Support NeoGAF

[Pizza Luigi]

Hey GAF, hope you can help me. I'm Dutch but I have my English oral on Thursday. I wrote my assignment but I hoped that you could help me correcting the text on the subject of spelling and grammar, and obviously if the sentences are correctly built.

---------
Since 1986, when one of the first videogames, Pac-Man, was released, have games become a celebrated medium with a lot of attention in the media. When something entirely new becomes popular, it also attracts critics. And games were no different. Everyone was all over the fact that there were violent games. Precisely this is what makes people think or believe that games are the cause of violence. It is because the media tell them so. The media tell them the horrifying stories in which children or adults kill or wound eachother as a result of playing a videogame.

This entire phenomenon is a case of history repeating. Earlier in the 20th century, when movies were becoming popular, exactly the same happened. Everyone read stories in the newspapers about how people got violent after watching a movie. I’m not sure why this was the case, but it happens all the time when something entirely new is getting popular. It happened with books, with movies even with kinds of music. When Ray Charles first made the song “I’ve got a woman”, where immoral lyrics were used in a gospel song, everyone was all over it and accused Ray and his song for blasphemy. They said children could get wrong ideas from these songs, just like “What’d I say” from the same artist.

For a strange reason, those stories have now vanished and the horrorstories about games have taken their place. OnIy, these accusations are just as undeserved as the accusations that were made against movies and music. You probably would like to say: “But, wait, games are entirely different, because in videogames, you can actually be the one who kills and feel how that feels in real life.” I don’t think that being interactive makes a medium, in this case the videogame, more dangerous to children or people in general than when it isn’t. The killing in games is not in any way similar to real-life killing and therefore you can’t blame games for giving players the chance to kill in the first place.
Maybe you have heard about Jack Thompson. It is an ex-lawyer from the USA that devoted a lot of his time trying to ban certain videogames, like Grand Theft Auto. It is a game where you have to do missions in an open world and there is a lot killing and driving involved.

Thompson tried many times to ban the game from the stores, but not only GTA. The developer of the game, Rockstar, has a lot of those controversial games, like Manhunt, where you have to brutally kill innocent people for no reason at all. This was reason enough for Thompson for trying to get it banned from the stores. It is true, two men went out on the streets to kill after playing Manhunt. But both men were already shizophrenic. The game just triggered the violence in those two men, instead of feeding them violent ideas or feelings.

When you think about it, something is not quite right. I’ll give you an example. A boy from New York was in the news last week, because he drove to his school in the car of his parents because he was late for school. The boy was six years old. When he ran over someone at an intersection, the police came to ask where he learned to drive the car and the boy told the police officers that the game Grand Theft Auto IV teached him that. This is a moment where half the world can point their fingers at the videogame for giving an innocent boy the idea that he can drive, or even blaming the game for murder. But that is not what is going on, because the game, Grand Theft Auto IV, has an 18+ rating, which means that it is prohibited for children under the age of 18 to buy the game. No, the boy did not buy the game himself. His parents did. By buying the game for the boy and knowing that it is juridically prohibited for a 6-year old boy to play the game anyway, they are actually guilty for what occured with the car and the ran over man.

This is an example that actually sums up the whole problem. The idea that it is videogames that are wrong in general because they unleash some kind of aggresive or violent feelings inside a person, is biased by the media. Games are the future. Games are worlds where one can jump into and do things one cannot do in real life. One can race in an expensive beautiful Italian sports car or can explore magical worlds. And yes, one can also kill people for no reason whatsoever in games but therefore we’re talking about games. It is not real. When you know, as a parent, that your child is not exactly immune to such violence in games, movies or even books, you should not let your child play it. When someone is killed by someone else and they find out that the killer has been playing videogames, it is very easy to point your finger at those games. But a lot of people play videogames.

