At Least They Spelled the Title Right
Considered one of the worst games of all time, Josh Harmon takes it upon himself to review Ride to Hell: Retribution. He tells readers just how bad this game is by using a clever diction, effective syntax and details into just how atrocious this game is.
According to Josh Harmon, this game is complete and utter garbage. He said that he could not stop laughing for two hours due to the hilarity of some of the situations. Women are treated as objects in this game, and nothing more. If there is a woman in the game, players will be having sex with them, fully clothed. To describe this, Harmon uses "never-nude", kind of like Tobias in Arrested Development. He uses words like "sexist" and "uncomfortable" to help get across how truly horrendous and offensive this game is.
Harmon's syntax also helps readers get an idea as to how terrible and repetitive this game is. In one paragraph, he talks about the main character's expression throughout everything. He does this by asking a question and then repeating the same "Squint, shifty eyes". This drives the point home about how repetitive and clunky the game is. Harmon puts him in many situations where he reacts the same way. Without this, readers may not get a true taste of how repetitive this game is.
Details are needed to accurately show how bad this game is. Harmon goes into a lot of detail showing the weaknesses of the game. He talks about the cover system, devoting a whole paragraph to it. Cover systems are an integral part of third person shooters. If this aspect of the game does not work, then the combat system is broken. By explaining the shortcomings of the cover system, readers get a view into this broken mess developer Eutechnyx calls a game.
The title speaks for Ride to Hell: Retribution. The only thing the developers got right was the title. To describe this "game" to readers, Harmon uses an apt diction, effective syntax and details about the game to tell people to not waste money on it.
Considered one of the worst games of all time, Josh Harmon takes it upon himself to review Ride to Hell: Retribution. He tells readers just how bad this game is by using a clever diction, effective syntax and details into just how atrocious this game is.
According to Josh Harmon, this game is complete and utter garbage. He said that he could not stop laughing for two hours due to the hilarity of some of the situations. Women are treated as objects in this game, and nothing more. If there is a woman in the game, players will be having sex with them, fully clothed. To describe this, Harmon uses "never-nude", kind of like Tobias in Arrested Development. He uses words like "sexist" and "uncomfortable" to help get across how truly horrendous and offensive this game is.
Harmon's syntax also helps readers get an idea as to how terrible and repetitive this game is. In one paragraph, he talks about the main character's expression throughout everything. He does this by asking a question and then repeating the same "Squint, shifty eyes". This drives the point home about how repetitive and clunky the game is. Harmon puts him in many situations where he reacts the same way. Without this, readers may not get a true taste of how repetitive this game is.
Details are needed to accurately show how bad this game is. Harmon goes into a lot of detail showing the weaknesses of the game. He talks about the cover system, devoting a whole paragraph to it. Cover systems are an integral part of third person shooters. If this aspect of the game does not work, then the combat system is broken. By explaining the shortcomings of the cover system, readers get a view into this broken mess developer Eutechnyx calls a game.
The title speaks for Ride to Hell: Retribution. The only thing the developers got right was the title. To describe this "game" to readers, Harmon uses an apt diction, effective syntax and details about the game to tell people to not waste money on it.
Hi Nick,
ReplyDeleteGood job on your blog post. I think you did a good job of breaking down the techniques used in this review. I think your second paragraph was especially strong. However, I think perhaps you can be more specific in your first body paragraph. I think it would be more clear in the beginning of your paragraph to say that you are talking about diction in this paragraph. You actually never mention the word "diction" in your body paragraph. Although it is not hard to realize that you are talking about diction by the end of the paragraph, it would just be easier if you said so to begin with.
Good job!
Hola Nick!
ReplyDeleteGreat Job once again on the post! The only thing i would change, i mean not even change, it would be to add in some more quotes from the article to prove your point just a little more. I think you paragraphs are well thought out and put very well. By the way i love your blog and the cats, it is very original. Overall good job!
Hey Nick,
ReplyDeleteWonderful job on this post. You did a great job on analyzing the different aspects of DIDLS from this article. You might want to add some quotes to support your ideas in the third paragraph. Other than the slight lack of examples, I don't know what else to tell you. Nice job on the post Nick, keep up the good work.
Allysa
Nick--MUCH improved from last month! Your next goal should be to get at least three strong pieces of evidence into each support paragraph. Your peer reviewers DID mention this, you know.... And speaking of peer review, I notice that you have done a better job this quarter keeping an analytical focus in your own peer reviews. You do need to have a more critical eye, though, as on several peers' posts you've let some really egregious errors slip by.
ReplyDelete