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 . . . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 . . . 17 NEXT
 

The industry should listen to us. But if I had to choose I'd say Jim.

Botht the Jimquisition and Extra Credits provide insightful, factual, well-researched topics and expert opinions to topics both in and out of the video game community. The both listen to their followers and are always looking out for gamers and those who deal in the game realm.

The industry should be paying attention to both shows in order to learn how to better serve their consumers and appease to the gamers in general.

Jim. Every time I watch him, I'm about to start shouting "YES! YES!!!!"

Neither is wrong, and there's no reason to put them against each other. Opinions are opinions are subjective are opinions and they're all valid and credible.

ThePenguinKnight:
The industry should listen to us. But if I had to choose I'd say Jim.

Thread winner right here everybody, we can go home now.

Such open hostility towards EC yet the poll says otherwise, makes you think don't it? Anyway I'm going to paraphrase Jim by saying that if you like EC then you win, if like Jim then you also win but if you're like me and like both then you win twice.

I really like both shows, but for different reasons and Jim is my preference.

Jim's arguments tend to have more weight with me because he calls out people who NEED to be called out and isn't afraid to say it like it is.

Extra Credits is much more idealistic, which is both a strength and weakness. On one hand, they're always extremely civil and tend to worry about solutions to many problems. On the other hand, they seem a little too preachy at times.

Toilet:
When I watch Extra Credits now I usually cringe at how their artsy pretentiousness is played straight and they actually take what they say seriously. Also James oversells himself, he is the "CEO" of Rainmaker Games which is pretty much a title that lets him gallivant all over the place advising, talking and writing about videogame development of which he has little to nil experience. The dude is a sleazy conman who only seems to want to stroke his own ego.

Here's a perfect example of why I think so many people feel EC is pretentious.

English majors are often criticized for their overanalysis of books. Those outside the major are like "There's no way the writer came up with 'this this symbol this motif that'", etc., as they feel English majors overglorify their favorite medium. English majors likewise find that most other people don't understand their points because they don't live working with the medium everyday. Of course, you also see film critics go through the same thing (I think MovieBob regularly has to deal with this and he regularly rants about, if need be).

It's also why I am feeling a little miffed that "pretentious" is the term everyone has chosen to use.

Really guys? You're acting like having some kind of idealism is somehow BAD for the industry. While I do like Sterling's show, while I do sometimes not watch some of EC's shows if they don't interest me, and while I do see where people are coming from when they say EC is a "preachy" show...I am pretty annoyed that people somehow are treating the heavy scrutiny of gaming as a culture from any place other than the consumer's point of view, the non-"artsy" view, is somehow "pretentious".

If that is so pretentious, then what do you want games to be? Do you want the medium to go forward or not? Because all other mediums have been influenced in various ways by the "artsy" view as well as the "common" view.

Or am I suddenly misunderstanding the argument of what makes EC pretentious? Because I want to really hear how the "artsy" view is somehow automatically pretentious.

Num1d1um:
Free Speech does cover screaming insults at people. It covers everything, that's why it's called Free Speech. On topic, I like Sterling, he makes good points.

Except that Free Speech doesn't exist on Xbox live.

Elamdri:

Num1d1um:
Free Speech does cover screaming insults at people. It covers everything, that's why it's called Free Speech. On topic, I like Sterling, he makes good points.

Except that Free Speech doesn't exist on Xbox live.

Right. Not what I was arguing.

Well EC is run by a bunch of pretentious dicks who dont ever know what the fuck they are talking about. Jimquisition on the other hand is just done by a complete fucking asshole but only spews bullshit out of his ass half the time. He does still occasionally make valid points.

If I had to choose one or the other I would go with Jim simply because he knows what he is talking about more often then never.

I used to prefer Extra Credits over Jim Sterling, but I've lately found my opinion of them shifting. I still like watching Extra Credits, but I often agree moreso with Jim.

Jim has more of the "This is bullshit!" attitude towards addressing problems, while Extra Credits tries to take the "high road" and offer compromises which they think will leave both parties most satisfied. I can understand their approach, but on a personal level I think Jim resonates more with the individual, and I have grown to like him better.