I play videogames as well, but I’m not a killer as far as I’m aware. Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I think I’m perfectly normal as far as normal goes. I play the videogames because I’m fascinated about other worlds and I love exploring them. I love the music, I love the artwork. I, myself do not like games where it is the objective to just thoughtlessly kill someone. Maybe that separates me from the masses, but it is impossible that a medium as videogames can unleash violence in someone that is entirely normal. Games don’t kill people, people do, and therefore a videogame, a normal DVD or even a program on the computer, is not able to make someone perfectly normal a killing machine. You can’t blame games for making people violent or aggressive. Parents buy videogames and salesclerks sell the games that are not suitable for certain children. Games are not able to change that.
-----------



Thanks in advance GAF!

 

[lil smoke]

This needs work and is gonna take time man. It reads like a run on sentence. You have a lot of unneccessary commas in the 1st sentence. You should break between paragraphs so people can read it.

Is this meant to be a casual dialogue? Usually you don't start sentences with "maybe", or "but"...

It's not horrible though. Better than some native english writing.

Edit: oh it's an oral, duh.

 

[PantherLotus]

Since 1986, when one of the first videogames, Pac-Man, was released, have games become a celebrated medium with a lot of attention in the media. Precisely this is what makes people think or believe that games are the cause of violence. It is because the media tell them so and because the media tell them the horrifying stories where children or adults kill or wound eachother as a result of playing a videogame.

This entire phenomenon is a case of history repeating. Earlier in the 20th century, when movies were becoming popular, exactly the same happened. Everyone read stories in the newspapers about how people got violent after watching a movie. I’m not sure why this was the case, but it happens all the time when something entirely new is getting popular. It happened with books, with movies even with kinds of music. When Ray Charles first made the song “I’ve got a woman”, where immoral lyrics were used in a gospel song, everyone was all over it and accused Ray and his song for blasphemy. They said children could get wrong ideas from these songs, just like “What’d I say” from the same artist.

For a strange reason, those stories have now vanished and the horrorstories about games have taken their place. OnIy, these accusations are just as undeserved as the accusations that were made against movies and music. You probably would like to say: “But, wait, games are entirely different, because in videogames, you can actually be the one who kills and feel how that feels in real life.” I don’t think that being interactive makes a medium, in this case the videogame, more dangerous to children or people in general than when it isn’t. The killing in games is not in any way similar to real-life killing and therefore you can’t blame games for giving players the chance to kill in the first place.
Maybe you have heard about Jack Thompson. It is an ex-lawyer from the USA that devoted a lot of his time trying to ban certain videogames, like Grand Theft Auto. It is a game where you have to do missions in an open world and there is a lot killing and driving involved.

Thompson tried many times to ban the game from the stores, but not only GTA. The developer of the game, Rockstar, has a lot of those controversial games, like Manhunt, where you have to brutally kill innocent people for no reason at all. This was reason enough for Thompson for trying to get it banned from the stores. It is true, two men went out on the streets to kill after playing Manhunt. But both men were already shizophrenic. The game just triggered the violence in those two men, instead of feeding them violent ideas or feelings.

When you think about it, something is not quite right. I’ll give you an example. A boy from New York was in the news last week, because he drove to his school in the car of his parents because he was late for school. The boy was six years old. When he ran over someone at an intersection, the police came to ask where he learned to drive the car and the boy told the police officers that the game Grand Theft Auto IV teached him that. This is a moment where half the world can point their fingers at the videogame for giving an innocent boy the idea that he can drive, or even blaming the game for murder. But that is not what is going on, because the game, Grand Theft Auto IV, has an 18+ rating, which means that it is prohibited for children under the age of 18 to buy the game. No, the boy did not buy the game himself. His parents did. By buying the game for the boy and knowing that it is juridically prohibited for a 6-year old boy to play the game anyway, they are actually guilty for what occured with the car and the ran over man.

This is an example that actually sums up the whole problem. The idea that it is videogames that are wrong in general because they unleash some kind of aggresive or violent feelings inside a person, is biased by the media. Games are the future. Games are worlds where one can jump into and do things one cannot do in real life. One can race in an expensive beautiful Italian sports car or can explore magical worlds. And yes, one can also kill people for no reason whatsoever in games but therefore we’re talking about games. It is not real. When you know, as a parent, that your child is not exactly immune to such violence in games, movies or even books, you should not let your child play it. When someone is killed by someone else and they find out that the killer has been playing videogames, it is very easy to point your finger at those games. But a lot of people play videogames.

