Poll: Jim sterling VS Extra credits

[DRTJR]

I like Both EC and Jim, I just agree with EC a little more.

 

[RagTagBand]

Gotta go with EC, they are sensible level headed people, whereas Jim Sterling is just a "I wish I was the Bill Hicks of Gaming" prick who understands next to nothing about everything.

 

[Stukov Wolfwood]

One thing you need to know. Free Speech isn't covered in online gaming. The EULA states that, and you can be banned for hate speech and such. They could very easily and very legally use functions like what they said in EC. The point is it could hurt business, that is why they don't do it. But while free speech is nice, it is not a reason for this argument because in this argument you don't actually have free speech.

one thing is having free speech to express an opinion or a point of view.

and other thing is calling some person you don't know a f$&"#t just because you can tanks to the anonymate of the internet.

"Your rigths end when the rights of others start"

 

[babinro]

Extra Credits - They seem to put far more time and energy into their work. They don't tend to talk about an issue unless they have an interesting perspective or solution to offer.

Jim Sterling on the other hand comes across as any other forum poster. His opinions are no more convincing than whoever posts above or below me. The way he chooses to present the information is occasionally annoying, and hearing the same jokes week after week is tiresome.

Extra Credits gets my vote for both content provided and sheer entertainment value.

 

[Sam Warrior]

The industry should probably pay attention to both as they both have some good ideas. Personally though Jim really annoys me whilst EC comes across as educational and interesting, I was incredibly disappointed when they left the escapist.

 

[AgentLampshade]

Both. Only a fool ignores good advice, no matter the source. EC does occasionally come off as preachy, but I'd rather listen to that than some asshole with a god complex. I couldn't stand Jim for that reason at first, then I actually watched it and thought...Hey, this guy is actually pretty good. I'll just skip the intro and the end, and all is well.

There are parts where I've disagreed with both of them at some point, but I could always see where they were coming from and accepted it. Good shows, and informative.

 

[Raika]

I really can't stress enough what an obnoxious douchebag James Portnoy is. Even on the very, very rare occasion that sees him say something worth hearing, he wraps it up with his all-too-clear obsession with himself. Every single episode of Extra Credits is really just a masturbation session for Portnoy, whereas Jim Sterling, who probably also has a pretty high opinion of himself, makes every message he conveys much more palatable with an arsenal of amusing jokes, in addition to being much more agreeable than James "I pay a girl to draw stick figures for me" Portnoy.

 

[The Lunatic]

EC struck me as way too pretentious with the whole thing.

Jim is much more a realist, and I prefer this.

 

[Frozengale]

I hate EC. They treat me like a person and actually try to teach me things. They try to make sure that I understand something and help me to form my own conclusion while they offer their conclusion. I hate how they actually have experience within the industry and how they actually know the in's and out's and can look at both sides of the arguments objectively. It's so horrible how they do that.

I much prefer Jim. He presents his opinion as fact and slings curse words at me when I don't agree with him. I much prefer it when someone is condescending to me and thinks I'm stupid if I don't come to the same conclusion as he does. It's so much better that way. Screw EC and their multiple disclaimers saying that these are their opinions and that what they present might not be the best solution, but just a solution. I'd much prefer to be looked down on for having my own opinion. Jim does this. EC actually tries to help me understand and doesn't care that I have my own opinion on things. DOWN WITH EC! JIM IS ON ESCAPIST THEREFORE HE IS BEST!

 

[Monsterfurby]

This thing that grates me about Extra Credits is that they are very full of themselves. Especially to me, that "I have worked in the Game Industry, I must be an expert" attitude is immensely irritating. Seriously, most people I know, even those with two decades of experience, are not in a position to lecture society at large based on their vocational history. Based on their smarts, their personal experience and ideas, sure, but EC's attitude is just cheap.

Also, this industry is REALLY one of the easiest ones to get into, if you have the right skill set - especially in these days. The lecture on "how to be a game designer" was just patronising and to me sounded like mostly self-congratulatory lines.

Edit: Idealism, to me, is also a rather dangerous thing. Ability to compromise and change a difficult situation step by step through rational, realistic suggestions scores much higher. Alas, Extra Credits are way on the idealist side of things whereas Jim seems more down-to-earth despite the character he is playing being a narcissistic nutjob.

 

[TheDrunkNinja]

Hmmm... Lotta hostility toward EC in this thread... Probably due to the increased aversion toward the artistic side of gaming in these forums the last two months. I put all the blame on Bob.

Anyway, I was always cool with EC on this site due to the fact that it was trying to do something different than the other series on the Escapist. I'm still cool with them, although I don't watch them as much anymore. It's true that it began feeling a bit pretentious sometimes, but that's not a reason to hate anything. I mean, I can clearly see they care deeply for their professions and the industry they work in.

