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 . . . 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 NEXT
 

Never watched EC so, I don't give a rat's. Well, technically I think I have a badge taht says I "Watched 3" or something. But I don't remmeber them, probably with good reason

I notice that a lot of Jim's shows seem to be like subtle ads for various games. It's kinda off-putting.

Both are pretentious and arrogant in different ways, and both shouldn't be completely listened to at all.

I highly disagree with poster. I remember when Sterling went up against them briefly during the "Extra Consideration" thing about the school shooter mod. He got his ass kicked. EC guys are way better, and don't have to be asses about it.

Djinn8:

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.

This never fails to infuriate me. I've got some questions for you.

Have you ever championed a game that's personal to you? Yes, you have.
Do you know how Jim records his shit? In his office at home. "Producer" in this case means "someone who puts his videos on the site and pays him." This isn't Late Night, this is a pundit talking about his opinions. Do you really think people give that much of a fuck to pay him to plug their game for one episode?

Abandon4093:

Krion_Vark:

Abandon4093:

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?

If you cannot put them into one analogy then why do they have pretty much the same response? There will be a few people that actually stick up for said person but most of the time people feel that since it doesn't involve them they don't have to do anything.
By your argument you cannot analogue ANYTHING because nothing is the same unless it happens in the same manner by the same people with the same outcome.
Screaming obcenities at someone over a mic is verbal abuse. Beating your wife/girlfriend/anyone is physical abuse. The ideal scenario for both is stepping in and stopping said abuse. The fact that you don't see screaming at someone and telling them they are a whore or a slut fat ugly or stupid simply because they are playing an online game. Abuse be it verbal or physical is still bad and a parallel can be drawn between the two proving that the analogy WORKS.
Hearing someone who is screaming obscenities at someone and just going OH HEY I'll just hit the mute button is similar to seeing/hearing someone getting beat up and doing nothing about it.

Oh and by the way I never disagreed with you that the analogy was bad or not just whether or not it worked. An analogy doesn't need to be good to work.

*Edit* Oh and nice use of latin to try and make it sound important.

ChupathingyX:
At least Jim on the other hand does it in a more joking fashion and doesn't try to shove artistic stuff down my throat.

No-one is forcing you to watch the videos.... -.-

OT: I fail to see what is wrong with how EC put the message across...
How would it be the death of free speech?

Do you -somehow- enjoy having your ears shouted off by some lowlife internet scum who thinks they're better than the world?
Do you happen to like having messages posted on your profile telling you to get raped daily?

It would be the end of free-speech for those who abuse it... Sure, you can say what you want, but there has to be a line in the EULA somewhere that outlines how that kind of communication must be enforced...
And no-one ever reads the EULA so... ignorant pricks who belittle everyone else online can either learn to keep their temper down or GTFO....
honestly, I hope the methods mentioned on EC are implemented... trolls just destroy online communities...

Edit: Yeah, I know the EULA isn't designed to cover online interactions... but.. there must be something devs/publishers can do

JS is, interesting, to listen to but he comes off as a jerk and not very intelligent.

For me EC seems to be more thought out and they have a way of breaking down 'hard complex things' into easy to follow ways.

Num1d1um:
Snip

Let's get something clear, I don't snip because it would make it easy to act like you said things you clearly did not. I snip because otherwise a single post would take up half a goddamn page. You clearly are using it for the former.

First, I never once said you were a nut job. I said you wouldn't respond to those examples, because otherwise you would come off as a nut job, or undermine your position on the subject of free speech, because no matter what, you can't rationally defend that position, which you STILL DIDN'T DO. You still haven't given any reason why yelling fire in a crowded theater, or calling in a fake bomb threat is defensible, because the only person who would say that they are is a nut job. You STILL haven't responded to it, because you know i'm right, and that you have no ground to stand on in that particular case example.

Your second paragraph states that having rules in place against verbal assault would just encourage kids to bully other kids, completely ignoring the fact that no school in america thinks that kind of stuff is alright, and it's been that way for decades. And because i'm just psychic, I can already predict that either you or someone else will point out that bullying has been on the rise as of late, either directly stating or implying that this is due to an increased push in political correctness, rather than the much more obvious reason that the rise in social networking has allowed those same bullies to avoid the repercussions that comes with doing that in real life. They don't do it because it's cool. They do it because they're horrible people who can get away with it.

