Jimquisition: I Hate Videogames (Because I Love Them)

[A_Parked_Car]

Thank you! That was extremely well said and pretty much sums up my own thoughts on the issue.

 

[Evil Smurf]

I would eat fast food Chik o Fill if it was tasty. And besides the only EA game I have bought is Tetris

 

[Magmarock]

Great video as always Jim, maybe I should dead space since Event Horizon is one of my all time favorites too. But I'm not sure which one to try.

 

[snd_dsgnr]

This might be the most I've ever agreed with one of your positions. Sometimes it genuinely seems like game companies are going out of their way to make it more difficult to enjoy playing games, to say nothing of the obvious ways that they go out of their way to squeeze every last dime out of their audience that they can.

I would have given serious consideration to just throwing my hands up and saying to hell with all of it, if not for the fact that the actual quality of the games that we're seeing this generation really just blows me the hell away.

 

[TrevHead]

"loving something while been mature enough to critisize it"

Every Steam fan needs to watch this vid

 

[Metalrocks]

true. even when i love half life, i still find something bad about it like some levels i hate or a certain mechanic i dont agree with.
im anyway done with ?A. lately BF3 has become bad to play and im not sure if i want to keep playing it if these problems dont get fixed asap.
despise ubisofts crappy DRM, im still looking forward to play AC3. because i think their games are actually fun to play and i generally dont mind ubi...yet.

im picky with games these days. if its really something i want, i get it, and i dont care if its game of the year material or not. as long the game works and im having fun with it, i get it.

 

[TallanKhan]

Im not opposed on principle to games making money but the focus seems to have shifted from legitimatley making money to milking the player. DLC is a clasic example, if a game stands on its own merit and is released complete (by which i mean as concieved) then i have no objection to DLC being released later, however content being left out then sold to us later isnt just insulting but its morally questionable too. Dragon Age Origins is a good exaple of both.

Stone Prisoner DLC was just material that was left out of the release and repurposed latter. Even though it did introduce arguably the best character in the franchise it was still just cynical money making.

On the other hand the Wardern's Keep dlc was excellent, relatively well written, fresh environment and it added to the overall game world. This was something conceived as an addition to the main game and produced to a high standard, and something i was happy to part with money to purchase.

 

[Adon Cabre]

As arrogance and stupid-foul a rant as I've ever heard, but brilliant all the same. It's funny how the internet is simply mirroring mankind's age old flaws; prejudices and intolerance, which is why a future dystopia is utterly impossible, because we're all too damn cynical to trust a government when it introduces a program with the word 'free' attached to it, or tells us 'mission accomplished'. But back to the point.

If you're an artist, you are obliged -- no, required -- to experience a form of art, and then piece it apart for your own study: to find out what is good and bad. The great thing about video games is that its fans actually critique them in ways they wouldn't with movies. This is because they have such an emotional connection to this visceral experience. They have played for two or three, sometimes dozens and even hundreds of hours, so they'll go on the internet and defend or critique pieces of it against say, another game or a 'part two' to the series.

Take the good with the bad.

 

[HalfTangible]

I'm going to skip over the fact that supporting traditional marriage is not the same as hating gay people and just ask... What does hating gay people even TASTE like?

Your points are otherwise well made, insightful and true as always. I f***ing love the Jimquisition. And hate it. And love it. And hate it. And-

... I'll shut up now.

 

[Kanatatsu]

I see lots of people, including Jim, talking about all these crazy fanboys who won't hear a bad word spoken about their favourite console/game.

I've never seen them on a board or heard from them in real life. Not saying they don't exist, but in normal gaming converse they never seem to pop up.

 

[MercurySteam]

One of your best episodes Jim, mainly cause I saw many games I'm fond of referenced. It's nice to see that somebody hasn't forgotten that criticism is a good thing, especially if it's constructive. Some people (myself included) will fight tooth and claw for franchises they love and a good example is with Mass Effect 3 and the Extended Cut. We didn't like what we got so we demanded an ending worthy of a beloved series and we got it. Now that's what I call power to the gamers.

In the end only we can make sure our favourite games stay true to themselves.

 

[DRTJR]

I think Using Javik as a bad example of day one DLC is flawed. Since he comes with the Collector's edition and I as somebody who would like him naturally don't mind purchasing him day one.

