OK, I've been watching these videos because, I'll be honest, I had a little interest in the show as he would touch on topics, and I'm a whore for information: if there's someone with another viewpoint, I'd love to hear it.
I've finally figured out why I have a problem with this show though.
I understand what he's doing: he wants to make his own shtick combining comedy and games Journalism to keep people entertained as well as do a little reporting. The problem lies in the material.
This video, about 5 minutes long (excluding half a minute for intro/outro) was more than half jokes. And you know, that's fine if you enjoy his sense of humor, which I personally don't, but without that, he does very little to cover the topic at hand. Most of it was spent saying what annoyed him about the current situation, and maybe very slightly touching on what might be the problem. I felt like he lost a lot of time that could have been spent on discussing the problem and what might be causing it and bringing some insight to the consumer as to what is going on behind closed doors. He's certainly right to be angry; a lot of the business decisions coming out of these game publishers seem ridiculous and damaging to the consumer. However, a good piece of journalism, even if it's clearly biased, should be able to at least bring to light the other side of the story, and I feel like, in this show, the buck stops with Jim.
This lack of information just slams the door on the publishers, blocking any possibility that there could be some saving grace or rational, no matter how twisted, that they can use to explain their practices. To me, this makes the piece feel empty - without a counterpoint to his distress, there's nothing to point out as ridiculous, or more importantly, nothing to point out HOW to change as opposed to what to change. Identifying the problem is only one part: finding the cause is what we need to actually make a difference, and if you don't attempt to bring that to light, you're not really going to make a difference on the industry.
And if all that was meant was to entertain, that's fine, but he often jumps between the two personalities - entertainer, then journalist, then back again - and instead of making enough of an impression with one or the other, it feels like it kind of flounders, leaving me disappointed with both. He never really had me with his comedy, but he always seemed like he was on the verge of saying something significant otherwise, and the reason I kept watching is because I hoped one or the other would get better. Sadly, the journalism hasn't improved, and I still don't like the sense of humor, so I think this'll be my last one. Good luck!
EDIT: I WOULD like to see something like Yahtzee does, a print article that is more about the details of a topic - As someone mentioned above, he brought his point across much better in the email discussions they had before, and I'd gladly read that. That way I could skip most of his narcissistic humor and go right to the meaty bits. Of the article I mean. Not of Jim.
I've finally figured out why I have a problem with this show though.
I understand what he's doing: he wants to make his own shtick combining comedy and games Journalism to keep people entertained as well as do a little reporting. The problem lies in the material.
This video, about 5 minutes long (excluding half a minute for intro/outro) was more than half jokes. And you know, that's fine if you enjoy his sense of humor, which I personally don't, but without that, he does very little to cover the topic at hand. Most of it was spent saying what annoyed him about the current situation, and maybe very slightly touching on what might be the problem. I felt like he lost a lot of time that could have been spent on discussing the problem and what might be causing it and bringing some insight to the consumer as to what is going on behind closed doors. He's certainly right to be angry; a lot of the business decisions coming out of these game publishers seem ridiculous and damaging to the consumer. However, a good piece of journalism, even if it's clearly biased, should be able to at least bring to light the other side of the story, and I feel like, in this show, the buck stops with Jim.
This lack of information just slams the door on the publishers, blocking any possibility that there could be some saving grace or rational, no matter how twisted, that they can use to explain their practices. To me, this makes the piece feel empty - without a counterpoint to his distress, there's nothing to point out as ridiculous, or more importantly, nothing to point out HOW to change as opposed to what to change. Identifying the problem is only one part: finding the cause is what we need to actually make a difference, and if you don't attempt to bring that to light, you're not really going to make a difference on the industry.
And if all that was meant was to entertain, that's fine, but he often jumps between the two personalities - entertainer, then journalist, then back again - and instead of making enough of an impression with one or the other, it feels like it kind of flounders, leaving me disappointed with both. He never really had me with his comedy, but he always seemed like he was on the verge of saying something significant otherwise, and the reason I kept watching is because I hoped one or the other would get better. Sadly, the journalism hasn't improved, and I still don't like the sense of humor, so I think this'll be my last one. Good luck!
EDIT: I WOULD like to see something like Yahtzee does, a print article that is more about the details of a topic - As someone mentioned above, he brought his point across much better in the email discussions they had before, and I'd gladly read that. That way I could skip most of his narcissistic humor and go right to the meaty bits. Of the article I mean. Not of Jim.
