Jimquisition: I Hate Videogames (Because I Love Them)

[PrototypeC]

I couldn't believe it either. "Oh, but I still buy EA"... WHY?! Buy them second-hand if you really want to play it but don't want to give the publishers money. If they don't deserve it, they don't get it.

Anyway, that's more of a minor gripe. We all know Jim Sterling can do no wrong and that he is right always. I must be mistaken with my flawed human logic. Jim Sterling is a god, thus, his logic is godly. This episode, for instance, nicely incapsulates a feeling I've had for the longest time that just isn't accepted at the moment. You have to love the company that owns the intellectual property, otherwise you clearly hate the game series itself or you're a stick-in-the-mud who is ruining everyone else's fun.

You can sit there and enjoy your games the way they are, but I'm not a sinner for expecting higher quality out of my video games as we strive to be considered an ART FORM.

 

[noreshadow]

As someone else mentioned, I'm total agreeing except for the "take the nostalgia goggles off" part.

having gone through playing good old games that I didn't get to play the first time around objectively. the highest concentration of good AAA games was around 1998-2005-ish.

I think that's simply a mater of there being a lot more development company's, technology being at the point that games weren't so limited, the cost of game development being low enough that it was affordable to make games(the more games that are made, the more games that will be good), and that companies were still willing to take financial risks with original ideas because the potential losses weren't ridiculous.

not to say that there's no good AAA games coming out anymore, just not as many.
Although I'd argue without the same amount of heart.

indie games on the other hand are exploding, and that's awesome.

 

[goliath6711]

The inherently modular nature of the business allows for certain aspects of a game to vary in quality, but by supporting that game you support -every- aspect of it, regardless of who did what right.

Yes, this... Which is why I'm not buying EA games right now.

I cannot and will not agree with this rationale of thinking. It's the same as saying that if a relative of yours committed a heinous crime, you deserved to be vilified for no other reason than that your related to them. No matter how much you speak out against them.

Or to bring in a video game related scenario: I hate the Tomb Raider reboot. I will not spend one cent to support the Tomb Raider reboot, which is being published by Square-Enix. Do you know what else is being published by Square-Enix? Sleeping Dogs, a game that I had been eagerly awaiting since it was first introduced as True Crime: Hong Kong. Explain to me how not buying Sleeping Dogs will impact the Tomb Raider reboot? Because whatever roundabout way it may somehow remotely affect the profits of Square-Enix as a whole, it shows no way towards Tomb Raider specifically, which is supposed to be the point. All I've done is rob myself of a game that I really wanted for no reason.

 

[goliath6711]

In ignoring a game's flaws, it's not really a case of pretending that the flaws don't exist at all, it's when those flaws come up, do we let them ruin the entire game for us.

When playing Skyrim, do I let exiting a building in a village and seeing the giant dead body of a dragon that wasn't there when I entered the building swear me off this game forever?

Do I let a rare inhuman stretch and twist of a limb in WWE 12 turn it off in disgust?

Do I let see one random NPC in Red Dead Redemption briefly glide across the ground completely frozen in what is supposed to be their walking animation be the catalyst for boycotting all Rockstar games forever?

Does seeing the body of an unconscious thug in Batman: Arkham City spazzing out of control somehow make you think that you wasted your money on it?

So the real question isn't whether or not you notice the flaws, it's do these particular flaws matter in the grand scheme of enjoying the game? And if so, how much attention do they deserve?

 

[BehattedWanderer]

Can never get enough Enslaved love. Damn good game, with a few problems, and a terrible release problem, which was regrettable, with how good it was.

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.

Really? Huh. Here was me, under the impression that traditional marriage was an arrangement between two men about the value of a woman, and that the idea of it in a time where rights and equality for gender, race, and sexuality was as anachronistic and unsupportable as encouraging a doctor, a trusted medical professional, to perform blood-letting or trepanation for my headache. Indeed, how dare they encourage such dynamic and changing thoughts of the modern age, and should stick to their two millenia old social concepts, because of how right and correct they are!

 

[-|-]

I like the PS3 XMB although it does indeed have shitty networking

 

[aegix drakan_v1legacy]

0_o Wait, people didn't know they could criticize stuff despite loving it?!

WHAT?!

Dude, that's...That's a bit saddening.

 

[Casey Goddard]

It was the best of times. It was the worst of times...