I play videogames as well, but I’m not a killer as far as I’m aware. Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I think I’m perfectly normal as far as normal goes. I play the videogames because I’m fascinated about other worlds and I love exploring them. I love the music, I love the artwork. I, myself do not like games where it is the objective to just thoughtlessly kill someone. Maybe that separates me from the masses, but it is impossible that a medium as videogames can unleash violence in someone that is entirely normal. Games don’t kill people, people do, and therefore a videogame, a normal DVD or even a program on the computer, is not able to make someone perfectly normal a killing machine. You can’t blame games for making people violent or aggressive. Parents buy videogames and salesclerks sell the games that are not suitable for certain children. Games are not able to change that.

===========

Broken up for future editors.
Also, editing.

 

[The_Inquisitor]

Since 1986, when one of the first videogames, Pac-Man, was released, have games become a celebrated medium with a lot of attention in the media. Precisely this is what makes people think or believe that games are the cause of violence. It is because the media tell them so and because the media tell them the horrifying stories where children or adults kill or wound eachother as a result of playing a videogame.

This entire phenomenon is a case of history repeating. Earlier in the 20th century, when movies were becoming popular, exactly the same happened. Everyone read stories in the newspapers about how people got violent after watching a movie. I’m not sure why this was the case, but it happens all the time when something entirely new is getting popular. It happened with books, with movies even with kinds of music. When Ray Charles first made the song “I’ve got a woman”, where immoral lyrics were used in a gospel song, everyone was all over it and accused Ray and his song for blasphemy. They said children could get wrong ideas from these songs, just like “What’d I say” from the same artist.

For a strange reason, those stories have now vanished and the horrorstories about games have taken their place. OnIy, these accusations are just as undeserved as the accusations that were made against movies and music. You probably would like to say: “But, wait, games are entirely different, because in videogames, you can actually be the one who kills and feel how that feels in real life.” I don’t think that being interactive makes a medium, in this case the videogame, more dangerous to children or people in general than when it isn’t. The killing in games is not in any way similar to real-life killing and therefore you can’t blame games for giving players the chance to kill in the first place.
Maybe you have heard about Jack Thompson. It is an ex-lawyer from the USA that devoted a lot of his time trying to ban certain videogames, like Grand Theft Auto. It is a game where you have to do missions in an open world and there is a lot killing and driving involved.

Thompson tried many times to ban the game from the stores, but not only GTA. The developer of the game, Rockstar, has a lot of those controversial games, like Manhunt, where you have to brutally kill innocent people for no reason at all. This was reason enough for Thompson for trying to get it banned from the stores. It is true, two men went out on the streets to kill after playing Manhunt. But both men were already shizophrenic. The game just triggered the violence in those two men, instead of feeding them violent ideas or feelings.

When you think about it, something is not quite right. I’ll give you an example. A boy from New York was in the news last week, because he drove to his school in the car of his parents because he was late for school. The boy was six years old. When he ran over someone at an intersection, the police came to ask where he learned to drive the car and the boy told the police officers that the game Grand Theft Auto IV teached him that. This is a moment where half the world can point their fingers at the videogame for giving an innocent boy the idea that he can drive, or even blaming the game for murder. But that is not what is going on, because the game, Grand Theft Auto IV, has an 18+ rating, which means that it is prohibited for children under the age of 18 to buy the game. No, the boy did not buy the game himself. His parents did. By buying the game for the boy and knowing that it is juridically prohibited for a 6-year old boy to play the game anyway, they are actually guilty for what occured with the car and the ran over man.