As for which one the game industry should listen to. Well, that's a toughy.

Das Boot:
Well EC is run by a bunch of pretentious dicks who dont ever know what the fuck they are talking about. Jimquisition on the other hand is just done by a complete fucking asshole but only spews bullshit out of his ass half the time. He does still occasionally make valid points.

If I had to choose one or the other I would go with Jim simply because he knows what he is talking about more often then never.

Can you give some examples on why they don't know what the fuck their talking about. If your just going to say that THEY IS STUPID, at least give us the reason why THEY IS STUPID.

him over there:
I'm not going to say any bull about freedom of speech, but doesn't it just seem sort of silly and superfluous? If you don't like what they are saying you can mute them for yourself, people who do want to here them will here them and it doesn't deprive them of a voice when talknig with a friend over co-op or something.

That's just it, the Extra Credits crew specifically said that it wasn't Perma-mute, it was default mute. The friend can just click un-mute. So can anyone. The idea is that the fact that they start muted is a signal to players to be warned - this person is known for behaving badly.

Num1d1um:
Yes, hate speech is free speech. Anyone has the right to hate you, the right to express that, and the right to insult you. Free speech doesn't only cover their right to express, it also covers your right to be exposed to what they have to say. Asserting "incorrect behaviour", like you have some kind of moral authority on what is correct and what is not, or on what constitutes free speech, is ridiculous. You're not the one to limit other's right to be exposed to what anyone has to say to them just because you found it offensive or mean. By that, you're actually taking their right of free speech away, instead of warning or protecting them.

Actually, you are wrong on several points.

Point 1) Screaming insults at someone, in public, can get you arrested. It is legally considered assault. Stating politely that you dislike them is free speech - verbally attacking them is an attack. Legally.

Point 2) Freedom of Speech is not legally protected during video game chat. If the game creators decide to limit your speech in game, they are FULLY and LEGALLY allowed to do so. You have no protections for Free Speech in a video game. The game's creators are protected according to free speech, but the players are not. Legally.

Point 3) As noted above, the auto-mute option is a default setting, NOT permanent. A player's friend can undo the mute - that player merely starts muted when first interacting with new players (in the design that Extra Credits suggested). Any player has the choice to unmute an individual, or remute them when desired.

Point 4) I am not asserting moral authority - the games creators would be in that hypothetical situation. And they entirely do have the right to make that call. As noted above, their decision to mute players they disapprove of is covered by their rights as the games creators. You, a player, have only one response - stop playing.

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

Wow, I wasn't aware Extra Creditz got so much hate. I honestly prefer them because it's nice to see a more "high road" approach to gaming issues every now and then. Don't get me wrong, I like Jim's rabble-rousing style but EC looks at topics from a more concilliatory position, which is often to the best way to bring about actual change.

meh i don't really care. I like Jim's videos more, maybe because they're kinda funny and i do agree with him on many things. Extra Credits on the other hand, is kinda boring. only a few earlier episodes interested me but now it seems like they're always behind or can't think of anything to talk about.

so basically EC's episodes tend to be a hit or miss, with most missing.
and Jim's are, if not enlightening, at least entertaining.

as for the industry, they need to pay attention to this whole site, and the damn customers.

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!"

Since I wasn't even arguing any of the other points and I'm fully aware that human rights play no role in dedicated online services, I'll respond to this: Point 1) Screaming insults at someone, in public, can get you arrested. It is legally considered assault. Stating politely that you dislike them is free speech - verbally attacking them is an attack. Legally.

As I said before, I am aware of the legal situation, but as I also said before, that's not how it should be, and, just like with the death penslty in fact, US laws are simply breaking human rights. As the other guy said, I'm trying to talk to you on an ideological level about how freedom of speech as a right is supposed to work.

*Walks in*

EC isn't here anymore, thus I don't watch them. I did check them out occasionally but Jim Stirling has been more fun and has been making good points recently. I don't necessarily agree with him all the time (I know, I'm a heretic) but I enjoy the episodes nonetheless.

As it is I think the industry should listen to both sources. However it would be nicer if they scrolled down the comment sections of those speaking out about the industry to see what their customers are thinking, not just the pundits.

