![](/uploads/1/2/5/8/125839041/249802910.jpg)
Feb 12, 2008 DEAD TO RIGHTS-Without possibility of error; red handed.-'We've got him dead to rights.' -The San Francisco newspaper City Argus. (1881) news story: 'A man attempted to get into Banker Sather's cash box and was caught 'dead to rights'.
Dead to Rights: Retribution | |
---|---|
Developer(s) | Volatile Games |
Publisher(s) | Namco Bandai Games[a] |
Director(s) | Imre Jele |
Writer(s) | Ben Fisher |
Composer(s) | Matt Black |
Series | Dead to Rights |
Platform(s) | PlayStation 3, Xbox 360 |
Release | |
Genre(s) | Action |
Mode(s) | Single-player |
Dead to Rights: Retribution is a third-personaction video game. It is the reboot of the Dead to Rights franchise featuring Grant City police officer Jack Slate and his canine companion Shadow. Developed by Volatile Games and published by Namco Bandai Games under the Namco label for PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360.[2][3]
Plot[edit]
The game begins with Jack collapsing on a dock after disembarking from a tugboat, and is confronted by members of the Grant City Triad, who intend to kill him as revenge for earlier events. Shadow, Jack's dog, brutally kills all of the Triad members who try to attack Jack on his way to a bar where he meets his friend, an EMT named Faith Sands, and goes into the story of what happened in the game. He flashes back to a terrorist takeover of Temple Tower, where he disobeys orders from Captain Inness and charges in, killing members of the Union gang, saving hostages and pursuing Riggs, the leader of the gang, to the roof where he escapes via a futuristic helicopter. Jack believes Riggs has military training after seeing how the Union were armed and organized. Jack is saved from Inness firing him by SWAT Captain Redwater, who is a friend of Jack and his father, Frank Slate, who takes Jack and Shadow to investigate a lead on Riggs. They discover plans and simulated versions of the Temple Tower studio, and are drawn into a gunfight when Redwater arrives with the SWAT.
After holding out until more SWAT teams arrive, Frank and Jack pursue Riggs and a Triad member, splitting up to do so. Jack succeeds in arresting the Triad, but finds Frank mortally wounded nearby. Faith arrives and tries to save Frank, but fails, and Jack storms off after beating up the Triad brutally and goes to find out why his father was killed. He stops an attempted Triad bombing at Grant City Central, defeats their leader, Tseng, in hand-to-hand combat, and then returns to the area where his father was killed. He discovers that Riggs is a member of the newly formed GAC (Grant City Anti Crime Unit), which was formed by Julian Temple and now approved by the city to deal with crime in ways that go against standard ethics and protocol. Jack fights his way past GAC soldiers and destroys GAC dropships, but is knocked out by Redwater, who kills Riggs after hearing a recorded conversation between Temple and Riggs, who plot to kill Redwater. Jack manages to escape the slowly rising dropship he and Redwater are on, and Redwater's fate is left unknown when the C4 Jack attached to the ship detonates while being tossed away by Redwater.
The game picks up at the bar, where Jack reveals that he detects Faith has deceived him, and she admits she was persuaded by the GAC to help locate him. Faith is wounded by a sniper, and Jack manages to evacuate her on a helicopter she called before being shot, and is dropped off at Temple Tower, where he arrests Temple, who tries to bribe him into letting him go by revealing that Redwater killed Frank, choosing to follow his father's way instead of killing Temple in cold blood. He takes Temple to the precinct he and his father work at, and discovers all regular and SWAT officers have been imprisoned for resisting GAC control. Jack imprisons Temple and frees the officers, who help to free the precinct and call patrol officers back to fight off attacking GAC troops-with help from Captain Inness, who is now glad to work Jack's way and even sends out the transmission to call for backup. Jack takes a dead GAC soldier's armor and sneaks into the GAC Alpha Base in a rundown hospital on an island. He manages to make a distraction that lets the GCPD storm the base while Jack provides sniper cover for Inness, Shadow, and a SWAT team that manages to break into the main area. Jack helps to fight off multiple GAC troops and then pursues Redwater.
Jack takes control of a GAC Tank Armor and fights his way through dozens of GAC while furiously arguing with Redwater, offering him the chance to surrender like Frank would have done. Redwater refuses, stating that he did what he did for the good of the city and that Frank never would have understood, and Jack responds by fighting his way through a group of snipers as he chases Redwater on foot to a lighthouse. Redwater tries to kill Jack with a mounted machine gun, but Shadow bites Redwater's arm only to be wounded, forcing Jack to proceed alone and unarmed against Redwater, who cuts Jack across the eye with a knife and leaves a scar. Jack and Redwater fight, stealing the knife from each other repeatedly, until Jack stabs Redwater fatally, which results in him falling to his death. The game ends with Jack and Faith attending Frank's funeral, and Jack is left to look out at Grant City with Shadow next to him, promising his father he will be with him soon.
Reception[edit]
Reception | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Retribution received 'mixed' reviews on both platforms according to video game review aggregatorMetacritic.[20][21] In Japan, Famitsu gave it a score of one seven, one eight, and two sevens, for a total of 29 out of 40.[7]
The Daily Telegraph gave the Xbox 360 version a score of seven out of ten and said, 'We all need a Die Hard every now and then, and that’s exactly the kind of spirit Retribution evokes.'[18] 411Mania gave the same console version 6.9 out of 10, saying that calling it 'a game that is just kind of there, and in this day and age, just being there is no longer enough.'[22]The Escapist gave the same console version three stars out of five, saying, 'Other than the presence of your canine sidekick, there is absolutely nothing in Dead to Rights: Retribution that hasn't been done before (and probably better) in other games.'[19] However, The A.V. Club gave the PS3 version a C−, saying, 'The executions are designed to provide a was-it-good-for-you catharsis. They don’t. They come off as juvenile and obscene. Whatever shock value they might have wears off almost instantly, transforming the game’s supposed 'money-shot' into something pedestrian and tedious.'[23]
References[edit]
- ^Robert Purchese (18 March 2010). 'Dead to Rights Retribution dated'. Eurogamer.
- ^Brian Ekberg (28 April 2009). 'Dead to Rights Retribution First Look'. GameSpot. Retrieved 28 March 2016.
- ^Brian Crecente (25 February 2009). 'Dead to Rights: Retribution Coming This Year'. Kotaku. Retrieved 29 April 2009.
- ^Joseph Leray (20 May 2010). 'Review: Dead to Rights: Retribution (X360)'. Destructoid. Retrieved 29 March 2016.
- ^ abEdge staff (May 2010). 'Dead to Rights: Retribution'. Edge (214): 97.
- ^Dan Whitehead (23 April 2010). 'Dead to Rights: Retribution (X360)'. Eurogamer. Retrieved 28 March 2016.
- ^ abcBrian (30 June 2010). 'Famitsu review scores'. Nintendo Everything. Retrieved 28 March 2016.
- ^ abJeff Cork (June 2010). 'Dead to Rights: Retribution: Jack Is Back In A Reboot We Didn't Know We Needed'. Game Informer (206): 96. Retrieved 28 March 2016.
- ^Tae K. Kim. 'Dead to Rights: Retribution (X360)'. GamePro. Archived from the original on 29 April 2010. Retrieved 29 March 2016.
- ^ abJosh Laddin (6 May 2010). 'Dead to Rights: Retribution Review'. Game Revolution. Retrieved 28 March 2016.
- ^ abChris Watters (29 April 2010). 'Dead to Rights: Retribution Review'. GameSpot. Retrieved 28 March 2016.
- ^'Dead to Rights: Retribution Review (PS3)'. GameTrailers. 28 April 2010. Archived from the original on 12 May 2010. Retrieved 28 March 2016.
- ^ abDakota Grabowski (15 May 2010). 'Dead to Rights: Retribution Review'. GameZone. Archived from the original on 18 May 2010. Retrieved 28 March 2016.
- ^ abJeff Gerstmann (27 April 2010). 'Dead to Rights Review'. Giant Bomb. Retrieved 28 March 2016.
- ^ abGreg Miller (27 April 2010). 'Dead to Rights: Retribution Review'. IGN. Retrieved 28 March 2016.
- ^'Dead to Rights: Retribution'. Official Xbox Magazine: 83. July 2010.
- ^'Review: Dead to Rights: Retribution'. PlayStation: The Official Magazine: 80. July 2010.
- ^ abTom Hoggins (5 May 2010). 'Dead to Rights: Retribution video game review (X360)'. The Daily Telegraph. Retrieved 28 March 2016.
- ^ abJohn Funk (13 May 2010). 'Review: Dead to Rights: Retribution (X360)'. The Escapist. Retrieved 28 March 2016.
- ^ ab'Dead to Rights: Retribution for PlayStation 3 Reviews'. Metacritic. Retrieved 28 March 2016.
- ^ ab'Dead to Rights: Retribution for Xbox 360 Reviews'. Metacritic. Retrieved 28 March 2016.
- ^Todd Vote (17 May 2010). 'Dead To Rights: Retribution (Xbox 360) Review'. 411Mania. Archived from the original on 15 January 2017. Retrieved 28 March 2016.
- ^Scott Jones (3 May 2010). 'Dead To Rights: Retribution (PS3)'. The A.V. Club. Archived from the original on 6 May 2010. Retrieved 28 March 2016.
Notes[edit]
External links[edit]
- Dead to Rights: Retribution at MobyGames
Retrieved from 'https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dead_to_Rights:_Retribution&oldid=943673863'
This article is about United States legislation. For legislation in the United Kingdom, see.The Married Women's Property Acts are laws enacted by the individual states of the beginning in 1839, usually under that name and sometimes, especially when extending the provisions of a Married Women's Property Act, under names describing a specific provision, such as the Married Women's Earnings Act. The Married Women's Property Acts helped to rectify some of the difficulties that women faced under, the English common law system that subsumed married women's ability to own property, wages, enter in to contracts, and otherwise act autonomously to their husband's authority. After New York passed their Married Women's Property Law in 1848, this law became the template for other states to grant married women the right to own property. Contents.Background Under the legal doctrine known as, a married woman in British North American colonies and later in the United States had hardly any legal existence apart from her husband. Her rights and obligations were subsumed under his.
She could not own property, enter into contracts, or earn a salary. An unmarried woman, a femme sole, on the other hand, had the right to own property and make contracts in her own name.Over several decades, beginning in 1839, statutes that enabled women to control real and personal property, enter into contracts and lawsuits, inherit independently of their husbands, work for a salary, and write wills were enacted. The first such law was in, which in 1839 granted married women the right to own (but not control) property in her own name. Maine and Maryland did likewise in 1840. In 1842, New Hampshire allowed married women to own and manage property in their own name during the incapacity of their husband, and Kentucky did the same in 1843. In 1844 Maine extended married women property rights by granting them separate economy and then trade licenses.
Massachusetts also granted married women separate economy in 1844.Usually, concerns for family integrity and protecting a household from economic crisis, rather than a liberal conception of the role of women in society, motivated these changes. Change came in piecemeal fashion.
As late as 1867 a decision of the in Cole v. Van Riper noted that 'It is simply impossible that a married woman should be able to control and enjoy her property as if she were sole, without practically leaving her at liberty to annul the marriage.' According to one analysis, the legislation came in three phases—allowing married women to own property, then to keep their own income, then to engage in business—and advanced more quickly, exactly like female suffrage did. State by state Connecticut Women in the Northern states were the principal advocates of enhancing women's property rights.'
S law of 1809 allowing a married woman to write a will was a forerunner, though its impact on property and contracts was so slight that it is not counted as the first statute to address married women's property rights. Southern states Beginning in the nineteenth century, the first legislation embodying some of the changes women advocated for in the North was enacted in the American South. The inspired attempts to limit the impact of such an economic crisis by protecting family assets. Initiated the trend in 1839 with its Married Women's Property Act that allowed married women to own property. Any attempt to collect debt from her husband could not reach property only she owned.
She had the right to refuse to sell the property, but could not manage that property or sell it without her husband's consent. Parents who gave property to a daughter upon marriage also enjoyed the protection the Act provided from a son-in-law's mishandling of his family's affairs. The property a woman could own and protect from her husband's creditors included slaves.Maryland enacted important legislation in 1843 and Arkansas enacted legislation in 1846. Texas Texas, still an rather than a state, passed its act in 1840. It was the most expansive legislation of any enacted in the South and allowed a married woman to enter into certain contracts, write a will, and sue for divorce. Not only could she veto the sale of her property, but she could veto the sale of the family homestead even if she was not its owner.
Without referencing the independence of the wife that advocates for such legislation envisioned, legislators argued that the legislation protected the wife and children from irresponsible husbands. Midwestern States Midwestern states that enacted legislation included Michigan in 1844, which covered both real and personal property obtained by a woman before or during her marriage.
More limited statutes were passed during the next two years in Ohio, Indiana, and Iowa. New York In 1845, granted a married woman who secured 'a patent for her own invention' the right to hold it and retain all earnings from it 'as if unmarried'. The Married Women's Property Act was enacted on April 7, 1848, as part of a more general movement, underway since the 1820s, away from common law traditions in favor of the codification of law. Had been campaigning for such a statute since 1836, later joined. It significantly altered the law regarding the property rights granted to married women, allowing them to own and control their own property. It was used as a model by several other states in the 1850s.
Women and the American Story: A Curriculum Guide. The New York Historical Society. Retrieved 31 July 2018.
Mary Beth Norton, 'Either Married or to be Married': Women's Legal Equality in Early America,' in Carla Gardina Pestana and Sharon V. Salinger, eds., Inequality in Early America (University Press of New England, 1999), 25-45. Boswell, Angela (2000). 'Married Women's Property Rights and the Challenge to the Patriarchal Order: Colorado County, Texas'. In Coryell, Janet L. University of Missouri Press. Zorina Khan (November 20, 2013).
Cambridge University Press. ^ Khan, B. Zorina (2005).
Cambridge University Press. Pp. 163, 166–8. Khan provides a table of the states and their enactment of statutes in these three categories.
^. American Women. Library of Congress. Retrieved February 3, 2013. Homestead, Melissa J.
NY: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 43–4. Angela Boswell, 'Married Women's Property Rights and the Challenge to the Patriarchal Order: Colorado County, Texas,' in Janet L. Coryell, Negotiating Boundaries of Southern Womanhood: Dealing With the Powers That Be (University of Missouri Press, 2000), 89-109, 92, accessed February 3, 2013.
^ Linda E. Speth, 'The Married Women's Property Acts, 1839-1865: Reform, Reaction, or Revolution?' Ralph Lindgren, et al, The Law of Sex Discrimination, 4th edition (Wadsworth, 2011), 12-5. Boswell, 93-4, 100. Boswell notes that Texas passed other legislation to restrict the reach of creditors, including the Act in 1838. ^ McMillen, Sally G. NY: Oxford University Press.
Pp.??. Stanton, Elizabeth Cady (1848). – via. Wellman, Judith (2004). The road to Seneca Falls: Elizabeth Cady Stanton and the First Woman's Rights Convention.
Urbana: University of Illinois Press. ^ Homestead, Melissa J. NY: Cambridge University Press. P. 244. ^ Warren, Joyce W. University of Iowa Press.
Pp. 51–3. Mulkern, John R. The Know-Nothing Party in Massachusetts: The Rise and Fall of a People's Movement. Northeastern University Press. P. 111.
Heineman, Sue (1996). NY: Berkley Publishing. P. 21. Wilma Mankiller et al, eds., The Reader's Companion to U.S. Women's History (NY: Houghton Mifflin, 1998), 285, accessed February 3, 2012. Homestead, Melissa J.
NY: Cambridge University Press. P. 29.
This subject and its complications are examined in Melissa J. Homestead, American Women Authors and Literary Property, 1822-1869, passim.
![](/uploads/1/2/5/8/125839041/249802910.jpg)