This is an example that actually sums up the whole problem. The idea that it is videogames that are wrong in general because they unleash some kind of aggresive or violent feelings inside a person, is biased by the media. Games are the future. Games are worlds where one can jump into and do things one cannot do in real life. One can race in an expensive beautiful Italian sports car or can explore magical worlds. And yes, one can also kill people for no reason whatsoever in games but therefore we’re talking about games. It is not real. When you know, as a parent, that your child is not exactly immune to such violence in games, movies or even books, you should not let your child play it. When someone is killed by someone else and they find out that the killer has been playing videogames, it is very easy to point your finger at those games. But a lot of people play videogames.

I play videogames as well, but I’m not a killer as far as I’m aware. Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I think I’m perfectly normal as far as normal goes. I play the videogames because I’m fascinated about other worlds and I love exploring them. I love the music, I love the artwork. I, myself do not like games where it is the objective to just thoughtlessly kill someone. Maybe that separates me from the masses, but it is impossible that a medium as videogames can unleash violence in someone that is entirely normal. Games don’t kill people, people do, and therefore a videogame, a normal DVD or even a program on the computer, is not able to make someone perfectly normal a killing machine. You can’t blame games for making people violent or aggressive. Parents buy videogames and salesclerks sell the games that are not suitable for certain children. Games are not able to change that.

===========

Broken up for future editors.
Also, editing.

This needs a crapload of work. I am not an English major, but I think this rewording of your first sentence makes more sense.

Games have become a celebrated medium with a lot of media attention since the release of Pac-Man in 1986.


Now question. How does the fact that Pac-man was released in 1986 or that videogames get media coverage lead to your conclusion in the second sentence that:

Precisely this is what makes people think or believe that games are the cause of violence.

I think you need to make that "conclusion" in your actual conclusion after you have cited some evidence.


EDIT : Ah it's an oral. Well hold on while I read it over.

 

[Pizza Luigi]

This needs a crapload of work. I am not an English major, but I think this rewording of your first sentence makes more sense.

Games have become a celebrated medium with a lot of media attention since the release of Pac-Man in 1986.


Now question. How does the fact that Pac-man was released in 1986 or that videogames get media coverage lead to your conclusion in the second sentence that:

Precisely this is what makes people think or believe that games are the cause of violence.

The fact that it is celebrated and therefore popular is a kind of bait for critics to tell the masses that games are bad. The same happened with movies and music. They always find something bad in it.

Now, I clarify this somewhere further in the text, if I'm not mistaken. I should've written this while entirely awake

 

[lil smoke]

Since 1986, when Pac-Man, one of the first videogames was released, have games become a celebrated medium with a lot of attention in the media? Precisely this leads people to believe that games are the cause of violence.

It is because the media suggests so, and the media tells them horrifying stories where children or adults kill or wound each other as a result of playing videogames.

This entire phenomenon is a case of history repeating (itself). Earlier in the 20th century, while movies were becoming popular, the same thing (exactly and the same are redundant) happened. Stories in the newspapers detailed how people became violent after watching a movie. I’m not sure why this was the case, but it happens all the time when something entirely new is becomming popular.

It has happened with books, movies, even music. For example, when Ray Charles wrote “I’ve got a woman”, where immoral lyrics were used in a gospel song, everyone was all over it and accused Ray and his song for blasphemy. They suggest children could get wrong ideas from these songs, just like “What’d I say” from the same artist. (don't understand that last part)

I would probably reword some stuff, but everyone speaks differently.

 

[Pizza Luigi]

I would probably reword some stuff, but everyone speaks differently.

That's my major problem with English writing I think. I just cannot come up with the words I want to use, so I use something lame that is similar.

Thanks already!!

 

[The_Inquisitor]

The fact that it is celebrated and therefore popular is a kind of bait for critics to tell the masses that games are bad. The same happened with movies and music. They always find something bad in it.

Now, I clarify this somewhere further in the text, if I'm not mistaken. I should've written this while entirely awake

Alright. But where was that in your introduction before that sentence. You have a premise, but I couldn't exactly tell at my first glance.

So tell your teacher/audience that after your initial sentence about Pac-Man.


Hold on making an edit.

 

[Pizza Luigi]

Alright. But where was that in your introduction before that sentence. You have a premise, but I couldn't exactly tell at my first glance.

So tell your teacher/audience that after your initial sentence about Pac-Man.

I will add that later on when more of the text is corrected, thank you very much man!

 

[Gantz]

:lol @ asking GAF for grammar help :lol

 

[lil smoke]

That's my major problem with English writing I think. I just cannot come up with the words I want to use, so I use something lame that is similar.

Thanks already!!

Well, it should be understandable as complex vocabulary takes years, if not decades to be able to master.

Overall, it seems you are speaking too casually, and 'matter of factly'. Also I think that annuncuation, is probably more important than the actual words you use. I think that is what stands out with non-english speakers more than anything. If you pose a question, make it sound like a question, and not a statement.

 

[Pizza Luigi]

:lol @ asking GAF for grammar help :lol

Nothing wrong with GAF's grammar as far as I know. Everyone is just to lazy to actually use it in their posts.

 

[Ourobolus]

If I was at home, I'd help out...but at work...this probably wouldn't be the best way for me to spend my time. :lol

 

[Pizza Luigi]

Doesn't matter man. I'm happy with all the help I can get though.

 

[Scribble]

:lol @ asking GAF for grammar help :lol

This isn't GameFaqs. Gaffers tend to be good writers, which is surprising considering the size of the board.

 

[The_Inquisitor]

All 3 points you gave are valid reasons why games are seen as inciting violence. But I don't think the problem is the media alone. It seems to me that with the exception of the lawyer, you are actually blaming misinformed parents for the problem with gaming. That boy's parents were not responsible enough to keep their child from playing a 18+ game.

Hell, you can even say in your introduction that the reason video games are blamed are because society does not quite understand their role in the mainstream due to its relative newness. Parents don't know how to incorporate it into their children's lives, the legal implications of games are still fuzzy (thus lawyer trying to take advantage), ect.

 

[Pizza Luigi]

All 3 points you gave are valid reasons why games are seen as inciting violence. But I don't think the problem is the media alone. It seems to me that with the exception of the lawyer, you are actually blaming misinformed parents for the problem with gaming. That boy's parents were not responsible enough to keep their child from playing a 18+ game.

Hell, you can even say in your introduction that the reason video games are blamed are because society does not quite understand their role in the mainstream due to its relative newness. Parents don't know how to incorporate it into their children's lives, the legal implications of games are still fuzzy (thus lawyer trying to take advantage), ect.

That is the problem indeed. I know what I want to say, but it doesn't really flow out of my fingers, to say it in a poetical way.

Do I have to write it all anew, or is it possible that you alter some sentences a little bit to make it more logical and true.

I know I'm asking a lot, but I would be very thankful if you'd help, if only a little bit.

 

[The_Inquisitor]

That is the problem indeed. I know what I want to say, but it doesn't really flow out of my fingers, to say it in a poetical way.

Do I have to write it all anew, or is it possible that you alter some sentences a little bit to make it more logical and true.

I know I'm asking a lot, but I would be very thankful if you'd help, if only a little bit.

Well I mean this is just a rough draft anyways right? How formal does this need to be?

 

[Pizza Luigi]

Well, it does not need to be very formal. It's just important that this is all grammatically correct, and that obviously the whole text makes sense.

I know a lot of classmates who just wrote something and that was fine, as long as their sentence building and stuff was ok. But I'd like that my text also makes sense.

 

[Pizza Luigi]

Sorry for double post, but I edited my first post with the most recent version.

 

[Freshmaker]

Since 1986, when Pac-Man was released, games have become a medium with a lot of media attention. This is what makes people believe that games are the cause of violence. The media tell them the horrifying stories where children or adults kill or wound each other as a result of playing a videogame.

This entire phenomenon is a case of history repeating. When movies were becoming popular everyone read stories in the newspapers about how people got violent after watching a movie. I’m not sure why this was the case, but it happens all the time when something entirely new is getting popular. It happened with books, with movies, and with music. Ray Charles' “I’ve got a woman”, where immoral lyrics were used in a gospel song, people accused Ray of blasphemy. They said children could get wrong ideas from these songs, just like “What’d I say” from the same artist. (Last sentence doesn't make sense. You probably want to either expand the thought or remove that sentence.)

