Poll: Jim sterling VS Extra credits

[deathzero021]

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.

 

[Num1d1um]

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.

 

[Redlin5_v1legacy]

*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.

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

*walks out*

 

[Ramare]

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".

 

[Waffle_Man]

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.

[sub][sub]This post may contain some hyperbole.[/sub][/sub]

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.

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.

Spoiler

You didn't compare the first fifteen/ten/five minutes (Or two and a half, as you ended up doing) of Skyrim with the first five minutes of Modern Warfare.

Firstly, as others have mentioned, that was not what CoD4 started you with, there is game play before you reach that point. So, it was a bad comparison to begin with if you're talking about the first ten minutes.

The point wasn't that "x number of minutes of skyrim= x number of minutes of Call of Duty." Rather, the point was that a the first few minutes of Skyrim were derived from a scene that didn't really work all that well as the first few minutes of Skyrim.

It was also slanted to say that the style of intro in Skyrim was lifted from CoD4 as this style of intro has been around for much longer than CoD4 and has been in many games.

While true, does this really detract from the argument? It's possible that they were just referencing an example that a large number of people were sure to be aware of.

Further more, as others have also pointed out, different styles of introductions are going to be more appropriate for different games.

Wasn't that the entire point?

To top it off. you only covered the first two minutes and thirty seconds of the Skyrim intro, which is unfair, to say the least if you're here to talk about the first ten minutes

Ok, but that's not the point. The point was "Skyrim blew it's first impression."

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. [http://www.destructoid.com/100-objective-review-final-fantasy-xiii-179178.phtml]

 

[shrekfan246]

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

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.

 

[DudeistBelieve]

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?

 

[Krion_Vark]

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.

 

[Greni]

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.

 

[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."

 

[ThePS1Fan]

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.

 

[FFHAuthor]

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.'