In terms of which show I like better? Jim Sterling has been more fun and pretty informative. If he left the Escapist I think I would follow him offsite. I have not done that with EC.

Well, that's that.

I'm too lazy to scan but did anyone say the obligatory "No vs threads" post?

*walks out*

Eh, I like them both.

I will admit that EC is perhaps a bit too "safe" and "politically correct" at times.
I will also admit that Jim can be perhaps a bit too "down and dirty", for the sake of the comedy of his show at times.

Personally? I think that the games industry needs to listen to Yahtzee, Jim, and Extra Credits; with a lot of salt.
FYI, those names are listed in amount of salt needed, from most to least*.
*Although "least" doesn't necessarily mean "little".

hazabaza1:

I forget what the name of the video was, but it was about the new Call of Juarez video and racism. From what I can remember, they essentially said that anybody who enjoyed it was wrong, and potentially racist.

I just watched the episode to be sure, so I can say definitively that they never say anything about the audience of the game. What they did say was that the game was poorly designed and had way too many unfortunate implications. I've never played the game, so I can't say one way or the other, but if you have have any problem with something specific they said, then tell me.

In terms of over-analysing things, just go watch their Missile command video on "Morality". They look at a game where you try to get the highest score and start gushing over "HNNNG IT'S SUCH DEEP AND HIDDEN MORALITY"

And how were they wrong? They weren't just pulling examples out of thin air or shoe horning everything with sketchy claims of symbolism (which is the usual sign of someone over analyzing something). Tell me a single sentence in their argument that wasn't true, or anything that wasn't derived from the explicit context of the game. Just because someone critically analyses a well designed and very intentional system does not make them pretentious.

This post may contain some hyperbole.

Fair enough. I'll assume that you had the best intention with this post, but I can't be expected to know what you actually mean and what you're just exaggerating, so simply tell me if I'm arguing against something you don't actually believe.

-Dragmire-:

While it didn't make me hate them, the video where they compared intros to Skyrim and one of the Call of Duty games was full of misleading information.

As a person who has never played Call of Duty, I assumed the arguments were presented fairly when they weren't.

I also believe it's in poor taste to say that Skyrim lift a scene from Call of Duty when you have a history with the CoD franchise. It makes the video sound less like "this scene was partially inspired by this other game" and more like "They just took ideas from me and/or my former coworkers". It may be an unfair statement but it occurs naturally when you find out the you were mislead in the video.

I wasn't aware of James' history with CoD, and I guess he could have found a different example, but even after watching the video, I can't really think of anything they say that doesn't hold true after having played both Skyrim and Modern Warfare.

I still don't hate them, I just don't trust them(well just James I guess, he does the writing on his own right?) as much anymore.

As you should. Even sources I've never been told a falsity by I still double check. However, Extra credits is good at forming a cohesive argument that doesn't rely of name calling or unsupported assumptions, so I have respect for their arguments even if I disagree.

I hear his written articles are well done and (mostly) without the ego. I don't go to destructoid very often and the quality of his articles is second hand information, so take it with a grain of salt.

As someone who does go to destructoid on occasion, I can say that I really like Jim's articles. I will never forget this particular gem.

Num1d1um:

You didn't understand what I was saying. She isn't legally required to sit there and take it. By not listening to it, she is taking her own right of exposure away, which is a part of free speech. Freedom of speech works two ways. And by taking away her ability to listen to what I say, you're infringing hers and mine. Now, as regards to why i have the right to insult her if I wanted to. Because my civil or human, whichever you prefer, constitutionally granted right of universal freefom of expression and speech allows me to do so. That's why.

Well put.
But Freedom of Speech actually does not grant you the right to harass someone. Article 19 actually lists responsibilities and restrictions on Freedom of Speech that includes the "harm principle" or the "offense principle", which loosely state that your freedom of speech ends when what you are saying can harm someone, is intended to harm someone, drive them to harm, or cause them to harm another.
And while these are argued extremely heavily as to what harm will come or is intended, it has actually been ruled several times in court, that harassment of any kind falls into this category unquestioningly as it will do many of the above.

