Ahem

If I have any regular readers, you may have noticed my lack of posts of late. This is not because of laziness, but because I've started a new blog and have put all my blogging efforts into that. In fact, I doubt very much that I'll keep this one going and, instead, transfer all my blogging energy into the other one. But don't fret, it's still about gaming and chances are a lot more people will read the other blog that I have started. Hopefully it'll develop into something amazing and well worth anyone's time to read and even write for. It's quite exciting; we (notice the plural) are going all guns at the moment. There's a team involved, people writing articles, reviews, guest writers and other cool stuff. Hopefully, we'll be able to cover nearly every game released on every format soon, as well as imports and the like, leading eventually, hopefully, to professionalism - i.e. getting fricking paid to play games and write about them! How awesome would that be?!

Since becoming Administrator for TGN, I've tried rather hard to make it a better experience for the people already there and for the people who will be there in the future. I've added things, changed things, made mistakes and learnt from them. But a forum is only as good as the people who post there, and I think TGN is the best forum, the best forum ever!

The blog is still in its early stages, but what is there is, in my opinion, awesome, especially the guest article by the forum member 'Mr Party Hat', a rather relevant view on the gaming industry today. It's simple and to the point, but it doesn't shy away from being a particularly 'hardcore' opinion from hardcore gamers. It speaks for how a lot of us are feeling. What a way to start a blog! You should read it, here, at The TGN Blog - the blog that's stealing me away from you.

If this is my last post here (it might very well be), then it's been fun, but I'm guessing it might be a lot more fun over there. It's not all doom and gloom, some of the articles I was preparing for this blog are simply being transfered over to the other, and some of the articles I've written and already published are going to be re-written, added to and improved before being posted again there. The grass is sometimes greener on the other side, so make that side your own.

- Foo

Put This On My 'Need List'

Okay, this kick's ass. I would like to introduce you all to the limited edition, Ion built, Rock Band 2 Wicked-Awesome™ Drum Kit.

Click the above picture to see a bigger version of the above picture so you can have a look of a bigger version of the above picture.

That is all :D

The Legend of Zelda Introspective - Part III Cancelled

Sorry to all those of you who were looking forward to Part III of my Legend of Zelda Introspective, but it's been a quite while since the Part II and, quite frankly, I've lost interest. I've haven't used my Wii properly for a good six months now and I'm getting a little annoyed at how Nintendo are shafting its fans. I've just had about 4000 Star points deleted from my Club Nintendo account. That's almost all of the points I had actually amassed since 2003, I think. That's 5 years of collecting and saving my points until something good popped up on the catalogue. Nothing ever did, or when it did it sold out quicker than I could even get onto the site. Exchanging them for Wii Points was always 'sold-out', too, however that works; how can you sell-out of something that doesn't really exist?

Whatever, I'm fed up. There aren't any games I can be bothered with and the thought of a new Zelda game was the only thing stopping me from boxing up my Wii and sticking it on eBay. In fact, it still is. I'm going to wait until they stop pricking around with non-games like Wii fucking Fit and retard/fanboy fodder like Super Smash Bros. Brawl and start giving us the good shit. If the new Zelda game turns out to be some sort of casual gamer bullshit then fuck eBay, I'm gonna find the biggest building I can and drop the useless piece of shit off the top of it.

However, I did actually start Part IV of the series of articles and I might as well show you what I'd done. It was going to be my 'treatment', if you will.

"Plot: Dragmire Corporation. Ganondorf as evil President. Pretty much owns Hyrule City, a massive metropolis where the rich-poor divide is huge. Law Enforcement is corrupt.

Link is born to a young Hyrulian couple with links to the Ancient Sheikah race, said to know the whereabouts or the means to acquiring the Triforce. Ganondorf captures and tortures Link's parents to find out how to get to the Triforce. They don't tell him and he kills them. Link is 6 years old when this happens.

Link grows up in an orphanage knowing Ganondorf killed his parents. Link is raised by and befriends a girl who volunteers at the orphanage. At the age of 18, Link leaves the orphanage and becomes an outcast, living on the streets. He practices sword fighting, with his sword being the only thing he still has from his parents, in back-alleys, keeping out of the way of the law.

