Jimquisition: The Weird is Not Enough
- Thread starter Jimothy Sterling
- Start date
Recommended Videos
This wasn't as bad as the others. Showing gameplay footage and bringing props in helped to alleviate some of the talking head syndrome that has been plaguing this show since its first episode.
Well, the show still seems a bit forced, but is definitely improving in both the humor and clarity of the message. Felt this sent a good message. Though honestly the ego jokes just fall completely flat for me.
Most times i watch this i walk away disappointed but I want to give this a chance. The review segments are becoming more polished but the "to Camera" pieces are much less bearable and overly smug (I know its a characterisation but its a character im not too fond of).
I hope once he gets into the swing of things the character may be a little more toned down (but not completely as it can be workable) and that his mini reviews and other voice overs become more prominent.
I hope once he gets into the swing of things the character may be a little more toned down (but not completely as it can be workable) and that his mini reviews and other voice overs become more prominent.
I still have problems with the show:
1. Forced masturbation jokes, I like the I'm god almighty part of he's persona but he just isn't capable of making the vulgar jokes he wants to make.
2. The problem he talked about was more games need to be interactive, that is a problem with artsy games but it's not a unique problem, I would of like to see him actually go into some of the problems with artsy games.
3. I agreed with your ideas to begin with but if I didn't I wouldn't be swayed now, do to one main reason your bad examples are a bunch of small indie house games that barely anyones heard, I see that and I think indie games don't have the money to expand and test an idea to a working level(in a lot of cases they don't), it makes it seem like this isn't a problem in the main stream.
1. Forced masturbation jokes, I like the I'm god almighty part of he's persona but he just isn't capable of making the vulgar jokes he wants to make.
2. The problem he talked about was more games need to be interactive, that is a problem with artsy games but it's not a unique problem, I would of like to see him actually go into some of the problems with artsy games.
3. I agreed with your ideas to begin with but if I didn't I wouldn't be swayed now, do to one main reason your bad examples are a bunch of small indie house games that barely anyones heard, I see that and I think indie games don't have the money to expand and test an idea to a working level(in a lot of cases they don't), it makes it seem like this isn't a problem in the main stream.
Where is your avatar from?warprincenataku said:
OT: So far the best this show has done for me is provide "meh" and a few thoughts about if I agree and how I'd change the game ideas I already have to better fit some of these newfound opinions.
While I agree with the fundamental sentiment of interaction being essential, Sterling has a history of advocating this notion of "fun" as absolutely vital to the form, an angle which I cannot agree with.
I feel that always applying the label "game" is limiting in this sense, considering the inherent connotations of the term. (i.e frivolity, amusement, entertainment)
Saints Row 2 is definitely a game, and a brilliant one at that.
I'm not sure I would describe The Void as a game, however.
That does not imply an assessment of value, mind you. I think both are perfectly legitimate approaches. I simply believe a distinction is called for, considering the radical difference in their respective sensibilities.
To continue on that point, the inclusion of The Path felt thoroughly incongruous.
What exactly is "weird" about it?
Granted, it's an allegorical account of Little Red Riding Hood, but we've seen that done many a time before. The fact that it operates on a symbolic rather than literal level doesn't render it incomprehensible, nor does it detract from the experience.
It is involving because it invites the participant to consider the manner in which he or she is complicit in the events unfolding.
Far Cry 2, a much more populist title, is quite similar in that respect as it asks the participant to commit the most heinous crimes, all under the guise of traditional progression through gameplay.
There seems to be a lot of moaning about pretensions and artistic snobbery abound, but honestly, does any medium evolve unless there's some level of pretension involved?
What I admire about a developer such as Tale of Tales is their seemingly endless desire to disregard the unspoken rules of the interactive medium as we know it today.
Be it successfully or not.
The Endless Forest, available free of charge, is probably the most original multiplayer experience I've had as of yet in its utter dismissal of established norms in online interaction.
I'll readily agree that this policy of theirs occasionally renders their work a bit too willfully obscure, however. The intentionally incomprehensible control scheme of "Fatale" is a perfect example of this self-indulgence. But frankly, I'd much rather spend my time being exposed to an interesting, new and unfamiliar approach; albeit genuinely confusing, than simply submit to yet another run-of-the-mill, predictable exercise in box-office lucre à la Epic Games.
P.S
I find it delightfully ironic that Sterling criticises something for being self-satisfied to the point of disregarding the enjoyment of its audience.
I still dislike his approach, and I still find him a very problematic commentator.
D.S
I feel that always applying the label "game" is limiting in this sense, considering the inherent connotations of the term. (i.e frivolity, amusement, entertainment)
Saints Row 2 is definitely a game, and a brilliant one at that.
I'm not sure I would describe The Void as a game, however.
That does not imply an assessment of value, mind you. I think both are perfectly legitimate approaches. I simply believe a distinction is called for, considering the radical difference in their respective sensibilities.
To continue on that point, the inclusion of The Path felt thoroughly incongruous.
What exactly is "weird" about it?
Granted, it's an allegorical account of Little Red Riding Hood, but we've seen that done many a time before. The fact that it operates on a symbolic rather than literal level doesn't render it incomprehensible, nor does it detract from the experience.
It is involving because it invites the participant to consider the manner in which he or she is complicit in the events unfolding.
Far Cry 2, a much more populist title, is quite similar in that respect as it asks the participant to commit the most heinous crimes, all under the guise of traditional progression through gameplay.
There seems to be a lot of moaning about pretensions and artistic snobbery abound, but honestly, does any medium evolve unless there's some level of pretension involved?
What I admire about a developer such as Tale of Tales is their seemingly endless desire to disregard the unspoken rules of the interactive medium as we know it today.
Be it successfully or not.
The Endless Forest, available free of charge, is probably the most original multiplayer experience I've had as of yet in its utter dismissal of established norms in online interaction.
I'll readily agree that this policy of theirs occasionally renders their work a bit too willfully obscure, however. The intentionally incomprehensible control scheme of "Fatale" is a perfect example of this self-indulgence. But frankly, I'd much rather spend my time being exposed to an interesting, new and unfamiliar approach; albeit genuinely confusing, than simply submit to yet another run-of-the-mill, predictable exercise in box-office lucre à la Epic Games.
P.S
I find it delightfully ironic that Sterling criticises something for being self-satisfied to the point of disregarding the enjoyment of its audience.
I still dislike his approach, and I still find him a very problematic commentator.
D.S
Two good shows in a row? Gold star, Jim! Going from garbage to great in a mere four episodes is commendable.
Are you sure we watched the same Scott Pilgrim vs. the World here? As well, you know, I thought that film was actually really, really good. I thought maybe you were voicing an opinion there, but I should have of course known you were actually stating a fact. How silly of me.MatsVS said:
As an aside, I notice that you've just named two films starring Michael Cera as being "crap". Coincidence?
As for the Jim video, didn't watch it, so don't really have anything to contribute.
@MatsVS - I won't be coming back to this thread, so no need to bother trying to start a debate, as it won't happen. I have no intention of starting a war over differing opinions.