I guess hyperbolic satire just isn't my thing. Advertising himself as "Gaming's Biggest Douchebag" and talking in that bloody accent doesn't help anything, either.
Poll: Jimquisition: like or dislike
- Thread starter blobby218
- Start date
Recommended Videos
1)Content that's already covered by other contributors
2)Lowest common denominator humour
3)All decent points are tainted by him mocking the opposition, rather than engaging in debate
4)Seeming lack of effort in doing anything other than writing the show. The other contributors make a video, not stand in their living room talking to a camera
5)Arrogance without charm makes for a poor video personality in my book
And, although this shouldn't count, since discovering him on this site I've heard a lot about his past, and he just doesn't seem like the sort of person I like.
I appreciate what he does, but no, it isn't for me, and it paints a rather ugly image of people with similar opinions.
2)Lowest common denominator humour
3)All decent points are tainted by him mocking the opposition, rather than engaging in debate
4)Seeming lack of effort in doing anything other than writing the show. The other contributors make a video, not stand in their living room talking to a camera
5)Arrogance without charm makes for a poor video personality in my book
And, although this shouldn't count, since discovering him on this site I've heard a lot about his past, and he just doesn't seem like the sort of person I like.
I appreciate what he does, but no, it isn't for me, and it paints a rather ugly image of people with similar opinions.
I only watched Jims first two shows and I didnt care for them. He made some valid points but it was not entertaining to me and his sense of humor grated on my nerves. I just dont like his show so I no longer watch them. However I know some people will like his show and to them I can only say great, Im glad you have fun with it. Its just not for me
But who cares about his personality? No one is attacking him as a person, it's the persona we (most of us) have a problem with. Because it makes the show obnoxious and unentertaining.Jake Lewis Clayton said:
Also, you can't say that Yahtzee is just being a typical brit. If every british male gamer was the same as Yahtzee, Yahtzee's show on the escapist wouldn't be very popular now, would it? Thing about Yahtzee is, he has that bitter cynicism about him, but there's actually a degree of warmth to be found in his work, in that he has humility and charm to him, and you can see that he is in the gig because he loves it.
Jim is a gormless, charmless guy in it to be just what his tagline says; Gaming's biggest douchebag. That's how he appears to me anyway, and that's why I don't find him funny, but cringey.
And besides, what's your point? Jim's being your typical obnoxious in-your-face kind of american guy? How is that a good thing, exactly?
But honestly, tell me this; What do you watch Jim's show for? What do you get from it? Never in all his videos on D-toid or The Escapist have I seen him say anything really useful or insightful that the industry hasn't had said about it before, or anything all that funny.
I didn't like the show at first but it seems to be getting better with every episode. If anyone gave up on it after the first or second it's definitely worth another look.
Absolute rubbish. Do not want.
His videos look like shit and he seems to think he's way smarter than he really is.
His videos look like shit and he seems to think he's way smarter than he really is.
then I apologize for jumping to conclusions.
Edit: I have watched a some of his more recent episodes and have realized that he actually does make some good points. I also realized his ego is a joke.
Edit: I have watched a some of his more recent episodes and have realized that he actually does make some good points. I also realized his ego is a joke.
I agree with a lot of his opinions, but he's an extremely poor public speaker. He takes too long to make his points and has no real grasp on how to deliver humour verbally. It's like watching Charlie Brooker at half speed with no wit. On the other hand, I really like some of his written articles, where these weaknesses don't affect him quite so badly.blobby218 said:
I personally can't stand him. The only reason I found this thread and posting on the forums is because i googled "get rid of Jimquistion" He shares his opinion will little facts to back things up. The worst is when he tries to be funny. It just comes across as dumb and pointlessly insulting.
I really hope the Escapist will remove this loudmouth and replace him with something better. I wouldnt even care if they don't replace him with anything. Just get him off the site.
I really hope the Escapist will remove this loudmouth and replace him with something better. I wouldnt even care if they don't replace him with anything. Just get him off the site.
Why did you show the video description?kroldok said:
No, it's not subjective in this case. The only reason any grim footage is ever used is to A) Show people what the assailant looks like so they are aware/asking for help apprehending a criminal or B) Shock value. And, unlike showing the tapes of a robbery or something, that's what using snuff footage is for: Shock value (and it is snuff footage because someone literally dies on camera, as opposed to a snuff film where it's a film featuring actors/randoms literally dieing on camera. Just clearing that up).
_There is never a reason to show footage like the one he used other than for shock value. Fact. Why? Because there's nothing to be gained from it other than the shock of the audience.
_Why is it not subjective that there are better ways to go about proving a point? Because good journalism doesn't rely on cheap tricks like that one to prove it's point. Any good journalist worth their salt can explain their opinion and/or point with words. You can even show diagrams, statistics, or better yet related footage. Video game footage! That snuff footage had nothing to do with gaming or violence, he just used it to illustrate his point when he could've done the same thing with average COD footage.
*shows random COD videogame footage*
"Does this feel real to you? No? Because at the end of the day it isn't. Though we might not realize it while we're 'in the zone', all the clipping, graphical inconsistencies, the way your character getting shot in the foot somehow makes your eyes get covered in jelly, and even just the fact that we're really only sitting in a chair with a controller or keyboard in our hands is all information that's fed to our brains to disconnect fictional violence with real violence. We don't want true death. We don't want to see real people die just as much as we don't want to get shot! Just because we want more visceral action that doesn't equate to a lust for realistic war. As much as gamers talk about killing and such, we also enjoy outrageous deaths and love watching bad ragdoll effects of a falling body. Those things are what separate us from murder-lovers. Yes, we want to blow a man's brains out with our high-powered rifle. But more importantly, we want the ability to turn off the bloodshed at some point. Maybe go off and eat some Cheetos or watch porn. In my case both.
_That little power button? That's what divides murder from playtime, and it's what prevents sane gamers from thinking real murder is cool."
See? All dialogue. The point was explained as clearly as the individual (in this case, me) thought they could, showed no actual rage and even had one or two attempts at humor (be they successful or failures). More importantly, the point was explained without any cheap gimmicks, without the manipulation of the audience. Without any snuff footage.
Also watch the ending of the video again. Watch what he does. See how he parodies the real suicide he JUST used for shock value? He thinks he's being funny. The fact that he thinks parodying the snuff footage would be funny immediately discredits his argument because it shows a callous disregard for the weight and reality of the death (the reason he used it in the first place). He shows he doesn't care about the death and can make a joke of it. BAD journalism. BAD journalist. And since he's supposedly known for being "funny but edgy", you can be safe in assuming he only did that last bit because he was serious the whole video and wanted a joke, and to show, yet again, how "edgy" and "unapologetic" he is.
This is proof that he is a hack.
Firstly, it's ignorance to say all violence in videogames is over the top or cartoonish. Heavy Rain. LA Noire. The SMT games (magic is sometimes involved, but a character's death has weight and is neither funny or cartoonish). Red Dead Redemption. I can go on, but I don't have to.
Secondly: The word "boring" does indeed mean that you're not deriving pleasure from it, but the term is not used in describing something horrible/horrific/shocking. The reason is because...well...you're not bored when you're shocked. Or horrified. You're too busy being shocked! ...Or horrified!
Boring- monotonous, tedious, tiresome, humdrum
To call actual death, especially war, humdrum is not only factually incorrect but also insulting to all those who have experienced war or the loss of a loved one. And, if you want to go in another direction, you can even say it's insulting to those who died, but that would be less fact and more opinion.
_Guy made a huge feus pax there and he stuck with it thinking he was saying something smart. In actuality he was making himself look even more so like an insensitive and ignorant individual.
Wilhelm Scream: I actually didn't catch that about the screams. Either that or I just didn't know what that was. Since that's the case then I'll take back what I said about the screaming. Makes sense. Thanks for the info, though. Like I like to joke:
==* The More You Know!
No, mate, I was just having fun. You know how some people say "It makes me so mad I can punch a kitten?" Well I was just turning an awful phrase around to be funny by abusing Eldrtich Horror creatures (TVtrops the term, but in short it's the classification of Cathulu-like monsters that can induce madness just by reading their name or looking at them). Wasn't trying to be poignant or anything with that. Just goofing around.
In conclusion: Jim whateverhisnameis is a hack and deserves no less than ridicule until he learns how to be a real journalist. Doesn't matter if he's only on the net. He's getting paid to be a journalist, and thus he should do his job correctly instead of being the "edgy" equivalent to Fox News.
I voted "very poor". I don't necessarily disagree with him. I just think his delivery is clumsy and his humour lacks wit. Every time I watch his show I'm unpleasantly reminded of one of my high-school English assignments, where we all had to write a piece of satire and present it to the class. Needless to say, they were boring at best, and at worst they just made you feel embarrassed for the kid reading the crap because you could see how hard they were trying to make you laugh. Overall, I just think it has very low entertainment value. Between Yahtzee and Movie Bob (let's face it, Extra Credits is in a league of its own) I don't see why we should want something that essentially does the same thing but with only a fraction of the quality.
... He's ok.
I liked his thing about CoD, but I have a feeling he could get very old very quickly.
I liked his thing about CoD, but I have a feeling he could get very old very quickly.
yikes man.. you have a point but 'ridicule' is a bit much isn't it?Ian Caronia said:
i picked 'very poor' too I don't like the acting, comments, or visual style of jim's show
( the weird smiley-faces on play-stations and defending cod )
he raises some decent points especially i liked the weird is not enough and the sexism situation
good points, they made i think the most decent shows.. if a bit bizzare however,
i just don't like the format of the show
as he himself put it, the weird is not enough
as he seems to have allot more fun with it than the audience!
if he applied his own logic to his own shows so-far i think we'd see some divide by zero situation
it's not even jim himself, he could be great in another context but i just don't see it being half as popular as the other class shows we have on here as it is
maybe someone should beat him with a sensible stick for a while and we'll see if we get a better episode?
I would say that it's not bad because his production values suck, but rather because it is made so evident in the show that they are so low.Kahunaburger said:
I heavily dislike him. He has an abrasive delivery style, and can't write a speech for shit.
The show itself is something I don't quite like to watch. I suppose I'm just used to videos that aren't quite in that "style". I do understand that sometimes he has some good points, though. I actually enjoyed reading what he had to say in the little debate they had with Extra Consideration, so I'd consider Jim's stuff to be better on paper.
The video description state that the video is made with another piece of work in mind:Ian Caronia said:
http://kotaku.com/5576332/who-cheers-for-war
This sets the context of the video, and I find that it matters,(although I should probably have posted the link first time around, so my bad there).
"_There is never a reason to show footage like the one he used other than for shock value."
True, it is shock value, but that does not mean he is wrong, and I would maintain it is pure and simple fact that it is indeed subjective.
Your feelings are yours, they are personal, Personal feelings = Opinion = Subjective.
Your statement is that there is nothing subjective about shock value, this is wrong, it is your opinion that he did a poor job based solely on the inclusion of that footage.
What offends you does not always offend me, hence no matter what you do, the reaction of other people is subjective.
And as such wether this is the worst or best way to make the point falls solely to the individual to feel for themself, this means it is subjective.
I don't feel that this is the best way to point it out either, the footage was in my opinion a bit much, but this still doesn't mean it is a factualy bad creation.
Your argument that 'real journalists' don't use shock value sounds strange to me, I see shock value on the news all the time (case in point the footage used by Sterling). What exactly do you mean by 'real journalists'?
Firstly, it's ignorance to say all violence in videogames is over the top or cartoonish. Heavy Rain. LA Noire. The SMT games (magic is sometimes involved, but a character's death has weight and is neither funny or cartoonish). Red Dead Redemption. I can go on, but I don't have to.[/quote]
I realized early, that most of his points aren't that serius, so instead I tried to judge it on the humor, but he only cracks like 2-3 jokes a video. You're more or less ment to look at his videos like a satire of the likes of "Extra Credits" and "The Big Picture".