Who should the industry pay attention to?
Jim sterling
21% (451)
21% (451)
Extra credits
38.8% (833)
38.8% (833)
Both
30% (645)
30% (645)
non
4.5% (96)
4.5% (96)
"thank god for me"
5.3% (113)
5.3% (113)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: Jim sterling VS Extra credits

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 . . . 17 NEXT
 

I think the reason why Jim Sterling is so popular is that he says things that people already want to hear. It's mass market entertainment. While there is nothing particularly WRONG with that, I don't know that it necessarily lends anything to looking at how to improve the industry. The problem with something being popular is that it doesn't equate to being good.

Extra Credits on the other hand takes an academic approach to looking at issues in gaming. Their analysis takes into account everyone: Gamers, Developers, and Publishers. Now, they usually work with high level concepts rather than more concrete elements, but that's ok, as it turns out, someone has to do the high-level conceptual work before you can create concrete applications.

Also, Jim Sterling wears a lapel coat with a short-sleeve shirt and that I just cannot encourage.

James Ennever:
*snip*... it would be the death of free speech.

Melodramatic much? Anyway, first off, you do not have free speech on Xbox. You are allowed to say and do whatever Microsoft permit, and that's ALL. That's not me saying Microsoft are or could infringe on your free speech, because that's not how it works. Free speech protects you from the government interfering with your right to say what you want. It does not oblige anyone else to PUBLISH what you want to say, that's a separate issue.

Apart from that, I see why it's easy to dislike EC's suggested measures for this. In my not at all humble opinion, the reasons in general falls somewhere in this little sand trap: it's an issue that a fairly large part of the community feels probably SHOULD be addressed somehow, but nobody actually wants to admit how big the problem is, since the problem is CLOSE to all of us in the gaming community, so we do not wish it to be big. Second, whenever rules and punishments are implemented, people worry because if a punishment exists, it could apply to them. Somehow. Even if it shouldn't. Even if it would be unwarranted and unfair.

Personally, I do not for the life of me understand why people can't just be civil. It boggles the mind.

9/10ths of the time I watch an Extra Credits I learn something critical about game development that I didn't know before.

I like their simplicity. They make mistakes - it's hard not too - but they aren't poorly informed or misguided. They're insightful. If you find them way off the mark then you're probably missing something. They tend to say things that are more difficult to understand than other publications that dissect games (instead of their experiences and consumer culture). So they hammer home the simplicity. It's not meant to be demeaning. EC re-explains things to me that I've been passionate about for a long time in such simple terms that now, when I watch, I expect to learn something regardless of the topic. Complex things can never be explained too simply.

I love both Jim and Extra Credits. If you don't love EC and you want to understand the creation of games better - not just their consumption - then you're missing out. There is no competitor to EC. I read everything there is to read from devs about development. I think Will Wright is a genius. I love everything said by Jonathon Blow. Notch and Miyamoto are simple and elegent to such a degree that most people mis-attribute their success. On and on. Extra Credits is the only Extra Credits. If you think you've found an alternative then you don't understand why EC is so good. If their attitude gets in the way of you learning something, then you don't care about the content (and that's fair) or your priorities are mixed up. Jim and EC aren't the same thing.

Jim Sterling tends to get a lot of votes because most people would say "I agree with everything this guy says."

I've seen Extra Credits get bashed a lot because they tell gamers things they don't want to hear most of the time, especially with their Piracy episode, and their Harrassment episode.

I think they both raise valid points overall. I'm pretty neutral with both of them. They both make points I agree and disagree with. An example would be when Jim did a whole video with the premise of "Stealing a game from triple A publishers is harmless, but you steal from an indie developer, then you're the worst form of humanity!" and when Extra Credits did the Piracy episode and said "Consider Pirates your competitors..."

I like them both, and even when I disagree with them, they both raise valid, thought provoking arguments. On the other side, I tend to think The Game Overthinker is a better show then both of them, mostly because you get the interesting storylines at the beginning and end of every episode.

I've been watching EC since the beginning, and somehow I've never felt condescended to. Maybe I just have a superior intellect, hmmmm?

