hi,
in my english class we are taking a presuation unit and the next week i must present and speech and give 5 reasons for why something is better than something. well i choosed counter strike becouse it will be easier Stick out tongue [:P] my work is almost done
can anyone tell me if everything is ok? and if there is something wrong tell me how to say it please... thanks in advance Big Smile [:D]
Hi everibody
today i'm gonna talk about why counter strike source is better than counter strike 1.6
as you know counter strike is a online first person shooter. the most played game around the world after world of warcraft.
counter strike 1.6 was released in 1998 as a mod for half life , the game has above 10 years and 3 years ago a newer version was released. most of the people still plays counter strike 1.6 so. today i will tell you why counter strike source is way better than counter strike 1.6
new graphics: counter strike 1.6 has very bad graphics. you can see pixels everywhere at your screen. it's ok the game was released 9 years ago and the graphics where ok for that year but now? why should we keep playing a game with a low graphic quality if there is a new version with exelent improvements. the new source grapchic engine has been one of the more realistic graphic engines ,giving you a clear and reallistic vision it helps you to have a better game experience. you will need a better graphic card than for counter strike 1.6 but it worths it(then I will show a video of the 1.6 gameplay) while playing thje video: look at the screen, you can easily see the pixels.(then I wilkl show a video of cs spource gameplay) as you can see graphics are a lot better here. It’s more realistic
counter strike source has a more realistic eviroment: in counter strike 1.6 there are strange walls everywhere and you feel like you are in a box when you are playing becouse everything is out of place but in counter strike soource the eviroment is very reallistic , when you are walking on a street it seems like a real place becouse the new graphic source engine brought us this new advantage
(1.6 video) look , what is a nuclear plant doint in the middles of the dessert surrounded by mountains? Strange… (source video) look now , this is the same map tna before, now the nuclear plant is surrounded by buildings and the scenario is more realistic.
better pysics. in ccounter strike 1.6 you can shoot to a crate or a barrel and it won't move but in counter strike source if you push a barrel or a crate it will move and you can create great barricades by moving boxes, it helps you to embush your enemys and create advantages when you are having trouble. as i use to say, the more dynamyc a game is the better experience you have.(1.6 video) look , I’m shooting to that box and it doesn’t move! (source) look now , if I shot that barrel it will move…
new radar: counter strike source bought us a new radar, in cs 1.6 the radar was useless becouse it only shows you the position of your teammates but for counter strike source the radar was greatly improved, this new radar shows you the map so the first time u play in a new map you can knoiw where to go, also it shows you when a teammate is taking fire, also you can know where your teammates died and the most important improvement, the radar tells you where the bomb was planted.
less damage: counter strike 1.6 was really a false game, mainly because a player could be hit by 10 bullets and keep running . in counter strike this was revised and now it's more reallistic, players are not like tanks now
What was the point of the persuation? What did you intend to persuade me to do? To think that CS:source is more (fun?challenging?pretter? realistic?worth playing?) than CS? Why is it important to know where your teammate died? Why would any person spend time on this game?
Would you want your children to play this game?
Playing video games hurts grammar, spelling, communication skills, and developement of cognitive functions, as well as social development.
If you choose to stick with this, I would think about what you are persuading the listener to do: Maybe in the closing, tell him again. It is not clear to me what you are wanting the listener to do.
One of the first things I have to ask (and please do not take offense at this) is whether this is for an ESL Class (English as a Second Language).
I think the biggest mistake is you chose something because "it would be easier." The biggest problem I see is it ended up NOT being easier, but more difficult.
Remember your audience. Your teacher likely does not know a thing about counter strike. If you have heard your teacher talk about it regularly, this presentation may work.
I kind of see what you're saying as far as what you're trying to persuade. You're trying to persuade us that Counter Strike Source has made a lot of improvements in the game over the version released 10 years ago. However, it seems like it is too obvious of a topic. Even simple flash games made today by amateurs tend to be better than games made by professionals 10 years ago for Nintendo or Sega. So it seems like a worthless point to try to prove. If this were presented to me, I MIGHT give it a "C" at BEST because it did fulfill the requirements I asked about. But in reality, I would probably give it a lower grade ("D" or even "F") for the following reasons. It:
1) Did not motivate me to do anything (which is what a persuation does). I'm not motivated to run out and purchase this.
2) Did not tackle anything that really needed convincing of.
3) Was not a topic I, or much of the world, could relate to.
4) Was obviously chosen because (like you said) it was "easier" to choose. It required little research into why the game has improved. You could read most of that off the back of the box.
5) It's not practical. Outside of convincing a bored friend to try a new video game, you won't ever need to use a similar argument.
I say find a controversial subject. One that people are divided on:
--Persuade your audience to vote for your favorite candidate.
--Give people a reason to give to charity. (Or 5 reasons in this case).
--Convince people to visit a certain museum in your area.
Your persuation should be to convince people to better their lives.
And a side note about taking the "easy" route: Most good teachers want to see effort over anything else. How much did you actually learn from doing this project? Knowing 5 differences in an update to a video game is something you learn within 5 minutes of playing the video game. Or something you learn by watching a few clips on G4TV. (Side note: I was on that station about 2 years ago. They came to the Ventriloquist ConVENTion and interviewed my puppet and myself). So now that you know I'm a performer, trust me - it takes a lot to get up in front of an audience of anywhere between 10 to 400 people and persuade them that you're funny. (That's what comedy is ~ a form of persuation. You usually have to persuade people that what you're saying is the most obvious thing in the world for it to work.) It is even harder if you get up there and have a puppet. I'm used to persuation and it takes a lot of work and preperation.
You won't be asked, right now, to give a persuation that 300 people are going to laugh with or side with you on. But your assignment is to give something that is well thought out, well researched, and well prepared. It is not to simply do it so it's "easy."
My 2 cents!
Matt
very good post.