I haven't seen the newest episode so I am just going to talk about them in general. I think they should both be listened to for most subjects.
Personally I hate Jim Sterling's rants, but I usually agree with what he is saying in the few episodes I watched, and he does actually bring up good points, just while being a huge narcissistic twat about everything.
I like Extra Credits a lot, they do get preachy, but they bring up valid points and want to see the medium become more... I don't know... cultured I guess, I can't really think of a good word for what they want besides artsy and sophisticated and words I am too tired to think of to describe them, and I support that.
They both are for the betterment of the medium, just in different ways.

Djinn8:
I've not watched the episodes in question, but in general I think that EC stands up better when put under a PROMPT analysis. Note that this is not about how entertaining they are, but each shows reliability.

Presentation: E.C use an even and easily understood tone to convey their message while Jim rants and slurs a lot, sacrificing clarity for a sense of personal voice.

Relevance: They both produce material about games. /shrug

Objectivity: While both have a bias, I think that E.Cs is the more open and honest here, although they want gaming to be considered a serious medium and as such they present their facts with some grandosity. They also tend to sugercoat negitive arguments, but at least they present them in some form or another. Jim on the other hand I feel is a little corrupt. I belive that his agenda is for sale to a certain degree as he often plugs individual games. This makes me question whether or not his opinions are his own or created for page views or regulated by his producer.

Method: E.C have a definate academic approach to what they produce. Jim seems to have no real method beyond opinion which is impossible to argue with or quantify.

Provenance: E.C show sources and they are open with the fact that they are industry professionals first, journalist second. Jim does neither of these but again it comes down to the fact that he produces opinion pieces. He is his own source and he has no apparent qualities that elevate this.

Timeliness: Since they both produce articles on a regular basis they can both be considered timely.

so no good points for jim?

Well there's no doubt about it, the games industry should definitely pay attention to EC. Some of their videos are wonderfully detailed and very well researched. Plus they actually present industry changing ideas which are more often than not quite brilliant.

But I do love Jim's rants as more often than not he presents a very compelling argument, albeit in a slightly less humble way.

Extra Credits, if I wanted to listen to a Fat Brit talking about games I'd listen to TotalBiscuit, at least he isn't a narcissistic prick who drowns his points with his enormous ego.

I prefer Jim in general, but I think my favourite EC episodes are a little better than Jim's. It really comes down to taste.

However I prefer Jim because he represents my opinion more and has a style of comedy that I enjoy. There's also something to be said about how he's managed to win me over despite how bad his first impression was on me.

Num1d1um:
I'll just snip everything

Alright, so you said something that's bothering me, and everyone else either hasn't responded, or is just quoting the laws on the books, which isn't really addressing your point of "this should not be a law because either everything should be censored or nothing should be when it comes to rights such as free speech", and that's fairly distressing because nobody has put why we feel the need to make those kind of laws in the first place.

For things like threats and "fire in a crowded theater", even you would have a hard time arguing that there should be some laws against such things, because of the potential for harm. I shouldn't be able to yell "fire" because it could cause a panic, and somebody could be seriously injured, or even killed, which i'm sure that you're aware is exactly what happened to put that exemption into place. Likewise, I shouldn't be able to just call in a fake bomb threat, because, again, the panic, with the addition of wasted resources of people searching for said bomb. Again, any rational person would agree that such things shouldn't be allowed.

But in regards to why things like a woman being harassed in the workplace shouldn't be legally allowed, is because it ISN'T as simple as "if she takes offence, she can just walk out". She would have to work there, and continue taking the abuse, or quit. I'd hope that you would agree that either of those options are unfair to her.

The thing that people who perpetuate the "sticks and stones" line of thinking forget is that humans are social creatures. The main reason we've survived as a species is because we've stuck together in groups, and have evolved to reflect that. Back then, those who were not part of the group tended to die, so being ostracized from a group was something akin to a death sentence. Despite coming such a long way since then, we still have those old instincts of "part of the group is good", because we still gather in groups, and socialize in a way that compliments that. That's why harassment and insults have such a dramatic effect on people, despite looking innocuous from the outside. They make that person feel as though they aren't part of the group, or that there's something wrong with them. You'd be hard pressed to find any study of human behavior that doesn't say that such feelings can, and frequently do, cause severe emotional distress, which again, just isn't fair, especially when the things they are being insulted for are out of their control (i.e. race, gender, sexual orientation). You can tell them to "just sack up or find somewhere else", but those kinds of feelings are hardwired into their DNA, and its not anyone's place to antagonize them like that.