Those stories have fallen off, and horror stories about games have taken their place. These accusations are just as undeserved as the accusations leveled against movies and music...

I cut out some of redundancies in the above text. Generally, the simpler the sentence and wording, the better. It's also not necessary to put in qualifiers like, "I think..." etc since that's already assumed by the reader/listener.

 

[watervengeance]

I'm waiting for someone to print this out and grade it, English Teacher style. :lol

 

[Pizza Luigi]

I cut out some of redundancies in the above text. Generally, the simpler the sentence and wording, the better. It's also not necessary to put in qualifiers like, "I think..." etc since that's already assumed by the reader/listener.

Awesome, thanks. This puts me on the right track again!

 

[Nilla]

Pac Man was released in 1980, wasn't it?

 

[Rayo]

Hey GAF, hope you can help me. I'm Dutch but I have my English oral on Thursday. I wrote my assignment but I hoped that you could help me correcting the text on the subject of spelling and grammar, and obviously if the sentences are correctly built.

---------
Since 1986, when one of the first videogames, Pac-Man, was released, games have become a celebrated medium given much attention by the media. When something entirely new becomes popular, it also attracts critics, and games were no exception. Everyone was all over the fact that there were violent games. >informal< Precisely, this is what makes people think or believe that games are the cause of violence. It is because the media tell them so. The media tell them the horrifying stories in which children or adults kill or wound eachother as a result of playing a videogame.

This entire phenomenon is a case of history repeating. Earlier in the 20th century, when movies were becoming popular, exactly the same thing happened. Everyone read stories in the newspapers about how people got violent after watching a movie. I’m not sure>informal< why this was the case, but it happens all the time when something entirely new becomes popular. It happened with books, with movies, even with kinds of music. When Ray Charles first made the song “I’ve got a woman”, where immoral lyrics were used in a gospel song, everyone was all over it >informal< and accused Ray and his song of blasphemy. They said children could get wrong ideas from these songs, just like “What’d I Say” from the same artist.

For a strange reason, those stories have now vanished and the horrorstories about games have taken their place. OnIy, these accusations are just as undeserved as the accusations that were made against movies and music. You probably would like to say: “But, wait, games are entirely different, because in videogames, you can actually be the one who kills and feel how that feels in real life.” I don’t think that being interactive makes a medium, in this case the videogame, more dangerous to children or people in general than when it isn’t. The killing in games is not in any way similar to real-life killing and therefore you can’t blame games for giving players the chance to kill in the first place. Maybe you >informal< have heard about Jack Thompson. He is an ex-lawyer from the USA that devoted a lot >informal (much)< of his time trying to ban certain videogames, like Grand Theft Auto. It is a game where you >informal< have to do missions in an open world and there is a lot killing and driving involved.

Thompson tried many times to ban the game from the stores, but he did not focus on GTA alone. The developer of the game, Rockstar, has a lot of those controversial games, like Manhunt, where you have to brutally kill innocent people for no reason at all. This was reason enough reasonfor Thompson to try to get it banned from the stores. It is true that two men went out on the streets to kill after playing Manhunt, but both men were already schizophrenic. The game just triggered the violence in those two men, instead of feeding them violent ideas or feelings.

When you think about it, something is not quite right. I’ll >informal< give you an example. A boy from New York was in the news last week, because he drove to his school in the car of his parents because he was late for school. The boy was six years old. When he ran over someone at an intersection, the police came to ask where he learned to drive the car and the boy told the police officers that the game Grand Theft Auto IV taught him that. This is a moment where half the world can point their fingers at the videogame for giving an innocent boy the idea that he can drive, or even blaming the game for murder. But that is not what is going on, because the game, Grand Theft Auto IV, has an 18+ rating, which means that it is prohibited for children under the age of 18 to buy the game. No, the boy did not buy the game himself. His parents did. By buying the game for the boy and knowing that it is juridically prohibited for a 6-year old boy to play the game anyway is this true where you live???? fuck that!, they are actually guilty for what occurred. with the car and the ran over man.