The same piece of paper that you get your rights from, does in fact tell you that there are restrictions.

(Sorry for the time delay between posts. Had to fill out, print, sign, scan, e-mail and fax a job application)

Redlin5:

I'm too lazy to scan but did anyone say the obligatory "No vs threads" post?

Nope.

As far as this thread is concerned. . . actually, I'll just paste the rest of what Redlin said:

EC isn't here anymore, thus I don't watch them. I did check them out occasionally but Jim Stirling has been more fun and has been making good points recently. I don't necessarily agree with him all the time (I know, I'm a heretic) but I enjoy the episodes nonetheless.

As it is I think the industry should listen to both sources. However it would be nicer if they scrolled down the comment sections of those speaking out about the industry to see what their customers are thinking, not just the pundits.

In terms of which show I like better? Jim Sterling has been more fun and pretty informative. If he left the Escapist I think I would follow him offsite. I have not done that with EC.

That summarizes my feelings almost exactly. Despite having the EC page on Penny Arcade bookmarked and everything, I just can't arse myself to actually go watch their videos anymore.

Capitano Segnaposto:

Oh good lord I hate when people do this. Their OPINIONS are WRONG?

Surely you see the logical fallacy in that, right?

In my opinion the moon is made of cheese.

The TV has little people inside that act out all of them shows, the big bulky bit at the back is where they change clothes.

Tooth fillings allow the government to transmit radiowaves into our brains to control us.

And drinking goats blood will make me immortal.

Sorry for the sarcasm, but I just can't stand when people use that argument. Of course opinions can be factually incorrect, i.e. WRONG!

I know it's slightly different with opinions on subjective matters such as art. But there are still levels of validity to any opinion.

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!"

Dude that isn't remotely the same thing.

If I have someone bothering me, and I don't wish to be bothered by it, I mute and I'm not longer bothered. That isn't the same as ignoring a mugging on the sidewalk because I don't want to be involved.

To use your example, muting someone is like the Wife leaving her abusive husband because she doesn't wish to be further abused.

...like really, WTF?

SmashLovesTitanQuest:

Another thing: Jim Sterling is a gamer first, journalist second. (There, I edited it, can you annoying folks leave me alone now? Find someone else to spam.) Extra Credits are games journalists. Big difference.

James is actually a game designer/teacher. The artist whose name escapes me right now. Is a video game artist. Dan not quite sure what he is exactly. So yeah their is a big difference between them and Jim Sterling. But they aren't game journalists.

Gonna throw my shit in this already full toilet, but I say both.

Extra Credits strike me as wanna-be professional. Sure they make their arguments thoughtfully and slide down to their points opposed to the dive-right-in method, hence the 'talking down to' bit; but still they come across as a bit pretentious and kind of awkward with all that niceness and trying not to offend anyone.

Jimquisition on the other hand is out to offend. Comes right to the matter at hand, strikes at it with a hammer of arguments and a nail of facts and blends in some witty humour to boot and, hey presto, you've got a show. (He could choose the videos that play along his ranting: sometimes some text comes up and I automatically start to read it and zone out the speech.) But the thing about being out to offend is that you know your enemies and are and therefore you're immensely biased. He's the one preaching to the choir and I'm the little choirboy nodding in agreement.

But I still enjoy EC, frankly because I don't agree with them as much as I agree with Jim, so it's thought provoking and shows me another view.

My two cents.

Abandon4093:

Capitano Segnaposto:

Oh good lord I hate when people do this. Their OPINIONS are WRONG?

Surely you see the logical fallacy in that, right?

In my opinion the moon is made of cheese.

The TV has little people inside that act out all of them shows, the big bulky bit at the back is where they change clothes.

Tooth fillings allow the government to transmit radiowaves into our brains to control us.

And drinking goats blood will make me immortal.

Sorry for the sarcasm, but I just can't stand when people use that argument. Of course opinions can be factually incorrect, i.e. WRONG!

I know it's slightly different with opinions on subjective matters such as art. But there are still levels of validity to any opinion.

Very true, yet the context of which the poster I had quoted originally had used was incorrect. How would you have worded it differently if you were to take my place?

SaneAmongInsane:

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!"