Don't get me wrong though, it was certainly cute how in the "fire vs fire" bit, you threw out the extreme example of physical violence as your first thought, which honestly says more about you than me (EDIT: Actually, after reading that again, I think its less cute, and more clever. It's a classic debate tactic: Introduce an obviously extreme example that nobody would get behind, eventually working your way down to a facsimile of what my point actually was, with the reader associating that with your original "physical violence" schtick. This makes me think you might be trolling, in which case I still would think its cute, because that would make you another 13 year old with a keyboard who can't tell the difference between "trolling" and "saying things for attention". And yes, there is a huge difference). You're also completely backwards on the law's ineffectiveness. If you disregard all of the people it has helped in general with giving their harassers an actual punishment to face, and how that has prevented a good portion of cases to begin with, then you still have the cultural impact of them. Back in the day, it wasn't an uncommon site for people to be outright killed, just for insignificant and uncontrollable differences, whereas now, we decry such horrible acts, and have driven the people who feel it necessary to spew hatred everywhere to the darker corners to fester quietly. It's very similar to the broken windows theory of sociology. If someone breaks a window to a house, and leaves it unfixed, people begin to think of that as okay. If it continues to not be repaired, more likely than not, other windows will be broken, because that's considered okay, and there aren't any punishments for it. This eventually escalates into larger-scale crime, such as graffiti, which, again, if left untreated leads to even larger scale crime.

Saying that this does not have any correlation to unrestricted free speech is ignoring incredible similarities. If someone in a group starts making bigoted comments, and no one in the group discourages them in any way, (or worse, encourages them), then that very easily becomes normal for that person, and very likely becomes normal for the group. This attitude makes it okay for such bigotry to escalate to a point far past what anyone would've been okay with at the beginning. This is why we currently have this attitude in many parts of the web of "Oh, its okay to drive this person away from our community with hate speech, because we've always talked that way with each other! I'ts boys being boys!". Obviously I could point to that video of the creeper smelling the girl during the Street Fighter X Tekken tournament as a prime example of this, but I doubt anyone on here hasn't already seen it, and already knows how bad these kinds of things can get when we allow them to.

As for the who or what determines it, I think the current system of examining them on a case by case basis is perfect, because as I have stated previously, the thing that turns those "jokes" into bigotry is intent, and you can't determine that with a broad, sweeping law, like you seem to want to. Hell, in my opinion, our current system is just a bit too lenient, given that people can get away with advocating violence in people, as long as they don't directly tell them too.

Again, your next paragraph is cute, because it's pulling one of the most cliche fallacies of them all: "There are more important things going on in the world, x is irrelevant by comparison". If those things are so much more important to you, then you should be going out, volunteering your time and money to fix them, not debating this on a message board.

In response to subjectivity, there is a reason that its not just up to one person to determine the ramifications of someones speech. I have never heard of an example of such a thing happening. The very reason that we do not allow those people to administer the punishment is because yes, it IS open to subjectivity. And in the end, if the majority consensus is that you're in the wrong, there's an excellent chance that you're in the wrong. Do you think that bigots think they're doing anything wrong? Of course not! Its the reason we don't allow THEM to administer their own punishment.

Finally, you're inserting you're own viewpoint into my post by stating that i'm advocating completely removing any and all offensive speech from view, which if you actually read my post, I clearly wasn't. I'm saying that its not okay for people to be harassed under the guise of freedom of speech. I stand by that point, and I always will. Saying that verbal abuse should be given any protection is saying that it's okay. That it doesn't have any damaging effects on the people subjected to it. This is wrong, in every sense. It is not okay, and it certainly does have damaging effects on people. You clearly haven't ever been affected by this, and for that you should consider yourself lucky, because it has other people. Many other people. Saying "oh well, they should just tough it out" isn't some empowering statement. Its disregarding other peoples emotions and experiences, or in a word, ignorant. And ignorance is what allows things like bigotry to continue to exist, and thrive.

Krion_Vark:

Oh and by the way I never disagreed with you that the analogy was bad or not just whether or not it worked. An analogy doesn't need to be good to work.