 

[Callate]

I cannot and will not agree with this rationale of thinking. It's the same as saying that if a relative of yours committed a heinous crime, you deserved to be vilified for no other reason than that your related to them. No matter how much you speak out against them.

Or to bring in a video game related scenario: I hate the Tomb Raider reboot. I will not spend one cent to support the Tomb Raider reboot, which is being published by Square-Enix. Do you know what else is being published by Square-Enix? Sleeping Dogs, a game that I had been eagerly awaiting since it was first introduced as True Crime: Hong Kong. Explain to me how not buying Sleeping Dogs will impact the Tomb Raider reboot? Because whatever roundabout way it may somehow remotely affect the profits of Square-Enix as a whole, it shows no way towards Tomb Raider specifically, which is supposed to be the point. All I've done is rob myself of a game that I really wanted for no reason.

You misunderstand me, and, I think, (not to put words in anyone else's mouth) the poster I quoted. I don't generally refuse to buy anyone's games because of one game or one series. I wouldn't show disapproval of Tomb Raider by refusing to buy Sleeping Dogs.

But I might refuse to buy either if they decided as a matter of course that all S-E games were henceforth going to be interrupted every seven minutes of play for a commercial break. Or that I could only unlock the second half of the game I'd purchased by pre-ordering some future title. (I hope I'm not giving anyone any ideas, here...)

And there are some games, games that I would, under other circumstances, happily play and support, that I will not play and support because doing so not only shows support of the games but acceptance of the policies and trends under which the game is released, policies and trends which may be harmful to the industry, the medium, or the consumers who buy the product.

If my relative committed a murder, but I haven't committed any crimes, perhaps you shouldn't judge me on the basis of my relative's actions. If my relative tells a racist joke, and I laugh, smile, and nod, however...

 

[Sir Thomas Sean Connery]

"I love video game more than I should. Sometimes with my penis."

That is the greatest quote of all time...

Good episode by the way.

 

[Insideout Ink Demon]

100% behind you there Jim

what was hat steam punk looking game you showed? looked fun

 

[pilouuuu]

The more we love something the more able we able to criticize and hate it because we know it so well and we know how it could be made perfect.

Really, games have so much potential that it's shameful that it's not achieved faster. But so is Hollywood. In fact, I consider Hollywood industry to be much worse than gaming industry.

Yeah, and business and art always are difficult to balance.

 

[OuroborosChoked]

It's kind of sad that Jim has to even post this... I agree with him completely, but it's sad that it even has to be said.

First of, if you actively support your point of view, and gay marriage is strictly point of view issue, you are not bigot, you are activist.

Wrong. Right off the bat, you are dead wrong. Human rights are not "point of view" issues. Yes, this is a human rights issue. We have humans being denied the same rights as other human beings because of their sexuality. The particular right is not the issue. The fact that there are people actively trying to segregate people into groups of more rights / fewer rights... THAT is the issue. Those people are bigots. Chick-fil-a supports those people monetarily. Chick-fil-a are endorsing bigotry. Ergo, Chick-fil-a are bigots by extension. End of story.

If you look at the marriage in naturalistic terms, gay marriage is out of the question.

Since when is marriage natural? Do dogs get married? Orangutans? Giraffes? Geckos? Parrots? No? Then why should marriage be looked at in "naturalistic terms"? There are many couples who don't ever have kids... should they be prevented from marrying anyone? The infertile? The asexuals? Should we interrogate people to see if they're absolutely going to breed before they're permitted marriage licenses? Please, enlighten me to the validity of this "naturalistic" view of marriage...

Problem is, that for me, and throughout most of history, marriage was never about some undying love of some other romantic story, but about family. A safe environment for raising children between two people who can live together for most of their lives.

Wrong wrong wrong wrong... Historically speaking, marriage has traditionally been related to power, property, and the exchange thereof... cementing familial ties, social climbing, and so forth... not about family or breeding. And "between two people"? Don't make me laugh! Do you think that, historically, most families could afford to move out of their respective familial homes? In many societies, one spouse would go to live with the other spouse's family/tribe and live with the family. "Between two people"? Your perspective is so Western and suburban, it's frightening.

In that light homosexual marriage is highly problematic even if people have no problem with homosexuals themselves (like me).

Only for people like you... who clearly DO have problems with other people having equal rights... since you can't seem to grasp that THAT is the issue, not marriage.

To be bigot you have no rational reason to fight against something and do it out of hatred, ignorance or feeling of superiority.