James Ennever:
I donated to that under the assumption that EC would stay on the Escapist.

Well, I believe most did. However, when the Escapist tried to screw EC out of either half the donations or the money they owed EC from the episodes they produced, they started a fight that had no good end.

Abandon4093:

You just don't get it do you.

A person not banning someone for being a dick over a microphone is not the same as someone not stopping a person from beating on someone else. Regardless of gender.

They are not good analogues, ergo the analogy does not work. Do you even understand what that means? Because you're constantly missing the freaking point.

It's not about it being a bad analogy because it wasn't an analogy. It was an anecdote.
An analogy is a comparison of two similair situations to make a point, and that's not what that was. It was a supporting example through story, which is an anecdote.

Yeah verbal abuse is different from physical abuse. Derp.
But abuse is abuse, and no form should ever be tolerated.

Captcha: "have an inkling"

Num1d1um:
Oh god, just snip all of that

I do love the default of "people of differing opinions agree with each other, therefore, one must be an alt". Very classy. In any case, you completely failed to address the point of "free speech" having the ability to cause injury, as well as waste resources, depending on what was said, and you ignored it because you cannot form a rebuttal that doesn't either A: make you sound like a nut job, or B: Undermine your binary position of all or nothing. (Please note the point I'm referring to is the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" and "calling in a fake bomb threat", as I do agree that Zachary went off into a expression tangent).

As to victims in the workplace, you completely missed the point I was making, in that those conditions have damaging effects on people, and its completely unfair that other people would have to suffer because somebody feels like taking things too far. But, even if we do go with your view that victims should just attack the attackers, how in the hell does that solve anything? While the whole "bullies just need to be stood up to" thing might work in 80's movies, it doesn't work in real life the vast majority of the time. In fact, more often than not, showing up a bully just encourages them to step up their game, making the situation far worse, as well as turning the victim into the very thing they would be fighting. Our reaction to situations like this shouldn't be "fight fire with fire", it should be "why on earth is this a problem to begin with"!

We don't put harassment laws into place because we pity the victims, we do it because when the average person hears misogynistic, racist, or homophobic statements, their reaction is that they don't like it, they don't want to be associated with it, and they don't want it around them. Again, this ties into the group mentality line of thinking, where we see someone being isolated for no good reason, which allows sympathy and empathy so step in, and tell us "this is wrong, and this should not be the way things are". Its not that we feel that their defenseless, its that we simply reject the idea that such things should take place.

Am I advocating censorship, or even total political correctness? Absolutely not! I've told racist jokes before, and I've laughed at them. But when it comes to the point that it actually negatively impacts someone's life, I very quickly and firmly draw the line, and that's why that things such as freedom of speech AREN'T a black and white issue. The main thing, arguably the ONLY thing, that one should consider when determining whether or not something should be protected is intent. Is this person just making a joke, or is this person actively trying to hurt the other? It's because of things like this that we have those exemptions to the supposedly iron-clad free speech rule, and I would make the argument that such exemptions are not only beneficial, but necessary to a functioning, civil society. There's a difference between freedom of speech, and anarchy.

Both, sort of.

You see, I'm a fan of the EC crew, myself, and they're both entertaining and good to listen to. I learn a few things, I take an interest, I feel less cynical. It happens. Jim, I've watched some episodes of that are relevant to my interests. Not everything he says I even care about. You put him on the soapbox about SOPA and the like, and I start to take an interest.

When it counts, where it counts, both of them should be quoted verbatim as business practice by industries instead of whatever the hell they're doing.

I enjoy both series to a certain extent and I watch them frequently. I disagree with both of them on some topics but I'm not going to flat-out say that they are shit. Everyone has their own stance on something and I find both of theirs to have some merit to them. I learn a lot from them and compare their arguments instead of blindly following one. That's why I enjoy receiving different inputs from many people within the game community. When it comes down to how they present their argument, I would side with EC mainly for the visual representation of certain areas,(because I sometimes derp at terms I'm too lazy to look up.)and because Jim's shtick kind of makes me cringe.

LastGreatBlasphemer:

Abandon4093:

You just don't get it do you.

A person not banning someone for being a dick over a microphone is not the same as someone not stopping a person from beating on someone else. Regardless of gender.

They are not good analogues, ergo the analogy does not work. Do you even understand what that means? Because you're constantly missing the freaking point.

It's not about it being a bad analogy because it wasn't an analogy. It was an anecdote.
An analogy is a comparison of two similair situations to make a point, and that's not what that was. It was a supporting example through story, which is an anecdote.

Yeah verbal abuse is different from physical abuse. Derp.
But abuse is abuse, and no form should ever be tolerated.

Captcha: "have an inkling"

How about you read a discussion before jumping in half cocked?

Devoneaux made a bad analogy. He was attempting to mirror two situations that had no basis for comparison, in order to demonise people defending one situation as if they were defending a completely unrelated a much worse one... i.e. reductio ad absurdum.

He didn't make an anecdote, or did I miss some light hearted regaling of some past real life incident? He made a logically fallacious analogy by attempting to parallel two hypothetical scenarios that had no business being analogues.

funcooker11811:

Num1d1um:
Oh god, just snip all of that

I can do the snipping too.

I like how you're already calling me a nutjob before I even made the statement you think I'm gonna make. And also, you have to admit that the person I'm arguing with, congratulating another user on their first post because it agrees, raises suspicion. But alts is not the topic.

You asked why on earth bullies are a problem to begin with. Whatever the answer is, I'm sure it's not likely to be "We allowed them to call people names". Guess what's gonna happen when you actually outlaw verbal bullying among children. You think it's gonna stop? Of course not. It'll get worse. Because now you've given the bully another incentive to talk shit. We all know kids do stuff they're not supposed to to be cool, to rebel, or simply because there's that little thing in our minds that makes something we're imminently forbidden to do desirable. Kinda like how you think about the pink elephant when I tell you not to do it. It's the same mechanic that makes abstinence such a stupid thing. Bullying is not something you can solve. Neither is war, by the way, or any kind of conflict. You can dampen it, and, through a legal system, you can punish conflict creators and provide exemplary deterrent to make the rest of the population less likely to create conflict, but it's still gonna happen. Making it illegal will not fix bullying.

You're saying that standing up to bullies is fighting fire with fire, but you don't provide any other method of fighting fire. Tell me, what is the water of that analogy? I assume fire is verbal assault. So water would be.... physical violence? Doubt it, judging from your post. Authority intervention? Doesn't work, everyone knows this. Preventative methods? Apparently, but I explained in the paragraph above why outlawing bullying won't stop it. And you can blatantly see this. If verbal assault is already a crime, which it is, why are we even having this conversation? Because verbal assault still happens. Shows how effective that law is. And yes, widening freedom of speech is not gonna help the victim. So what. The assailant deserves his right as much as the victim does, as it is with any other human right. I won't start talking about article 3, but it's pretty much the same issue.

And lastly, when you step into the territory of defining the gray borders of a gray version of freedom of speech, who is gonna define them, and how? We know that different things are offensive or hurtful to different people. As you said, I could make a joke about gays and some might consider it verbal assault on their person while others will laugh. They could say I was actively trying to hurt them, I could say that I wasn't, how do you determine who's right? Are you gonna make verbal conflict laws case-laws? You say you draw the line where it negatively impacts others, well, that's not one line, and it's not very straight either. So are you gonna have some wonky imaginary boundary that doesn't apply to a lot of people and will undoubtedly create conflict in the very situation supposed to solve an issue, or are you gonna accept that some people may be offended, but have a proper, absolute freedom for citizens?

A person's right to be offended is also part of free speech. Some people may feel assaulted by words, too fucking bad for em. Conflict is part of life. Considering concurrent civilized societies, verbal conflict is probably the most petty of them. People all around the world are fucking dying every single day, and here in first-world countries we have people trying to suppress the foundation of modern civilized nations because someone said something mean to them.

One last thing, this has nothing to do with anarchy. Quite the opposite. It has to do with consistency and avoiding hypocrisy on the side of the state. And yeah, censorship is exactly what you're advocating. Forbidding someone from saying stuff because others might feel threatened or offended. This is exactly what censorship is. Always under the pretense of protection or security. Whether or not a piece of talk negatively impacts someone's life somewhere is entirely dependant on the supposed "victim"'s subjective perception of the speech or talk delivered. The speaker's intent becomes irrelevant at this point, because the listener may very likely misinterpret it, or simply make a wrong assumption, because his perception of the said statement is subjective. You don't base laws on subjective experiences of individuals. So treating every spoken or written piece of speech as an inherently neutral document and leaving the subjective effect up to the listener/reader is a way more reasonable and a way more effective way of looking at speech under the law than to have individuals dictate vague guidelines based on their personal feelings.

Abandon4093:

Krion_Vark:

Abandon4093:

WHAT? How does that make the analogy work?

There is no comparison between someone shouting profanities down a mic and someone beating a woman.

That's like saying 'They came for the Jews continue quote' when someone get's arrested for paedophilia.

There has to be a level of comparability for an analogy to work, and there is NO comparison between someone being rude on a mic and someone beating their wife, just like there's no comparison between someone being persecuted for being Jewish and someone being arrested for molesting children. Regardless of whether or not people have the balls to call the police for domestic violence cases.

I jus.... I don't even. How can you look at that analogy and not cry from the sheer amount of 'does not work'.

It makes it work because if someone is just screaming obcenities into the mic EVERYONE tells them to shut up. Soon as they send it at a woman however no one tells them to shut up and pretty much go the way of NOTHING TO DO HERE and just ignores it.

What the fuck are you saying? No, what the actual fuck are-you-saying?

We're talking about people being dicks down a mic. THAT ISN'T COMPARABLE TO SOMEONE BEATING THEIR WIFE! The analogy is bad.

We arent comparing the action with it we are COMPARING THE REACTION. So the analogy works.

Elamdri:
I think the reason why Jim Sterling is so popular is that he says things that people already want to hear. It's mass market entertainment. While there is nothing particularly WRONG with that, I don't know that it necessarily lends anything to looking at how to improve the industry. The problem with something being popular is that it doesn't equate to being good.

Yes! This is my thought exactly!

When I watch Jim, I feel his show does little more than to deliver a one-line statement in an envelope of jokes. When you've stripped away the packaging, all that's left is that one line, with no elaboration or examination of the message itself. Whether I agree with it or not, I get little feeling as to WHY I should agree or disagree. Even when I disagree with Extra Credits, I can at least feel like they've put forth a cogent argument as to why they think that way, as opposed to grabbing at any hot-button issue and pounding it home with exclamations and vulgarity.

And for the record, I'm not against vulgarity and exclaiming things, but my problem is, I don't find Jim entertaining, and so I don't care for him, even if he says something I agree with. On the other hand, I don't have to look to Extra Credits for entertainment or even for agreeing with, as I find I usually learn something from their discussions.

Also, I feel comparing the two is unfair, as they have very different aims in their videos.

Krion_Vark:

Abandon4093:

Krion_Vark:

It makes it work because if someone is just screaming obcenities into the mic EVERYONE tells them to shut up. Soon as they send it at a woman however no one tells them to shut up and pretty much go the way of NOTHING TO DO HERE and just ignores it.

What the fuck are you saying? No, what the actual fuck are-you-saying?

We're talking about people being dicks down a mic. THAT ISN'T COMPARABLE TO SOMEONE BEATING THEIR WIFE! The analogy is bad.

We arent comparing the action with it we are COMPARING THE REACTION. So the analogy works.

What is this? I don't even....

Peoples reactions to scenarios are sensitive to their context. Not to mention that the context of the subject dictates the appropriate response. You cannot analogue two completely different situations and say the ideal response to one is representative of the ideal response to the other.

That's a redctio ad absurdum.

...... Seriously....... WTF guys?

I don't find Extra Credits pretentious at all. People say that because they are preachy as all hell, and it does get grating. But preachy does not necessarily mean pretentious.

I never 'got' Jim Sterling. Most of his early videos on the Escapist were just trolling with no actual content worth mentioning. I was actually kind of shocked to see something like that on this website. His voice is extremely hard to listen to, almost as if he's trying to be annoying. The way he draws out his vowels all week long makes me wonder if it's affected in a misguided attempt to sound journalistic and authoritative. The alternative is he actually talks that way when he's, say, ordering a sandwich, and that must be damned inconvenient. Just imagine him saying "I would like some maayoonaaaaaaise" while everyone just stares. Beside that, his attempts at humor are just offensively bad. Sometimes I agree with him and sometimes I don't, but his opinions always seem half-baked. He doesn't seem to know any more about most topics than the average forum goer. He sometimes even reverses himself because he didn't bother to research a topic before weighing in on it.

So he's annoying, unfunny in a painful way, and doesn't bring much to the discussion. Sorry to be harsh but that's how I see it.

I like them both.

Jim is what Moviebob should be, funny and insightful while ridiculous and over the top. Cheesy and good fun and occasionally, just occasionally you might gain a new insight.

Extra Credits does a good job of examining a particular issue and offering a solution. I really love how they try to avoid sensationalism or overt bias. I get the feeling they actually want to promote understanding of an issue rather then make a video which is intended to brow beat people to their side. They are what MovieBob thinks he is but isn't.

JamesStone:
The EC crew is just pretentious. Jim does that "exagerated god-complex" thingy to create a fake persona, to make us laugh a little so we can view the point he is trying to make. Extra Credits are just pretentious.

Too preachy and never even admitting it. At least sometimes Jim does say that he either won't talk much about something because he is biased, or when he does, he says that he respects the people who disagree with him. Extra Credits never does this.

I liked EC once. I hated Jim before. Now he improved his show and trought His example he made me see what EC really were: pretentious douches trying to cover it up with false niceness and condescense. Thank God for Jim (hehehehe).

Define pretentious and how EC is an example of this. I see a series of videos done in an academic style that are well spoken, well researched and very structured and completely lacking in personal insults, swearing and slurs. EC takes its points and presents them in the style of a thesis or a lecture complete with bullet points and sources cited. How is presenting information in a respectful, academic style pretentious? If anything it shows a very positive portrayal of gamers.

Krion_Vark:

Abandon4093:

Krion_Vark:

It makes it work because if someone is just screaming obcenities into the mic EVERYONE tells them to shut up. Soon as they send it at a woman however no one tells them to shut up and pretty much go the way of NOTHING TO DO HERE and just ignores it.

What the fuck are you saying? No, what the actual fuck are-you-saying?

We're talking about people being dicks down a mic. THAT ISN'T COMPARABLE TO SOMEONE BEATING THEIR WIFE! The analogy is bad.

We arent comparing the action with it we are COMPARING THE REACTION. So the analogy works.

The analogy is shit, let it go.

OT: Well I liked Extra Credits, but not enough to follow them to a website.

That's like, a whole four clicks away.

James Ennever:
Today I turned coats and ventured into PA to wach the weekly Extra credits, and there I realised something. That Jim sterling Knows more about the online gaming scene than the three of them combined.

They think Gears of War is a first person shooter, so the only thing I can say to this is "no fucking shit."

I pity anyone who watches Extra Credits and thinks that the people who make it actually have any idea what they're talking about. Not being able to tell the difference between first and third person not only shows a complete lack of ignorance regarding games, but a complete lack of ignorance in general. First and third person viewpoints aren't just a gaming thing, and not being able to tell the difference show that they're just stupid in general.

G-Force:

JamesStone:
The EC crew is just pretentious. Jim does that "exagerated god-complex" thingy to create a fake persona, to make us laugh a little so we can view the point he is trying to make. Extra Credits are just pretentious.

Too preachy and never even admitting it. At least sometimes Jim does say that he either won't talk much about something because he is biased, or when he does, he says that he respects the people who disagree with him. Extra Credits never does this.

I liked EC once. I hated Jim before. Now he improved his show and trought His example he made me see what EC really were: pretentious douches trying to cover it up with false niceness and condescense. Thank God for Jim (hehehehe).

Define pretentious and how EC is an example of this. I see a series of videos done in an academic style that are well spoken, well researched and very structured and completely lacking in personal insults, swearing and slurs. EC takes its points and presents them in the style of a thesis or a lecture complete with bullet points and sources cited. How is presenting information in a respectful, academic style pretentious? If anything it shows a very positive portrayal of gamers.

If I may say so, I think some of the smarter arguments for their pretensions is not in their side but rather that what they are attempting to do is something that they are not capable of, that are under a delusion of their ability to analyses certain issues when they aren't able to.

Not an argument I believe but there is some merit.

LastGreatBlasphemer:
The industry should pay attention to the customers they are losing.
I am going to side with EC on this one and say that we are a community, and we are a moderated community. With as much sexual harassment that goes on unpunished Microsoft could honestly be sued. They could be sued for not only allowing the behavior, but due to the lack of punishment actually encouraging said behavior.
The XBLA community is a paid service, and you do not pay to be harassed, so they either need to start cracking down on it, or they need to start providing tools to deal with it. Just hoping it stops is NOT an option at 15 dollars a month, and we see all too often what happens when bullying goes too far.

This is a real issue, and we need to start making progress in these respects. If I were walking down the road one day and a dude was telling a woman to be productive and go suck some dude's cock I would deck him. Through the internet that's not an option, so there need to be options, and guess how often reporting works.

The tools are already provided. You have a mute function. A block communication function. And an avoid player function. Not to mention a report function. What more do you want? A punch player in the dick function? If you are old enough to use the service you should be mature enough to use these tools without mommy MS intervening.

Who should the industry pay attention to? Both!
Extra Credits and Jim Sterling can't even be compared to each other.

Jim pretty much discusses the mood of the industry by giving his two cents about any event and the reactions to said event of the professionals and consumers alike. Every now and then he does get technical about the business aspects of the industry but for the most part he's a journalist who specializes in selling his educated opinion.

Extra Credits will talk about events and recent activities of certain businesses from time to time but most of the time they are discussing the process of game creation and development.

You may disagree or agree with this episode, but it does do a good job of explaining both sides of the issue:
http://www.southparkstudios.com/guide/episodes/s13e12-the-f-word

G-Force:

JamesStone:
The EC crew is just pretentious. Jim does that "exagerated god-complex" thingy to create a fake persona, to make us laugh a little so we can view the point he is trying to make. Extra Credits are just pretentious.

Too preachy and never even admitting it. At least sometimes Jim does say that he either won't talk much about something because he is biased, or when he does, he says that he respects the people who disagree with him. Extra Credits never does this.

I liked EC once. I hated Jim before. Now he improved his show and trought His example he made me see what EC really were: pretentious douches trying to cover it up with false niceness and condescense. Thank God for Jim (hehehehe).

Define pretentious and how EC is an example of this. I see a series of videos done in an academic style that are well spoken, well researched and very structured and completely lacking in personal insults, swearing and slurs. EC takes its points and presents them in the style of a thesis or a lecture complete with bullet points and sources cited. How is presenting information in a respectful, academic style pretentious? If anything it shows a very positive portrayal of gamers.

Being pretentious is making usually unjustified or excessive claims, and EC do this all the time. They make a lot of unsupported claims and makes way to may mistakes for a show build on enlighten people. From simple stuff, see calling GoW a FPS. Things that misleading, see comparing the start of Skyrim with the start of CoD without telling it is not the start of CoD they are showing. To just stating there opinion as facts and build conclusions there are invalid because of it, see their JRPG episode for example of this.
A show especially one the will inform have to make way clear when they are using opinions and making speculations and EC are more than bad at this, they hide them as facts.
I have no problem with a person consider themselves more inform than others, but they have earn that right by being better, making few mistakes and not spreading misinformation.

coldfrog:

Elamdri:
I think the reason why Jim Sterling is so popular is that he says things that people already want to hear. It's mass market entertainment. While there is nothing particularly WRONG with that, I don't know that it necessarily lends anything to looking at how to improve the industry. The problem with something being popular is that it doesn't equate to being good.

Yes! This is my thought exactly!

When I watch Jim, I feel his show does little more than to deliver a one-line statement in an envelope of jokes. When you've stripped away the packaging, all that's left is that one line, with no elaboration or examination of the message itself. Whether I agree with it or not, I get little feeling as to WHY I should agree or disagree. Even when I disagree with Extra Credits, I can at least feel like they've put forth a cogent argument as to why they think that way, as opposed to grabbing at any hot-button issue and pounding it home with exclamations and vulgarity.

And for the record, I'm not against vulgarity and exclaiming things, but my problem is, I don't find Jim entertaining, and so I don't care for him, even if he says something I agree with. On the other hand, I don't have to look to Extra Credits for entertainment or even for agreeing with, as I find I usually learn something from their discussions.

Also, I feel comparing the two is unfair, as they have very different aims in their videos.

In all Fairness, the Original post wasn't about which show was BETTER (in which case comparing two different shows is pointless) but rather which show should the industry pay attention to (In which case comparing two different shows matters because one might be more relevant).

mjc0961:

James Ennever:
Today I turned coats and ventured into PA to wach the weekly Extra credits, and there I realised something. That Jim sterling Knows more about the online gaming scene than the three of them combined.

They think Gears of War is a first person shooter, so the only thing I can say to this is "no fucking shit."

I pity anyone who watches Extra Credits and thinks that the people who make it actually have any idea what they're talking about. Not being able to tell the difference between first and third person not only shows a complete lack of ignorance regarding games, but a complete lack of ignorance in general. First and third person viewpoints aren't just a gaming thing, and not being able to tell the difference show that they're just stupid in general.

Since when wasn't GoW an FPS? Did they suddenly add a bunch of overly angsty characters with ridiculous hair and a leveling system? Or did they make it so now you drive around all the time and race other CoGs around a track for money? Or maybe it's now a game where you create a CoG base and build CoG soliders and send them to fight the Locust.

mjc0961:

James Ennever:
Today I turned coats and ventured into PA to wach the weekly Extra credits, and there I realised something. That Jim sterling Knows more about the online gaming scene than the three of them combined.

They think Gears of War is a first person shooter, so the only thing I can say to this is "no fucking shit."

I pity anyone who watches Extra Credits and thinks that the people who make it actually have any idea what they're talking about. Not being able to tell the difference between first and third person not only shows a complete lack of ignorance regarding games, but a complete lack of ignorance in general. First and third person viewpoints aren't just a gaming thing, and not being able to tell the difference show that they're just stupid in general.

It common in the industry to lump fps, tps, sbs, and any other shooter type mechanic in the shooter or fps category.

Elamdri:

mjc0961:

James Ennever:
Today I turned coats and ventured into PA to wach the weekly Extra credits, and there I realised something. That Jim sterling Knows more about the online gaming scene than the three of them combined.

They think Gears of War is a first person shooter, so the only thing I can say to this is "no fucking shit."

I pity anyone who watches Extra Credits and thinks that the people who make it actually have any idea what they're talking about. Not being able to tell the difference between first and third person not only shows a complete lack of ignorance regarding games, but a complete lack of ignorance in general. First and third person viewpoints aren't just a gaming thing, and not being able to tell the difference show that they're just stupid in general.

Since when wasn't GoW an FPS? Did they suddenly add a bunch of overly angsty characters with ridiculous hair and a leveling system? Or did they make it so now you drive around all the time and race other CoGs around a track for money? Or maybe it's now a game where you create a CoG base and build CoG soliders and send them to fight the Locust.

First person means the use of "I" in literature. In gaming it means that you see things from the characters eyes as in the camera shows what they would be seeing. Mirror's edge/skyrim are first person games.

third person "he/she/it" is when you can see the character on the screen. The camera usually is hovering over their shoulder. Mario and Mass Effect are thrid person.