Dude that isn't remotely the same thing.

If I have someone bothering me, and I don't wish to be bothered by it, I mute and I'm not longer bothered. That isn't the same as ignoring a mugging on the sidewalk because I don't want to be involved.

To use your example, muting someone is like the Wife leaving her abusive husband because she doesn't wish to be further abused.

...like really, WTF?

you can mute a person, but that person doesn't go away, other people will still have to put up with him. At the end of the day, a report function would be vastly better to the current system in place that does little more than enable poor behavior. Get it? Just because you don't see the link doesn't mean the scenarios aren't related.

AncientSpark:

Toilet:
When I watch Extra Credits now I usually cringe at how their artsy pretentiousness is played straight and they actually take what they say seriously. Also James oversells himself, he is the "CEO" of Rainmaker Games which is pretty much a title that lets him gallivant all over the place advising, talking and writing about videogame development of which he has little to nil experience. The dude is a sleazy conman who only seems to want to stroke his own ego.

Here's a perfect example of why I think so many people feel EC is pretentious.

English majors are often criticized for their overanalysis of books. Those outside the major are like "There's no way the writer came up with 'this this symbol this motif that'", etc., as they feel English majors overglorify their favorite medium. English majors likewise find that most other people don't understand their points because they don't live working with the medium everyday. Of course, you also see film critics go through the same thing (I think MovieBob regularly has to deal with this and he regularly rants about, if need be).
Attempting to impress by affecting greater importance, talent, culture, etc., than is actually possessed
It's also why I am feeling a little miffed that "pretentious" is the term everyone has chosen to use.

Really guys? You're acting like having some kind of idealism is somehow BAD for the industry. While I do like Sterling's show, while I do sometimes not watch some of EC's shows if they don't interest me, and while I do see where people are coming from when they say EC is a "preachy" show...I am pretty annoyed that people somehow are treating the heavy scrutiny of gaming as a culture from any place other than the consumer's point of view, the non-"artsy" view, is somehow "pretentious".

If that is so pretentious, then what do you want games to be? Do you want the medium to go forward or not? Because all other mediums have been influenced in various ways by the "artsy" view as well as the "common" view.

Or am I suddenly misunderstanding the argument of what makes EC pretentious? Because I want to really hear how the "artsy" view is somehow automatically pretentious.

Maybe my use of "artsy" was misplaced but holy hell are they pretentious and the definition pretty much describes EC in its entirety. Moviebob gets to use big words and talk about the industry because he is an active part of it, the people at EC have no idea what they are talking about and the end result is just preaching to the choir.

"Attempting to impress by affecting greater importance, talent, culture, etc., than is actually possessed."

Jim is fun, EC are childish businessmen.

Both have a place in the gaming 'culture'. If I had to pick one to disappear, it would be EC easily.

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."

Rawne1980:
Jim is British therefore I instantly like him

Well this applies to me as well.

However I also like EC. I think they can raise valid points. Not every episode is great but I still watch the occasional episode and find some value to what's being said.

I used to be very into Extra Credits and it did have a lot of extremely good information on it, but there's a difference between looking at your viewers as people who are interested in being educated, and people who are ignorant fools. Too often EC's presentation has been very much based along the lines of them viewing the audience as a group of fools who they have decided to enlighten, rather than a group that they're presenting information and theories too.

They've got a lot of high minded concepts and ideals about gaming, but they're on a different level, which I can understand, but the fact is they feel that they're better than the average gamer and that they don't need to regard us ordinary decent gamers as anything less than an unwashed and drooling mass who should be despised for feeding into the bad issues that the games industry is filled with. It often feels like they're looking at us and saying 'this is your fault, you need to change because we know better than you'.

Jim says a lot of the same issues, but he's not speaking from some mountaintop (despite the god complex joke he has going) he has the pure and simple message that he's one of us, he's a regular gamer, he's just normal and he's talking about issues that we're concerned about and bringing in information that we might not be familiar about, plus he's spurring conversations about issues that might not be in our heads.

Jim is the buddy you know saying 'Man, did you hear about this?'
EC is the stuck up boss saying 'You need to do this.'

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 . . . 17 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked