Poll: Jimquisition: like or dislike

[No_Remainders]

... He's ok.

I liked his thing about CoD, but I have a feeling he could get very old very quickly.

 

[The Lugz]

In conclusion: Jim whateverhisnameis is a hack and deserves no less than ridicule until he learns how to be a real journalist. Doesn't matter if he's only on the net. He's getting paid to be a journalist, and thus he should do his job correctly instead of being the "edgy" equivalent to Fox News.

yikes man.. you have a point but 'ridicule' is a bit much isn't it?

i picked 'very poor' too I don't like the acting, comments, or visual style of jim's show
( the weird smiley-faces on play-stations and defending cod )

he raises some decent points especially i liked the weird is not enough and the sexism situation
good points, they made i think the most decent shows.. if a bit bizzare however,
i just don't like the format of the show
as he himself put it, the weird is not enough
as he seems to have allot more fun with it than the audience!
if he applied his own logic to his own shows so-far i think we'd see some divide by zero situation

it's not even jim himself, he could be great in another context but i just don't see it being half as popular as the other class shows we have on here as it is

maybe someone should beat him with a sensible stick for a while and we'll see if we get a better episode?

 

[SomethingUnrelated]

And his production values suck.

I would say that it's not bad because his production values suck, but rather because it is made so evident in the show that they are so low.

I heavily dislike him. He has an abrasive delivery style, and can't write a speech for shit.

 

[Magnatek]

The show itself is something I don't quite like to watch. I suppose I'm just used to videos that aren't quite in that "style". I do understand that sometimes he has some good points, though. I actually enjoyed reading what he had to say in the little debate they had with Extra Consideration, so I'd consider Jim's stuff to be better on paper.

 

[kroldok]

*SNIP*
ALSO! This has nothing to do with nationality. This has to do with a genuine lack of talent and a lack of tact. Put it to you this way: Would a real journalist who has integrity, talent, and tact take time out to explain their POV and address the topic?

Spoiler: Or would they try to shock viewers like Jim did with this video?

Last time I checked, heads don't explode in warfare games, especially COD. And it was a pop because of the audio and camera equipment being used. Guns don't just sound like pops when firing (especially in a firefight) because, well...that's just obvious. And real war has people screaming. A lot. And taking shots from behind cover.
...Did he just say real violence is boring? Is he trying to go by just this footage alone?
Wait... What the hell? He's PARODYING the SUICIDE?!
Thank you, Jim. I'm sure that trying to shock viewers with such footage was TOTALLY NECESSARY instead of, I don't know, thinking of how to explain yourself clearly and credibly...which you still failed to do.
You hack.

In the Video description:
This week, Jim Sterling talks about Leigh Alexander's "Who Cheers For War?" (erroneously named in the video because of unscripted bollocks) and counters the claim that gamers want realistic violence.

Why did you show the video description?

The video description state that the video is made with another piece of work in mind:
http://kotaku.com/5576332/who-cheers-for-war
This sets the context of the video, and I find that it matters,(although I should probably have posted the link first time around, so my bad there).

From the video:
"Were you at all disturbed by that? if so congratulations you have not been desensitized to real voilence, videogame violence: yes, real violence: no."
"Videogames are not like real life, and i for one am very very glad of that"
"They (gamers) don't want a real iraq war situation, because not only is it disturbing on a true level, it's boring".

Yes, he is highly inflammatory in his presentation, and there are other ways of making this point (wether or not they are better is subjective).

No, it's not subjective in this case. The only reason any grim footage is ever used is to A) Show people what the assailant looks like so they are aware/asking for help apprehending a criminal or B) Shock value. And, unlike showing the tapes of a robbery or something, that's what using snuff footage is for: Shock value (and it is snuff footage because someone literally dies on camera, as opposed to a snuff film where it's a film featuring actors/randoms literally dieing on camera. Just clearing that up).

