Poll: Jim sterling VS Extra credits

[Elamdri]

And I am not a slab of bacon, to the guy who said that. I prefer to think of myself as a clump of sausage meat.

Fair nuff, I am somewhat of a rump roast myself. I gotta say tho man; if I like bought you a long sleeve shirt, would you wear it? You're killing me. I want to sit in a corner cuddling a men's fashion magazine, weep and eat cheesecake.

Long-sleeve shirts are for people who hate their forearms and for those who are dressed formally. Otherwise to wear them should be considered a criminal charge worthy of intense flogging.

Unless you're going to wear a coat with a lapel, which Jim does. If you do that, you gotta sacrifice personal comfort for style. Also, he should get some cufflinks too. I'd watch the shit out of that show if he wore cufflinks.

 

[Elamdri]

@Num1d1um

First, that wasn't short. Second:

I understand that people are not like inanimate objects. I'm saying that when a person intentionally causes the death of another person, that if they are the cause of that's person's death and did so willingly and intentionally, then they should be held responsible. I brought up the witch trials because it's a great example of people using speech to cause the deaths of people. Just like a person knows they are going to kill someone when they pull a trigger of a gun pointing at them, those girls knew that their accusations would cause the death of those people. Under your viewpoint, those girls are in no way responsible for the deaths, because they didn't directly kill those people. Those people were not rational, and those girls took advantage of that. Despite whatever you think, people are not always rational. Your entire argument depends on people thinking through things at all times. People do not just go investigate to see if there really is a fire, they leave the building. Some people panic. This can and has created tragedies, and the people who caused the panic knew the danger of what they were doing, and did it anyway.

I only compared verbal assault to rape because of all the posts you have made, the constant theme that I kept seeing was "speech doesn't have any visible effect, so it must not do anything". You never once addressed how it can wreck people. My exact words were that the real damage received from the rape are the psychological scars and emotional damages that come with being violated in such a way, that stay with that person for a lifetime, and that verbal assault can have that same effect, because it fucking can. Are you honestly saying you've never heard of someone being bullied or teased so badly in a high school, or harassed in their daily life that they have a mental breakdown, and either commit suicide or have to go to a mental hospital? It happens because shit like that is not harmless. Its not something that people should just go around using, and its not something that people should be responded to with more verbal assault. Its something that needs to be penalized.

What kind of parent would just tell their child to just ignore verbal assault? Again, you seem to think i'm talking about any and all things that could be taken a negative way, when i'm not. I'm saying that harassment is a completely different than normal speech, and that there should be limitations placed on it. You're saying that it IS part of normal speech, and thus needs to be protected. This is our disagreement. To me, saying that harassment and normal speech are under the same protection is like saying that gesturing with your hands and hitting are the same thing, because in both cases, the basic motions are the same. The difference is the outcome, and what the intent of that outcome was.

Saying that large groups of people don't follow speech is just ignorant. Ignorant of the past, and the present. There are a significant portion of the population that believe that all Muslims are dangerous. Not too long ago, people believed that any other ethnicity was inherently dangerous and evil. Civilizations throughout time have believed that Jews were responsible for all the worlds ills. These aren't just small segments of the population, it was ingrained into their culture, and it was spread because of speech. You may be better than that, but if you think that everyone else is, then you don't know people.

And there is no fucking way I agreed with you with "it's the responsibility of the person who said it for what was said", and I said it in response to you saying that I somehow insinuated that it the owner of the stadium's fault for any of the actions you described. Don't use sound bites to try to put words in my mouth, you're better than that.

The reason that its impossible to argue with you is because you refuse to acknowledge points that you have no actual response to! You STILL haven't responded to why bomb threats should be protected, you gave a single sentence about how you "obviously don't advocate abusing children", but then fail to give a reason how verbal abuse to a child wouldn't be "free speech" under your definition of total acceptance, and you dropped the "majority" argument the second I showed you why that majority opinion is a legitimate indicator of something's acceptability! You say that bullying is just as bad if not worse than it would be if we just didn't have any kind of legitimate policies against it, but you don't have to look any farther the rise of bullying after the introduction of social networking to see what exactly that looks like, because they no longer have to face the same consequences and risks that they would if they did it out in the real world!

