Today, we learned a lot about how we can improve our writing. We also learned how to deal with being critical of others’ work, which isn’t always easy. However, we were always constructive and positive, offerring alternatives and new ideas. Being told specifically how to improve by a peer is often very helpful, because they see things very differently to the way you do. Often times though, it was hard to phrase our suggestions in a productive way, but after some talking it became a little easier. In writing the actual Analysis, we thought that hooking the reader was probably the toughest thing to do, on top of actually having substance in your essay. Moreover, we found that making the analysis sound ‘good’ was tough, and that it was challenging to find a good balance between, once again, substance and audience interest. Also what was challenging about analyzing a game, and especially moving pictures in trailers, was that we had to assume that the reader did not see our primary source. A lot of the time, we would assume that they hadseen it – and so, we talked about how that could make it difficult for the reader. Once again, it’s a question of balance between description – which can get lengthy – and analysis. Overall, we found the session to be productive as it allowed to see things from a different angle, and to share and discuss our feelings about how to deal with this analysis.
- Appeals, primary source work, and visiting special collections September 25, 2015
- Design change September 24, 2015
- Game Studies - Self-Reflexivity and Humor in Adventure Games christinealfano
- Nintendo's 'Tomodachi Life' Game Won't Feature Gay Relationships christinealfano
- Beyond the shoot-em-up: how gaming got killer stories | Books | The Guardian christinealfano
- 2048: Academia Edition christinealfano
- Stanford engineers design video game controller that can read players' minds christinealfano