OT: Extra credits all day, erryday. I've tried multiple times before, and the longest I've managed to last is 3 minutes into Jim's videos before clicking the 'close tab' button so hard I had to get a new mouse.

Both EC and Sterling have made many good points on a lot of subjects. Both have been wrong before too, but in most cases they both seem to at least put some amount of thought and/or research into each topic, which I appreciate.

On the case you mentioned here? Definitely agree more with EC. First off, we aren't talking about something mildly offensive. This is very VERY widespread, extremely graphic things being said both in-game and continued post-game in messages and emails. Yes, you can mute, but I've played online with my girlfriend and wow, just being female gets you waaay more shit. I mean every single game, multiple mutes need the second she opened her mouth. That's a problem, and immaturity isn't going to fix it. We just can't have that.

As for the whole free speech thing OP mentioned, please learn what that actually means. Free speech doesn't mean everyone is obligated to give you a microphone, just that the government won't stop you from giving your piece. The game company has no obligation to give everyone a megaphone. Not to mention this stuff can barely even be called speech, it's just a step up from auditory vomit.

Also to comment on the side conversation I've been seeing (just read the first page), I don't agree with most of the criticisms I've seen of EC. It's called Extra Credits. It's meant to inform people about ideas and concepts and get them thinking on things they didn't know about before. If you go in watching the show already being very familiar on the topic, hey, it wasn't made with you in mind. You didn't need to watch it, don't call them condescending.

Being excited and passionate about games isn't a bad thing either. Thinking they are or can be art is fine too. This is pretty acceptable stuff on a gaming website, not pretentious.

JohnnyDelRay:

Zeckt:
There was one video that made me DESPISE extra credits to the point where I can never take them seriously again, which is ironic because I used to hold alot of respect for them. That one video about joint gaming or something where they think its a good idea for someone playing 5 minutes on an iphone to give a gamer a serious advantage on a full retail game.

That's even worse then day one dlc on the disk, that is a horrid idea. They want to further butcher games and give exclusive perks to some, that the other gamers who do not want to have to play or make their friends / family play stupid iphone mini games to get things that others will never get. Why should they get a serious advantage?

I think that video was done only to try to improve their karma with casuals. They seem to think of themselves as a malevolent jesus of gaming and it really angers me with their arrogance.

I'll take the guy who speaks honestly and goes for the Black Addler type comedy then some douchebag thanks.

Yeah, that's the "Transgaming" episode which pretty much bit the bullet for me as well. Since then, it's hard to take anything they said seriously.

I've never had much against EC, and never felt talked down to, only that I agree with them about 50-50 of the cases they present. Whereas I agree with Jim on quite a lot more, maybe 80-20.

Jim's presentation has improved a lot since the early days, from language to content, but still not quite enough to be taken as seriously as EC perhaps, which is a shame. Some of the messages and arguments that he puts out I feel should really be heard by more, but probably won't get all that far.

And he seems big on keeping things fair for the consumer, which is dwindling in significance these days (I get the feeling that modern gamers now who tell other gamers who complain about things to "suck it up princess" and keep taking it, well maybe they just didn't play games when it was a matter of buying it, taking it home and playing the f'ing thing). Ok, it can do without the portrayal of publishers so strongly as greedy, evil corporate crybabies (that voice he does pisses me off, but I get pissed off when anyone does that), but I guess some people need that in order to get the picture, I dunno.

I do not mind casuals, but unbalencing a game for the sake of cross market promotion is buisness suiside, look at mass effect infiltrator for an example.

Simonoly:
Well there's no doubt about it, the games industry should definitely pay attention to EC. Some of their videos are wonderfully detailed and very well researched. Plus they actually present industry changing ideas which are more often than not quite brilliant.

But I do love Jim's rants as more often than not he presents a very compelling argument, albeit in a slightly less humble way.

