Personally I love them both. I see PA coming from more of a Game is Art kind of deal. Where as Jim seems to have a Penn & Teller sort of vibe where he is just clearing the air of bullshit.
Poll: Jim sterling VS Extra credits
- Thread starter James Ennever
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Isn't trash talk different than hate speech? It is for the people I know. If for you it isn't then maybe its time to remember the tired old truism: If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all.James Ennever said:
I have to point out that in my opinion if your bad day includes spewing hate speech (which was the point of that episode), then yes I would support ostracizing you. If you don't have the self control to avoid it for that "single" bad day, then it sounds to me like there is more of an underlying issue there.
Also a single bad day wouldn't have the effect that you are implying using a mute average, unless on that "bad day" you were so horrible that the single day had so many mutes as to tip the average.
Thats how averages work.
Short of a thaiwanese whore house... those places rank pretty high on the scum and villany charts.Folji said:
Maybe you should rewatch that EC again. When they say WESTERN DEVELOPERS they mean AMERICAN DEVELOPERS. Just to clarify, as the rest of this post relies on this distinction.Flimsii said:
Ever here the phrase "the gun that won the west"? Thats a term of endearment used in reference to Winchester Rifles, a weapon which was pivotal in conquering the fringes of America and achieving American independance. A huge amount of american history pivots around guns. That's not a bad thing per say, because it was with guns that America gained independence from British rule. It was also one of the most important tools the first colonists used to venture into the wilds of pre-US America. Heck, it's written into their Constitution.
Personally, Guns are one of very few things that Americans can truly call their own in terms of cultural importance (an one of the least damaging, funnily enough). Most others are culturual crossovers and mergers from all the powers that once contested for control of America. Guns are more then a weapon in american history, they are an Icon and a Symbol. They stand for things and have meaning beyond their usage. Much like, though distinctly different from, Japans historical importance of the Samurai and their Katanas.
America has an incredibly strong affinity with the gun. It is well beyond significant, it is a recognisable trait. When people think of america, they think of guns (and other things, but that's another discussion). This idea is popularised by American film as well, another medium heavily influenced by americas history.
As for FPSs. America is the birth place of the FPS. How appropriate right? The country with the strongest bond to the gun, make a genre based around it.
It doesn't require much observation to associate FPSs with America and their use of the gun. It certainly doesn't take a genius to see there is importance in the gun for American culture. I couldn't prove it as a point if I wanted to, but it makes for a good hypothesis. EC did far more research on it then I did.
Jim's got a great insight into the gaming industry. The whole persona he puts on for his reviews does seem a bit strong at times, moreso in the earlier videos, but the ideas he gets across are even stronger. Plus he's mellowed out a lot in his latest videos. Gotta go with Jim on this all the way. Plus I had a -real- hard time listening to that voice from Extra Credits...
I never got the "Extra Credits is pretentious" argument. They make cartoons of themselves and regularly feature demotivaters and lolcatz. What exactly is pretentious about that? Sure, they don't make fart jokes and take the piss out of themselves as much as others do, but there IS a difference between "sincerity" and "pretension."
For the record, I tend to agree with Jim on this issue, but I also think that EC has some good points. I also fail to see how this is killing "Free Speech."
For the record, I tend to agree with Jim on this issue, but I also think that EC has some good points. I also fail to see how this is killing "Free Speech."
Both. They tackle issues from opposite perspectives. James is a designer, Jim is a consumer. As for the shitty people on XBL issue...
My gut tells me EC crowdsourced a couple of elegant solutions to a real problem, and Jim is telling people to stop wanting to change a service they pay a monthly fee for... but I have no desire to game online on consoles, so I'm not really qualified to judge. I've only heard these racist/sexist shits in youtube videos (and they pretty much make me think "if you were my kid, I'd punch you in the mouth and gladly let CPS take you away").
For ME3... well, I haven't played the game yet, but I was pretty outraged at ME2's various plot holes. I don't think it should be changed, I'm just disappointed in the writers. I personally think retake Mass Effect was too late. Like they finally realized that shambling zombie isn't their mommy anymore.
My gut tells me EC crowdsourced a couple of elegant solutions to a real problem, and Jim is telling people to stop wanting to change a service they pay a monthly fee for... but I have no desire to game online on consoles, so I'm not really qualified to judge. I've only heard these racist/sexist shits in youtube videos (and they pretty much make me think "if you were my kid, I'd punch you in the mouth and gladly let CPS take you away").
For ME3... well, I haven't played the game yet, but I was pretty outraged at ME2's various plot holes. I don't think it should be changed, I'm just disappointed in the writers. I personally think retake Mass Effect was too late. Like they finally realized that shambling zombie isn't their mommy anymore.
