This week I reviewed 3 different Pitch’s for my class mates Digital Artefacts. These pitches were; Stephanie Jory’s, and her idea of game addiction with a focus on Fortnite, Callum Harvey’s, and his idea of economic and political analyse of game freak, and Caitlin Olsen-Ludlow’s, and her idea of gaming and its effect on mental health. This will be my critical reflection on what I commented on for each post, and most importantly how I can improve for future commentary.
I attempted to be as constructive as possible whilst trying to give both positive and negative comments. I wanted to give them a sense that they were on the right path but also could always work on their approach. For Stephanie, I felt her pitch was structured well and gave a detailed response. I did however want to ensure she knew where she could improve and for me that was having to pause the video to understand the points she was delivering. I think I could have improved by stating when exactly I had to pause as she may have been quite time constraint and had to search for herself to fix this issue.
For Callum, again I attempted to give him the positive features of his pitch to begin. I wanted to acknowledge his bravery with entering a political view as I feel this would be challenging for myself and maybe even difficult to talk about. Although, I was quite surprised on his knowledge on the subject and felt this was worth telling. The only thing I found I could offer to him was he was trying to cram in too much information that could be spread over 3 topics. Also, I found the topic of Diablo Immortal was a great aid in research that he seemed to appreciate my help with. Again, I feel I could have given more detail into my response as to make it clearer for him to improve. Specifically, when I state that the information can be dense, I could give example’s of when his information was hard to grasp, such as a specific stat, or paragraph etc.
Last but not least, I found Caitlin’s Pitch extremely thorough, therefore stating positive feedback about her dialogue and her video presentation. The one thing I picked up on was the lack of structure I believe wasn’t present. She had a lot of great potential research though no way for me to know how she was going to present it and in what timely manner in her videos. I feel I could’ve improved my comment by maybe providing my own structure she could’ve worked off, or summarising some of her potential research for her.
I provided one link to a single website after each comment, with the hopes that each person could maybe gain more knowledge they may have missed, or didn’t think to delve into. Here are the links given in each comment.