Then, because I believe marriage has a certain purpose which homosexual marriage can not fulfill I am idiot, bigot or whatever label you want to stick on me? I'm afraid you have problem with people's opinions, not me.

No, you have the problem... you just convinced yourself you don't. I can see through your bullshit, though. You're just a bigot with a different excuse.

 

[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.

My character is a blue energy being with orbital drone strikes, Burt Reynolds, a wrestler voiced by Hulk Hogan, a virtual energy cannon and a hoverbike. All of this was obtained without the DLC. If you think you can't tell the difference, you haven't played the fucking game.

and how many extras do you get in the DLC？？？ there are far more customisable options on DLC and the game hasn't been out as long as some other games with DLC's

 

[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.

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.

nonono your getting confused between intolerance and expressing an opinion. if you don't like or even hate something you don't have to hide the fact, in fact its your right to express your dislike for it, however if your being outspoken, trying to degrade or stop an opposing view through a discussion or actively supporting those who do, that is intolerance. by your definition if I walked away from a football game I would be intolerant because I'm expressing my dislike for it. i just cant accept that. just because i don't want to physically participate or even be in the presence of something i don't like (i.e. football) is completely different from me standing outside a stadium with a sign that says "I don't like this and here is why you shouldn't either ......"

the root word 【tolerance】is defined as a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from BIGOTRY.
the moment you stop having a fair and objective opinion by just straight up dismiss the opposing views as rubbish and start to actively reject them thats when people become intolerant and bigoted.

 

[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.

My character is a blue energy being with orbital drone strikes, Burt Reynolds, a wrestler voiced by Hulk Hogan, a virtual energy cannon and a hoverbike. All of this was obtained without the DLC. If you think you can't tell the difference, you haven't played the fucking game.

and how many extras do you get in the DLC？？？ there are far more customisable options on DLC and the game hasn't been out as long as some other games with DLC's

What does it matter what is offered by the DLC? The DLC being offered doesn't diminish what you receive - thats my point. Is there enough content in Saints Row the Third to justify its price tag? Yes. Therefore there is no grounds to complain about DLC, since with just your initial purchase, you got great value for your money.

it does diminish the quality of the game you receive because they design the final product with DLC's in mind.look I'm not saying that DLC's are inherently bad. in fact I think they're a brilliant way for games to adapt and improve upon themselves (i.e. Fallout 3), however when publishers restrict a product that has already been made by removing parts of the complete package (that has already been made) to sell separately to increase profits its just downright nasty. i mean you wouldn't go into a bike shop ask for the latest model mountain bike and accept it when they bring it out with only one brake. yes its essentially the same thing but WTF its not complete. i mean if they brought out the bike perfect and 6 months later they brought out better brakes THEN you have no right to complain. in the case of saints row 3 it stinks of a bike with one brake and they're asking for another arm and leg for the second brake.

 

[Orekoya]

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.

nonono your getting confused between intolerance and expressing an opinion. if you don't like or even hate something you don't have to hide the fact, in fact its your right to express your dislike for it, however if your being outspoken, trying to degrade or stop an opposing view through a discussion or actively supporting those who do, that is intolerance. by your definition if I walked away from a football game I would be intolerant because I'm expressing my dislike for it. i just cant accept that. just because i don't want to physically participate or even be in the presence of something i don't like (i.e. football) is completely different from me standing outside a stadium with a sign that says "I don't like this and here is why you shouldn't either ......"

the root word 【tolerance】is defined as a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from BIGOTRY.
the moment you stop having a fair and objective opinion by just straight up dismiss the opposing views as rubbish and start to actively reject them thats when people become intolerant and bigoted.

Why did you capitalize the word that proves my point? Bigotry [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bigotry] means stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own. Expressing an opinion of discomfort or aversion is being intolerant and that's just super. I love being intolerant. Also your example of 'if I walked away from a football game I would be intolerant because I'm expressing my dislike for it' doesn't line up with my definition of intolerance at all because you walked away, which isn't an expression.

 

[orangeapples]

I like how many people believe the only way to "fix" the video game industry is to tear it down and replace it with the almighty Valve. Not buying video games to make a statement is like being a US citizen and showing your disapproval of the government by not voting.

You can both accept what you are given AND demand better.

And the boycott NEVER works, so stop proposing it. It is easy to be an anonymous member of a petition, but if you want a game, there is no stopping you.

case-in-point: People hate EA's origin system. People who support Origin are rare and yet so many people installed it to play their favorite games on PC.