I'd also like to point out the inherent contradiction between "the government shouldn't regulate free speech, but corporations should be able to", disregarding the fact that the reason that those corporations have those policies in effect is because of the laws on the books, pointing to the entire corporate culture of "women as secretaries who its okay to sexually harass" that pervaded society in the first half of the 20th century that is now being phased out due to the increase in awareness to the effects of such harassment. I honestly don't know why you would say that it's okay for a corporation to violate a supposedly inalienable right, while the a government should never ever be allowed to. Feel free to explain that one to me.

I really, just cannot understand where you're coming from, because you say that we had those ideas before we had the laws, like that is somehow supportive to your point, despite the numerous examples I have given that show the horrible things that happen with completely unrestricted speech, and why exactly we now discourage verbal harassment. The very idea of laws protecting people from that sort of thing is a very recent invention, in terms of human history, and its something that has dramatically improved the lives of the people it use to effect. By saying that everything was fine before, you ignore the very large, positive impact it has had on them.

There is a part of me that is really interested in whatever this argument is, but I don't really wanna have to go diving through 14 pages of thread to find the beginning and read through it all...

 

[Elamdri]

Wow, so much hostility towards EC. One day you guys are donating $20,000+ to them and the next day, you're all throwing hot rocks at them. You people are so fickle.

Note: I know not everyone is being hostile towards EC. I was just making a point.

Did you miss all the drama with EC and the Escapist?
EC pulled, what some would consider, sketchy actions with the whole donation drive, and the money contributed. Plenty enough from just that for people to be sour on EC.
Not really being fickle, but people reacting to their action post donation.
Also, it is one thing to donate to a person to save their livelihood, and it is another thing to worship whatever they do or say.

I was under the impression that the bad behavior during that fiasco was on the behalf of the Escapist, not EC.

 

[funcooker11811]

There is a part of me that is really interested in whatever this argument is, but I don't really wanna have to go diving through 14 pages of thread to find the beginning and read through it all...

Something that, in retrospect, should have gone gone down to private messages the second it was whittled down to a dialogue.

Wow, so much hostility towards EC. One day you guys are donating $20,000+ to them and the next day, you're all throwing hot rocks at them. You people are so fickle.

Note: I know not everyone is being hostile towards EC. I was just making a point.

Did you miss all the drama with EC and the Escapist?
EC pulled, what some would consider, sketchy actions with the whole donation drive, and the money contributed. Plenty enough from just that for people to be sour on EC.
Not really being fickle, but people reacting to their action post donation.
Also, it is one thing to donate to a person to save their livelihood, and it is another thing to worship whatever they do or say.

I was under the impression that the bad behavior during that fiasco was on the behalf of the Escapist, not EC.

I'm guessing that both sides have very different stories. I haven't actually seen any solid proof that either side was more culpable than the other, but i'm still pretty pissed about the changes the escapist made after they left, so i'm leaning more in favor of EC out of spite.

 

[Awexsome]

I much prefer EC because most of the time they're right and know the shit they're talking about or at least do their hardest to try and know it.

Haven't watched much of Sterling cause he came off as an Escapist majority hivemind personality and the bad shit that comes with that.

Are people seriously harping on EC for sticking to their "art" standpoint being biased towards the developer's side of things? For most of the people who make these games, they're pretty passionate about what they do. It's not pretentious to want people to take developer's work seriously as art and it's a real douche move to get mad at them for wanting that IMO.

 

[Gunner 51]

That's not necessarily good, though.

Jim never did. Quite the opposite. His entire persona is buried under heaping piles of sarcasm.

...and come to think of it, EC never did too. Obviously they think of themselves as educators, but they never take an opinion and pretend like its word of god - they very much do their research and, as often as possible, debate both sides and let the audience draw the conclusion. Jim obviously does less research, but the Jimquisition is very much about one man talking about his own opinions and it comes with the implication that these opinions are his own and nothing more.

Did I mention the sarcasm?

Ah, so you're not discriminatory against Jews or Muslims!

@Elmoth: Perhaps, but they do seem appreciate everyone's opinions. Us gamers have our perspective as developers and publishers do - but I do have to hand it to EC for having what I'm guessing is the overview.

@Andy of Comix Inc: I concede that Extra Credits think of themselves as educators. With their positions within gaming and their overview they have every right to be. As such, they gently inform people and make helpful suggestions to reflect this.

But Jim on the other hand has no such overview, makes no helpful suggestions and browbeats his opinion on people. Unfortunately for him, due to his rabid fanbase - he's going to find himself believing in his own immature BS in no time. Today's humble television actor will become the diva of tomorrow. (I think Charlie Brooker did a fantastic deconstruction of this somewhere on Screenwipe illustrating this - if nothing else, it's quite entertaining.)

 

[James Ennever]

Jim Sterling is a casual, a sellout reviewer and a melagomaniac who's ideas are ALWAYS in the mainstream opinion. They are. They ALWAYS are. A cancer to the industry.

Extra Credits may love video games a bit too much but at least they've got one person on their team that actually knows his shit. Granted, they may like crappy games like Skyrim (it's not like they have the time to play games indepth unlike us unprofessional gamers) but then again, James Portnow. They also tend to go against the mainstream, as exemplified by Portnow's transcript in defense of on-disc DLC.

I'd have to go with the lesser of the two evils, if only because they provide the obvious to aspiring game developers.

Well ECs writer james, has a degree in clasical theatrics........ Let us look at the bias shall we? They claim that people are dumb enough to take everything call of juarez the cartel as fact. that is IMO talking down to the audience on the highest leval. the bias in EC sometimes comes across as a little bit to PC for my tastes sometimes.

there episodes do tend to go on tangents that are obvious to the educated sometimes, Jim at least somewhat respect our intelect by not saying that neo nazi propaganda games are going to be bad. in the propoganda games episode, they could have just said it is a game distributed by neo nazis, no need to reiforce us about the fact that it is racist which anyone with half a brain could have figured out.

jim makes his bias clear from the beginning, he represents the consumers own veiws at some of the crap we have to deal with, then he makes realistic solutions.

 

[Rednog]

Wow, so much hostility towards EC. One day you guys are donating $20,000+ to them and the next day, you're all throwing hot rocks at them. You people are so fickle.

Note: I know not everyone is being hostile towards EC. I was just making a point.

Did you miss all the drama with EC and the Escapist?
EC pulled, what some would consider, sketchy actions with the whole donation drive, and the money contributed. Plenty enough from just that for people to be sour on EC.
Not really being fickle, but people reacting to their action post donation.
Also, it is one thing to donate to a person to save their livelihood, and it is another thing to worship whatever they do or say.

I was under the impression that the bad behavior during that fiasco was on the behalf of the Escapist, not EC.

That's why I threw in "what some would consider". It really boils down to how you interpret the events, for me personally I see it as EC in the wrong (I had a much longer explanation, but I decided its really not something to be brought up again).

 

[Elamdri]

Wow, so much hostility towards EC. One day you guys are donating $20,000+ to them and the next day, you're all throwing hot rocks at them. You people are so fickle.

Note: I know not everyone is being hostile towards EC. I was just making a point.

Did you miss all the drama with EC and the Escapist?
EC pulled, what some would consider, sketchy actions with the whole donation drive, and the money contributed. Plenty enough from just that for people to be sour on EC.
Not really being fickle, but people reacting to their action post donation.
Also, it is one thing to donate to a person to save their livelihood, and it is another thing to worship whatever they do or say.

I was under the impression that the bad behavior during that fiasco was on the behalf of the Escapist, not EC.

That's why I threw in "what some would consider". It really boils down to how you interpret the events, for me personally I see it as EC in the wrong (I had a much longer explanation, but I decided its really not something to be brought up again).

Well, we will never know what really happened I suspect, but from what I can remember, I just think that the stuff from the Escapist didn't pass the smell test during the whole deal.

 

[wintercoat]

Wow, so much hostility towards EC. One day you guys are donating $20,000+ to them and the next day, you're all throwing hot rocks at them. You people are so fickle.

Note: I know not everyone is being hostile towards EC. I was just making a point.