_There is never a reason to show footage like the one he used other than for shock value. Fact. Why? Because there's nothing to be gained from it other than the shock of the audience.
_Why is it not subjective that there are better ways to go about proving a point? Because good journalism doesn't rely on cheap tricks like that one to prove it's point. Any good journalist worth their salt can explain their opinion and/or point with words. You can even show diagrams, statistics, or better yet related footage. Video game footage! That snuff footage had nothing to do with gaming or violence, he just used it to illustrate his point when he could've done the same thing with average COD footage.
*shows random COD videogame footage*
"Does this feel real to you? No? Because at the end of the day it isn't. Though we might not realize it while we're 'in the zone', all the clipping, graphical inconsistencies, the way your character getting shot in the foot somehow makes your eyes get covered in jelly, and even just the fact that we're really only sitting in a chair with a controller or keyboard in our hands is all information that's fed to our brains to disconnect fictional violence with real violence. We don't want true death. We don't want to see real people die just as much as we don't want to get shot! Just because we want more visceral action that doesn't equate to a lust for realistic war. As much as gamers talk about killing and such, we also enjoy outrageous deaths and love watching bad ragdoll effects of a falling body. Those things are what separate us from murder-lovers. Yes, we want to blow a man's brains out with our high-powered rifle. But more importantly, we want the ability to turn off the bloodshed at some point. Maybe go off and eat some Cheetos or watch porn. In my case both.
_That little power button? That's what divides murder from playtime, and it's what prevents sane gamers from thinking real murder is cool."

See? All dialogue. The point was explained as clearly as the individual (in this case, me) thought they could, showed no actual rage and even had one or two attempts at humor (be they successful or failures). More importantly, the point was explained without any cheap gimmicks, without the manipulation of the audience. Without any snuff footage.

Also watch the ending of the video again. Watch what he does. See how he parodies the real suicide he JUST used for shock value? He thinks he's being funny. The fact that he thinks parodying the snuff footage would be funny immediately discredits his argument because it shows a callous disregard for the weight and reality of the death (the reason he used it in the first place). He shows he doesn't care about the death and can make a joke of it. BAD journalism. BAD journalist. And since he's supposedly known for being "funny but edgy", you can be safe in assuming he only did that last bit because he was serious the whole video and wanted a joke, and to show, yet again, how "edgy" and "unapologetic" he is.

This is proof that he is a hack.

"_There is never a reason to show footage like the one he used other than for shock value."

True, it is shock value, but that does not mean he is wrong, and I would maintain it is pure and simple fact that it is indeed subjective.
Your feelings are yours, they are personal, Personal feelings = Opinion = Subjective.
Your statement is that there is nothing subjective about shock value, this is wrong, it is your opinion that he did a poor job based solely on the inclusion of that footage.
What offends you does not always offend me, hence no matter what you do, the reaction of other people is subjective.
And as such wether this is the worst or best way to make the point falls solely to the individual to feel for themself, this means it is subjective.
I don't feel that this is the best way to point it out either, the footage was in my opinion a bit much, but this still doesn't mean it is a factualy bad creation.
Your argument that 'real journalists' don't use shock value sounds strange to me, I see shock value on the news all the time (case in point the footage used by Sterling). What exactly do you mean by 'real journalists'?

Spoiler: The Misuse of Boring

The point I see here being that real violence is disturbing and scary, the word boring certainly seems ill placed here but when taken within the context of the video where he clearly states that videogame violence is over the top and cartoonish, this signifies to me a use of the word to not mean it's dull but simply unwanted, that most people who play violent videogames do not achieve hard-ons, or laugh in glee when they watch the news showing the latest natural disaster, or pictures of actual war-victims, I believe it's not a case of boring as in: "I can watch this all day and I'm not bothered", but rather a case of boring as in: "I derive no pleasure or excitement from this whatsoever", and there is a difference.

Firstly, it's ignorance to say all violence in videogames is over the top or cartoonish. Heavy Rain. LA Noire. The SMT games (magic is sometimes involved, but a character's death has weight and is neither funny or cartoonish). Red Dead Redemption. I can go on, but I don't have to.[/quote]

Secondly: The word "boring" does indeed mean that you're not deriving pleasure from it, but the term is not used in describing something horrible/horrific/shocking. The reason is because...well...you're not bored when you're shocked. Or horrified. You're too busy being shocked! ...Or horrified!

Boring- monotonous, tedious, tiresome, humdrum

To call actual death, especially war, humdrum is not only factually incorrect but also insulting to all those who have experienced war or the loss of a loved one. And, if you want to go in another direction, you can even say it's insulting to those who died, but that would be less fact and more opinion.
_Guy made a huge feus pax there and he stuck with it thinking he was saying something smart. In actuality he was making himself look even more so like an insensitive and ignorant individual.

Firstly: nowhere in the video does he state that death in videogames have never had emotional value(nor did I), it is however very obvious that it is not real (cartoonish), even when there is a strong emotional context, and people who play videogames for the most part know this.

Secondly: to note here is that he did not call it 'humdrum' he called it boring, and Dictionary.com does not result in humdrum as a definition but rather a synonym, and they are different (witch is not to say that my source is better than yours, but they are apparently different). What source did you use?

(Sidenote: english is not my first language, and it struck me there is a chance that the value of common terms used in an uncommon fashion is easier for me, as I am not used to hearing them in daily speech and therefore have "big-picture-hearing" perhaps placing emphasis on the subject as a whole, and interpreting single words from within the context to a greater degree)

 

[Zaeseled]

I guess he's ok, fine for a small laugh. But that's not why I watch it. I watch it for this sole reason; Jesters of the Moon.

 

[IamQ]

I realized early, that most of his points aren't that serius, so instead I tried to judge it on the humor, but he only cracks like 2-3 jokes a video. You're more or less ment to look at his videos like a satire of the likes of "Extra Credits" and "The Big Picture".

 

[RA92]

Very poor. Though ironically all the people that watch his episodes to ***** about it on the forums and comment section are just contributing to raking up traffic to his videos - which gives Escapist more justification to keep him around.

Mind you, that's not the reason I don't watch his show. I don't watch it because I can't stand him.

 

[Tharwen]

I quite like to watch it. There have been better shows, but he makes interesting points.

The 'thank God for me' line is very cheesy and grating though...

 

[Ian Caronia]

"_There is never a reason to show footage like the one he used other than for shock value."

True, it is shock value, but that does not mean he is wrong, and I would maintain it is pure and simple fact that it is indeed subjective.
*snip*
Your argument that 'real journalists' don't use shock value sounds strange to me, I see shock value on the news all the time (case in point the footage used by Sterling). What exactly do you mean by 'real journalists'?

Yes, opinion and feeling is subjective. The use (and in this case misuse) of snuff footage for shock value is not. It shows a lack of ingenuity from the journalist for having to resort to snuff footage, especially when it isn't even part of the topic (man committing suicide =/= war and the desire for real violence in videogaming), and to parody it at the end shows, as I said, a callous disregard for the death you tried to use to illustrate your point. All of that shows that it is not only unnecessary (fact) but also used wrongly, since it makes Jim look like an ignorant hypocrite for showing a death, saying it's not something people react to with anything other than horror, and then making fun of it. This is fact. Opinion would be "I think he's an asshole for using that footage". Fact is "He made himself look ignorant and hypocritical for not only including it, but misusing it and ruining his point with the crude parody he thought was funny."
_A real journalist is a rare and hard to find thing. They are the types of journalists who don't use cheap tricks (which in turn cheapen their point as I explained) to get across facts or even their side of an argument. The reason you don't see many like this is because, like respectable artists and real reviewers, respectable journalists are a dieing breed.
_As for the news thing, I would go into it but that's a whole other discussion.

Firstly: nowhere in the video does he state that death in videogames have never had emotional value(nor did I), it is however very obvious that it is not real (cartoonish), even when there is a strong emotional context, and people who play videogames for the most part know this.