Extra Credits is usually very unrealistic. While it's nice to see their perspectives, their solutions are often pie in the sky and even a lot of their perspectives aren't very grounded. Especially when talking about the community or the corporations themselves. James' experiences in the industry are nice on a technical level, but fail on most other levels.

That being said, what I look for in each is different.

Angry Juju:

You're against EC because of something which Jim ALSO does? Just because he does it in a way which seems like a joke doesn't mean that he isn't doing it.

It's the way that they do it.

EC do it in a more serious way and seem to think they are always right (even when they aren't), whereas Jim doesn't most of the time (and has admitted to being wrong before). I would also like to point out that I don't take either of them seriously and honestly don't even care that much.

It's like me saying "I don't like apples because they have stalks, I eat pears instead".

Pears are yucky; apples are better.

Aprilgold:

Just to point this out, everyone here thinks what they say is correct. Thats just how opinions work, and honestly, just because one is more vocal about how they think that their opinion is correct doesn't exactly warrent the hostility that they get regularly.

The problem is when you're objectively wrong.

EC made an episode where they declared that the Courier in Fallout: New Vegas had amnesia which has absolutely no proof and has even been proven wrong by J. E. Sawyer. They then ran with that "fact" and created a whole episode on top of it.

Abandon4093:

Devoneaux:

SaneAmongInsane:
Theres a fucking mute button for a reason. Just because people elect not to use it... ah fuck who cares.

Excuses excuses. A mute button doesn't make the problems go away. It just enables bad behavior.

"Yeah, I know my neighbor regularly beats his wife, but if I close the blinds, then I don't have to see it!"

That's a bad analogy, do you want a better one?

"My Grandad likes shouting racist slurs. So we put him in a room where no one could hear him."

I can't find the video right now but there was an experiment done where a guy one night played a recording of drums really loud then a week later played a recording of a woman getting beat really loud. People came for the drums but not for the woman. So yeah his analogy actually works.

PS: If anyone could find that video I would be grateful because its a really good thing to watch.

What is wrong with you people?
I sat and read all the comments and now I want to take a shower (despite the fact I took shower 2h ago)
Yes, EC occasionally may sound too optimistic and even naive, but "pretentious"? "Stuck up"? "Ignorant"? Really? REALLY???
Why? Because they don't suck purple dildo occasionally or don't claim their opinion is the only one right?
There is criticism and there is dirt. Please, more of the first one and less of the second one.

Zeckt:
There was one video that made me DESPISE extra credits to the point where I can never take them seriously again, which is ironic because I used to hold alot of respect for them. That one video about joint gaming or something where they think its a good idea for someone playing 5 minutes on an iphone to give a gamer a serious advantage on a full retail game.

That's even worse then day one dlc on the disk, that is a horrid idea. They want to further butcher games and give exclusive perks to some, that the other gamers who do not want to have to play or make their friends / family play stupid iphone mini games to get things that others will never get. Why should they get a serious advantage?

I think that video was done only to try to improve their karma with casuals. They seem to think of themselves as a malevolent jesus of gaming and it really angers me with their arrogance.

I'll take the guy who speaks honestly and goes for the Black Addler type comedy then some douchebag thanks.

This absolutely BOGGLES my mind; I just rewatched that episode and I for the life of me cannot figure out how ANYONE could be against the stuff that they talked about in that episode.

I mean, the whole idea of games being interconnected and actions in one game have consequences in a different game, that's the coolest concept I have heard for games in a long time.

Jim just seems a bit more down to earth and tends to talk in a more layman's way, EC however were a bit more upperclass, for lack of a better word. I'm not saying that people here are dumb, but more often then not people like it when things are simpler and less convoluted.

ChupathingyX:

Aprilgold:

Just to point this out, everyone here thinks what they say is correct. Thats just how opinions work, and honestly, just because one is more vocal about how they think that their opinion is correct doesn't exactly warrent the hostility that they get regularly.

The problem is when you're objectively wrong.

EC made an episode where they declared that the Courier in Fallout: New Vegas had amnesia which has absolutely no proof and has even been proven wrong by J. E. Sawyer. They then ran with that "fact" and created a whole episode on top of it.