I'm sorry, but I cant just leave this one alone.
Re-read that quote. Does it still make sense to you? If it does, re-read again, wash, repeat. It would be like me comparing reading that analogy to seeing someone beat their wife next door. In both cases, I end up disgusted, and responding to it to point out what is wrong with what they're doing, albeit with less cops and blunt objects in the analogy's case.

The EC crew are intelligent and thoughtful, experts in their field and provide a great deal of insight. Jim is just an average guy with absolutely no level of insight and no specialised knowledge. While I'll concede there is an extent that the average persons view should be considered it should also be handled with extreme care as they can't be trusted to know what they want or express it in a clear fashion.

I think together they cover the bases. EC gets the broad strokes and helps to educate peeps while Jim is harping on the industry to stop derping about and covers some more specific issues.

I like extra credits, but their all far too ernest and self-important (even down to the carefully selected choice of music) Sterling makes his points just as well as extra credits but in a much more grounded down to earth sort of way.

I suppose they should take both opinions into account but I just like Jim sterling more. He doesn't come accost as I don't know whats the word.. I want to say preachy but that is not quite right. Also EC tends to over think things but that's a problem with a lot of people.

EC is great for information about the industry, however, their opinion pieces are pretty bad. Their opinion pieces end up boiling down to "we should make things better!" How? Just make things better. No, seriously, we need you to express how you would fix it.
That imo is the problem with EC they talk up a storm in their opinion pieces but in the end it's all just empty fluff.
Jim on the other hand finds a problem and proposes and actual solution, he plants his opinion and actually defends it. While I might not always agree with him, I think its far better to have a guy take a stance then the EC guys who just say hey this is a problem and that's it.

Ragsnstitches:

Right, maybe this has been addressed in the subsequent 6 pages, but I felt like I should make a note of something:

EC did not, nor has it ever, challenged the notion of Free Speech. They advocate it, if anything. The recent episode wanted to get one thing out there, and that is FREE SPEECH does not mean NO LIABILITY. The consequence of free speech (or freedom in general) is culpability. Speaking your mind is all well and good, but expecting no consequence is naieve and ultimately foolish in the real world. Why should public gaming be any different?

(and snipped the rest)

Could it be that the notion of "Freedom of speech" is different in different cultures? I been thinking about it since I saw Westboro Baptist Church. From what I figured the freedom of speech protects their right to keep doing it. Well, in my homecountry they would be convicted under the hate-speech lay. We actually jailed a preacher (Åke Green) for calling the homosexuals "a cancer of the body of society"

Actually if you insult someone verbally here, you could be convicted for "misshandel" or assault, the same kind of charge when you physically assault someone.

And you know, I'm fine with it! I don't feel it being a problem, since it is all balanced out pretty well. I could call our prime minister a "st*upid c*nt wh*re" and know one would make much of it. However, I could not call his son that in school.

OT: I like both. I also like Volkswagen cars and potatoes. All these are different things though...

Jim is correct about 25% of the time, while Extra Credits is always right.

Jim Sterling is on the Escapist, Extra Credits isn't... anymore. Simple as that.

But honestly, Jim is more earnest even if he's totally wrong. EC always seem to hide behind their "we're part of the industry, so there" attitude.

There are all kinds of "free speech". There's the law, and then there's "this site banned me because they didn't like what I have to say".

I didn't see anything the Extra Credits folks said as crossing the line. I like how both informed, intelligent, and sincere the Extra Credits folks are. They don't try to be edgy to prove a point. And I think they were the best thing that the Escapist, ever had.

Jim has some decent entertainment and message beneath all the jerk attitude. But I would never put him anywhere near on the same level as Extra Credits. Better than Yahtzee, but that isn't saying much.

Das Boot:

I dont know about you but I would rather have an angry street preacher who is occasionally right then a group of Jehovahas who while they have good intentions dont know what they are talking about and spreading misinformation.

Num1d1um:

Again. Assuming the rightous are weak. Insulting their ability. Falsely connecting force with evil. I'm not gonna argue about your analogy with Jehovah's witnesses, in my opinion they're just as obnoxious and just as fixated on money as any other sect. Sterling gets his point across with overdramatization and force. Claiming this as a sign of immaturity is quite frankly ridiculous, and as we all know, only kids care about being mature and grown up.

