Last week I shared a blog post dedicated to pitching my Digital Artifact idea for this semester at University and so did many of my peers. You can read it here, but as a quick reminder, I will be conducting investigative research into music and sounds of video games and analysing their importance along with their effects. After this though, I was given the opportunity to read and give feedback on fellow students’ pitches. I think it is such a rewarding thing to have a community to give and receive feedback from, and I took this process to really reflect on even my own critiques in order to advance forward with my work. I hope those who I had the honour of reviewing feel that from the feedback I shared.
Firstly I reviewed James Mckay’s pitch, and while this might be my longest comment I am so incredibly excited to see where James goes with their ideas. Their pitch presented the question of “Do Video Games Suck?”, and goes on to explore the relationship of different era games – the old vs. the new – to analyse the quality of them. They intend to do this by streaming on Twitch and having a rank type system of three similar styled games.
I love this idea, and I made sure to relay that in my feedback. I’m a very opinionated person and am attached to certain games based on my own experiences. This really stuck out to me because I really allowed myself to see how little my own pitch goes into when it comes to audiences or even the type I wish to attract. It is clear to me, based on the game like examples in my own pitch, I could have conducted more research into the who these target audiences are and why certain scores/soundtracks are presented to them.
I then moved onto reading and engaging with Jules’ pitch, which really struck me because of the similar concepts but different ideas involved. I love seeing how differently people can execute projects. Their DA dives into the concept of nostalgia and its correspondence in gaming. Not only that, but they included the science side of things, going deep into what they wished to achieve with this project.
I feel like I might be excited for everyone’s DA’s, and Jules’ pitch really cleared me up on how I should handle things in my own work. Her audio/visual was very clean and still simple and as someone who really kind of struggles with that it allowed me to see ways that I can improve.
Lastly, I took a look at Jacob’s pitch blog post, and it was instantly recognisable. Their project was detailed and very clear to read, explaining how they intend to utilise their youtube channel to make game commentary around FIFA and further explore and analyse it from there. I found that Jacob’s pitch was very researched and had clear drawbacks to class content and lectures.
I really liked this about their pitch, because it is very clear on my own that I need to improve my engagement with frameworks and lecture understandings. Which is something I know myself as well as feedback given to me over the course of peer reviewing.
Throughout this process I was able to gain insight and understanding of other people’s projects which enabled me to take a look back at my own, critique it and has given me the ability to better my personal Digital Artifact in the long run.