Okay, firstly cartoonish does mean it's not real, however the word is used when talking about something that is outrageously or comically unreal. Jim was making this point, which showed he didn't know what he was talking about because nothing that has "strong emotional context" can be "cartoonish". That cartoon cyote falling down a canyon? Cartoonish. Elmer Fud getting blown up and then seeing his spirit rising into the sky while riding a cloud and playing a harp? Cartoonish. Ethan Mars cutting off his finger? The death of [spoiler not said] in LA Noire? Any of the main characters' deaths (during the game's plot not gameplay) in Persona 4? Not cartoonish.
_It's how the word is used, and Jim was being painfully ignorant in saying videogame deaths are cartoonish.

Secondly: to note here is that he did not call it 'humdrum' he called it boring, and Dictionary.com does not result in humdrum as a definition but rather a synonym, and they are different (witch is not to say that my source is better than yours, but they are apparently different). What source did you use?

FreeDictionary.Com:
Boring: Uninteresting, tiresome; dull
Synonym: A word having the same or nearly the same meaning as another word or other words in a language.

Yeah those were synonyms I used, but they meant the same thing. Boring cannot, does not, and should not be allowed to inhabit the same room as "real murder/war". Jim, again, was being painfully ignorant.

(Sidenote: english is not my first language, and it struck me there is a chance that the value of common terms used in an uncommon fashion is easier for me, as I am not used to hearing them in daily speech and therefore have "big-picture-hearing" perhaps placing emphasis on the subject as a whole, and interpreting single words from within the context to a greater degree)

That...makes a lot of sense.
I'm not being cruel when I say- Don't get into a debate on the words of a language that isn't your primary one.
For future reference: Cartoonish is used as a way of saying something is outragous to the point of being hilarious. Literally: A ridiculously oversimplified or stereotypical representation

Thus, by saying "videogame violence is cartoonish" and saying "real violence/death/war is boring", Jim has yet again shown himself to be an ignorant individual and a horrible journalist. Fact.

No harm done, and no ill feelings all around, kroldok. : )

 

[ApeShapeDeity]

Poor. He's a fat, obnoxious prick who thinks he's waaaaaay more insightful and funny than he really is. Sorry, Jim. If you ever become funny or genuinely insightful, I'll be right behind you... 'til then, nope.

 

[kroldok]

"_There is never a reason to show footage like the one he used other than for shock value."

True, it is shock value, but that does not mean he is wrong, and I would maintain it is pure and simple fact that it is indeed subjective.
*snip*
Your argument that 'real journalists' don't use shock value sounds strange to me, I see shock value on the news all the time (case in point the footage used by Sterling). What exactly do you mean by 'real journalists'?

Yes, opinion and feeling is subjective. The use (and in this case misuse) of snuff footage for shock value is not. It shows a lack of ingenuity from the journalist for having to resort to snuff footage, especially when it isn't even part of the topic (man committing suicide =/= war and the desire for real violence in videogaming), and to parody it at the end shows, as I said, a callous disregard for the death you tried to use to illustrate your point.

All of that shows that it is not only unnecessary (fact) but also used wrongly, since it makes Jim look like an ignorant hypocrite for showing a death, saying it's not something people react to with anything other than horror, and then making fun of it. This is fact. Opinion would be "I think he's an asshole for using that footage". Fact is "He made himself look ignorant and hypocritical for not only including it, but misusing it and ruining his point with the crude parody he thought was funny."
_A real journalist is a rare and hard to find thing. They are the types of journalists who don't use cheap tricks (which in turn cheapen their point as I explained) to get across facts or even their side of an argument. The reason you don't see many like this is because, like respectable artists and real reviewers, respectable journalists are a dieing breed.
_As for the news thing, I would go into it but that's a whole other discussion.

"Fact is "He made himself look ignorant and hypocritical for not only including it, but misusing it and ruining his point with the crude parody he thought was funny.""

I fail to see how this is fact, Sterling chose a video that he felt would illustrate his point, how tasteless the video is on a scale 1-10, is still a question of opinion. Same goes for the joke.