This is an example that actually sums up the whole problem. The idea that it is videogames that are wrong in general because they unleash some kind of aggressive or violent feelings inside a person, is biased by the media. Games are the future. Games are worlds where one can jump into and do things one cannot do in real life. One can race in an expensive beautiful Italian sports car or can explore magical worlds. Yes, one can also kill people for no reason whatsoever in some games, but therefore we’re talking about games >informal<. It is not real. When you know, as a parent, that your child is not exactly immune to such violence in games, movies or even books, you should not let your child play, watch, or read it. When someone is killed by someone else and they >identify who exactly<find out that the killer has been playing videogames, it is very easy to point your finger at those games, even though a lot >informal (many)< of people play videogames.

I play videogames as well, but I’m not a killer as far as I’m aware. Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I think I’m perfectly normal as far as normal goes. I play the videogames because I’m fascinated about other worlds and I love exploring them. I love the music, I love the artwork. I, myself do not like games where it is the objective to just thoughtlessly kill someone. Maybe that separates me from the masses, but it is impossible that a medium as a videogames can unleash violence in someone that is entirely normal. Games don’t kill people, people do, and therefore a videogame, a normal DVD or even a program on the computer, is not able to make someone perfectly normal a killing machine. You can’t blame games for making people violent or aggressive. Parents buy videogames and salesclerks sell the games that are not suitable for certain children. Games are not able to change that.
-----------



Thanks in advance GAF!

Your final paragraph is very informal with the frequent first person POV, but if that's acceptable, you can ignore my notes in the previous paragraphs about first and second person POV. You should still change any other things I marked as informal. Good luck!

Spoiler

upgrade to stoopid ass member?

 

[Aselith]

I tried to take a whack at the grammar and couldn't stomach the content. Just in the first paragraph, you seem to imply that Pacman is a violent game that attracted critics. Work on better content before you work on the grammar.

You need to have a clear introductory paragraph introducing videogames as an entertainment medium. Then, a new paragraph where you introduce the idea of violence in videogames with some examples of games that attracted criticism. Then, move into the idea that movies went through a similar phase and that the idea of movies as a catalyst for violence has largely vanished. Lastly, you want to wrap up with the idea that videogames do not incite violence using yourself as an example. This seems to be the flow you're going for.

I think using yourself as an example of a nonviolent gamer is kind of weak. That's an opinion though so take it or leave it. But, might I suggest using NPD numbers of total console sales and trying to get some figures on reported cases of violence "caused" by videogames? This would allow you to say that numbers of reported cases are much smaller than the actual number of videogame players.

I would suggest moving this up:

Thompson tried many times to ban the game from the stores, but not only GTA. The developer of the game, Rockstar, has a lot of those controversial games, like Manhunt, where you have to brutally kill innocent people for no reason at all. This was reason enough for Thompson for trying to get it banned from the stores. It is true, two men went out on the streets to kill after playing Manhunt. But both men were already shizophrenic. The game just triggered the violence in those two men, instead of feeding them violent ideas or feelings.

and making it part of the violence paragraph.

Also, stories about movies inciting violence have not vanished. They still crop up occasionally just not as much as the new media darling, videogames.

 

[eXistor]

Pac Man was released in 1980, wasn't it?

I doubt the teacher is gonna notice it, but yes it was.

 

[Pizza Luigi]

I'd like to thank all of you, Rayo in special. You really should be a stoopid ass member!

I changed the paragraphs a little bit and corrected my text with Rayo's corrected one.

I think it's good now. Thank you very much for everything! Around 12:30 tomorrow it's going to happen, so I'm curious how I'm gonna do it.

 

[Pizza Luigi]

Well, I had it today and the teacher was astounded. He said I didn't make a mistake at all and that everything was perfect. I was the best until now.

 

[Stahsky]

Well, I had it today and the teacher was astounded. He said I didn't make a mistake at all and that everything was perfect. I was the best until now.

Right on brutha. Good shit.