Jimquisition: Linearity versus Replayability

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT

I have to point out a flaw in your logic here, Portal 2 was an amazing game for me, but yet I never played it more than once, played the co op only once through too. I just can't be bothered to play it again, however much I liked it. Puzzle games (or puzzles in general) have no replay value. Once you have finished them, they are redundant.

Also, I find him more annoying now than before, why are people taking a shine to someone who is trying his hardest to insult them? It doesn't make sense. He's also just trying to say what people are already thinking subconsciously, thus making people think he is smart.

Thank God, for me :/

When Jim's right, he's right.

I've always thought of online multiplayer not as replayability, but the illusion of replayability.

I maintain the world would be a better place if games were SP or MP only. I hate getting watered down nonsensical SP games because 3/4ths of the resources went to the multiplayer. Have your COD MP game. Go for it. Just dont pretent its a standalone game s well.

Ah, the voice of cold hard reason! Totally agree as usual. All of my favorite games became such for their single player campaigns, not their multiplayer--Mass Effect, Fallout 3, RE 1-4, Silent Hill (all of them), etc.

Thank god for Jim!


I have to point out a flaw in your logic here, Portal 2 was an amazing game for me, but yet I never played it more than once, played the co op only once through too. I just can't be bothered to play it again, however much I liked it. Puzzle games (or puzzles in general) have no replay value. Once you have finished them, they are redundant.

Also, I find him more annoying now than before, why are people taking a shine to someone who is trying his hardest to insult them? It doesn't make sense. He's also just trying to say what people are already thinking subconsciously, thus making people think he is smart.

Thank God, for me :/

Whether he intends it or not, Jim Sterling is falling under what I call the "Kaufmanesque" brand of satire and comedy. I can't take umbrage with him, because I know he's hamming it up, making it outrageous and (amidst all the showmanship) making a good point. It's apparently something the internet has a hard time recognizing for what it is: putting on a good show, sometimes at the willing expense of the audience.

Think of it like this: you go to a stand up comedy show, and the guy on stage is integrating jokes with the audience, making fun of some individuals. It's part of his act, and most of us recognize it. It may not seem so obvious here (thus why I liken him to Andy Kaufman, who had a habit in his shows of blurring the lines between reality and performance) but attacking im for doing what he does is comparable to getting pissed at the comedian on stage and attacking him with a beer bottle.

There's a place for this in comedy and stage, and to be honest Jim and Yatzhee both do variants of it, and it works.

i agree strongly with him. i always get sick when i hear people say that the game sucks just because it has no MP.
"oh, this game is not good because it has no MP and therefor not worth the money". so f***ing stupid.
damn, how many times have i replayed the half life games. mass effect 1+2. doom games (besides part 3), assassins creed 2 and brotherhood.
damn, even mirrors edge i have replayed so many times because i have simply fun playing it. how many people said there, it is not worth the money because of the lack of MP.
im not even fond of MP. the only MP game i really enjoy is TF2.

Y'know, I actually had an argument about someone about this just a few days ago. We were debating whether or not Persona 5 would improve the series if they jammed in an alignment meter that some of the other MegaTen games have which could lead to Lawful, Neutral and Chaos endings.

I argued against it and tried to explain that there is nothing wrong with a game being linear, and I did basically quote Jim exactly and said that games just needed to be good.

Oddly enough he did pull out the "but it'll add replayability to it" but the newer Persona titles already do a pretty good job of that with their NG+ option.

So...thanks Jim, I guess. I admit, I was a bit thrown by your show at first, but after seeing this one and last weeks, it's really growing on me.

Keep it up.

EDIT: For some reason I did let out a small nerd squeal of excitement when you mentioned Final Fantasy 9 under the good games list. I'm not sure why I was surprised since I was already happy you use music from it for your show...


So, to recap: FF9, Portal and Bioshock are all good games?!?! Holy crap! It's not like there are video game critics out there by the hundreds who could have told me that, so I never would have known without you. [/sarCASM]

Seriously though: telling me that time-honored video game classics are good is like telling me that swearing in public is a bad idea. Not only does every functioning member of society over the age of ten know that, but you are also going to be wrong sometimes.

Take a risk, show us some video games we might not have tried before that are awesome and linear. Defend games commonly considered to be bad and show why they're awesome and game critics are stupids. But I really don't care that you think Mario is fun.

I get the feeling you may have missed the point. It wasn't "good games are good lolol" it was good games don't need multiplayer/cheap gimmicks to have replayability but have the replay value by virtue of being good.

