2 thoughts on “Rhetorical Analysis Comments.”

  1. Borys–

    I believe that Borys’s thesis statement is clearly stated in his first paragraph when he states that “An aspect of videogames that is often overlooked is what they say about their audiences; one exceptional exemplar of this hidden commentary is Grand Theft Auto V.” After carefully analyzing and reading his paper to the best of my ability, Borys is able to shed new light by describing the lives of the three playable characters in Grand Theft Auto. Not only does he provide basic information about them but he goes on to provide his perspective and in depth analysis of each of the characters which relates back to his thesis. 

    I think that Borys wrote an excellent paper in which he proved his thesis again and again through his compelling arguments. For some odd reason, I feel like Borys focuses a lot of his paper on the character ‘Michael’ which is not a bad thing at all, but I feel like you should provide more analysis on the other characters as well so that the audience can get a better understanding of the characters especially those who haven’t played it. I also think that the organization could be done better, I’m not sure exactly how to explain this part, unfortunately since I am suffering from the same situation. One last thing, I think you should expand on the analysis of metaphors used in the video game since it seems to me to be a little weak. Besides that I think this is a terrific first draft paper!

  2. I think the last sentence of your first paragraph is your thesis. It’s direct and to the point and I don’t feel like it’s reaching too far. Having played the game I can completely understand where he is coming from on all his points. Even if someone that had never played the game were reading, the support for his points were strong enough to get his point across without overwhelming them with details.

    From what I can tell, each of the three characters serve a different purpose to appeal to different audiences and emotions. As far as the flow of the piece, it feels very well constructed. The only thing that could possibly use some changing is the ordering of which you introduce the characters. Maybe introduce Michael before Franklin since he is essentially his apprentice? Not sure if that would take away from your ordering of most insane to rational. Had I not played the game I would probably have a different perspective on whether or not adding more background is necessary. As I mentioned above, you have a good balance of background from the game and analysis going on. Maybe you can analyze some more unique interactions on the missions the characters take part in to go even more in depth on the hidden commentary?

Leave a Reply