Jim is also a bit of an entity in his own right. He's angry, really angry, and I think that's why some like him better than EC. He attaches an emotion that people on the internet can immediately relate to. It gives him passion about what he talks about, making you passionate about it too. But that isn't specific to Jim Sterling in anyway. Half the shows on this site alone are driven by anger in some way. What makes Jim unique is his self-purported god-complex in nearly every word he speaks. It's complete and utter self parody in every moment of his videos. That's something you don't see very often.

Yahtzee flirts with self parody at least once in every video, and Bob... Do I even need to talk about Bob? Okay, real quick: I will take the Extra Credits brand of "self-righteous" over Bob's brand any day of the week. At least Extra Credits sounds like they truly care about what they talk about and genuinely want things to get better. Bob sounds like he's bitching for bitching's sake all the time, and without any real self parody, he comes across like he desperately wants every word he speaks to be taken seriously.

Jim doesn't have that problem. Not by a long shot. He gets that he has a lot of insight when it comes to the gaming industry, but at the end of the day, he understands he's just some fatass from the UK with an opinion that people have no obligation to hear. He's milking his time here for all it's worth, and if you don't like what he says, you don't have to take it too seriously. I mean it, what he has going is quite brilliant. The anger, the god-complex, the self parody--this is what makes him so popular, but if he was missing even one of those aspects, it wouldn't work as well. This is probably why a lot of people like Jim over EC, because they have none of those attributes, but that's the thing, it's a different beast entirely. I don't think EC deserves the hate that people have for it in this thread.

I'd say just watch it or don't, but I think it's more than that. I think that people tend to label others with good intentions to be "self righteous" far too quickly. They become "preachy" because you no longer care about what they're talking about, and therefore it's importance diminishes in your eyes. This happens a lot, as it's not the first time people have quickly turned against someone with good intentions but a different belief system. They become the "goody two-shoes", that person you hate because they're too good, and therefore you take that as they think their better than you, becoming a self-righteous, preachy goody two-shoes in your eyes.

That's what I think all this EC hate is about. There isn't true backing to it. It's just pure emotion with no real direction as far as I'm concerned.

 

[viranimus]

Both are problematic.

EC is problematic by hiding idealic notions behind good intentions that do not pan out in practical application.

Jim seemingly is smarter, except he has had to reign himself in (at least for the Jimquisition) in order to keep from alienating the community. Basically the first few episodes you see this where hes trying to push in a direction of calling idiot gamers out on perpetuating idiocy, and since then the episodes have devolved into pandering to the communal sensibilities.

So for me, its a question of which is the lesser of two evils, delusion and flights of fancy, or relevance watered down into irrelevance.

Dont really know. Still watch both. Even with these conditions you can still get a few gems of truth out of both of them. and so long as you find it entertaining, I dont guess it makes a difference.

 

[Monsterfurby]

That's what I think all this EC hate is about. There isn't true backing to it. It's just pure emotion with no real direction as far as I'm concerned.

Thank you for that post. This reflects my thoughts a lot better than I could sum them up.
I just watched the most recent EC episode and looked over all those I missed since they left the Escapist, only to find myself wondering: "What on earth are they talking about?"

For me, being a bit of a niche gamer usually found in very committed, small and friendly communities (as opposed to mainstream audiences, I guess), many of the things they bring up feel as if they are only a problem because EC names them a problem. Most of these things do not bother me, and so I feel somewhat confused by EC taking them on. That doesn't mean that their topics are not relevant to society at large (I don't really think there is such a thing as a "gamer community") but to me, they just aren't.

Extra Credits are very emotional about their points, which is something that invalidates any argument in my book almost automatically, also in real life. If you can't be rational and realistic about your point, why should I trust you to offer a solution?

 

[Waffle_Man]

I have my reasons.
Basically, they over-analyse, patronise, have practically insulted people for liking certain games, and give a large "Holier than thou" impression.

I've never gotten the sense that they've insulted people. Hell, they're one of the few groups I can think of that actually avoids using ad hominem arguments, which is something I can't say for Jim or a large chunk of internet dwellers. Further more, how exactly do they over analyze things? Can you give any examples of them coming to a conclusion that isn't well supported by the evidence? I hear it said as gospel, but I don't see anyone trying to support it.

Oh, and with the whole money thing a while back, James posted what shit went down in terms of it, but then went "golly gee, I didn't mean to start all this fighting." Ha haaaa, no.

This reason is fair enough. I don't really know what to make of the whole money debacle, but I can imagine it would make some people bitter.

Yes. Yes it does. Extra Credits is more than a show you dislike. Extra Credits its one of those things. Their pretentious, artsy bullshit gets on every bodies nerves. Well, almost every body. Those few people who sit their screaming "B-b-but video games will never be taken seriously! Wahhh!" love them.

I'm guessing you're referencing the Jimquisition video "taking games seriously." While I would agree there is a large movement of pretentious people who think video games need to be respected, but it misses the point with people who think that games can be more than they are at the moment. However, Extra Credits is focused far more on thinking up solutions to problems than tarting up image in video games. How does that make them pretentious?