So people can't make mistakes is your point? Jim probably thinks that he knows more or best about one thing or another in gaming, I know Yahtzee does and several other people on this site, and I know full well that they all, at one point were objectively wrong.

Hell, I wouldn't expect your character to have anything but amnesia due to never knowing anything of what happened to you before hand or even your life up to that point. The player infers amnesia from 3 key factors:

1) Your character goes in search of what exactly happened that night, if they didn't have amnesia this would be futile and would automatically know what they were doing, and probably who had shot them. While this may be to recent, and therefore not remembering it correctly would be most likely in this situation.

2) When you start to actually explore, you don't know what your delivering or to who. If you didn't have amnesia you would also remember. There would have been enough days in-between getting the item and getting shot that you can't excuse it like the first.

3) In Lonesome Road, if you have played it, are aware of the giant twist that you remarkably don't remember, this is the furthest back event in the entire game that forgetting it seems highly unlikely.

Now their point in this episode is that you don't have perks that would relate to your profession that would have taken a deep role in your personality and your physical body. Simply put, if I worked construction, I would be able to lift heavier objects. If I suddenly got Amnesia, I would still be able to carry all the tools necessary for the job and maybe a few tons of bricks. Same thing here. If I was a courier, my overall body would be adjusted to the wasteland and would be able to be a perk giving my basic stats, it wouldn't have required much programming and would only exist for a backdrop for the character, but it wouldn't affect balance.

Their reasoning is the same as mine. If I didn't have Amnesia, I wouldn't have forgotten my task at hand and would have promptly asked where that son of a bitch was. The perk was touched on by them that you could get a perk relating to your years of experience in the courier business, while very simple, would have done loads for exposing any type of actual memories you had, I.E. A perk named Angel Child and Rotten Child, both are lost memories from your childhood that you obtain after a certain level. Rotten Child means that you do more damage but anything you do against a faction leaves a bigger repercussion, while Angel Child means that you do 1 less damage per second, however anything you do to damage a faction is less noticed.

Once again, simple, and completely optional, but gives a bit more personality to your Role Playing experience.

They aren't "Objectively Wrong" as much as "Mis-Led by the writer".

TheKasp:
Well, it changes too much on case to case basis. Bioware right now is basically just EA. The developer have not much to say (I heard something about the ending being made by one person).

But still: In most cases, even if the developer is complet consumed by a publisher we can still diferentiate between "decisions made by publisher" and "decisions made by developer" and thus clear the view on a topic a little more. For example: I am pretty sure that in most cases day 1 DLC is actually not a decision of the developer. In most cases they don't see jack from the sales, they get paid their tarif and a bonus depending on the sales of the final product.
On the other hand, streamlining a game is not a decision made entirely by the publisher. They are in most cases no gamer, they have no clue about this stuff. They see numbers, nothing more. Streamlining a game is a decision of the developer to make the game more accessable. And so forth.

Why do we need to know that? Because then we have a target which we can adress (well, if there would exist a "we"), we can discuss solutions and even give the few people who have influences in the industry the right idea (people like [many might disagree but it's still true] Total Biscuit, Yahtzee and so forth).

On Topic of Extra Credits: I never got the vibe that they work against anyone, they present both sides of the argument, a thing that falls flat whenever consumers start something. And to have a debate, to find the solution we need to see both sides or at least have an idea what to adress.

Agreed, it does change too much on a case to case basis. I wouldn't say most cases though. Many, certainly, but without full knowledge of the entire international game development market, I couldn't really make that call.

Day 1 DLC is an interesting beast. There really isn't a lot that tells us whether the Devs are for or against it, other than devs that openly come out and say they are against it. Many simply say that its necessary for some reason or other, though that may just be because that's what the publisher made them say. I don't doubt that some of them actually believe that BS though.

Agreed that we need a definite target audience to face complaints at, however publishers and devs don't always make who was behind a decision blatantly obvious, and I believe that leads to a lot of confusion in the whole dev/publisher area.