Define misusing the clip, does using it for shock value automaticaly make it misuse, and if so is that true for all things used to shock, and if so how can you factualy argue what is shock value and what is not (soldiers dying in CoD vs the rape scene from the movie 'Irreversible' for instance)?

Wether or not the point is ruined is once again an individual thing, the fact that you (and indeed I) personaly feel the point is better made in another way does not mean everyone on the planet have to concider this pointless, someone might actually view this and with it formulate new thoughts and ideas, and as such i would once again argue that it's more subjective than objective.

Lack of ingenuity in the sense that he could have used words instead, or even another, gentler videoclip? yes, very much so, still doesn't make him factualy wrong in his approach though, just extreme (and possibly moronic).

"A callous disregard for the death"
Yes it is, but the same could logically be applied to any death, including the death of Adolf Hitler, and i personally have never found myself being upset by anyone making fun of Hitler, or his mustache, or his clothes, or his death.

"...when it isn't even part of the topic (man committing suicide =/= war and the desire for real violence in videogaming)"
Again he could have used something else, or nothing at all, but it is certainly part of the topic, 50% of the topic to be precise: 'Real violence vs Videogame violence'

Firstly: nowhere in the video does he state that death in videogames have never had emotional value(nor did I), it is however very obvious that it is not real (cartoonish), even when there is a strong emotional context, and people who play videogames for the most part know this.

Okay, firstly cartoonish does mean it's not real, however the word is used when talking about something that is outrageously or comically unreal. Jim was making this point, which showed he didn't know what he was talking about because nothing that has "strong emotional context" can be "cartoonish". That cartoon cyote falling down a canyon? Cartoonish. Elmer Fud getting blown up and then seeing his spirit rising into the sky while riding a cloud and playing a harp? Cartoonish. Ethan Mars cutting off his finger? The death of [spoiler not said] in LA Noire? Any of the main characters' deaths (during the game's plot not gameplay) in Persona 4? Not cartoonish.
_It's how the word is used, and Jim was being painfully ignorant in saying videogame deaths are cartoonish.

Secondly: to note here is that he did not call it 'humdrum' he called it boring, and Dictionary.com does not result in humdrum as a definition but rather a synonym, and they are different (witch is not to say that my source is better than yours, but they are apparently different). What source did you use?

FreeDictionary.Com:
Boring: Uninteresting, tiresome; dull
Synonym: A word having the same or nearly the same meaning as another word or other words in a language.

Yeah those were synonyms I used, but they meant the same thing. Boring cannot, does not, and should not be allowed to inhabit the same room as "real murder/war". Jim, again, was being painfully ignorant.

Admittedly synonyms mean the same thing, but that train of thought can be used to link 'boring' to 'Interminable'.
From Dictionary.com:
Interminable (Synonomous)
?adjective
1. incapable of being terminated; unending: an interminable job.
2. monotonously or annoyingly protracted or continued; unceasing; incessant: I can't stand that interminable clatter.
3. having no limits: an interminable desert.
And not all definitions of 'Interminable' are applied to 'Boring', 'Humdrum' comes closer to boring than 'Interminable' so you are barking up the right tree, but it's still a trade-off witch sits a bit ill when the word 'Fact' is thrown around as much as it is.

Another thing (and correct me if I turn out to be using the wrong link here):
Neither http://www.freedictionary.com/ or http://www.freedictionary.com/
actually send me to a dictionary, they both send me to what looks like a non-occupied domain name containing:
-A sign at the top stating "Inquire about this domain"
-A search bar that does not provide dictionary results but rather a list of "sponsored links" containing the word i have typed (in this case boring, resulting in the top result 'Boring Cat' on Youtube).
-A list of five links that redirect to other places.

If you could send me an actual link that would be much aprecciated, especially since different dictionaries cough up different results from time to time and communication might improve if there is common ground to go from.

(Sidenote: english is not my first language, and it struck me there is a chance that the value of common terms used in an uncommon fashion is easier for me, as I am not used to hearing them in daily speech and therefore have "big-picture-hearing" perhaps placing emphasis on the subject as a whole, and interpreting single words from within the context to a greater degree)

That...makes a lot of sense.
I'm not being cruel when I say- Don't get into a debate on the words of a language that isn't your primary one.