Djinn8:

But Jim is not a Frothing Angry Street Preacher, he is more like a Ayatollah using his faith and status as a false prophet to drum up funds for a personal war. Jim is for sale and obliged to plug games at the behest of his producer and the deals they have made (seems to be I-Phone games most of the time). His opinions change on the wind to ensure that he stay's in line with public opinion, and his entire persona is essentially based aroung strong, pre-existing memetic imagary for wide acceptance while promoting a sense of integrity through smugness. Thing is, it seems to work. Looking over this thread is proof enough of it. So to all those who believe Jim to be the voice of the people, go ahead and fly the black flag of gaming. just know that you are only a means to an end.

@Das Boot: Both EC and Jim have their two penny's worth - but both claim to be "the truth." But in my own opinion, I think I believe Extra Credits over Jim as they maintain closer ties with the developers we all with to support. In the end, I guess the whole thing boils down the individual player's own viewpoint and what they find is more amiable to them.

@Num1d1um: I had never intended to come across as insulting toward Extra Credits. Far from it, I hold them in much higher esteem than the Jimquisition. Overdramatisation and force are certainly hallmarks of a childish arguement and an equally childish mindset behind it. It's like a petulant teenager going off in a strop yelling how everything's unfair and how much they dislike their parents.

Maintaining maturity and dignity and coming up with workable counter-arguements while making helpful and insightful counter-argements and suggestions are a hell of a lot more mature than throwing one's toys from their pram.

Now that games are being taken seriously by the mainstream media - it's time to act a little more maturely. As a collective, gamers cannot allow themselves to look like the stereotypical X-box live user lest we get treated like childish idiots to be mocked. Someone like Jim Sterling would hand the conservative types all the ammo they need to glean influence they need for their nefarious ends.

@Djinn8: I never thought of Jim as mercenary or even as a corporate schill. But your comments on how memetic his imagary is coupled with his opinion that seems to change in line with what is judged to be public opinion certainly provided me with a little food for thought. I'd have to see a little more corporate schilling from Jim before I start to think as you do - but you have given me reason for investigation.

Thought provoking post, Djinn! :)

Extra Credits: I haven't watched them since they left the Escapist. When I did watch I enjoyed the fact that they were serious and polite with their arguments. They did tend toward the sappy at times, but not enough to annoy me. By far I enjoyed their story related episodes the most, particularly when they tackled things like sexuality in games in a fairly balanced way. I didn't miss them enough to go to Penny Arcade, but I wouldn't dismiss the possibility that I might go back to them some day. I never found them pretentious personally. I think the semi-formal style of the show provided a great contrast with most of the stuff we have here, I never once felt I was being spoken down to.

Jimquisition: Utterly horrid start. I think it was just nerves though because a few episodes in and he became much easier to watch. His 'persona' isn't offensive, but I'd much rather he used those minutes/seconds to talk more about the issue. His jokes just don't amuse me. I will say that he (particularly recently) tends to act as a great counterbalance to a lot of the other shows we have on the Escapist. There are a few issues that seem to have quite a few of the Escapist content providers dismissing everyone that takes a certain opinion as some kind of manic idiot (For example, ME3 ending outcry and on-disc DLC) and it was certainly nice to see Jim stand up and dispel that douchebaggery in his episodes.

Neither one parallels my opinions perfectly. I think they both serve their purposes and I can't really use one to replace the other.

Everybody is free to like or dislike me at their leisure. I will, however, address one thing that's come up a bit:

The idea that any publisher would pay me to advertise their game on my shitty little show is hilarious and anyone who suggests that should feel incredibly silly.

I am a fan of videogames. I tend to use footage from and love to talk about games I enjoy. Simple as.

Krion_Vark:

Abandon4093:

Krion_Vark:

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?

If you cannot put them into one analogy then why do they have pretty much the same response?

What? They don't have the same response. One might require the person take a time out the other requires JAIL TIME! They are not valid analogues.

There will be a few people that actually stick up for said person but most of the time people feel that since it doesn't involve them they don't have to do anything.

You're talking about the bystander effect which has fuck all to do with anything we're talking about.

By your logic a person being ill in public is a good analogue for a toddler being run over.

The reason these things aren't good analogues is because the optimum response to each is completely different. You cannot compare each of the individual responses and say one means the other is bad.

