Shanahan's "Bow N***er"

| | Comments (0)
 Shanahan's "Bow N***er" To start off with the differences between the two types of reviews,
the page itself was the first major difference between the two. When connected to the GameSpot review page, I felt like I was at a professional page with credibility. The review on by Amer Ajami was very professional and gave a more non-opinion review of the game. He gave insight to the game but left his opinion open, not judgmental. In Amer Ajami's GameSpot review of Jedi Outcast he starts the review with, "A good first impression is always important. Surprisingly, LucasArts and Raven Software's Jedi Knight II: Jedi Outcast doesn't really give one. Instead, the third game in the long-running Star Wars-themed shooter series initially gives the impression that it's a flashy but basic action game that isn't as ambitious as its highly acclaimed predecessor, Jedi Knight. However, Jedi Outcast soon transforms from a typical first-person shooter to an exceptional Star Wars action game that contains some of the best combat sequences since Half- Life, the most distinctive control mechanics since Max Payne, and the most involving plot in a Star Wars game since Jedi Knight." So after reading the introduction, the feel for the rest of the review was going to be professional, formal, and non-opinionated. At least that's what felt. Also, I knew what I was going to be reading.
Now on the other hand, what stuck me when reading Ian Shanahan's review, I wasn't sure what I was about to read. I was actually kind of offended by the terminology used. I was curious on how the title of the review related to gaming. But upon reading more into the review I started to become more interested in what he was saying. It was like he was telling a story, and he brought you into that story. Shanahan states, "This makes your game 'life' actually worth something and it makes it worth fighting for." That statement can relate to anyone, and so readers can connect with what Ian Shanahan is saying, he makes the review seem personal. "They'll show each other a degree of respect that is just absent from most other multiplayer games and they express that respect in a variety of ways, from the odd little emergent bow to ad hoc lessons from complete strangers to clans adopting the padawan/master relationship outlined in the films. Most of the players are good guys." This is another example of how the review seems personal, sucking you in, so that you want to keep reading and wanting to know more.
As far as game review goes, I felt that Amer Ajami's review want more informative, less exciting, but gives you a plentiful amount of information about the game and what to expect. With Ian Shanahan's review was 'hidden' through out his personal experience of the game. He only gave a point of view from the multiplayer perspective of the game. His review was intriguing and catchy, but I'm not buying just a multiplayer game, there is much more to it which he didn't review. I feel that although less exciting, the traditional way to review games may be more informative on what the game is. The new games journalism seems to be more personal connection, making a person feel connected with the game. But it could be less informative, at least after reading and comparing the two readings.

Leave a comment

Type the characters you see in the picture above.

January 2008

Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
    1 2 3 [4] 5
[6] [7] [8] 9 [10] 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31