I also don't believe that people feel Extra Credits was trying to work against some party, but more always taking the same side - the side of the Devs. I have not watched a number of the episodes in question, but it seems they will pick what they believe, rightly or wrongly, will move the medium forward, and not what they think will get people the most enjoyment from the medium.
For example, the ME3 ending. I hear they sided with the "Artistic integrity" defence, which I feel is BS but I'm not going into that. They are siding with something they feel will move the medium forward, as opposed to customer satisfaction and allowing the games audience to get their enjoyment out of the game.

Neither side is necessarily right or wrong, its just that both are after separate things. Many people like Jim more than EC ATM I believe due to the fact that he is somewhat more relatable. His arguments on the ME3 ending seem to be for the best interests of the consumers, and he thinks that that will also help move the medium forward by demanding better products from them, whilst EC sides with what they think will move the medium forward by giving Developers more freedom, but sacrificing what audiences may want for this.

PA and extra credits are more concerned with towing the party line. They "discuss" the gaming scene and call out some BS tactics, but rarely point fingers.

Jim has proven that he can change his opinion based on new evidence, supports the consumer, and is more than willing to call industry leaders "cunts." That right there is what earns my respect. Thank G-d for Jim.

I like Jim and he seems like a cool and sensible dude. I wouldn't mind grabbing a beer with him. Can we be friends, Jim?

The EC guys on the other hand, are so full of shit you could fertilize all the fields in Luxemburg with them.

Zachary Amaranth:

Simonoly:
Well there's no doubt about it, the games industry should definitely pay attention to EC. Some of their videos are wonderfully detailed and very well researched. Plus they actually present industry changing ideas which are more often than not quite brilliant.

But I do love Jim's rants as more often than not he presents a very compelling argument, albeit in a slightly less humble way.

Extra Credits is usually very unrealistic. While it's nice to see their perspectives, their solutions are often pie in the sky and even a lot of their perspectives aren't very grounded. Especially when talking about the community or the corporations themselves. James' experiences in the industry are nice on a technical level, but fail on most other levels.

That being said, what I look for in each is different.

Oh there's no doubt that a lot of their solutions are indeed pie in the sky and I think James is mostly aware of this. But I still find a lot of the ideas presented in EC as pretty cool, even if there's very little chance of them being adopted in any shape or form. I suppose I mostly just appreciate the effort made in the videos to present a thoughtful dialogue on topical issues despite its "what if..." format.

I too look for very different things in the two. I do particularly enjoy Jim's no holds barred approach to his videos. It can be quite refreshing after the rather more passive offerings of EC.

I say both brings things to the table that the industry can use. EC brings interesting ideas that aren't usually seen while Jim gives a much needed and more direct smack in the face to all the companies that are doing a lot of stupid crap and making us pay for it.

Are either of them perfect? No but we the consumers can only benefit if the industry listens to both of them.

Aprilgold:
SNIP

The thing is that you're a blank slate so you can fill in the back story.

The way i see it is that if, for example, you choose the "Good Natured" perk that implies that you have always been a good natured person and the same goes for the other traits (including those added by OWB).

1. The Courier did know what happened; he/she was ambushed, shot in the head and left for dead. Unless the Courier has been to Vegas (which they haven't from what i can tell), they wouldn't know who Benny is. There are many opportunities for you to make aspects of the Courier's past aware too (visited Montana, visited New Reno, knows what a fish is etc.)

2. Yes you do, you're delivering it through Primm; it says it in the papers. Plus, the Courier is just some courier; they were given a package and they went off to deliver it, no questions asked.

3. The events at the Divide happened after the Courier arrived and passed through. being a courier you can imagine they would have delivered many packages and wouldn't remember them all.

Now their point in this episode is that you don't have perks that would relate to your profession that would have taken a deep role in your personality and your physical body. Simply put, if I worked construction, I would be able to lift heavier objects. If I suddenly got Amnesia, I would still be able to carry all the tools necessary for the job and maybe a few tons of bricks. Same thing here. If I was a courier, my overall body would be adjusted to the wasteland and would be able to be a perk giving my basic stats, it wouldn't have required much programming and would only exist for a backdrop for the character, but it wouldn't affect balance.