Again, reductio ad absurdum.

By your argument you cannot analogue ANYTHING because nothing is the same unless it happens in the same manner by the same people with the same outcome.

No, they just have to be good analogues. Choosing a much more extreme situation and creating a fallacious analogue between it and a much lesser one is disingenuous. It makes the lesser seem wrong by association, of which there is none.

Screaming obcenities at someone over a mic is verbal abuse. Beating your wife/girlfriend/anyone is physical abuse.

And verbal abuse and physical abuse are two different beasts.

The ideal scenario for both is stepping in and stopping said abuse.

That's one ideal they share. Taking away their voice is just as effective (if not more) in the case of verbal abuse. Or atleast taking away the potency of their words. The mute button would accomplish this would people just use it.

Both scenarios are different, and you or anybody else putting them both in the same category and saying not stopping one is tantamount to not stopping the other is completely disingenuous.

The fact that you don't see screaming at someone and telling them they are a whore or a slut fat ugly or stupid simply because they are playing an online game. Abuse be it verbal or physical is still bad

Right, they're both bad.

and a parallel can be drawn between the two proving that the analogy WORKS.

Wrong. Using that logic a parallel can be drawn between not returning your library books and murder. Both are bad. Not all bad is created equal.

For n'th time, reductio ad absurdum.

Hearing someone who is screaming obscenities at someone and just going OH HEY I'll just hit the mute button is similar to seeing/hearing someone getting beat up and doing nothing about it.

No it's not! NO IT'S FUCKING NOT! Logically fallacious and disingenuous.

The act of calling someone a name is not the same nor is it similar to the act of beating someone. Therefore the act of ignore someone calling someone names and ignoring someone beating someone AREN'T SIMILAR!

You're creating an argument of guilt by association by disingenuously associating one behaviour with another. Therefore associating the lack of response to one to the lack of response to the other. Ignoring the extreme difference between the two situation.

It is a fallacious analogy and you should feel bad for defending it.

Oh and by the way I never disagreed with you that the analogy was bad or not just whether or not it worked. An analogy doesn't need to be good to work.

But it doesn't work, see above.

*Edit* Oh and nice use of latin to try and make it sound important.

If you can find an easier way of saying 'I followed your argument to it's logical conclusion and the logic used is absurd' I'd like to hear it.

Elamdri:
Am I the only one who likes EC? It's pretty much the only high-level discussion show that exists about games.

Check out 'Campster' on youtube. He does probably more in depth analysis than EC does.

Jimothy Sterling:
Everybody is free to like or dislike me at their leisure. I will, however, address one thing that's come up a bit:

The idea that any publisher would pay me to advertise their game on my shitty little show is hilarious and anyone who suggests that should feel incredibly silly.

I am a fan of videogames. I tend to use footage from and love to talk about games I enjoy. Simple as.

Wow you actually read this thread. Just want to say fair props to you man.

Thank God for Jim!

He is the greatest mind (and artist) of our generation.

Abandon4093:

If you can find an easier way of saying 'I followed your argument to it's logical conclusion and the logic used is absurd' I'd like to hear it.

Well I'm a language student so I'll give it a shot.

Let's see...
'Argument' isn't latinate, as far as I know. It has few synonyms in common useage and non of them are closer to being core.
'Logical conclusion' is latinate, but it doesn't have any immediate equivalent that I can think of. That is certainly the most succint way of phrasing it.
'Absurd' could be replaced with an anglo-saxon word. Stupid, terrible, bad wrong, - but non of those have quite the same connotations and they all sound weak.

There you have it. I don't think anyone with a brain could really accuse you of using an unnecessarily technical or unusual vocabulary to try to sound intelligent.

I prefer Jim. EC is too condescending for my tastes. When I watch Jim I feel like I'm actually watching a human being.

Xifel:

Ragsnstitches:

Right, maybe this has been addressed in the subsequent 6 pages, but I felt like I should make a note of something:

EC did not, nor has it ever, challenged the notion of Free Speech. They advocate it, if anything. The recent episode wanted to get one thing out there, and that is FREE SPEECH does not mean NO LIABILITY. The consequence of free speech (or freedom in general) is culpability. Speaking your mind is all well and good, but expecting no consequence is naieve and ultimately foolish in the real world. Why should public gaming be any different?