This... looks a bit like the writings of someone who dismisses me based on my linguistical prowess or lack thereof, a lacking that I myself took time to explain.
And I'm not being cruel either when I say you should take note of what is actually written there, instead of jumping on the 'English is not my primary', producing the following quote:

For future reference: Cartoonish is used as a way of saying something is outragous to the point of being hilarious. Literally: A ridiculously oversimplified or stereotypical representation

without a reference, and then being done with it.

To explain myself further, take the following phrase:
"There is a clear value in favour of society's safety in keeping watch over the previously incarcerated to assure they do not harm other people"

This sounds very 'big brother' but none the less makes some amount of sense when talking about US prisons of the Super-Max class (Assuming there is even a chance that they ever leave, but Wikipedia makes no mention of that, so ill take my chances).

On the other hand, if talking about the jews incarcerated during the holocaust, the statement is nazi propaganda (or at least a direct result of nazi propaganda).

As someone who does not speak english as a first language i tend to go for context first (accumulated during the course of the video) and single words later, witch is not to say that single words don't matter, they do, but I feel you missed the point of my statement, (admittedly, perhaps because of my poor linguistic skills... damn), that point being that within the context of the subjectmatter and the article he refers to in the description (an article that the video is for all intent and purpose a 'reply' to), Sterling does (in my opinion) manage to produce solid input, although as stated crude, and shock full of shock value.

Also, having looked around the web for awhile I honestly cannot come up with a word that on the one hand properly encompasses the fake-ness of VG violence due to it being pixel-based and obviously unreal, while at the same time lending an honesty to the emotional context that some games boast, but words like 'Unreal/Gross', or 'overstated' don't seem to lend much more credibility than the word 'cartoonish'.

/With Greetings

 

[Shockolate]

I chose poor, because his videos cannot keep my attention long enough to watch through them.

Nothing else to say. Just an opinion.

 

[gring]

He's okay, a decent watch when you're bored. Sometimes he annoys me, sometimes I laugh and agree, but what really bugs me is the quality of the vid's, its like he shot it with a old video camera from the 90's and doesn't even use a real microphone.

 

[Mikkel421427]

[/quote]
He's got way more than ten. He's been making Jimquisitions on Destructoid for a while now.
[/quote]

Jim! Jimmy! Jimmy-boy! Please. Go back to that. You don't seem like an... Well, an obnoxious ass. You still seem like an ass, but that kind of loveable ass. You know? Right now your humour is just... Bleh. It's satiric. It's sarcastic. It's takes the piss out of everyone. And... I hate it. And that comes from a guy who lives in a country that bases all comedy off of that. There's a fine, but visible line between being an obnoxious ass and a loveable ass and right now, it just seems that you're on the wrong side... Oh yeah, and consult an animator or something about setting up your show. It needs it.

 

[LightspeedJack]

I like it. I think the way it's presented visually needs some work but as a whole I enjoy his rants, some more relevant than others.

 

[Ian Caronia]

*snip*

Okay, this debate has spanned days now, far longer than it needs to.
Link to website: http://www.thefreedictionary.com
Just type in words into the search bar

No I was not dismissing you based on your lack of knowledge (and you're very good, really, it's a very small lack to be honest) in English. I literally said "I'm not being cruel when I say-" and then I said what I said. I prefaced what I said with that because I wasn't intending to offend you or make it seem like I was dismissing your points on Jim and journalism.

It's misused because it's needless, has nothing to do with the topic, and because he makes a joke of it.
1. It's unnessecary to use the snuff footage of a man really killing himself in a video about games and violence because he could make his point without it. It's like the golden rule with putting rape in a story: If you can do without it, then don't put it in. You'll be a better author (or in this case, journalist) for it. By using it as he does he only cheapens the video.
2. It has NOTHING to do with the topic. It's snuff footage of a politician killing himself because of the trouble he was going to get into. If it was snuff footage of a man killing himself/others because he thought reality was a game then it would be related. He tried to make it tie together by using it as shock value, saying "See? Are you desensitized to that?" When in reality you say the same thing about ANY kind of footage used.
A lion attacking a zebra. "Are you desensitized to that?" Yes, it's footage of violence, but it's literally got NOTHING to do with the topic: Do gamers want more realistic violence in videogames.