Nope, don't think I missed the point. I was focusing on what I consider to be a problem with Jim's videos writ large that shows up again this week: a lot of his time gets spent telling people how games that critics liked are good games. They get used as examples in various arguments he makes, but what's the challenge in using critically acclaimed games to explain your point? How about some indie titles that do something really well, or even a shitty game that has one bright spot in its favor?

Fact is, I worry sometimes that his show really is pitched to the viewer of average intelligence.

Egocentric bell-end has a point.

You know, when I was eight, I would play Spyro the Dragon for four hours straight, get to the end credits, quit, lose my data, and start all over again at a later date. And I didn't mind, because the game was EXCELLENT!

FINALLY! Someone else who doesn't give a shit about multiplayer and mainly plays games for their storyline!

Lemme try to remember here:

Half Life 1+2+both episodes
Metal Gear Solid 3
Mother 3 (Earthbound 2)
Earthbound (Mother 2)
Every single Mario platformer ever and a few rpg ones
Batman Arkham Asylum
Star Fox 64
Every 3-D Zelda game
Portal 1+2
Fallout 3+New Vegas
Several Kirby games
and Just Cause 2...

Not all of them, but most I can think of at the top of my head. I guess you got a point there Jim.

Oh man, Jim can sing! I mean, his voice is somewhat angelic!

I mean, um, good manly episode there, Jim! You sure a man... OHH GOD SING AN OPERA FOR ME JIM STERLING <3

Yup, Agree with him 100% with him.

If a game is just plain FUN, then that alone offers incentive to replay it. I've replayed Sonic 3 and Knuckles so many times I know many of the levels by heart. I spent over 20 hours beating Sonic colors the first time around because I was too busy replaying some of the really good levels over and over for high scores. I replayed Kingdom hearts because it was so freakin good and......ok fine, so I also got to experience the awesomeness of playing a mage-centric hero instead of a melee-focused one, but the point still stands.

If a game is really fun, that offers replay value. If it's got extra incentives, like more classes to try, or branchinc story arcs, or co-op or whatever, then great. But it's not like it's NEEDED. And in some games, throwing in online is stupid. Did Dead Space REALLY need a crappy multiplayer mode?

Haven't really enjoyed any of the other episodes, but this one I liked.
One thing about dead space two, I don't think it was the inclusion of multiplayer that started depleting the story(I really enjoyed the multiplayer), it was the fact that they ran out of vents for the necromorphs to hop out of when you're near them.

I agree 100%. It's just weird seeing all these great single player games adding in these pointless, tacked on multiplayer modes when everyone is just going to go back to COD after 3 or 4 hours on it.

Put more time into getting the single player right... looking at you, F.3.A.R. fa-three-er.

The fact this needs to be said makes me weep a bit. Back in the SNES and NES days we didn't have multiple modes for 30 hours games in a large library. We often had only a few games we played the shit out of to kill time between going out to rent something new for the weekend. There was a time I could make it through some levels of Mega Man 2 blindfolded because I played it so much. If we needed something new we invented odd challenges, ie: beat A Link to the Past with no optional sword, sheild and armor upgrades and no bottles, Beat Super Mario Bros always tunning, or beat Final Fantasy with a party of white mages. There was always something new because we could always better our game. And the previous generation went further. Rent King of Kong and see how many hours people have gotten from a game with four fucking screens, even after 25 - 30 years.

Then there's the story aspect. I used to love playing Ninja Gaiden on the NES for the cinematics, even after seeing them seeral times. I must have been through Final Fantasies 4 and 6 20 times each over the years and still read the dialog each time. Same with the Metal Gear solid games and their cinemas. Even camp like the Resident Evil games is a lot of fun to re-experience. Heck, that's when you really know is you got something good. Any story can be iteresting the first time when you keep going to findout what happens. It's a realy strong story you still enjoy after it's all been revealed.

Then again, I'm not surprised game companies appeal to this new ADD generation. They make their money off new game sales, so it's best to foster the mindset that needs something new every couple of weeks.

Last two weeks were better. I believe this issue is subjective. Call me whatever you want, but I find repeating single player games pretty boring(unless they have a sandbox world/alternate options).

As long as it doesn't affect the quality of the product...bring on the multiplayer/replay value.

I mean look at Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood. Some of the best sandbox/single player ever. But also a masterfully unique multiplayer mode.

Second week in a row that Jim completely nails it. Down with shoehorned in online multiplayer!

The 9/11 first responder of video games line is absolutely classic!

Of all the ways you could have argued this, you pick the simplest. Brilliant! Usually these arguments boil down to defining what is linear, showing that in some ways every game is linear and non-linear: you follow one path from beginning to end and you have freedom to play that path differently each time you play. But you skipped over the hassle of arguing what is linear and simply acknowledged that linear entertainment has always had replay value. That's pretty hard to argue against.

Think anyone will get enjoyment from re-watching this video?

I'm beginning to find him a bit more enjoyable now, actually... And I can't remember how many times I've played through BioShock, Final Fantasy VII, Half-Life 2, Painkiller, Tony Hawk's Underground, and many other games. Multiplayer is ruined by campers or poor servers most the time, but a great single player game can live forever.

Jim, you are not right. Replayability is not about your feelings to the game, it's about new expirience, that the game can provide each time you'r playing it. It's a game-mechanich feachure. Just a characteristic of a game, like shader version. If it hase ways to have different expirience (dificulty level changing, random generated locations, different classes of playeble characters) - it hase replayabiliti, if not - it hasn't.
A lot of people like crapy games, that you woud be sick of in 5 minutes. So... what? Have those games replayability? I liked Bad Company, but will never play it again, and my friend played it 4 times. So have this one replayability? For me - no and for him yes? That just doesn't make sense.

Sory, Jim, but you were talking about personal preferences, not about replayability.

Personal preferences directly affect re-playability.

For you friend Bad Company has replay-ability for you not so much.

Also about the things you mentioned so if a game doesn't have those things then it has no re-playability? Do you see how skewed your view is. Take Ratchet & Clank for example it has none of those things and tons of people replay it. Same thing with Chrono Trigger or any Mario game in existence.

"To me, replay value comes in whether or not I want to play the game again".

Which is bit illogical, it would make more sense if you would add 'Right after I finish it' or 'In short term' at the endor something similar.

Because replay value is not 0/1, its a VALUE. Modern Warfare 2 (SP) will have lower replay value because of its linear gameplay and scripted encounters, then say Baldurs Gate 2 which has more open gameplay, mechanics and non-linear storytelling.


Just for semantics...

The quote that you took out of context, from a logical standpoint, actually makes perfect sense. Replay value means you want to replay something. Why does it have to be right after you just finished playing it? I find that games get more replay value as time passes, because there is less I will remember and more I will be able to re-discover in the game world.

Also, the entire point of the video that this thread is for was arguing that a linear game (Such as CoD Modern Warfare 2) can still have replay value despite its linear story and scripted encounters, and if the story is good enough it doesn't need a tacked-on multiplayer mode.

You say "imho" so I suppose I will respect your opinion, but don't try to push your opinion on other people. Don't tell them what they should have said. And don't use a strawman argument like "Oh, it's illogical." when the quote you took makes more logical sense than a human drinking water. Realize that it is only your opinion, and many other people (myself included) are not likely to share your opinion.

He mentioned Metro2033 for being an amazing game. Infinite respect.

another great show Jim Its so true I've sunk more hours into silent hill 2 than any multiplayer game

I agree generally with what your saying, but people just demanding more from games and developers doesnt make them stupid. If I pay for a game I want it to be good but also worth my money. Im not gunna pay $60 for a game only a few hours long even a great game like portal came as part of a box set, games like CoD and halo do really well with short campains but endless hours of multiplayer enjoyment. games like dragon age and oblivion need things like choices and side plot because they would be kinda boreing otherwise. Some of my favorite games had a tight linear story lines and are still fun for me but those are older and cheaper games. now days gamers demand more for there money and there is really nothing wrong with that.

The new Metro game going to have multiplayer? The hell!? Who's fucktard decision was that? They couldn't even get SP properly polished first time 'round and that is the entire appeal of the title; the game was a good experience, not a good game.

I've replayed Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2 so many times. Some may say 'too many' :) In fact, if it is an engaging SP experience I will generally play it at least a half dozen times.

Thank god for Jim :)

....Not everyone likes to play a game over again.....so it doesn't preovide universal replay ability

Also calm down there, no reason to call people names

Name one game that doesn't have extra stuff in it to make it challenging enough. Portal is repeative once you complete it so the only thing that make me play twice was the achievements. Halo has multiple difficultly levels. Even without the multilayer options games do need additional stuff added on to make them fun enough to play again.

Yes, thank you... I agree 100% just like sonic youth... and I pray to you every night... or rather I would but I absolutely hate Ace of Base...


What is Movie-Bob's angle? He doesn't have one, he does not need one. He's just Bob. Same with Jim.

Movie bob does have an angle. On that particular show it's being a movie snob (although how much of it is genuine and how much of it is theatrics for humorous effect is to be discerned) in his big picture and the overthinker he gets to show off the primary nature of his character which is him being a giant nerd. When jim took off his jacket and spoke frank that was a special moment but it wasn't really like he changed his character really he was just a bit more direct and bit less sarcastic but he still used all the insults and the funny little photoshop pictures just like every other video he's made.

The act of making a show for the sake of entertainment is a little more complex than "make this pap enough to where the mindless drolls get it" although I understand how you might think that given that this is a rather snobby place which holds such beliefs to be self evident. It requires looking at what sort of audience you want and how you wish to approach them. This is the style that Jim has chosen, one that irks and annoys people but that's exactly what the character is supposed to do. Be irksome and annoying but also show a level of intelligence that makes one think (oh this guy is pretty smart but I wish he'd stop acting like a jerk) which I find amusing cause to be honest a lot of people on this website are like Jim. Really smart people who's arrogance and ego are really off putting but they do deserve credit for what they say.

And that is the core of Jim's character. He represents the egotistical bravado that infest places like the escapist where one can get so full of themselves that they can think they are better than everyone else and show it by saying ignorant arrogant things as they rant about stuff they know little about or stuff they know a lot about but has so little value that in the grand scheme of things makes that person look like a big idiot.

I've been following Bob since the early days on Youtube and that really is him, he IS a Nerd. Yahtzee IS a cynical critic.

Jim is not a fascist-dick, yet he dresses and acts like one for Jimquisition, why? I don't know, you may find it amusing be you cannot tell me that I should find it amusing. You haven't really explained why you do find this fascist-dick routine so interesting.

Ascorbic and opinionated Jim I like, he reminds me of The Spoony One. Noah Antwiler admits that for is spoony reviews he does dial things up for comedic effect but he doesn't take on a ridiculously irrelevant persona.

"by saying ignorant arrogant things as they rant about stuff they know little about or stuff they know a lot about but has so little value that in the grand scheme of things makes that person look like a big idiot"

So you watch Jimquisition like a freak show, like a trash TV talk show like Maurey Povitch you don't give a hoot about the issues, you just like to see someone embarrass themselves going on a rant?

That's shameful.

1) Why do I sound like I'm taking a shit?
2) Why no mention of RPGs? They're majorly replayable.
3) Yeah, I've played through Portal a number of times. It's good because it lasts almost as long as my train journey up to uni, but it's hard to play without a mouse... though I did master it.

oh dear, i must be coming down with something because i actually agreed with jim


Once again another perfectly valid point ruined by the fact that it's being made by an obnoxious horrifically (and staggeringly unjustifiably) arrogant man. Jim, stop trying to be 'clever' by swearing every other word, it doesn't make you sound like a grown up it just makes you sound like you have a lack of imagination and/or a poor vocabulary.

The constant ego tripping is also frankly nauseating and makes me utterly appalled at myself that I just wasted 4 minutes of my life watching it.

But the damnable fact remains that the REASON I watched and keep coming back and hoping that 'maybe he'll learn' is that you actually make very good points that I more often than not agree with what you're trying to say wholeheartedly.

For the love of god though try to grow up and speak to your audience with some degree of respect and civility, constantly insulting us and and throwing out the sort of language I'd expect from a school kid who thinks he's being 'edgy' does not make you seem superior it makes you come across as utterly laughable and for me at least makes me far less likely to be swayed by anything that comes out of your mouth.

All that said, please take this as it is intended which is to say, constructive criticism, you have a very 'keen nose' for the issues in the games industry today and I would love to see you reach a wider audience but if you carry on this way your only going to drive most folks away.

I love this guy's (intentional) condescending attitude, it's pretty damn funny, and he makes some pretty good points (though I don't always agree with everything he says)

Also, hooray for that "Puppet Master" cameo.


2) Why no mention of RPGs? They're majorly replayable.


"Final Fantasy 9"

Maybe you should watch the whole thing.

How about some indie titles that do something really well, or even a shitty game that has one bright spot in its favor?

Perhaps Awesome Possum was an indie game? Maybe if there's an indie vs mainstream episode he'll humour you, but that's not what this episode was about. I have no idea why listing games that would make a viewer go 'what the hell were those games?' instead of 'oh yeah I played those' would improve the quality of the video, but sime you seem to think that's the case perhaps you could enlighten us.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Posting on this forum is disabled.