isn't this guy's voice just incredibly grating to anyone else? I just can't listen to him.
[QUOTE=MrHeadHopper;53119175]isn't this guy's voice just incredibly grating to anyone else? I just can't listen to him.[/QUOTE]
No, Jim Sterling is loved by everyone ever, and you are very special for finding his voice annoying
Honestly, the way he presents just feels like he's trying to stir up a hatemob and that may well be what he's trying to do with recent events, but I don't enjoy watching it, personally.
I watched a video on another infuriating videogames controversy where the presenter was just doing the research and presenting the facts as he saw them, only offering personal feelings at the very end- and it was much easier to follow when the guy wasn't lacing every other sentence with some variant of 'fucking twat' or implying everyone who disagrees with him is a shill.
That's just my personal opinion, though. I know that you can't expect everyone to be completely proper while presenting or anything and anger is what brings Jim views, it just doesn't work for me here. This video wasn't nearly as bad as he sometimes gets, anyway.
[QUOTE=Simplemac3;53119405]Honestly, the way he presents just feels like he's trying to stir up a hatemob and that may well be what he's trying to do with recent events, but I don't enjoy watching it, personally.
I watched a video on another infuriating videogames controversy where the presenter was just doing the research and presenting the facts as he saw them, only offering personal feelings at the very end- and it was much easier to follow when the guy wasn't lacing every other sentence with some variant of 'fucking twat' or implying everyone who disagrees with him is a shill.
That's just my personal opinion, though. I know that you can't expect everyone to be completely proper while presenting or anything and anger is what brings Jim views, it just doesn't work for me here. This video wasn't nearly as bad as he sometimes gets, anyway.[/QUOTE]
I think that is his style and it suits him well. He often exagerates and is incredibly offensive but most of the conclusions he draws and the articles that he writes are grounded in reality and down to earth.
Although like you said, it's a matter of personal preference.
[QUOTE=junker|154;53119424]I think that is his style and it suits him well. He often exagerates and is incredibly offensive but most of the conclusions he draws and the articles that he writes are grounded in reality and down to earth.
Although like you said, it's a matter of personal preference.[/QUOTE]
There was one video where he was trying to make the point that being able to get cosmetics in games isn't as unimportant as some people like to argue, said something along the lines of "if cosmetics don't matter, why even have graphics and artstyles at all?!" I heard that line used by other people a few times after and I still find the implication that having the option to use an alternate skin is equivalent to [I]having an artstyle[/I] patently and utterly absurd, especially when if you look at games like TF2 and Overwatch, [I]cosmetic skins are often to the determent of the game's visual design.[/I]
I guess my point here is that as a result of all his fervor he can get away with with saying silly things sometimes and I've noticed that it's at times difficult to point that out because his fanbase can get so hyped up and righteous about it. That's something I don't like about it.
[QUOTE=MrHeadHopper;53119175]isn't this guy's voice just incredibly grating to anyone else? I just can't listen to him.[/QUOTE]
How can anyone loathe him when he speaks what people want to hear? Ya simply can't hate someone you agree with. /s
Interestingly enough it also came up again in German news because Experts found them to be "gambling like" in an still unreleased study.
Keypoints being the potential for addiction as well as analysis of the revenue which found that "few people are the cause for most of the revenue", are all signs of gambling like behavior.
Decision is set to be made in March and could result in a ban of lootbox mechanics (for money) or the very least some additional form of age restriction.
[URL="http://www.chip.de/news/Gluecksspiel-Lootboxen-Deutschland-prueft-Moeglichkeit-eines-Verbots_133326412.html"]German Source[/URL].
[QUOTE=Mitsuma;53119507]Interestingly enough it also came up again in German news because Experts found them to be "gambling like" in an still unreleased study.
Keypoints being the potential for addiction as well as analysis of the revenue which found that "few people are the cause for most of the revenue", are all signs of gambling like behavior.
Decision is set to be made in March and could result in a ban of lootbox mechanics (for money) or the very least some additional form of age restriction.
[URL="http://www.chip.de/news/Gluecksspiel-Lootboxen-Deutschland-prueft-Moeglichkeit-eines-Verbots_133326412.html"]German Source[/URL].[/QUOTE]
It isn't "gambling like", it's outright gambling.
[QUOTE=MrHeadHopper;53119175]isn't this guy's voice just incredibly grating to anyone else? I just can't listen to him.[/QUOTE]
I like the guy's points and his position but his style reeks of mid 2000's quirky reviewer shtick like the Nostalgia Critic where it takes the whole thing a bit too seriously
I like intentionally shitty styles like the schlub frauds over at redlettermedia. When it's like Jim or Doug, the reviewer seems wrapped up in a style or persona.
That being said Jim is a great voice against bad business practices and I can usually overlook his style to see the arguments he makes, which I generally agree with.
[QUOTE=Johnny Joe;53119861]I like the guy's points and his position but his style reeks of mid 2000's quirky reviewer shtick like the Nostalgia Critic where it takes the whole thing a bit too seriously
I like intentionally shitty styles like the schlub frauds over at redlettermedia. When it's like Jim or Doug, the reviewer seems wrapped up in a style or persona.
That being said Jim is a great voice against bad business practices and I can usually overlook his style to see the arguments he makes, which I generally agree with.[/QUOTE]
I feel like Jim manages to poke fun at the ridiculousness of his persona/style often enough.
While I do wish he would tone it down a bit I can't help but agree to most of what he says. The decidedly foul tone is his own spin on the popular critic style revolving around "being extra" in some way, other notable examples being Angry Joe, Nostalgia Critic and Yahzee.
I wonder how Valve would react to lootbox mechanics being legislated against, I'd imagine TF2 would get dropped asap (:frown:) CSGO would probably lose some players but stay fairly prominent due to its competitive scene, don't know about Dota 2, since they can't charge for heroes or stuff like that, guess they would move to in-game store only for their titles.
edit: note that this is counting the legislation being smartly worded and not allowing the workaround of buying a small amount of in game currency with the lootboxes as a "bonus"
I like Jim but I also skip his intros and outros so I only watch when there's gameplay footage.
[QUOTE=ASIC;53119825]It isn't "gambling like", it's outright gambling.[/QUOTE]
Well, they use "gambling like" because it currently does not fit the definition of gambling in law.
A few countries have that problem, so a new definition and adjustments have to be made.
Perhaps "gambling like" need a really hard hitting and descriptive term, like:
Gambling Psychology Exploitation
or
Gambling Addiction Psychology Exploitation
[QUOTE=RichyZ;53122335]activision is exploiting my GAPE[/QUOTE]
Guess it's Gambling Addiction Psychology Exploitation now.
[QUOTE=Simplemac3;53119432]There was one video where he was trying to make the point that being able to get cosmetics in games isn't as unimportant as some people like to argue, said something along the lines of "if cosmetics don't matter, why even have graphics and artstyles at all?!" I heard that line used by other people a few times after and I still find the implication that having the option to use an alternate skin is equivalent to [I]having an artstyle[/I] patently and utterly absurd, especially when if you look at games like TF2 and Overwatch, [I]cosmetic skins are often to the determent of the game's visual design.[/I]
I guess my point here is that as a result of all his fervor he can get away with with saying silly things sometimes and I've noticed that it's at times difficult to point that out because his fanbase can get so hyped up and righteous about it. That's something I don't like about it.[/QUOTE]
His point was never that the skins are equivalent to having an artstyle, don't know if you even saw the video but he was explaining the role of skins and visuals in a video game as a creation and a product to be sold, and in some games like say Overwatch there is this culture that drives sales of skins and they want to push it and the argument that was being put forth which he was sort of replying to was that just because it's cosmetic it's okay. There is a lot of context you're missing by singling out that line in it.
[editline]11th February 2018[/editline]
His purpose isn't to stir up a hatemob or whatever has been mentioned, but to make some noise when this industry goes down the shitter, which it does, a lot. He's one of our voices, the consumers, and his style is incredibly fitting, just look at it a bit more as satire.
[QUOTE=ASIC;53119825]It isn't "gambling like", it's outright gambling.[/QUOTE]
[I]Technically[/I] it's not. The reason that it manages to skirt by is that you get [I]something[/I] in every loot box - even if the something is trash.
[QUOTE=Biohazard99;53123125][I]Technically[/I] it's not. The reason that it manages to skirt by is that you get [I]something[/I] in every loot box - even if the something is trash.[/QUOTE]
I hate this argument so much I hope you stub every toe you own.
[QUOTE=kyle877;53124170]I hate this argument so much I hope you stub every toe you own.[/QUOTE]
Imagine if casino slot machines got around gambling laws, by instead of you losing, you get a piece of paper that says 'trash' on it. Then they'd turn around and say: SEE IT'S NOT GAMBLING, THEY GET SOMETHING OUT OF IT.
[QUOTE=Xavith;53124325]Imagine if casino slot machines got around gambling laws, by instead of you losing, you get a piece of paper that says 'trash' on it. Then they'd turn around and say: SEE IT'S NOT GAMBLING, THEY GET SOMETHING OUT OF IT.[/QUOTE]
I mean, that's pretty much exactly what's happening.
[QUOTE=kyle877;53124170]I hate this argument so much I hope you stub every toe you own.[/QUOTE]
I mean, it's how they avoided the courts before. Hence why he says [I]technically[/I], because it hasn't officially been ruled as gambling because of the dick up the ESRB's ass.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