Not to mention it's a moot point since the selling point of games like COD is the gritty "realism". It's why "graphics" are such a big deal, because gamers want it to be realistic. They want them to look real, sound real, and die real.
_The issue is if they know the difference between the reality and fiction, not if they want it. Yes, they obviously do want it in (some of) their games. No, they don't want it in real life, because they aren't loonies. But whatever.

3. He makes a parody of it. No, it doesn't matter if you try to deny this point (not that you would, just heading anyone off at the pass here). How is this a good video, a respectible or even funny piece of journalism when Jim SHOWS SNUFF FOOTAGE then PROCEEDS TO MAKE A JOKE ON IT. He shows a man killing himself to make a point, then acts like he's gonna do the same at the end with a nonchalant face. Clearly this is meant as a joke and it's just tasteless, especially when you just showed the guy killing himself on camera.

And finally: There are times and subjects that cannot be explained or defined in a single word. Videogame violence is one of them. There is a division between what's real and what's not, but it is NOT cartoonish by any means (unless it's a game featuring said design, in which case that's meant to be taken as such, like Banjo Kazooe, or Conker's Bad Furday, or that killer teddy bear game).
_And no, that's not hwo boring is used. He specifically says boring in the way it's meant to be used, as a humdrum and blase. Watch the video again. Seriously. Look at how he describes real life violence and tell me it's meant as anything other than humdrum. True, real life violence is not cartoonish (or rarely is if ever). BUT it is NOT boring.

Okay, this will likely be the last time I reply to this debate because I've repeated myself a dozen times over and have made my points crystal clear by now. If after AAALLL of this you think that this video:

..Is good journalism, is respectable, tactful, and well done in ANY way then there's no more to talk about. I've explained my side. You have yours. It was nice talking to you though and I am not being sarcastic. Seriously. Also not dismissing you. Have a good one.

Final Note: I believe Jim whatshisface is a HACK and an ignorant ass, and a poor excuse for a journalist. He deserves nothing less than scorn until he gets his act together, and since people keep giving him money despite the overwhelming majority HATING this guy, he won't.

 

[Jumplion]

...
Okay, this will likely be the last time I reply to this debate because I've repeated myself a dozen times over and have made my points crystal clear by now. If after AAALLL of this you think that this video:

..Is good journalism, is respectable, tactful, and well done in ANY way then there's no more to talk about. I've explained my side. You have yours. It was nice talking to you though and I am not being sarcastic. Seriously. Also not dismissing you. Have a good one.

Final Note: I believe Jim whatshisface is a HACK and an ignorant ass, and a poor excuse for a journalist. He deserves nothing less than scorn until he gets his act together, and since people keep giving him money despite the overwhelming majority HATING this guy, he won't.

Welp, I'm never going to watch another anything by Jim ever again. His videos on the Escapist were interesting to say the least, and they do have a point (this one does to, barely) but if a guy can get away with shit like that and still be paid as a "legitimate" journalist, I have no idea what could be considered "illegitimate".

 

[UmJammerSully]

Once upon a time, Jim was known for a little youtube series called "video game show what ive done" and I loved it. It wasn't the best produced thing on the web and it never became too popular but I'd say it's definitely worth you're time if you're into it's particular style of humour. He's essentially playing a dim-witted character and reviews these games completely unprofessionally for comedic value. It was different to say the least, check it out:

Then suddenly there were no more of these videos being made for a few months and he pops up with this horrible Jimquisition show. After 2 episodes I had gone from a big fan to a devout hater. It's already been said a hundered times before so I don't think I need to go into why this show sucks so bad but I really hope it's wiped off of the front page of Escapist sooner rather than later.