 

[Helston]

Thank God for you, Jim. That was a fantastic episode.

I enjoy watching your show every week (have been for a few months now), but that one was undoubtedly the best I've seen yet.

 

[Zyst]

Thank god for him.

I agree with this, and I must accept I am guilty of this. When my friend criticize my games sometimes I notice I go into overflow saying why it's worth it and they should get it anyway. In the end I do realize the stuff is fucked up, but that doesn't mean I don't want them buying it so we can play.

Oh well, I'll try to fix that. Again, Thank god for Jim Sterling.

 

[Orekoya]

That's may be the definition of bigot. But sorry, just because you don't approve of gay marriage does not mean you are a bigot. Do tell me how believing in something means you are automatically INTOLERANT of the opposite. Maybe what you need is to learn what TOLERANCE means.

Tolerance: a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry.

I hate rap. Hate, hate, hate it. Think its crap that all sounds the same and I wish it didn't exist But guess what. Still tolerant of it. I let it exist because it has a right to. But that doesn't mean I have to like it.

But its ironic, the chicken guy has a view, and a belief, but you seem to be rather intolerant of it. That make you a bigot as well?

If you wish it didn't exist, guess what. That means you AREN'T tolerant of it. Wishing that something you dislike would stop existing isn't fair, objective, or permissive at all. You're saying "I don't like that thing, I wish it didn't exist. Fuck everyone who does like it because I do not like it and I am the only one that matters."

That's about as far from tolerating rap as you can get. :/

I like how you highlighted and took out of context one part of what I said but obviously ignored "But I let it exist BECAUSE IT HAS A RIGHT TO" Meaning, I recognize that it has a right to exist and I have no right to make it not exist.

Sorry, that's not far from being tolerant. That's quintessential tolerance.

No it isn't.

tolerate - to allow the existence, presence, practice, or act of without prohibition or hindrance; to endure without repugnance(ie strong distaste, aversion, or objection)

To tolerate means you see or experience without batting an eye from whatever personal discomfort you feel about something, so no you're not even tolerating rap. You stop tolerating something when you start complaining about it because you are expressing your distaste and aversion. And stopping yourself short of firebombing rap out of existence because you see it isn't your call to determine what should be allowed to exist doesn't make you suddenly more tolerant. It means you aren't psychotic.

Thank you for being sane.

 

[antman890]

This is the wrong prespective.
If the developer doesn't produce the games we want (what the apparently don't do anymore)
and it's the publishers mistake, those developers will search a new publisher.

But you still buy games and so nothing will change.

For me noone who still buys from EA, Activision and Ubisoft is a Gamer.
Sry, those "customers" pay for destroying our loved hobby.

But they do produce the games I want, I just hate the publishers for different reasons.
I love Bioware games, but I hate what EA does with DLC.
I love Assassin's Creed, but I hate Ubisoft's DRM.
Bioware is owned by EA and Ubisoft makes AC, which means they can't find a new publisher. I love their games and want to support the devs so I buy their games.

In other words, you want things to change but you are not willing to make even the slightest sacrifice. Sorry, but that is just lousy thing to do and will not work.

I want million dollars but I will not move mu ass from the chair is not how things work.

i think your missing the main issue here. by not buying a certain game (or all games distrbuted by a publisher) the major damage will be felt by the developer (and retailers like gamestop) not the publishers. therefore games people truly enjoy will be scraped for other titles. hell i might go so far as to say publishers would love gamers to boycott games for a while just to destroy Gamestop. publishers have so much money that they could take the brunt of a couple of their games being boycotted. the elephant in the room here is how publishers handle and control their material and no amount of rage or desire for change from consumers will effect how hard publishers will hold onto their power.

where we need to focus is on the legal power publishers have over games. we need to petition for the end of the legalities that allow publishers to have total control over game intelectual rights and protection. without this publishers will continue to abuse gamers like an abusive husband realising that a bag of oranges won't leave any bruises.

if we cant do that then we as a community need to decide what controls (DRM's, DLC's, etc) that we as gamers are willing to accept. we could even come up with a design for controls that we are will to accept and publish it somewhere where that publishers can see our opinion (i.e. here on the escapist) and demand that they change to suit our needs or we actually organise a full-on boycott of every game until they bow before our demands or their company burns to the ground. is anyone with me on this or am I just talking gibberish?

 

[Victoly]

It saddens me that a video like this even has to be made - that people are so often so dim-witted as to not realize that you can criticize something you love, and need to be reminded of the basics of thought.

Thanks as always for phrasing things so entertainingly, Jim.

 

[yeti585]

Hey look Jim is doing something funny! Oh wait, he's just giving in to the masses. What's that Jim? You love games but hate the industry? Yes, I knew that, you've said it for the past- I don't know how long.

How dare Chick-Fil-A support the idea that traditional marriage should be between a man and a woman, truly they are bigots of the highest order *sarcasm.

They are against homosexual couples being allowed to benefit from the advantages of being married. Eg spousal medical benefits, insurance, etc.

Bigot : a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own

Sounds pretty accurate.

He isn't intolerant of the other idea. He believes that marriage should be between a man and a woman. By your logic, legalizing gay marriage would be bigotry towards him and other people who believe what he believes.

 

[antman890]

No, but you can justify day one DLC because its the only sensible and sane thing to do.

Look, for a game - any game - to have a problem with day one DLC, it must have three things wrong with it:
1. It must have day one DLC (obviously)
2. The finished product must objectively not be worth your money for the content it provides (as in no reactionary jerkoffs who say Mass effect 3 is the worst thing EVAR! because the ending wasn't perfect)
3. If said day 1 DLC were available on the disc without people having to pay for it, it would be worth your money.

If it doesn't have the first one, the problem isn't Day one DLC by definition. If it doesn't have the second one, then there is not a single fucking ground in existence for complaining about not getting something extra to go with your already great game. If it doesn't have the third, then the DLC isn't worth getting worked up about as the product overall was just bad to begin with.

There are examples of the first two, but no-one has ever been able to give me a serious example of a game that fulfills all three criteria. Therefore, there is no problem with day one DLC. None at all.

where I have a bit of a problem with this is No.2. How do you "objectively" tell whether a game is worth the money. I mean look at saints row 3 the game was good but without the DLC it would have been better to stick with saints 2 right? as how can you tell without playing the game? and if you wait for someone else to play it to tell you their view of a games worth will be different from yours even if they are being objective. prime example of this is deadly premonition.

 

[antman890]

That's may be the definition of bigot. But sorry, just because you don't approve of gay marriage does not mean you are a bigot. Do tell me how believing in something means you are automatically INTOLERANT of the opposite. Maybe what you need is to learn what TOLERANCE means.

Tolerance: a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry.

I hate rap. Hate, hate, hate it. Think its crap that all sounds the same and I wish it didn't exist But guess what. Still tolerant of it. I let it exist because it has a right to. But that doesn't mean I have to like it.

But its ironic, the chicken guy has a view, and a belief, but you seem to be rather intolerant of it. That make you a bigot as well?

If you wish it didn't exist, guess what. That means you AREN'T tolerant of it. Wishing that something you dislike would stop existing isn't fair, objective, or permissive at all. You're saying "I don't like that thing, I wish it didn't exist. Fuck everyone who does like it because I do not like it and I am the only one that matters."

That's about as far from tolerating rap as you can get. :/

I like how you highlighted and took out of context one part of what I said but obviously ignored "But I let it exist BECAUSE IT HAS A RIGHT TO" Meaning, I recognize that it has a right to exist and I have no right to make it not exist.

Sorry, that's not far from being tolerant. That's quintessential tolerance.

No it isn't.

tolerate - to allow the existence, presence, practice, or act of without prohibition or hindrance; to endure without repugnance(ie strong distaste, aversion, or objection)

To tolerate means you see or experience without batting an eye from whatever personal discomfort you feel about something, so no you're not even tolerating rap. You stop tolerating something when you start complaining about it because you are expressing your distaste and aversion. And stopping yourself short of firebombing rap out of existence because you see it isn't your call to determine what should be allowed to exist doesn't make you suddenly more tolerant. It means you aren't psychotic.

Thank you for being sane.

sorry I'm with grizwald on this. tolerance doesn't hinder you from expressing your discomfort or aversion to something. the moment you actively try to stop something you have an aversion to is when you stop being tolerant. i.e. giving money to anti gay marriage organisations.