Just to point this out, everyone here thinks what they say is correct. Thats just how opinions work, and honestly, just because one is more vocal about how they think that their opinion is correct doesn't exactly warrent the hostility that they get regularly.ChupathingyX said:
Either bribes went around or he actually decided to stop drawing dicks into his show, but he can still fuck off. Anyone who makes a video as a ad for a game instead of talking about a game is just a giant tool in my eyes. Extra Credits at least tries to make actual points on the industry but Jim is such a arrogant and full-of-himself prick that I don't actually care anymore.Elamdri said:
I've said it before and I'll say it again, but his actual persona is hurting his show more then Extra Credits opinions were hurting them.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if he tackles it from a consumer standpoint and / or gamer standpoint, doesn't that mean his personality is that of a gamer who is a full-of-themselves prick. And if thats how he perceives gamers then isn't it also a insult?Dark Link said:
... I love you. Honestly, Extra Credits preachiness is only there to help you come to your own conclusion, not to come to their conclusion. A persona, even if intent is to be a dick, is a dick. Jim doesn't want you to think of your own conclusion, just listen to his own. Extra Credits wants you to understand that there is many ways around a issue, and this is just one of probably countless other solutions, and I amend them for actually making fucking episodes and new content instead of making a god damn episode dedicated as a commercial and one dedicated to 20 seconds of darkness.Frozengale said:
The main difference is that EC put thought into their episodes and Jim just rants about his own opinion. It doesn't surprise me that most people seem to prefer the latter, because it tends to require less thinking, but EC seems to be the only animated source of well-thought arguments about the gaming industry that I can find. All these people who call EC pretentious (most likely not knowing what the word means) and that insult those who like EC (for no real reason) are really starting to piss me off.
While it didn't make me hate them, the video where they compared intros to Skyrim and one of the Call of Duty games was full of misleading information.Waffle_Man said:
As a person who has never played Call of Duty, I assumed the arguments were presented fairly when they weren't.
I also believe it's in poor taste to say that Skyrim lift a scene from Call of Duty when you have a history with the CoD franchise. It makes the video sound less like "this scene was partially inspired by this other game" and more like "They just took ideas from me and/or my former coworkers". It may be an unfair statement but it occurs naturally when you find out the you were mislead in the video.
I still don't hate them, I just don't trust them(well just James I guess, he does the writing on his own right?) as much anymore.
EDIT:
I hear his written articles are well done and (mostly) without the ego. I don't go to destructoid very often and the quality of his articles is second hand information, so take it with a grain of salt.Aprilgold said:
Quite a few points have been raised here, and my posts always seem to end up scattershot, so this isn't going to be very eloquent or organized:
1). Regarding their latest episode, I think that some of their proposed solutions were more effective than others. Automuting the person would work well, because not only would it keep people from potentially hearing any vitriolic language, but it would also serve as a warning to others. I don't agree with the accusation that this violates free speech: the player has every right to speak their mind, but they don't have the right to have people listen to them.
I don't like their proposal that gamers earn the right to speak, as a higher gamerscore does not necessarily mean that the player is more respectful of others.
2). I think the word "pretentious" is getting thrown around too much here in a similar manner that the word "entitled" was during the Mass Effect 3 debate. I honestly don't understand how Extra Credits can be considered pretentious. People have briefly mentioned them "talking down" to the audience, but I don't see it. If you don't agree with Extra Credits, fine, but that doesn't make them pretentious. They are, ultimately, a show formed by opinion. I haven't seen any real explanation on why people think they are (besides a point about the Call of Juarez episode which, while a legitimate complaint, I don't think they were actually insinuating that everyone who plays it is a racist).
3). Jim performs satire. As such, it's harder (at least for me) to tell when he's making an actual point or when he's trying to be funny. He's done episodes that are completely humorous (one of the earlier ones regarding sexism in games), ones that are completely serious (the one where he talks about SOPA), but most are a mixture. He might be undermining himself in that aspect.
1). Regarding their latest episode, I think that some of their proposed solutions were more effective than others. Automuting the person would work well, because not only would it keep people from potentially hearing any vitriolic language, but it would also serve as a warning to others. I don't agree with the accusation that this violates free speech: the player has every right to speak their mind, but they don't have the right to have people listen to them.
I don't like their proposal that gamers earn the right to speak, as a higher gamerscore does not necessarily mean that the player is more respectful of others.
2). I think the word "pretentious" is getting thrown around too much here in a similar manner that the word "entitled" was during the Mass Effect 3 debate. I honestly don't understand how Extra Credits can be considered pretentious. People have briefly mentioned them "talking down" to the audience, but I don't see it. If you don't agree with Extra Credits, fine, but that doesn't make them pretentious. They are, ultimately, a show formed by opinion. I haven't seen any real explanation on why people think they are (besides a point about the Call of Juarez episode which, while a legitimate complaint, I don't think they were actually insinuating that everyone who plays it is a racist).
3). Jim performs satire. As such, it's harder (at least for me) to tell when he's making an actual point or when he's trying to be funny. He's done episodes that are completely humorous (one of the earlier ones regarding sexism in games), ones that are completely serious (the one where he talks about SOPA), but most are a mixture. He might be undermining himself in that aspect.
Isn't that his entire shtick?hazabaza1 said:
Regardless, nearly everything Jim says is just repeated, watered down versions of stuff that's been said on forums for decades and he never offers any solutions but "Fuck these kinds of people."
EC is actually constructive about things, and they're almost the only show in the entire gaming scene that remains consistently positive and constructive about exactly how things can get fixed, not to mention offering actual insight into situations beyond the surface perspective.
For the record, I never agree with everything either show says, but seriously:
There's no real contest here.
Auto-mute is the death of Free Speech?James Ennever said:
**shakes head**
Hate speech is NOT free speech. If someone wants to write and publish an article saying that women are less good at games than men, then one is allowed to do so. That is free speech - bigoted, but free.
However, no one has the right to scream obscenities in my face. That is NOT Free speech.
Auto-Muting people who are insulting ass-holes is not denying free speech. It is warning others about incorrect behavior.
OT: Both. I don't always agree with either one, but they always present well-reasoned and well-researched points of view.