Jim Sterling (The Jimquisition)

It makes a lot of sense if you see through their logic: the practices that they all hate - microtransactions, DL Cs, pre-order,... - are all emblematic of the problems with capitalism, that it destroys any artistic value video games have in order to rake in the cash to sastify the Evil Overlord shareholders. But they can't bring themselves to say "capitalism bad" like Jim because they're so comfortable with the status quo, so they make scapegoats out of SJ Ws and feminism being a shadowy cabal that is trying to ruin games for... reasons. It's all a ridiculous conspiracy theory gamers buy into because it paints them (straight cis white men) as victims and minorities and feeeemales being the real oppressors.
And since I'm in the mood of shitting on capitalism , here's my favorite video explaining why it's bad

Jim is the only person covering video games I actually follow. Games media (including YouTubers) are in a terrible state, and I've distanced myself from the gaming community as a whole.

To say nothing of waifu fanboys and waifu wars...

To be slightly fair to Yong, the main crux was the youtuber's account being banned despite not fulfilling the three strikes policy, which makes the rules a bit inconsistent. Though the video was ultimately made pointless when the guy got unbanned but had those vids restricted along with Youtube's broken algorithms in the first place, besides the lackluster structure.

That's where it ends, cuz he's worthless once you have a basic following of things. The guy doesn't really have a spec of originality when it comes to his script-writing or research. If he was an investigative guy with the occasional weird videos, I would've stuck around. But as I said in the last page, he just parrots other people's written reports and opinions; sources are one thing, just reading and not adding much of your own is another. He falls flat when thinking for himself because most of the time he doesn't do that in the first place. Young Leech, more like.

Okay I'll stop talking about him this time, gotta quit this temptation at some point.

Edited by UltraWanker on Nov 17th 2018 at 3:10:31 AM

Nothing wrong with liking waifus

I personally don't care about waifu wars, anyhow.

The thing with many waifu fanboys is that they always complain about censorship if attractive females are toned down a bit, and always act so smug if they aren't. To say nothing about their horny fantasies...

Surprisingly, Jim thinks it's actually fun.

I'm still not interested in the game though.

Its the closest I'd ever come to having an IRL pet Eevee tho.

Had it not promoted compatibility and old data from Pokemon GO, I would have given it a try. But now I know I'd be far behind because I never touched Pokemon GO.

Its just too freaken easy, its like a pokemon for 1 year olds. Red and blue were already easy and this one decreases the difficulty of that by half.

I think what's turned me off to the game is the new capture mechanics. They should've either A. Kept them or B. Offered a choice at the beginning over which one you want

Agreed there. They needed to insert a LOT of options into the game. Random Encounter Style, double battle style, access to the PC functions outside the Center, and Difficulty most of all.

They made it so you can do 2 player battles with the switch which turns your side into a double battle but it does NOT do that for the enemy so its 2v1.

Edited by Memers on Nov 18th 2018 at 12:04:34 PM

Wasn't Let's Go designed for people that never touched Pokemon games ever? Because that's what it looks like.

Yeah. Go was designed for Casuals, Go players, Lapsed Fans who hadn't touched a Pokemon game since they were 9 and Young Kids.

It's a spin-off designed by Gamefreak's B-team with stripped features aimed at a casual audience which makes it easy to produce and thus doesn't take all that much time to develop when compared to the mainline games and isn't diverting any resources from the next mainline game ("diverting resources", Pokemon is literally the most lucrative media franchise on the planet. Nintendo could make flop after flop and still keep running on those Pokedollars)

It's existence is inoffensive to me. I might pick it up used. It just doesn't look like an AUD 80 game to me (especially since it was IIRC through the grapevine initially designed on SM's engine and initially planned as a 3DS game moved early on in development to Switch.)

In and of itself the existence of Let's Go is basically whatever to me. What I'm more concerned with is how its success might affect future games in the franchise.

All GF produced Pokemon games produce so much money that the cow that makes the milk is green. Any major Pokemon game is gonna be successful. And considering GF said outright "Pokemon '19 is going to be a more traditional mainline game", I don't think you have to worry at all about LG's influence on the franchise. Outside of maybe Following Pokemon returning, the IV Checker, the ability to use a Box on the go rather than always having to go to a PC and the ability to skip cutscenes. With two of those features introduced in earlier mainline games.

Most likely this is just going to be a third arm of the mainline Franchise. With a "Let's Go!" Game being released in-between each generation.

(Like we got Sun/Moon -> Ultra Sun/Ultra Moon -> Let's Go Pikachu/Eevee. If the predicted pattern continues then we'll get Pokemon '19 -> Sinnoh Remakes -> Let's Go Crystal or something)

Let's Go is not going to take away catching mechanics or battling wild Pokemon, nor do I think is it going to make the mainline games even more simplified. If anything, it'll prevent the mainline games from being confused messes that they are now where they don't know if they want to appeal to longtime fans/hardcore fans, comp battlers, newbies & casuals and nostalgic lapsed fans that causes the game to be pulled at all ends and making an end product like XY.

If Let's Go means that newbies, casuals and lapsed fans get their simple, easy, nostalgia pandering game. I can only see that being a good thing if it means Pokemon '19 gets to be a tighter experience more focused on the mainline core audience that doesn't have 10 minutes of unskippable forced tutorials and reminding you that Gen 1 exists and was totes cool gaiz.

If the Let's Go games do have an influence on the franchise, it's going to be after Pokemon '19 comes out. When GF can compare and contrast the games and see what features people liked about Let's Go! that they feel could improve the mainline games.

Edited by PippingFool on Nov 18th 2018 at 11:55:31 PM

Tying this Let's Go discussion back to Jimquisition, I'm pretty sure Jim's done an episode on this before and I know the subject's been discussed in the thread before- which video would be the one where Jim talked about the dangers of tying the monetary value of games to how much playtime they offer?

The main thing keeping me from buying Let's Go is the entry price being steeper than its 3DS predecessors, which was a similar thing that burned me out on Kirby Star Allies earlier this year. Meanwhile, I paid full price for a retail copy of Mega Man 11 and felt like my money was well-spent there, since I enjoyed every second of the game even if the first playthrough only took three hours total.

I think the talking point Jim brought up was how playtime=money is the kind of bullshit logic that results in Ubisoft's games being filled with repetitive busywork, but I want to give the episode a rewatch and see if he addressed sequels having similar content to what came before in it. Or... maybe he's done an episode on the idea of sequels always having to be bigger than the game before, too?

Yeah. My big issue with Let's Go! is that it looks like a slightly more polished 3DS game - with stripped out features and content no less - being sold for 20 dollars more than it's handheld predecessors.

And Nintendo can get away with it too. They know they can because of the Brand Integrity they have and ultra devoted fanbase that they know will always buy their games they can get away with charging their games whatever price they want - because people will loyally buy them regardless.

Here's an interesting video on the subject:

Calling them "The Disney of the Games Industry" is such an accurate statement it hurts

Edited by PippingFool on Nov 19th 2018 at 11:28:33 PM

Being "The Disney of the game Industry" sounds like a bad thing and there might be some truth in it,but I'm inclined to disagree,the only thing they have in common are their mascots and the image of being family friendly company and sometimes bushed off as being "Kiddish"

The truth is,if Nintendo were anything like Disney they would dwarf all completion,it's insane how much influence they have

They can get away with doing a whole bunch of shoddy business practises surrounding their I Ps because of the brand loyalty they cultivate. Compare shit like the drip feed content of games on the VC despite their huge back catalogue of retro games fans would be dying for and the fact their products almost never drop in price to the Disney Vault or Disney Movies also rarely dropping in price.

Or the fact that they can also charge in price because you cannot (legally) get Nintendo games on anything but Nintendo consoles and how that's comparable to Disney pulling their movies from other streaming services like Netflix and Amazon Prime so they can launch their own streaming service.

Or Satoru Iwata's comment on how price cutting their first party I Ps would "cheapen the brand", so they don't want to cut prices. The Disney Corporation even has a word for this in company, "Brand Integrity". In fact they were initially bearish to releasing home videos of their classic catalogue because they were worried about it "cheapening the brand" until Pinocchio sold out of its first run (and later installing the vault)

Nintendo has the image as "kindly old people making fun games for all ages" like Disney has the image of "kindly artists who imbue their movies with magic that appeals to all ages", weaponizing childhood and nostalgia for profit.

Or how Nintendo C&D's ROM hubs and high profile fan games/mods and how Disney is the main reason why modern copyright law is such a mess because they don't want to ever have their older cartoons and movies (Specifically Steamboat Willie and Snow White) go Public Domain.

True this is more explicitly about comparing Nintendo to the Disney of "Disney Animation" (plus Pixar in the Modern Era) or "Disney under Walt" more than Disney as the mass multimedia hydra of the 21st century. But the comparison is extremely apt.

Both have cultivated a specific image, a specific fanbase/audience and have a very similar protective and possessive attitude towards their I Ps.

Edited by PippingFool on Nov 20th 2018 at 12:17:17 AM

6 times Bethesda was massively incompetent.

Slow news week, or just a reaction to people's reaction to his reaction to Fallout 76?

It feels like something he wanted to do for a while.

Honestly he's skipped some stuff.

Oblivion had a huge bug where the game would run out of reference ID numbers, meaning the more you played it, the more likely the game would break. Items, NPC and even quests would break as elements "Vanished" from the game as ID numbers rolled over. It took months for Bethesda to address it - Shivering Isle had come out by the time the bug was finally patched.

@Pipping: Kinda makes me odd to say that Nintendo and Disney are similar because both have shoddy business practices and have a public image <_< i mean, don't all companies have a one regardless of how well built it is?

Another thing that makes it weird to me to say disney and nintendo are similar is that Disney pretty much directly crushes the competition while nintendo doesn't really seem to care outside of doing its own thing for most part nowadays at least(at least when it comes to Microsoft and Sony)