Their reasoning is the same as mine. If I didn't have Amnesia, I wouldn't have forgotten my task at hand and would have promptly asked where that son of a bitch was. The perk was touched on by them that you could get a perk relating to your years of experience in the courier business, while very simple, would have done loads for exposing any type of actual memories you had, I.E. A perk named Angel Child and Rotten Child, both are lost memories from your childhood that you obtain after a certain level. Rotten Child means that you do more damage but anything you do against a faction leaves a bigger repercussion, while Angel Child means that you do 1 less damage per second, however anything you do to damage a faction is less noticed.

But the courier does not have to have amnesia.

Doc Mitchell is just asking you about your details and your trait decides that.

If you were some construction worker then show that when you go to the vigor tester and put your strength up. Remember, you have to imagine it as if you already had those stats and the tester was just showing them to Doc.

That made a lot more sense to me than just reading some book.

As for the tools you would be carrying, there is always the possibility that they were taken off you and Victor wasn't able to retrieve them.

Also remember that the Courier would have been weakened after the incident so he/she would have lost some strength and their abilities could easily degrade after being unconscious for so long.

As for the perks...there are plenty of perks that show what kind of person you were, one of the very first you unlock basically decides what your Courier's sexuality is, Fallout 3 didn't have that option.

There's nothing wrong with wanting your Courier to have amnesia, that's perfectly fine. But to outright criticise the game for something false and because "waaaa, I couldn't make everything I wanted straight away" (that isn't a dig at you by the way) seems misguided to me.

James Portnow is an intelligent and informed face of the gaming industry.

Jim Sterling is a misogynistic piece of shit.

Listen to Extra Credits

I was somewhat confused reading the comments as they where very heavy pro jim but the poll supported extra credits. Then I watched their latest article where they called out attention seekers as being the scourge of the gaming community. I wonder what that says about the number of people who back up their vote with a comment.

ChupathingyX:
snip

I agree that your character of choice doesn't have to have amnesia, but its almost apparent, anyways, I'm not bothering with the latter portion of your post since I mainly agree, but I didn't want to build my character straight AWAY my point was just for a basic random perk that would essentially be the games current stats that would just be +1 to X for being a courier, even if its a non-existant stat, at least its there to provide a slight backdrop that you WERE a courier. The example they used was from a game a while back where, while making your character, you chose your age. Choosing to be 90 meant that you had a perk about how your eyesight isn't all that good but your super wise, being very young meant that you had more dex but were weaker and ETC. Having a small little thing saying that you spent time traveling so you remember what plants DO would be good.

Anyways, after that, heres my response to the point that your character knows what happens.

1) When you start the game your almost instantly told that you were left in a ditch after being shot in the head, YOU DO NOT KNOW WHO DID IT OR WHAT HAPPENED and there is no option later to say "Thanks for only patching me up, and telling me shit I already know." The player knows what happened to the courier, not the courier himself. If you've beaten the game you know who shot you and, in a D&D setting, it would be Meta-Gaming to jump straight after him, your using knowledge from outside the game to give yourself advantage inside the game without your character being any wiser.

Doc Mitchell tells you that he himself patched you up, you at no point can say who shot you, why or what they looked like, you inquire about what he and his goons looked like, you don't know.

Also, more or less, if your courier was worth his salt, he would have visited there ever so briefly. There is no indication that this is your first job or your 90th, just that you got a job to do.

2) Once again, you are told what you were delivering in Primm, NOT when you first start out, again, hinting at amnesia or loss of memory. Your goal in Primm is to inquire about what you were delivering, if you knew what you were delivering to begin with you wouldn't be at Primm asking for what you were doing previously.

3) While thats arguable, the Divide is very, very hard to forget. You are going to be very hard stretched to actually find another place in the wasteland that is this patriotic and deadly. Its like forgetting the Big Mountain or the Happy Trails Caravan and what happened when you went with them. Their so different from your locale of choice that they are surely memorable.

Overall, there is no way that the courier would have not known things such as what happened in the divide, or what you were delivering without having lost memory of some sort. The point, obviously, is a blank slate, but from a generic point of view, there could have been a option to give yourself a random perk instead of using the vigor tester.

I'm not really replying further, because I feel that we hit a nice little conclusion.

Distance_warrior:
I was somewhat confused reading the comments as they where very heavy pro jim but the poll supported extra credits. Then I watched their latest article where they called out attention seekers as being the scourge of the gaming community. I wonder what that says about the number of people who back up their vote with a comment.