One day, he accidentally falls into the sewers and is found by the sewer children. They take him to their village, where he speaks to the village elder. He recognises Link as a supposed saviour and calls upon Navi (the Navi from Ocarina), who appears and is startled at what she sees. Link is the spitting image of the ancient Hero of Time."

The Week According to Foo

The start of the week was quite bad in a way. Not 'bad' bad, but sort of 'disappointing' bad, if you know what I mean (chances are that you do not). My Rock Band kick-drum pedal broke, you see and everything in the world seemed to fade into irrelevance at this tragic event. Not for long, though, as EA sent me a new one! Yay! Suddenly the world seemed a better place and a little nicer smelling at that. Thank you, EA, very muchly.

You see, I feel that the drums are the core of that game, and it's certainly its main selling point. It's because we've all played the bygone Guitar Heroes and some of us have played SingStar, so it was obvious the main attraction Rock Band has to fans of the Rock-Bemani sub-genre is the drum-kit. I'm pretty sure that most of the people who bought Rock Band spent the first few hours getting to grips with that rather marvellous piece of gaming kit rather than repeating something they'd done on Guitar Hero and SingStar before it. I'd also wager a fair amount who bought Rock Band bought the game and the standalone drum-kit and chose to either ignore the 'Band in a Box' or wait until a later date before picking up the remaining peripherals.

But that's old news now. What's new news is that I've bought Alone in the Dark for my Xbox 360. I've played a good 2 hours of it and frankly, despite being disappointed at just how bad it is to actually play, it seems to get better the more I play it. This might be down to me becoming honed to the nuances of the game; for instance the control system and the way your character moves. It might be that I'm getting dragged in by the story and that no amount of clunky gameplay can make me deviate from it. But it might just be that the game is simply getting better - no more, no less - as if the developers started the game from the first level (or, as they're called in Alone in the Dark, episode) and worked it's way to the end of the game, slowly becoming more accomplished at making the game they wanted to make.

I very much doubt it'll end up being The Best Game I've Ever Played in The World Ever™, but it could very well become one of those games that isn't praised by absolutely everyone in the world, but finds its own loyal devoted fans that love the game despite its shortcomings and such, and that I might find that, come completion, I can call myself a member of this small club. At the moment, it's hard to say whether I will or won't, but I will definitely tell you if I do and if I don't. 

There is a game that I have happened across in the past and I truly believe it is one of the most criminally underrated games in the history of man… that's for another time, but the same place.

Crack Band [Update]

The reasons for my title are two-fold: Rock Band is as addictive as crack (not an analogy I've made from personal experience), and my drum pedal has a big-ass crack in it - it will snap into two pieces very soon.

I've stopped playing it. Anticipating the pedal to inevitably give way under my foot and becoming completely unusable is just as bad as it being completely unusable anyway. It saps all the fun out of playing the damn thing and makes me want to stop just in case I'm desperate for one more final go tomorrow (I'm quite good to my future-self like that).

On the freakishly large Rock Band box, it says that I should visit rockbandservice.ea.com if I was to "encounter a problem with any Rock Band™ peripheral", so I did just that. A quick questionnaire later and I was well on my way to having my pedal replaced. After having to sign up for an 'EA Account' (whatever that is), I had to give them my name, address and telephone number and then I was told I'd get a confirmation email which I still haven't received. So I don't really know what's going on with it. I'll keep you updated, but I've got every faith in EA that I'll soon be receiving my brand spanking new and completely unbroken pedal (I've got a score to settle with Run to the Hills - God, I hate Iron Maiden).

[Update] Yeah, it's broken. I wasn't even playing it, I was testing it and it came apart. The worst thing about it is the new one would have been delivered today, but I missed the post-man, so now I'm sans pedal until Thursday.

*cries*

Are Game Critics Overly Harsh?

I don't think I can call myself a critic, although I have certainly criticised games for not doing things right, or having something incredibly frustrating in them or for being completely unfair (I've used that last one a lot), but as I'd rather heap praise upon games than criticise them (unless I feel they deserve them), I'd much prefer to be called a gaming enthusiast. But I was just wondering if sometimes critics can be far too harsh on games.

