who were there in the NES and 90's PC days when there were more than 3-4 companies controlling the industry anyway.

The same kiddies that love companies dictating what can go on their mobile devices and how to use them, and readily repeat, like the good corporate lap doggies they are, that used games are basically stealing and as bad as piracy, as if used games are a sudden invention... instead of games, video, and music media being resellable for over 35 years.

"Sure, I paid EA to screw me over and root through my personal items, but hey, they at least used lube... which I had to pay extra for... " -Origin user

I am shocked and disgusted that Jim Sterling has obviously sold his integrity to the shrimp companies. Don't think I didn't see you pushing their products at every opportunity, Jimbo!

When will Big Shellfish stop trying to squirm its multi-jointed digits into our pockets?

Ragsnstitches:

Just because you have been with the series for x number of years (though not many people go further back then morrowind) does not give you creative control over where the series is heading next. The developers saw their system as inaccessible to people who would have paid for and enjoyed their game otherwise and made alterations over the years to find a sweet spot where as many people can be happy with the product as is possible (hint, we're not there yet). You got what was offered and you paid for it, just because it may not have achieved your expectations or standards, does not mean the developers have to bend over and alter the game to your idealised image of it. For every one who didn't like the removal of hand to hand as a skill, there are others who didn't care for it or prefer skyrims approach to it (damage based on armour rating or your gloves, if you get the right perk).

Again, by all means, let the world know what you don't like about it. I won't stop you and I won't argue unless I disagree with the assumptions being made. But don't feel like they owe it to YOU and a you alone... because you are only one of hundreds of thousands, to millions of people who also paid for the game. If anything, they owe it to their customers so if people agree unanimously, let it be known. They will have to listen.

To be honest, "consolised" generally means easy and unrewarding to play in my book. Bethesda softworks are fairly savvy though - having continued to support their modding community they could leave things out of the game that would be guaranteed to be added by modders and because of that not so much of a problem. Bioware on the other hand I think have made huge errors with their games working with EA, I suspect that enough of their fans don't trust them any longer and sales will not meet expectation. Gaining new fans at the expense of not meeting the expectations of existing core fans is a dangerous game; GTA IV sold well, but I don't know anyone who is looking forward to V enough to risk buying it at full price.

The key mistake made by those who like to wield the "entitled" card around in my opinion is that they seem to think folks like me want games to be designed specifically for core fans: that's a totally wrong assumption; we want choice. I had the same argument about anime over twenty years ago - the lack of a subtitled option for purchase led to massive piracy through fansubtitling which still persists today. When the option to play a game in my own style isn't in the game, well I'm not going to buy it am I? Devs and publishers expect me to buy it - that's entitled, but the truth of it is I'm simply not.

Players who have identified with and put vast amounts of time into a product shouldn't have to feel alienated "just because" devs want to make the game more accessible to a larger audience. Like a real life relationship, it's the little things that add up, and it's the little things that keep getting cut out of gamings' most popular franchises so instead of a stellar product we end up with mediocrity. Sure Bethesda Softworks or Bioware have delivered what they set out to, but I can't think of one reason why that should make them immune from receiving scathing criticism from the people who have supported them for so long and understand those games better often better than the devs do.

My favorite part of this episode was the God of War advertisement plastering
"BEFORE HE WAS A GOD,
HE WAS A MAN."
above Jim's head.

Unfortunately, Jim, you are weak on this point. There is no "fair", "too expensive", etc. If people buy 2 games the same week for 120$ then that means they can and that it was not a problem. If you don't like the way the games are made, sell, or protect themselves or not then don't buy them. If people are keeping EA rich then EA is doing fine and has not moral obligation to change. Games are not a basic human right. They are not like water, air and shelter where we will all suffer and die and therefore have no choice but to pay exorbitant fees and get ripped off. They are entertainment. If you can't afford 15 games a month then make better choices and play fewer games.

I put 80 hours into Dark Souls, still love it and payed 35$ for it. I hate DLC (on-disk or not) and have never purchased one or purchased games that are crippled without the DLC. That is called freedom. They can make and sell what they want and I am free to buy it or not. All your moralizing and judging is ultimately ruining the chance for real understanding of the issues.

What is your suggestion? That we make laws protecting gamers from right wing games practices. Maybe Socialist gametopia is more your thing where games are made by and for the people and we all share in the profits.

I always find it funny when people villainize corporations that they keep rich. EA is kept rich by gamers. Its player ignorance and greed that allows these practices to flourish not game companies doing what all companies do; try to make the most money possible. Once you understand the basic logic you understand that this is democracy and as long as you maintain your freedom to choose then you are not being taken advantage of.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here