(and snipped the rest)

Could it be that the notion of "Freedom of speech" is different in different cultures? I been thinking about it since I saw Westboro Baptist Church. From what I figured the freedom of speech protects their right to keep doing it. Well, in my homecountry they would be convicted under the hate-speech lay. We actually jailed a preacher (Åke Green) for calling the homosexuals "a cancer of the body of society"

Actually if you insult someone verbally here, you could be convicted for "misshandel" or assault, the same kind of charge when you physically assault someone.

And you know, I'm fine with it! I don't feel it being a problem, since it is all balanced out pretty well. I could call our prime minister a "st*upid c*nt wh*re" and know one would make much of it. However, I could not call his son that in school.

OT: I like both. I also like Volkswagen cars and potatoes. All these are different things though...

Some countries incorporate the consequence to speaking out in their legal systems (especially hate speech) but that can be a bit sketchy, as the line between hate and opposition can be a bit blurry sometimes. It can easily descend into public suppression if handled by people with dubious motives.

In other countries there is no legal boundary to speaking your mind, no matter how full of spite and ignorance it may be. In these countries actions are punished, not opinion (though the individuals opinions may be used against them in prosecutions).

However, what I meant by consequence wasn't legal prosecution. I meant how things have a habit of coming back around... if you spread hate speech about race/sex then someone who listens to you commits an atrocity from your influence, you could be socially stigmatised because of it... this is a pretty minor consequence and the most likely one to happen in real life.

But look on the web. Someone says something controversial on a forum, what happens? Well, forgetting the few people who might agree, or the few people who make apathetic responses... most will just turn on the guy with furious anger/strong counter opinions. The guy will usually come out with something like "it's just an opinion" or "I thought we advocated free speech here" forgetting that "free speech" is applicable to all parties, including the opposition.

So I go back to my previous point. Say what you want if you feel it matters, but if you can't handle the opposition then there was no point in speaking out in the first place. Your words are only as strong as your will to defend them.

ArnRand:

Elamdri:
Am I the only one who likes EC? It's pretty much the only high-level discussion show that exists about games.

Check out 'Campster' on youtube. He does probably more in depth analysis than EC does.

I like it, seems a bit more like a review series than a general gaming discussion like EC, but this is exactly the kind of presentation that I enjoy. Thanks for the recommendation.

Reminds me a bit of Nostalgia Critic.

Well, Jim is like a real person, who bears himself in front of a camera and speaks his mind and uses swear words like a real angry person and is true to his morals.

EC is completely in cartoon form with the narrator's voice pitch-shifted up several tones (for some reason), and everything they say is immaculately scripted to a fault.

So basically Jim, because he's like a cool guy who knows what he's talking about, and EC are a bunch of stoic teachers who want to educate me and even though they know what they're talking about, I wouldn't exactly want to buy 'em a beer or whatever. I get the impression from Jim that you could get to know him in real life and be bros 'n shit. With EC I feel like... well like they're speaking from way atop some self-erected podium of importance.

Also Jim makes people butthurt and angry and I admire that in a journalist.

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

Actually, Extra Credits are games developers. Jim is a journalist by trade, on account that he is paid to write about games and the games industry, while Extra Credits make games. At least James does, and I know that Dan is an (ex?-)Pixar employee. But yeah they aren't journos, they're more the equivalent of someone in a profession turning around and becoming a teacher of that profession. They do no journalism.

Andy of Comix Inc:
Well, Jim is like a real person, who bears himself in front of a camera and speaks his mind and uses swear words like a real angry person and is true to his morals.

EC is completely in cartoon form with the narrator's voice pitch-shifted up several tones (for some reason), and everything they say is immaculately scripted to a fault.

So basically Jim, because he's like a cool guy who knows what he's talking about, and EC are a bunch of stoic teachers who want to educate me and even though they know what they're talking about, I wouldn't exactly want to buy 'em a beer or whatever. I get the impression from Jim that you could get to know him in real life and be bros 'n shit. With EC I feel like... well like they're speaking from way atop some self-erected podium of importance.

I kinda disagree with you there on Jim being like a real person. All I see is a unfunny sentient slab of bacon when I watch his shows. Also, he wears short sleeve shirts and t-shirts under a coat with a lapel, that is just unforgivable.