Did you miss all the drama with EC and the Escapist?
EC pulled, what some would consider, sketchy actions with the whole donation drive, and the money contributed. Plenty enough from just that for people to be sour on EC.
Not really being fickle, but people reacting to their action post donation.
Also, it is one thing to donate to a person to save their livelihood, and it is another thing to worship whatever they do or say.

I was under the impression that the bad behavior during that fiasco was on the behalf of the Escapist, not EC.

That's why I threw in "what some would consider". It really boils down to how you interpret the events, for me personally I see it as EC in the wrong (I had a much longer explanation, but I decided its really not something to be brought up again).

Not to be going around dredging up old bones, but I wasn't a forum-goer around the time that the whole thing with EC went down. What, exactly, happened? I knew about the charity thing for Alison's shoulder surgery, then EC disappeared from the site, and I had no clue what happened. I was literally only coming to the site for ZP, then I started watching EC and reading a few other articles shortly before it happened.

 

[Elamdri]

Wow, so much hostility towards EC. One day you guys are donating $20,000+ to them and the next day, you're all throwing hot rocks at them. You people are so fickle.

Note: I know not everyone is being hostile towards EC. I was just making a point.

Did you miss all the drama with EC and the Escapist?
EC pulled, what some would consider, sketchy actions with the whole donation drive, and the money contributed. Plenty enough from just that for people to be sour on EC.
Not really being fickle, but people reacting to their action post donation.
Also, it is one thing to donate to a person to save their livelihood, and it is another thing to worship whatever they do or say.

I was under the impression that the bad behavior during that fiasco was on the behalf of the Escapist, not EC.

That's why I threw in "what some would consider". It really boils down to how you interpret the events, for me personally I see it as EC in the wrong (I had a much longer explanation, but I decided its really not something to be brought up again).

Not to be going around dredging up old bones, but I wasn't a forum-goer around the time that the whole thing with EC went down. What, exactly, happened? I knew about the charity thing for Alison's shoulder surgery, then EC disappeared from the site, and I had no clue what happened. I was literally only coming to the site for ZP, then I started watching EC and reading a few other articles shortly before it happened.

It had to do with the Escapist not paying Extra Credits for most of their episodes while they were on the Escapist and also had to do with the Donation drive that they did for Allison Theus. There was a lot of money in surplus of what the donation goal was and there was a fight over what to do with that money. Each side has there own stance on both issues, but those were the two things that caused it.

 

[iRevanchist]

Jim seems way too childish, and his videos are just him ranting over trailer footage. EC at least tries to make the pics (many of which they make, shout out to alison) connect to the video. The maturity of EC is admirable, but I despise their support of microtransactions.

tl;dr EC all the way

 

[drednoahl]

Anyway, I appreciate that my silly show is considered worthy of fourteen pages of debate against a show that's pretty damn successful.

In the episodes of EC I've watched I didn't get the impression that they actually played games themselves, they were more concerned about the process of making money from games. I don't really understand why people like watching EC - they're like the Sven-Göran Eriksson of gaming industry commentators imo: soulless. Your silly show (which needs more Voldermort to Lucius) at least is entertaining. Can't imagine EC calling Jeff Rubenstein the "sexual ape" while talking about the serious business of videogames.

I wonder what you call Holmes... I'm guessing "sheep's teeth?"

 

[MatsVS]

I watch both, but I prefer Jimquisition. Extra Credits is not so much pretentious as they are simply incredible condescending to their audience. And at the risk of sounding like a hipster, some of us have been saying that since they were nothing but a youtube channel. Their efforts to portray James as some sort of gaming guru is loltastic, and quite frankly, probably little more than a marketing scheme for his consulting business.

Mr. Sterling, on the other hand, manages to be self-deprecating while still being insightful, and he makes no claims to be anything but a video games enthusiast who just happens to have been given the opportunity to play a lot of them.

 

[mybabyateadingo]

Honestly, the industry at large should probably listen to both. They can both give different sides of the same argument, and that's what matters in a situation like this. Compromise.

 

[funcooker11811]

That's why I threw in "what some would consider". It really boils down to how you interpret the events, for me personally I see it as EC in the wrong (I had a much longer explanation, but I decided its really not something to be brought up again).

Could you post it? It seems very relevant to the topic, and I haven't really had a solid recount of what exactly happened, just both sides waving away questions.

 

[mfeff]

Daniel Floyd is an animator at Pixar. Not a game developer.

Fair enough. Though it's not hard to see where the "artistic" bias comes from, which was my point.

My issue is not so much with the artistic bias, but it is that what he has to say is often times extremely contrary to what someone like Feng Zhu (the concept artist and illustrator for games like Bioshock) has said. That is interesting because Daniel has referenced Bioshock; Feng himself, on his YouTube channel, many times says quite "the opposite".

James Portnow has worked on games, but to my knowledge is not a developer currently. He worked on CoD at Activision, started a now defunct indie studio, and now consults.

Semantics and you know it.
He's worked on games or as a consultant for games. Either way is quite a different role from that of the common gamer.

BUT I was hoping you didn't know it. Slippery slope argument! However, never to concede defeat until the King is in check-mate, I will submit that I know a couple people (more than 2) who hold degrees in "game theory" who do not know "game theory". Semantics again? (Considering Game's Theory is extremely math heavy). This leads into...

....when people in the video game industry discuss "game theory" they are not discussing "game theory" the wiki entry. I find it also suspect when I run across people who call themselves "software engineers" who hold no degree or certification for such a thing. Perhaps it is the nature of this emergent business phenotype, but, it does beg a certain credulity.

Allison Theus I "think" works as an artist or illustrator at Relic... for however long that last... again, it's not really "game development".

Artistic conceptualization and marketing aren't part of game development?
Why does she work there then? Even marketing would have to work with the developers at some point so that they can sell the game with an appropriate spin.

Either way, she exists on the Supply side of the equation, rather than Demand.

So is the Janitor that works in the building, this is borderline "begging the question"... (while we are having fun with words).

The debatable point here is that they "collectively" have never really "put out" anything that remotely resembles any of the shit Daniel talks about. Two career artist and an educator looking to kick start gamification.

One does not necessarily have to practice what they preach either. It's a common problem with idealism in any subject. I will caution you here: you're close to making a Poisoning the Well fallacy here since my point was about the source of their "artistic bias" and not so much a direct attack on their credibility or authority on the subject itself.

The artist bias I think we have both identified as being part-n-parcel to the fact that 2 out of 3 participants are academically trained artist. James M.S. degree comes out of an art school, not a technical design school. I "suspect" focus is considerably different.

I am bias towards technical design, systems, and structure. I feel that art and art assets should support the technical design characteristics of a project, and that writing is the last thing that should influence a game. This coincides with my own appreciation of the subject in that the code base, flow, and "game" aspect of the design are the most time consuming elements of the project. The easier it is to change, as they say, the more "surface" it is in the process.

An interesting assessment in some ways I am of the mind to qualify. Saying that (generally speaking) people that are involved in a thing from a professional level, generally, do not speak out on the work that they do in anecdotal positing. It's a bit of the old "student blabs, master listens... or is asleep... When I see people in the professional or semi professional position discussing what they do it comes in a couple flavors...

Is it worse to have the masters sleep while the students speak for them?
Or to not say anything at all?

I was looking at gamasutra help wanted the other day, and found that 75-80% of the help wanted was for degrees in Software Engineering. Iv'e known some people to have gone into the field, only to come right back out and go into a heavier industry. I think it is the nature of the beast. The fad seems to be drop a couple I.P. and sell on the name similar to the .com boom. It is a strange thing to be sure. I am not sure there are many people that are really able to speak to it, as if it where some "object" sitting there to be described.

You may try Game Developer magazine, or making a trip to GDC... heck there are tons of groups that tinker with code and mods... some good conversations to be had there. Alas, to go deep, is often times, to go BALLS DEEP, and that means learning much of the hard technical aspects of it, rather than pedantically debating the nonsense of it.

I don't get invites for GDC since I'm not in the business, and I'm quite busy with University to boot. Though I do attempt to attend workshops when the appropriate conventions roll around (not many to attend in the midwest compared to the coasts). But it's a mere mist to slake the drought.

I will consider the magazine after finals week at university though.

It's been awhile since I took GDM as a subscription, I suppose it is still ok. GDC one may just go to, but it does have a price tag. I think of it as "commitment gated".

Guy, you sound interested in the field and not just as an audience member... if you lived close by I would spring for the beer and discuss what I know of it with you. I suppose from my own perspective when I look at Uni. and see English departments and philosophy departments bursting at the seems, then head over to the engineering department or upper division science curriculum and see a tumbleweed blowing by, I sigh.

I look at topics such as gamification as interesting, and useful in schools like Harvard and Princeton especially in the M.S. or Ph. D. programs, but the student quality is better, the student is generally already accomplished. Then again, I am a bit on the old school side, which means if I teach someone something, we do rigor and practice. Latter we can discuss nuance and finesse.

Even with games, when I think of the "developer" I think more in terms of the one or two guys or gals that have the "vision", everyone else a link in the product chain. I saw a lot of this "cart in front of the horse" mentality at Full Sail (I have not attended this school, but I personally know several people that have), I called it "Hironobu Syndrome". The "real" work-a-day world tends to prune feathers.

Thinking about what you said concerning the master/student is that in the world of intellectual I.P., or simply ideas, that "sharing" is something that is generally not done in the same respect that industry working with a Uni. working on a patent proposal or new process/product don't spend a lot of time advertising that fact. It's a competitive business, like any business.

I have some "stuff" that I work on myself... but I am not particularly obliged to YouTube it, or get into it... maybe I wanna try to make a buck off it in a couple years... I think this has a lot to do with why there is little to no "real" knowledge being slung around in the public domain.

As far as a some people you may like to check out:

Ian Bogost - http://www.bogost.com/writing/shit_crayons.shtml

Steven Wittens - http://acko.net/blog/making-worlds-4-the-devils-in-the-details/

Peter Merholz - "Subject To Change: Creating Great Products & Services for an Uncertain World: Adaptive Path on Design"

http://www.artbyfeng.com/


This video is pretty good, not a lot of detail but an interesting take on it similar to my own.

Anywho, shoot me a line PM if your interested in discussing design... or hell philosophy, or want a stock tip.

Take it easy.

as an aside, I am really interested in the work you can see here...

http://num3sis.inria.fr/

 

[doomspore98]

Today I turned coats and ventured into PA to wach the weekly Extra credits, and there I realised something. That Jim sterling Knows more about the online gaming scene than the three of them combined.

They think Gears of War is a first person shooter, so the only thing I can say to this is "no fucking shit."

I pity anyone who watches Extra Credits and thinks that the people who make it actually have any idea what they're talking about. Not being able to tell the difference between first and third person not only shows a complete lack of ignorance regarding games, but a complete lack of ignorance in general. First and third person viewpoints aren't just a gaming thing, and not being able to tell the difference show that they're just stupid in general.

When did they say that GoW was a FPS? I'm not condescending you, I just want to know which episode.

 

[Reincarnatedwolfgod]

i would say they both Jim sterling and Extra credits have there high and low points
there are a good amount of times when Extra credits is wrong but they also are able to right
the same can be said about Jim sterling.
it depends on to topic they are addressing whether they should be listened too or not

Extra credits:
they can be very condescending and wrong at the worst of times and at the best of times i agree with them. a good amount of the time i am indifferent towards like this one

http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/kinect-disconnect

interesting idea but i never played a kinect game before i can't verify how right or wrong they are.i don't detect any high levels of them being condescending in this one. it just seem like its just there to raise a discussion. over all a good topic and a idea i never thought of

at extra credits best i would say there skinner box one
http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/the-skinner-box
what is there to disagree with. people should not just make a bad games and use said methods to make people thick there having fun when there really not. doing this does not seem morally right to me

then there is video game addiction one
not part one(i have no big problems with it) but the real issue is with part 2.
just no comments; i am not even going to link it. imo that was extra credits at its worst.
seeing it once was one too many. do your self a favor don't watch it

Jim sterling:
hate out of ten
i can't find any points i disagree with. jim was at his best in this one

much of jim's early stuff i had a hard time agreeing with him

 

[fangface]

Yeah it was. The escapist guys wanted a certain cut of the money the extra credits guys made and that just led to some conflicts which caused them to leave the escapist. I'm sure there's more to it than that but that's all I can remember right now.