Still back them, the type of people they are calling bad people are people I would call bad people, so I'm still keeping that vote there.

Honestly, I think the reason that comments are Pro-Jim is that the Extra Credits fans just don't want to bother arguing, because if your a fanatic for a fat douche who's whole shtick is to be a fat douche, what exactly can you say that won't feel like your being trolled back.

Jim is Opinionated and Ranty, like an older version of Eric Cartman

EC are very good when talking about certain topics
their ideas on videogames as storytelling are really good even if then get a little artsy about it

majora13:

I'm sorry, I just have to: *Ostracized*

I'm sorry, I just have to: *Ostracised* ;P
I'm sorry if I am not the first to do this but I just couldn't resist

I like EC and Jim, but there does seem to be insane and harsh insults against anyone not instantly hating Mass Effect 3 or even Defending them. Problems people seemed happy to ignore before suddenly seem drastically important and irritating.

I never feel Spoken down too by EC, its a demi teaching style of voice designed to speak to everyone rather than just the people in the know. Its no worse then most documentary voice overs such as Attenborough(Admittedly Sir David is 90million super mega times better at it). Stuff like this can't just aim for the people "in the know", the EC style to me seems to shout "some people might not know this" rather than "No one will know this" which is when the dreaded "speaking down too" happens.

Jim's style is aim at who ever the fuck he feels like,Its a Drastically different style than EC's but its one he is very good at. EC try for a more aimed and "teaching" style while Jim just speaks from the heart. EC's can come off as Cold, but are usually more factual and sourced than Jims, which are more heart felt and Ranty, but heartfelt can often either miss the mark by a mile(first 3) or nail it so completely that you watch the thing about 30 times (the recent Games piracy 3 parter and the Gay people in Mass effect ones).

Still, they dared to not want the ending changed in a game, so i guess they suck or something, If Jim had come out and defended ME3s ending, I wonder how different these topics are.

PS

Someone mentioned before that Jim is a bad Journalist due to him changing his opinion. NO, BAD, NO. We need more journalist's who change there opinion due to new evidence. The world is full of journalist's who just stick to what they know and Fox news there way though life.

Extra Credits Work in Games Industry

Sterling Works in Games Reviewing Industy

a critic is once describes as a guy who knows the way but cannot drive a car

One thing to know about the Extra Credits guys.
They're smart, they know what's up and down, maybe a bit preachy but they're right. They have an optimistic opinion of things which is good.
And yes James has a giant ego, but he's also a damn genius.
I got this quote banging around in my head that I can't remember where it's from "Their ego would be insufferable if it wasn't so justified." Is sort of what I think of with him.

And then there's Jim. I love you Jim.
He's smart, he hits the nail on the head, and he's right in the loudest and most pompous manner he can present it in so people will listen.

But who they're speaking to would be two different groups. EC to the Developers and Aspiring Developers.
Jim to the Publishers and everyone else. You can't use honey coated words with Publishers, they're lawyers, they have no soul and have never even had honey. They probably think it's some kind of poison.

Jim has his feet on the ground, EC have their heads in the clouds. We need both for gaming to be "tall", so to speak.

by reading the thread, the vocal majority is for jim, but looking at the votes ec has the most votes. i find that interesting.

irani_che:
Extra Credits Work in Games Industry

Sterling Works in Games Reviewing Industy

a critic is once describes as a guy who knows the way but cannot drive a car

I worked in the games industry. I don't think that my opinions would really be great solutions to any problem. Nor do I think theirs are, or that their previous vocation qualifies them. Not in this industry, anyway.

I can't pick.

That's like asking if I'd like a chocolate cake or a book. They aren't the same, they aren't even similar.

I prefer EC to the Jimquisition, but I like Jim in a broad sense (articles, podtoid, podcastle and the like) even more.

I was on the fence about Jim initially but stuck around cause he made good points, and he's definitely gotten better. For the life of me I cannot look at the pictures though, so I just listen to it as a podcast.

Naqel:
Jim has his feet on the ground, EC have their heads in the clouds. We need both for gaming to be "tall", so to speak.

That's beautiful.