Jimquisition: Better Does Not Mean Good

[illas]

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

 

[Callate]

Thank you, Jim.

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

 

[QUINTIX]

Hopefully I am not the first to post this... good points all around, but no one, NO ONE is EVER [http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/03/justice_sonia_sotomayors_shocking_ignorance.html] denied ER/ICU care in the united states as of a lack of ability to pay.

 

[Imp_Emissary]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[targren]

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

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

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

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

 

[Redd the Sock]

The Raisan Bran Thing: too obvious.

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

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

 

[MB202]

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

 

[lord.jeff]

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

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

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

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

 

[Hazy992]

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

 

[Aeonknight]

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

So for that I'll thank jim.

 

[Beryl77]

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

 

[Ragsnstitches]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Corven]

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

So for that I'll thank jim.

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

 

[Baresark]

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

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

 

[The White Hunter]

This episode could have been a lot worse.

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

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

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

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

 

[Jimothy Sterling]

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

 

[daxterx2005]

The Australian accent was freaking hilarious.

 

[loc978]

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

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

 

[Strain42]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[mike1921]

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

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

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

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

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