Also, the topic is what show should the industry listen to. Quite frankly, I think with any situation where you have an industry or some other body with power looking to the community for insight, I would MUCH rather have them listen to the educators rather than the unwashed plebs.

Elamdri:

Andy of Comix Inc:
Well, Jim is like a real person, who bears himself in front of a camera and speaks his mind and uses swear words like a real angry person and is true to his morals.

EC is completely in cartoon form with the narrator's voice pitch-shifted up several tones (for some reason), and everything they say is immaculately scripted to a fault.

So basically Jim, because he's like a cool guy who knows what he's talking about, and EC are a bunch of stoic teachers who want to educate me and even though they know what they're talking about, I wouldn't exactly want to buy 'em a beer or whatever. I get the impression from Jim that you could get to know him in real life and be bros 'n shit. With EC I feel like... well like they're speaking from way atop some self-erected podium of importance.

I kinda disagree with you there on Jim being like a real person. All I see is a unfunny sentient slab of bacon when I watch his shows. Also, he wears short sleeve shirts and t-shirts under a coat with a lapel, that is just unforgivable.

Also, the topic is what show should the industry listen to. Quite frankly, I think with any situation where you have an industry or some other body with power looking to the community for insight, I would MUCH rather have them listen to the educators rather than the unwashed plebs.

Sorry, I know this is an aside and doesn't detract from the opinion at hand, but is it actually possible to criticize Jim Sterling without throwing out petty insults like "slab of bacon," "unwashed pleb," other posters with stuff like "fathead". Do you have so little words about his actual quality that you have to compromise and just insult the fellow?

I've never seen anything quite like it, every time "Jim is shit" comes up its accompanied with a plethora of cheap jabs. No other man on the internet draws such brand of ire. I'm honestly interested in this.

Gunner 51:

Das Boot:

I dont know about you but I would rather have an angry street preacher who is occasionally right then a group of Jehovahas who while they have good intentions dont know what they are talking about and spreading misinformation.

Num1d1um:

Again. Assuming the rightous are weak. Insulting their ability. Falsely connecting force with evil. I'm not gonna argue about your analogy with Jehovah's witnesses, in my opinion they're just as obnoxious and just as fixated on money as any other sect. Sterling gets his point across with overdramatization and force. Claiming this as a sign of immaturity is quite frankly ridiculous, and as we all know, only kids care about being mature and grown up.

Djinn8:

But Jim is not a Frothing Angry Street Preacher, he is more like a Ayatollah using his faith and status as a false prophet to drum up funds for a personal war. Jim is for sale and obliged to plug games at the behest of his producer and the deals they have made (seems to be I-Phone games most of the time). His opinions change on the wind to ensure that he stay's in line with public opinion, and his entire persona is essentially based aroung strong, pre-existing memetic imagary for wide acceptance while promoting a sense of integrity through smugness. Thing is, it seems to work. Looking over this thread is proof enough of it. So to all those who believe Jim to be the voice of the people, go ahead and fly the black flag of gaming. just know that you are only a means to an end.

@Das Boot: Both EC and Jim have their two penny's worth - but both claim to be "the truth." But in my own opinion, I think I believe Extra Credits over Jim as they maintain closer ties with the developers we all with to support.

That's not necessarily good, though.

The preachy attitude of Extra Credits doesn't bother me half as much as it does most people because I already know how their videos are going to be bias. They're made from the perspective of the developers and creators of games.

Sometimes it comes across as pretentious and very preachy when they have to explain a facet of the industry that the consumer (which constitutes and overwhelming majority of their audience).

Of course, sometimes they ARE being pretentious: for example see any given "Games are art" argument.
(Conversely, the "Game cannot/are not art" side is equally pretentious and pointless. It really should not matter if games are or are not art from the conceptual level, since whether or not something is art is relative to its beholder)

Sterling's Jimquisition is something of an oddball show. When he first started, it was some of the worst content on The Escapist. He was here to fill the void in the wake of the Extra Credits controversy and that was it.
However, he has improved his show considerably, and a large part of the appeal comes from the snide cathartic angle (rather than the preachy, academic angle of EC). This doesn't make him any innately more correct or incorrect by default; though he is more likely to appeal to the same audience of consumers since he too comes from the same lot.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked