Jimquisition: I Hate Videogames (Because I Love Them)

[MercurySteam]

One of your best episodes Jim, mainly cause I saw many games I'm fond of referenced. It's nice to see that somebody hasn't forgotten that criticism is a good thing, especially if it's constructive. Some people (myself included) will fight tooth and claw for franchises they love and a good example is with Mass Effect 3 and the Extended Cut. We didn't like what we got so we demanded an ending worthy of a beloved series and we got it. Now that's what I call power to the gamers.

In the end only we can make sure our favourite games stay true to themselves.

 

[DRTJR]

I think Using Javik as a bad example of day one DLC is flawed. Since he comes with the Collector's edition and I as somebody who would like him naturally don't mind purchasing him day one.

 

[Helston]

Thank God for you, Jim. That was a fantastic episode.

I enjoy watching your show every week (have been for a few months now), but that one was undoubtedly the best I've seen yet.

 

[Zyst]

Thank god for him.

I agree with this, and I must accept I am guilty of this. When my friend criticize my games sometimes I notice I go into overflow saying why it's worth it and they should get it anyway. In the end I do realize the stuff is fucked up, but that doesn't mean I don't want them buying it so we can play.

Oh well, I'll try to fix that. Again, Thank god for Jim Sterling.

 

[Orekoya]

That's may be the definition of bigot. But sorry, just because you don't approve of gay marriage does not mean you are a bigot. Do tell me how believing in something means you are automatically INTOLERANT of the opposite. Maybe what you need is to learn what TOLERANCE means.

Tolerance: a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry.

I hate rap. Hate, hate, hate it. Think its crap that all sounds the same and I wish it didn't exist But guess what. Still tolerant of it. I let it exist because it has a right to. But that doesn't mean I have to like it.

But its ironic, the chicken guy has a view, and a belief, but you seem to be rather intolerant of it. That make you a bigot as well?

If you wish it didn't exist, guess what. That means you AREN'T tolerant of it. Wishing that something you dislike would stop existing isn't fair, objective, or permissive at all. You're saying "I don't like that thing, I wish it didn't exist. Fuck everyone who does like it because I do not like it and I am the only one that matters."

That's about as far from tolerating rap as you can get. :/

I like how you highlighted and took out of context one part of what I said but obviously ignored "But I let it exist BECAUSE IT HAS A RIGHT TO" Meaning, I recognize that it has a right to exist and I have no right to make it not exist.

Sorry, that's not far from being tolerant. That's quintessential tolerance.

No it isn't.

tolerate - to allow the existence, presence, practice, or act of without prohibition or hindrance; to endure without repugnance(ie strong distaste, aversion, or objection)

To tolerate means you see or experience without batting an eye from whatever personal discomfort you feel about something, so no you're not even tolerating rap. You stop tolerating something when you start complaining about it because you are expressing your distaste and aversion. And stopping yourself short of firebombing rap out of existence because you see it isn't your call to determine what should be allowed to exist doesn't make you suddenly more tolerant. It means you aren't psychotic.

Thank you for being sane.

 

[antman890]

This is the wrong prespective.
If the developer doesn't produce the games we want (what the apparently don't do anymore)
and it's the publishers mistake, those developers will search a new publisher.

But you still buy games and so nothing will change.

For me noone who still buys from EA, Activision and Ubisoft is a Gamer.
Sry, those "customers" pay for destroying our loved hobby.

But they do produce the games I want, I just hate the publishers for different reasons.
I love Bioware games, but I hate what EA does with DLC.
I love Assassin's Creed, but I hate Ubisoft's DRM.
Bioware is owned by EA and Ubisoft makes AC, which means they can't find a new publisher. I love their games and want to support the devs so I buy their games.

In other words, you want things to change but you are not willing to make even the slightest sacrifice. Sorry, but that is just lousy thing to do and will not work.

I want million dollars but I will not move mu ass from the chair is not how things work.

i think your missing the main issue here. by not buying a certain game (or all games distrbuted by a publisher) the major damage will be felt by the developer (and retailers like gamestop) not the publishers. therefore games people truly enjoy will be scraped for other titles. hell i might go so far as to say publishers would love gamers to boycott games for a while just to destroy Gamestop. publishers have so much money that they could take the brunt of a couple of their games being boycotted. the elephant in the room here is how publishers handle and control their material and no amount of rage or desire for change from consumers will effect how hard publishers will hold onto their power.

where we need to focus is on the legal power publishers have over games. we need to petition for the end of the legalities that allow publishers to have total control over game intelectual rights and protection. without this publishers will continue to abuse gamers like an abusive husband realising that a bag of oranges won't leave any bruises.

if we cant do that then we as a community need to decide what controls (DRM's, DLC's, etc) that we as gamers are willing to accept. we could even come up with a design for controls that we are will to accept and publish it somewhere where that publishers can see our opinion (i.e. here on the escapist) and demand that they change to suit our needs or we actually organise a full-on boycott of every game until they bow before our demands or their company burns to the ground. is anyone with me on this or am I just talking gibberish?

 

[Victoly]

It saddens me that a video like this even has to be made - that people are so often so dim-witted as to not realize that you can criticize something you love, and need to be reminded of the basics of thought.

Thanks as always for phrasing things so entertainingly, Jim.

 

[yeti585]

Hey look Jim is doing something funny! Oh wait, he's just giving in to the masses. What's that Jim? You love games but hate the industry? Yes, I knew that, you've said it for the past- I don't know how long.

How dare Chick-Fil-A support the idea that traditional marriage should be between a man and a woman, truly they are bigots of the highest order *sarcasm.

They are against homosexual couples being allowed to benefit from the advantages of being married. Eg spousal medical benefits, insurance, etc.

Bigot : a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own

Sounds pretty accurate.

He isn't intolerant of the other idea. He believes that marriage should be between a man and a woman. By your logic, legalizing gay marriage would be bigotry towards him and other people who believe what he believes.

 

[antman890]

No, but you can justify day one DLC because its the only sensible and sane thing to do.

Look, for a game - any game - to have a problem with day one DLC, it must have three things wrong with it:
1. It must have day one DLC (obviously)
2. The finished product must objectively not be worth your money for the content it provides (as in no reactionary jerkoffs who say Mass effect 3 is the worst thing EVAR! because the ending wasn't perfect)
3. If said day 1 DLC were available on the disc without people having to pay for it, it would be worth your money.

If it doesn't have the first one, the problem isn't Day one DLC by definition. If it doesn't have the second one, then there is not a single fucking ground in existence for complaining about not getting something extra to go with your already great game. If it doesn't have the third, then the DLC isn't worth getting worked up about as the product overall was just bad to begin with.

There are examples of the first two, but no-one has ever been able to give me a serious example of a game that fulfills all three criteria. Therefore, there is no problem with day one DLC. None at all.

where I have a bit of a problem with this is No.2. How do you "objectively" tell whether a game is worth the money. I mean look at saints row 3 the game was good but without the DLC it would have been better to stick with saints 2 right? as how can you tell without playing the game? and if you wait for someone else to play it to tell you their view of a games worth will be different from yours even if they are being objective. prime example of this is deadly premonition.

 

[antman890]

That's may be the definition of bigot. But sorry, just because you don't approve of gay marriage does not mean you are a bigot. Do tell me how believing in something means you are automatically INTOLERANT of the opposite. Maybe what you need is to learn what TOLERANCE means.

Tolerance: a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry.

I hate rap. Hate, hate, hate it. Think its crap that all sounds the same and I wish it didn't exist But guess what. Still tolerant of it. I let it exist because it has a right to. But that doesn't mean I have to like it.

But its ironic, the chicken guy has a view, and a belief, but you seem to be rather intolerant of it. That make you a bigot as well?

If you wish it didn't exist, guess what. That means you AREN'T tolerant of it. Wishing that something you dislike would stop existing isn't fair, objective, or permissive at all. You're saying "I don't like that thing, I wish it didn't exist. Fuck everyone who does like it because I do not like it and I am the only one that matters."

That's about as far from tolerating rap as you can get. :/

I like how you highlighted and took out of context one part of what I said but obviously ignored "But I let it exist BECAUSE IT HAS A RIGHT TO" Meaning, I recognize that it has a right to exist and I have no right to make it not exist.

Sorry, that's not far from being tolerant. That's quintessential tolerance.

No it isn't.

tolerate - to allow the existence, presence, practice, or act of without prohibition or hindrance; to endure without repugnance(ie strong distaste, aversion, or objection)

To tolerate means you see or experience without batting an eye from whatever personal discomfort you feel about something, so no you're not even tolerating rap. You stop tolerating something when you start complaining about it because you are expressing your distaste and aversion. And stopping yourself short of firebombing rap out of existence because you see it isn't your call to determine what should be allowed to exist doesn't make you suddenly more tolerant. It means you aren't psychotic.

Thank you for being sane.

sorry I'm with grizwald on this. tolerance doesn't hinder you from expressing your discomfort or aversion to something. the moment you actively try to stop something you have an aversion to is when you stop being tolerant. i.e. giving money to anti gay marriage organisations.

 

[girzwald]

That's may be the definition of bigot. But sorry, just because you don't approve of gay marriage does not mean you are a bigot. Do tell me how believing in something means you are automatically INTOLERANT of the opposite. Maybe what you need is to learn what TOLERANCE means.

Tolerance: a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry.

I hate rap. Hate, hate, hate it. Think its crap that all sounds the same and I wish it didn't exist But guess what. Still tolerant of it. I let it exist because it has a right to. But that doesn't mean I have to like it.

But its ironic, the chicken guy has a view, and a belief, but you seem to be rather intolerant of it. That make you a bigot as well?

If you wish it didn't exist, guess what. That means you AREN'T tolerant of it. Wishing that something you dislike would stop existing isn't fair, objective, or permissive at all. You're saying "I don't like that thing, I wish it didn't exist. Fuck everyone who does like it because I do not like it and I am the only one that matters."

That's about as far from tolerating rap as you can get. :/

I like how you highlighted and took out of context one part of what I said but obviously ignored "But I let it exist BECAUSE IT HAS A RIGHT TO" Meaning, I recognize that it has a right to exist and I have no right to make it not exist.

Sorry, that's not far from being tolerant. That's quintessential tolerance.

No it isn't.

tolerate - to allow the existence, presence, practice, or act of without prohibition or hindrance; to endure without repugnance(ie strong distaste, aversion, or objection)

To tolerate means you see or experience without batting an eye from whatever personal discomfort you feel about something, so no you're not even tolerating rap. You stop tolerating something when you start complaining about it because you are expressing your distaste and aversion. And stopping yourself short of firebombing rap out of existence because you see it isn't your call to determine what should be allowed to exist doesn't make you suddenly more tolerant. It means you aren't psychotic.

Thank you for being sane.

Here is a list of things you tolerate but yet are repugnant or that you just don't like. A bad smell, a crying child on an airplane, in laws. Am I a BIGOT or INTOLERANT because I don't like that someone farted? Or that some baby has been crying for 2 hours and it makes my ears want to bleed?

There has go to be some more subtle nuance to those words or you are interpreting words within the definition incorrectly. Because once again, some of you like to omit key words and phrases. This is the source you are quoting from.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tolerate?s=t
And THIS is what you left off.
to endure without repugnance; put up with:

So obviously, that clarification did not mean that you cannot like the thing you are tolerating. Because obviously if I start shouting at people who are listening to rap to turn that crap off, I'm not tolerating it, am I? When in fact, that IS the definition and spirit of tolerance. Its putting up with something you don't like or accept. Otherwise you wouldn't be tolerating something! You'd be accepting it. Don't make me break out the Mr. Garrison speech....

 

[Griffolion]

Guys, I'm probably being really dumb, but was Jim being deliberately ironic with the whole Chic-Fil-A thing and the general premise of his talk this week?

 

[Griffolion]

Guys, I'm probably being really dumb, but was Jim being deliberately ironic with the whole Chic-Fil-A thing and the general premise of his talk this week?

Nope, Yanks don't get irony.

The unrepentant fatty has sold out to Chic-Fila-a, didn't you see him eating their "product" at the start? They sent him a huge box of chicken burgers to push their product and he couldn't resist. Next week it's little known UK "burger" retailer Whimpy sponsoring.

I also hear Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo all sent him free stuff so that is why he ended up say they all had merit in this episode resulting in an epic corporate influence fail.

This doesn't appear to answer my question, unless you yourself are being sarcastic, in which case I can't tell it, it's really hard to on a forum lest someone puts "/s".

I'm British too, in case that "Yanks don't get irony" thing was aimed at me.

I was only asking because the whole Chic-Fil-A thing at the start appears to give the impression Jim hates their products because of the thoughts/practices of the people at the top of the company; and then goes on to talk about how you can still enjoy the products of an otherwise "shitty" company.

I'm inclined to think Jim was being very subtly ironic about the whole situation and it's just passed over my head.

 

[geizr]

If you don't like it and find it unacceptable, don't buy it (at the same time, don't pirate it). There is no excuse and no sympathy to be given to someone doing otherwise. Companies only ever hear and understand precisely 2 sounds: the creak of your wallet opening and the slap of your wallet closing. Anything else is noise to be ignored.

 

[Jimothy Sterling]

Jim screwing Sonic is not something I will forget anytime soon...

 

[Undeadpool]

You see this kind of rhetoric (the kind Jim is railing against) in political discussions in real-life, but also nearly ANY discussion on the internet. It's like people can't ever show ANY gray area in their views, so something is either the greatest thing to ever happen or an absolute pile of crap, and they extend this to ALL corners of life. "I love Skyrim, but the melee combat is REALLY simplistic and gets dull." "WHY DO YOU HATE SKYRIM SO MUCH?!?!?! YOU'RE JUST PLAYING IT WRONG!!!" (and don't even GET me started on "playing it wrong.")

 

[Orekoya]

That's may be the definition of bigot. But sorry, just because you don't approve of gay marriage does not mean you are a bigot. Do tell me how believing in something means you are automatically INTOLERANT of the opposite. Maybe what you need is to learn what TOLERANCE means.

Tolerance: a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry.

I hate rap. Hate, hate, hate it. Think its crap that all sounds the same and I wish it didn't exist But guess what. Still tolerant of it. I let it exist because it has a right to. But that doesn't mean I have to like it.

But its ironic, the chicken guy has a view, and a belief, but you seem to be rather intolerant of it. That make you a bigot as well?

If you wish it didn't exist, guess what. That means you AREN'T tolerant of it. Wishing that something you dislike would stop existing isn't fair, objective, or permissive at all. You're saying "I don't like that thing, I wish it didn't exist. Fuck everyone who does like it because I do not like it and I am the only one that matters."

That's about as far from tolerating rap as you can get. :/

I like how you highlighted and took out of context one part of what I said but obviously ignored "But I let it exist BECAUSE IT HAS A RIGHT TO" Meaning, I recognize that it has a right to exist and I have no right to make it not exist.

Sorry, that's not far from being tolerant. That's quintessential tolerance.

No it isn't.

tolerate - to allow the existence, presence, practice, or act of without prohibition or hindrance; to endure without repugnance(ie strong distaste, aversion, or objection)

To tolerate means you see or experience without batting an eye from whatever personal discomfort you feel about something, so no you're not even tolerating rap. You stop tolerating something when you start complaining about it because you are expressing your distaste and aversion. And stopping yourself short of firebombing rap out of existence because you see it isn't your call to determine what should be allowed to exist doesn't make you suddenly more tolerant. It means you aren't psychotic.

Thank you for being sane.

sorry I'm with grizwald on this. tolerance doesn't hinder you from expressing your discomfort or aversion to something. the moment you actively try to stop something you have an aversion to is when you stop being tolerant. i.e. giving money to anti gay marriage organisations.

The very definition of tolerance means you don't express your discomfort or aversion to something. I would think that does hinder your ability to express your discomfort or aversion.

That's may be the definition of bigot. But sorry, just because you don't approve of gay marriage does not mean you are a bigot. Do tell me how believing in something means you are automatically INTOLERANT of the opposite. Maybe what you need is to learn what TOLERANCE means.

Tolerance: a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry.

I hate rap. Hate, hate, hate it. Think its crap that all sounds the same and I wish it didn't exist But guess what. Still tolerant of it. I let it exist because it has a right to. But that doesn't mean I have to like it.

But its ironic, the chicken guy has a view, and a belief, but you seem to be rather intolerant of it. That make you a bigot as well?

If you wish it didn't exist, guess what. That means you AREN'T tolerant of it. Wishing that something you dislike would stop existing isn't fair, objective, or permissive at all. You're saying "I don't like that thing, I wish it didn't exist. Fuck everyone who does like it because I do not like it and I am the only one that matters."

That's about as far from tolerating rap as you can get. :/

I like how you highlighted and took out of context one part of what I said but obviously ignored "But I let it exist BECAUSE IT HAS A RIGHT TO" Meaning, I recognize that it has a right to exist and I have no right to make it not exist.

Sorry, that's not far from being tolerant. That's quintessential tolerance.

No it isn't.

tolerate - to allow the existence, presence, practice, or act of without prohibition or hindrance; to endure without repugnance(ie strong distaste, aversion, or objection)

To tolerate means you see or experience without batting an eye from whatever personal discomfort you feel about something, so no you're not even tolerating rap. You stop tolerating something when you start complaining about it because you are expressing your distaste and aversion. And stopping yourself short of firebombing rap out of existence because you see it isn't your call to determine what should be allowed to exist doesn't make you suddenly more tolerant. It means you aren't psychotic.

Thank you for being sane.

Here is a list of things you tolerate but yet are repugnant or that you just don't like. A bad smell, a crying child on an airplane, in laws. Am I a BIGOT or INTOLERANT because I don't like that someone farted? Or that some baby has been crying for 2 hours and it makes my ears want to bleed?

There has go to be some more subtle nuance to those words or you are interpreting words within the definition incorrectly. Because once again, some of you like to omit key words and phrases. This is the source you are quoting from.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tolerate?s=t
And THIS is what you left off.
to endure without repugnance; put up with:

So obviously, that clarification did not mean that you cannot like the thing you are tolerating. Because obviously if I start shouting at people who are listening to rap to turn that crap off, I'm not tolerating it, am I? When in fact, that IS the definition and spirit of tolerance. Its putting up with something you don't like or accept. Otherwise you wouldn't be tolerating something! You'd be accepting it. Don't make me break out the Mr. Garrison speech....

Tolerance doesn't mean like so liking or not liking anything is meaningless in this conversation. I also did not mention that that you have to like something to tolerate it, at all.

Thank you for including and bolding that section of the definition that I included, but let me state a fact you neglect to recognize: you are not putting up with it when you start complaining. I do not know how to make this clearer: whether something pisses you off or not is irrelevant, voicing your dissent is not putting up with it! Tolerance isn't some infinite state of being, that being tolerant of the action at that point in time makes you always tolerant of it forever just as much as complaining now makes you intolerant of it forever. When you stop complaining, you're being tolerant again. If you were on a long hold for a phone call and didn't complain, you tolerated the wait but if you complain to them after they finally pick up, you didn't tolerate the wait. And complaining that one time doesn't mean you are forever intolerant of long wait times, maybe next time you will tolerate the wait.

Stupidest part of this whole debate is the implication that being intolerant is an inherently bad quality. How you choose you to express your intolerance and what material you are being tolerant of are kinda way the hell more important than whether or not you were being tolerant. And the best way to measure how well you expressed your intolerance is by how people respond to it. Expressing your dissent for rap on an internet forum is intolerance (when you wrote the post anyways) but it's also a perfectly acceptable way to express intolerance; nobody will have umbrage that you simply posted you don't like rap (unless you or they start trolling each other). Spending your corporation's money to actively prevent people you don't know from getting married because those people you don't know happen to be the same gender is not an acceptable way to express your intolerance of gay people.