Gears is a third person shooter in that we always have the camera hover over the protagonist.

Jerry Pendleton:

Zachary Amaranth:

SmashLovesTitanQuest:
Another thing: Jim Sterling is a gamer. Extra Credits are games journalists. Big difference.

You can't be serious. You mean the guy who's an editor at Destructoid is not a games journalist and the guys who preach that understanding the media includes playing the media are not gamers?

The guys at Extra Credits are actually game developers and/or artists.

Errr...I don't think that has anything to do with them as journalists.

370999:

Elamdri:

mjc0961:
They think Gears of War is a first person shooter, so the only thing I can say to this is "no fucking shit."

I pity anyone who watches Extra Credits and thinks that the people who make it actually have any idea what they're talking about. Not being able to tell the difference between first and third person not only shows a complete lack of ignorance regarding games, but a complete lack of ignorance in general. First and third person viewpoints aren't just a gaming thing, and not being able to tell the difference show that they're just stupid in general.

Since when wasn't GoW an FPS? Did they suddenly add a bunch of overly angsty characters with ridiculous hair and a leveling system? Or did they make it so now you drive around all the time and race other CoGs around a track for money? Or maybe it's now a game where you create a CoG base and build CoG soliders and send them to fight the Locust.

First person means the use of "I" in literature. In gaming it means that you see things from the characters eyes as in the camera shows what they would be seeing. Mirror's edge/skyrim are first person games.

third person "he/she/it" is when you can see the character on the screen. The camera usually is hovering over their shoulder. Mario and Mass Effect are thrid person.

Gears is a third person shooter in that we always have the camera hover over the protagonist.

I know, I was picking on him for being anal. Most people use the term FPS to describe First and Third Person Shooters.

EC is thoughtful, educational, and well-composed, Jim is a practiced activist and has a very down-to-earth, common man's approach a lot of gamers seem to associate with.
Yahtzee is just...
Lovely. Everybody loves Yahtzee. You don't even need to take him seriously. You can generally enjoy his commentary without outright agreeing with the points he makes.
All three are excellent journalists, with their individual flaws and strengths.
I don't get the hate.

James Ennever:

Gatx:
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.

Ditto

Thirded

Jim has an instanced viewpoint: he sees a news item he doesn't like, and then he adresses it, calling people on their bullshit and then talking about something new next week

Extra credits has a structural viewpoint: they see a larger problem facing the industry, try to analyse it and come up with solutions.

no absolutes of course, but that seems the general tendency to me.
both have their place.

I like how the people slamming EC and praising Jim are almost exclusively complete assholes about it.

I think for myself. I like both EC and Jim. I think Jim is a bit too direct and rant-y and opinionated and doesn't so much present the opposing arguments as barrel right over them without giving much of a reason for it. EC isn't supposed to be funny and entertaining, though. They say what needs to be said, and they get information out there. They ruminate on various problems and topics relevant to people who actually care about the industry, rather than idiots looking to slam ME3's ending one more time. They actually care to make a good point, argue it well and bring up the opposing viewpoints. When something isn't an absolute, they don't deliver it like that's what it is. Publishers aren't always bad, but that doesn't mean they never do good, etc. Jim would just steamroll right over that little detail...

But yeah, I enjoy both, and for different reasons. EC has been very helpful and insightful for me as a designer, and I never feel like they're talking down to me. Honestly, I would love to meet James. The man is simply inspirational. The whole EC team has done nothing but good, and the show is a huge help for the industry. Jim could be helpful for the industry, but his videos are far from proper messages to be taken directly to the offending companies/games/people involved. EC is the only one of the two that's delivered in a way that can be taken seriously and not as an inflammatory message.

Apparently if Jim Sterling cant figure out the controls on a game hes gives it a low score.See Witcher 2 Assassins of Kings review if you don't believe me.If he got ran over by a flaming bus full of illegal aliens bound for Canada I wouldn't shed a tear.

Never watched EC so I cant say but they have to be better then that fathead Sterling.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 . . . 17 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked