Poll: Jim sterling VS Extra credits

[James Ennever]

Everybody is free to like or dislike me at their leisure. I will, however, address one thing that's come up a bit:

The idea that any publisher would pay me to advertise their game on my shitty little show is hilarious and anyone who suggests that should feel incredibly silly.

I am a fan of videogames. I tend to use footage from and love to talk about games I enjoy. Simple as.

Wow you actually read this thread. Just want to say fair props to you man.

It is an interesting thread, and while clearly the public has determined Extra Credits to be the voice of a generation, I have enjoyed the discussion on the two shows.

That said, I don't quite see how they're comparable, being such vastly different entities. Even the videos mention in the OP were about two different subjects. My childishness video was about dealing with pundits who spread lies about games, while EC was talking about harassment. I've not done a harassment video to date, though the firestorm of debate surrounding the issue seems to tell me it's worth a punt.




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

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.

Well you have to factor in the "thank god for me index" plus at the start it was quite close.

I like both your show and Extra credits, it was just there latest stance was to "you are either a nice non muteable player or a mean little troll" Anyone who has spent any time online knows that there is a middle ground of player, one who does not spit out sexist/racist insulsts just good old fashiond cursing at campers. the sort who says good game afterwards, even though in game his language would give a drunken sailor a run for its money.

thanks for the mention btw made my lunch break.

 

[Something Amyss]

Oh there's no doubt that a lot of their solutions are indeed pie in the sky and I think James is mostly aware of this. But I still find a lot of the ideas presented in EC as pretty cool, even if there's very little chance of them being adopted in any shape or form. I suppose I mostly just appreciate the effort made in the videos to present a thoughtful dialogue on topical issues despite its "what if..." format.

I too look for very different things in the two. I do particularly enjoy Jim's no holds barred approach to his videos. It can be quite refreshing after the rather more passive offerings of EC.

That's the problem, though. "What if?" And fantasy solutions probably aren't something the gaming industry or the gaming community should really look to.

I like it when they provoke thought. But some of their episodes are just annoying and don't really so much do that. I think their DLC episode inspired by Mass Effect and their JRPG/WRPG eps are good examples. They sound like they don't know what they're talking about sometimes.

I don't remember saying that physical violence or arson was covered by freedom of speech. We're talking about SPEECH. Nobody claimed anyone should be able to burn down or hit anyone or anything because of freedom of speech.

You didn't have to. Thanks for dodging the point.

But hey, while we're here, if I can't burn down someone's house, I'm not truly free. And since we value freedom over all else, including well-being, shouldn't I be able to burn down your house if I disagree with you? You DO want absolute freedom, don't you?

Or does that only apply selectively?

As far as "people being harassed have a voice," that's specious and inane. Of course they have a voice, but that doesn't really mean anything in practical senses. You're arguing from the ridiculous position that the two are somehow equal, which NEVER plays out in the real world.

Let me guess: You're libertarian. I've noticed a trend in libertarians that they are so wrapped up in their theoretical solutions that they fail to grasp their practical failures.

No, it means that they are giving the point of the view of an actual developer. A journalist would imply that the person isn't an expert on the subject, just reporting the facts.

REALLY wondering why you quoted me now, as you seem to be talking about things that get progessively less and less related to what I said. And you didn't really start off in the ballpark anyway.

 

[Don quixote's mule]

Extra Credits on the other hand? Fuck EC. Thats all I am saying.

At least Jim isn't pretentious as all fuck.

The guys at EC are so far up their own asses it's unbelievable. Their "gaming is the wave of the future!" attitude grates on my nerves.

Did I miss the part where EC decided to start stealing people's lunch money? There are definitely reasons to dislike Extra Credits, but does it warrant such hostility?

I donated to that under the assumption that EC would stay on the escapist.....

The escapist practically stole those donations and tried to steal the Extra Credits IP at the same time. There is little arguing that EC wasn't justified in leaving. I can't say for sure, but I doubt it was a quiescence that Russ Pitts resigned shortly after EC left.

Another thing what is wrong with journalists? I am personally in favor of a sense of decorum on the internet, and having games peer reviewed is a good thing. As much fun as it is to have a shit fight with a bunch of wild monkeys, even flinging poo, eventually gets old.

 

[funcooker11811]

The escapist practically stole those donations and tried to steal the Extra Credits IP at the same time. There is little arguing that EC wasn't justified in leaving. I can't say for sure, but I doubt it was a quiescence that Russ Pitts resigned shortly after EC left.

While that does line up to what I thought happened, I've never really seen any kind of evidence of either sides culpability. Can you back that up somehow?

 

[Don quixote's mule]

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.

Well, I am going to condescend him, because that was one of the dumbest thing I have ever read. And I made it through a Stphenie Meyers book. On the one hand, I will agree with mjc0961 the EC crew does have a "lack of Ignorance regarding games" Google James Portnow, or Daniel Floyd, There is an episode where they did talk about a point in GoW where the game switched perspective from third to first. In the "No redeeming Value episode" EC pointed illuminated this sequence, because in storytelling, shifts of perspective like the one in GoW3 usually mean something in narrative. I included a link to the EC episode below.

http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/no-redeeming-value

 

[jovack22]

Good riddance to EC. They love to talk, but forget to say something thought provoking.

 

[Don quixote's mule]

The escapist practically stole those donations and tried to steal the Extra Credits IP at the same time. There is little arguing that EC wasn't justified in leaving. I can't say for sure, but I doubt it was a quiescence that Russ Pitts resigned shortly after EC left.

While that does line up to what I thought happened, I've never really seen any kind of evidence of either sides culpability. Can you back that up somehow?

I wish I could say definitively yes. There are several accounts about what happened that I can't find namely the episode when EC asked for the community's help, Where EC outlined what would happen with surplus. What I did find is mostly one-sided one way or another, and while I read the account as an indication of bad business practices on The escapist part. Even if the contributors are willing to donate their productions as some have said, not being able to pay said contributors and then using charity funds to finance programming indicates an issue with the business model. I will admit that the Russ Pitts assertion is nothing more than a guess based on observation of the timing.

https://www.facebook.com/notes/alexander-macris/a-response-on-extra-credits/10150287107583910
http://www.rockethub.com/projects/2165-extra-credits/posts/740
http://blog.rockethub.com/80k-in-10-days-the-story-of-extra-credits-as
http://www.examiner.com/article/extra-credits-leaves-escapist-gav-of-miracle-of-sound-speaks-up

 

[Shadowcreed]

I never found Extra Credits to be talking down on their audience - I feel they're a source of information and rely on them informing themselves properly. As such I find it a good way of speech they're using, since they 'should' be the informed side of debate, and you're the viewer, getting the information. Of course if they're plain out wrong about something they lose credibility but usually they're stating opinions / solutions / events about certain very real elements in the gaming industry, and as such they can't really be 'wrong'. Its a view on things - usually I agree with their view, besides that mass effect debacle they did.. art, hah..

Anyhow - I like Jim's show quite a bit too, though he doesn't 'feel' to be all that informed. I'm sure he knows what he's talking about though the way his persona works feels like he's even more of 'just another opinion (backed by evidence and facts, most likely, which is great)', but he doesn't feel like he's informing me that much. I like to watch these shows to get some information about events happening in the industry, and for that I tent to watch EC more open minded, and have a quick look at what Jim has got to say about the whole thing, he does bring up interesting stuff. It's EC for me though, sorry Jim xD

 

[OldDirtyCrusty]

Yeah, he rags on people who say that we have it good with the assumption that all those people mean that the situation is ideal. This is bullcrap.

He rags about people who accept every bullcrap from publishers, saying it could be worse and it`s ok because that`s the way it is.

 

[TheMagicLemur]

ECs solution, which I think would ruin multiplayer is to factor in A mute average. What if you are having A bad day and you trash talk the opisition? according to them you should be permenantly ostrisised, it is a dangerous idea.

Oh please. If you manage to piss off enough people in ONE DAY to get yourself auto-muted, you have serious rage issues.


OT: Extra Credits is, and was always, better than Jimquisition. It's not "pretentious" to discuss games and gaming concepts without resorting to flaming vitriol. The Escapist is poorer for losing EC.

 

[TheMagicLemur]

Everybody is free to like or dislike me at their leisure.

You know, Jim, I think you and I are a lot alike, and I think we'd absolutely despise each other if we ever had to have a prolonged conversation. We're both people who hate arrogance and assholery, yet often resort to being arrogant assholes to make our points. That said, I think there's always a place for you in the discourse, and you often make pretty valid points (although you're UTTERLY wrong about some things!)

I will, however, address one thing that's come up a bit:

The idea that any publisher would pay me to advertise their game on my shitty little show is hilarious and anyone who suggests that should feel incredibly silly.

I am a fan of videogames. I tend to use footage from and love to talk about games I enjoy. Simple as.

I really don't get how people come to that conclusion. It seems like it's often just a weak attempt to discredit you, which is silly. You don't have to try and completely discredit someone in order to somehow make your opinion about what they said valid.

 

[maddawg IAJI]

Are you kidding? Jim is a game journalist. He works for Destructoid.
And as much as I like Croshaw's humorous cynicism, it makes it difficult to sympathize with him because it seems nigh impossible for him to enjoy most games. It's like the elite gamer jerks that won't play anything with a metacritic score below an 8.

You are aware that Croshaw and Jim's videos usually involve them creating personas for entertainment value right? To quote Ben Croshaw himself "No one likes it when I say good things about a video game."

That said, I do agree with the OP on EC. There ideas are incredibly retarded, especially on Xbox Live. I should not have my messaging privilege taken away because someone did not respond to one of my messages, especially if what I wrote was not offensive and the same goes for their mute idea. The idea of multiplayer is that social interaction is part of the experience, getting of the social interaction with other players kinda defeats the purpose of it.

And yes, I'm taking the whole "EC sucks" side on that whole argument too. I feel they talk down to their viewers, are very, very pretentious and they're too scared to take a single stance on hard issues. They didn't wanna pick a side on the Mass Effect 3 debate, they talked about publishers use underhanded tactics to gain the upper hand on developers and then quickly say "Oh, but publishers aren't bad guys!" and its just annoying thing to watch.

 

[Jumpingbean3]

I think both their points of view are worth considering despite claims that EC is pretentious and the few remaining people who hate on Jim for his character because they can't take a joke. Both have their own areas of expertise (Extra Credits seems more concerned with the artistic effects of and on the game industry while Jim seems more concerned with consumer rights, though these are subjects that both Jim and EC have covered in the past) as well as different ways of presenting them (Jim does it through a very blunt and harsh character while EC tends to present their ideas with idealism and an attempt to sympathize with gamers and the game industry, which may be where the claims of "talking down to their audience" came from).

 

[Rack]

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.

In genre terms would you say Gears of War is closer to Halo or Ikaruga?
In genre terms would you say Dark Souls is closer to Skyrim than Gears of War is to Halo?
Would you say the genre distinction between Halo and Gears of War is substantially more than just nomenclature? I.e. if the Genre was named something like "Near perspective shooter" would you have any objection to them being in the same genre?
What genre would you put House of the Dead: Overkill into?

To me saying Gears of War isn't an FPS is a bit similar to saying almost every game bar Tetris is an RPG. Technically it may be accurate but it doesn't address the reasons for grouping them together. Even if you don't agree I'm hoping you can see that grouping these games together isn't just being too dumb to realise what "First person" means, but rather looking at the underlying reasons for the naming.

 

[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.

Well, I am going to condescend him, because that was one of the dumbest thing I have ever read. And I made it through a Stphenie Meyers book. On the one hand, I will agree with mjc0961 the EC crew does have a "lack of Ignorance regarding games" Google James Portnow, or Daniel Floyd, There is an episode where they did talk about a point in GoW where the game switched perspective from third to first. In the "No redeeming Value episode" EC pointed illuminated this sequence, because in storytelling, shifts of perspective like the one in GoW3 usually mean something in narrative. I included a link to the EC episode below.

http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/no-redeeming-value

You realize he was talking about god of war right? Which does actually switch from one perspective to another at one point in the game.

 

[Delicious Soy]

I'm finding this whole 'EC are pretentious' thing pure bunkum. Just because they attempt to use an even handed approach to the topics does not make them pretentious. The structure of their show is designed around identifying and explaining a problem before putting forward a solution. Doing this in a detached manner is simply the most effective way to conduct a logical argument.

Jim is a different kettle of fish. The fact that he creates a character in which he can safely rant about issues indicates that his show is less about engaging with industry or the broader context of videogames but as others have pointed out, presenting a consumer rights focus from the perspective of a consumer with a focus on entertaining the audience more directly than EC does. This doesn't really belittle his show anymore than it puts EC on a pedestal; all it does is indicate that the shows have different function and are therefore not as directly comparable as people seem to think.

Really, Jim speaks to consumers about consumption while EC is attempting to create a framework to discuss videogames in a manner that hasn't been established yet. If you want to vilify them for attempting that because its apprently 'pretentious', feel free. Having an interest in creating a theoretical framework for a relatively new form of narrative doesn't instantly turn you into a monocle wearing toff sipping sherry in the professor lounge.

 

[funcooker11811]

I wish I could say definitively yes. There are several accounts about what happened that I can't find namely the episode when EC asked for the community's help, Where EC outlined what would happen with surplus. What I did find is mostly one-sided one way or another, and while I read the account as an indication of bad business practices on The escapist part. Even if the contributors are willing to donate their productions as some have said, not being able to pay said contributors and then using charity funds to finance programming indicates an issue with the business model. I will admit that the Russ Pitts assertion is nothing more than a guess based on observation of the timing.

https://www.facebook.com/notes/alexander-macris/a-response-on-extra-credits/10150287107583910
http://www.rockethub.com/projects/2165-extra-credits/posts/740
http://blog.rockethub.com/80k-in-10-days-the-story-of-extra-credits-as
http://www.examiner.com/article/extra-credits-leaves-escapist-gav-of-miracle-of-sound-speaks-up

Yeah, the whole 'making the site mobile-friendly' thing kept coming to mind when I was reading about the apparent inability to pay their contributors. Although, surely that couldn't be where all the money went?

 

[Epic Fail 1977]

Each episode of Jimquisition consists of Jim wording a single, simple statement in about 20 to 30 slightly different ways.

"I like the colour red"
"Red is good"
"Red is best"
"Red is for me"
"I like dark pink"

...and so on, for about ten minutes. The fact that he's able to get such a lot of mileage out of so little actual content speaks volumes for his ability to entertain.

EC I've not watched for a while now (ever since that dude with the dark hair sat in front of his webcam and literally cried about game addiction) but prior to that they had a pretty interesting show IMO, with certainly a lot more to say than Jim ever has. But they never made me laugh by just saying "you don't know what the fu-u-u-u-u-u-u-uck you're talking about".

So I'll call it a draw.