Another thing: Jim Sterling is a gamer. Extra Credits are games journalists. Big difference.

I hope you realize that Extra Credits is written by a professional game designer and two people otherwise unaffiliated with the games industry while Jim Sterling is an actual game journalist.

 

[Worgen]

Sterling sometimes knows what hes talking about but his whole holier then thou persona bugs the crap out of me, EC tends to be more insightful and

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?

Yes. Yes it does. Extra Credits is more than a show you dislike. Extra Credits its one of those things. Their pretentious, artsy bullshit gets on every bodies nerves. Well, almost every body. Those few people who sit their screaming "B-b-but video games will never be taken seriously! Wahhh!" love them.

Another thing: Jim Sterling is a gamer. Extra Credits are games journalists. Big difference.

You got that confused, Sterling is a game journalist, EC are game makers. Sterling runs the site destructoid.

Sterling sometimes knows what hes talking about but his whole holier then thou persona bugs the crap out of me, EC tends to be more insightful and less with their heads up their ass... or everyone elses heads up their ass.

 

[hazabaza1]

I have my reasons.
Basically, they over-analyse, patronise, have practically insulted people for liking certain games, and give a large "Holier than thou" impression.

I've never gotten the sense that they've insulted people. Hell, they're one of the few groups I can think of that actually avoids using ad hominem arguments, which is something I can't say for Jim or a large chunk of internet dwellers. Further more, how exactly do they over analyze things? Can you give any examples of them coming to a conclusion that isn't well supported by the evidence? I hear it said as gospel, but I don't see anyone trying to support it.

I forget what the name of the video was, but it was about the new Call of Juarez video and racism. From what I can remember, they essentially said that anybody who enjoyed it was wrong, and potentially racist.
In terms of over-analysing things, just go watch their Missile command video on "Morality". They look at a game where you try to get the highest score and start gushing over "HNNNG IT'S SUCH DEEP AND HIDDEN MORALITY"
[sub][sub]This post may contain some hyperbole.[/sub][/sub]

 

[Thespian]

Jim Sterling constantly tries to be funny... But isn't. EC isn't funny but it's not like they try to be and fall flat on their face like Jim who has all the comedic talent of an ex-geometry teacher turned amateur comedian.
Secondly, when Jim Sterling makes a point in his videos... Dear god, it's like he states the opposite that every other half-wit on the internet with an opinion has already figured out. What he talks about is always trivial and plain as all hell to see. Thank god for him indeed, without him how would we know that Call Of Duty is actually a pretty good game but hated for being popular? That's like, deep shit man.
And not every EC episode is ground-breaking material either. EC episodes can range from purely conjectural opinion pieces to detailed, analytical studies of big issues in gaming.

And I hate the way everyone says Extra Credits are pretentious. These days whenever someone takes what they do seriously, all of a sudden they're being pretentious.
If you actually listen to what Extra Credits are saying it's obvious how down to earth they are. They constantly re-iterate how they aren't infallible, and this is just the best of their findings, and that they are only putting work into all of this because they love games and believe the medium should be everything it can be. That's their mandate, there's nothing more to it than that.
I could understand if they talked about bullshit artsy games every other week but christ, they've done whole episodes on Bejeweled and Missile Command.

I think their episodes on JRPGs and Western RPGs were highly relevant and applicable. They focused on a lot of the day-to-day misunderstanding of the genres and the poor classification of them both.
Again, of course EC has their off-days, but in the end they've amassed a far superior collection of arguments and observations. I am of the opinion that EC is... Passed it's prime, in a sense, in that they have exhausted a lot of their content. However, they had some fantastic episodes, among the best being Gamifying Education, Diversity in Games, Tangential Learning, Graphics & Aesthetics, and so on. In fact, I'd say their commentary is anything but Pretentious. What they write only seeks to understand the day-to-day nuances of gaming as a sub-culture and industry.
And that's what it is. People who say "It's just gaming" might not sound pretentious, but they don't help anything. Even if EC reads a little too far into some things, in my eyes that's a preferable scenario to making crass observations that no one else makes because it's so blatantly obvious to the naked eye that no one thought it worthwhile to mention.

Yes. Yes it does. Extra Credits is more than a show you dislike. Extra Credits its one of those things. Their pretentious, artsy bullshit gets on every bodies nerves. Well, almost every body. Those few people who sit their screaming "B-b-but video games will never be taken seriously! Wahhh!" love them.

Another thing: Jim Sterling is a gamer. Extra Credits are games journalists. Big difference.

Wow.
First of all, "Those few people"? Check the results to this poem, broski. It's nowhere near "almost everybody".

Secondly... Jim Sterling is a Games Journalist. Go google destructoid, maybe.
Secondly, Game journalist and gamer are not mutually exclusive positions. You can be both. Which Extra Credits clearly are. I don't see how you could go write about games the way they do if they didn't play them, they are their own source material for games.