Say you were made to create a game, but had a lot of things going against you, like, for instance time constraints or this being your very first game and what have you, and your finished product doesn't come out quite the way you wanted it to and thusly receives a bunch of negative reviews. You'd feel pretty hard done by, wouldn't you? Imagine having all the work you've just spent the last 2 or 3 years on being paraded in public and roundly criticised. That wouldn't feel too nice, would it?

Obviously, reviewers can't (and, in fact, shouldn't) take into account the many obstacles the developer had to overcome when they were trying to create a good quality game and get it out onto the shelves. All reviewers can do is work with what they play with and in no way should this influence their overall feeling of a game, because it'd be the average gamer who suffers, having to spend their hard-earned on a game they don't like, as critics can hold a lot of sway with gamers, and can sometimes decide if a game does well or not. Obviously, some game reviews don't really influence how well a game does. Even though GTA IV got relatively universal praise, I doubt very much that if it hadn't it wouldn't affect how much that particular game will sell. However, GTA IV is an incredibly well established franchise, what happens when a fledging developer puts out a new IP only for it to get completely derided in the gaming press? It'd hit the games' sales and would affect the developer's future a hell of a lot.

To be honest, I'm not too sure what I'm getting at. Maybe it's that I feel new developers should be helped along the way when they first start. They should be nurtured and cared for until they finally have the confidence to take off their metaphorical training wheels and go it alone in the big bad world. Maybe even smaller, or indie, developing houses could get the same treatment? Surely it would only benefit the industry if this were case? So, maybe critics and reviewers and the like should tread a little more carefully around a game from a new developer. Like I said, their final opinion of the game should be the same as if it'd come from a major developer, but could they at least go a little easier on them?

Extolling the Virtues of … BioShock

Do you want to roam around a massive underwater neon-covered art deco city? Want to fight off its mutated and insane inhabitants? Ever wanted to stick power-giving hypodermic needles into your left arm on continual basis? Fancy wrestling with a superhuman in a diving suit? I could go on …

If you answered "YES! FRIGGING YES!" to any of the above questions, then you need to calm down a little and play BioShock. If you haven't played it yet, or answered no to all of the above, then, sir or madam, you are a first class idiot.

BioShock is one of the greatest games ever made. That's not even my opinion, it's certified, bona fide, scientific fact. The game takes one of the most overused gaming genres (FPSs, in case you didn't know) and wraps around it a completely unique setting. By doing this, it has already freed the game from some of the generic constraints that other games in the genre lend itself to, especially wandering around a grey-scale corridor that looked just like the last corridor you walked down, which looked like any other corridor you've already walked down in a thousand other FPSs before.

It also gives you powers to use as and when you see fit, and the game doesn't make you choose the same thing over and over again. You can use strategy if you want, or you can just shoot the shit out of everything that comes near you. You can play to your style and the game doesn't really ever punish you for choosing the 'wrong' way in which to tackle certain enemies, because, literally, there is no wrong way. Yes, some enemies fall easily to specific types of ammo (each gun has three different types), but whichever way you go about it, the enemy you set our sights on is going to go down. You never really feel overpowered, but the power you do get (especially towards the end of the game) really is rather satisfying, the game is incredibly well-balanced and the difficulty never shoots up to the max too quickly.

Dying isn't a complete chore, either. You never really die, you merely get sent back to a Vita-Chamber, with everything you've done up to that point left how it was. It's seamless gaming, and it's all the more wonderful for it. No more hours wasted because you died before you remembered to save, none of that labourious 'trial and error' gameplay that plagues way too many games. And even if you like that shit, you can turn the Vita-Chambers off, but who the hell would ever want to do that?

The story is marvellous. It's not the be all and end all of this game, either. It's there if you want it, but you don't have to follow it too meticulously if you don't. If you think you'll be perfectly happy with just the gameplay (and believe me, you will) then you can let yourself loose on the city of Rapture. But, know this, the story may well drag you in. When you get there, the city is in chaos and the audio-diaries of the people who lived there prior to whatever disaster hit the city litter the game, pick them up and listen to them piece together exactly what happened bit by bit. There are even completely useless diaries, especially one where someone merely explains why they prefer a particular brand of cigarette over another. Brilliant!

At a Loss in The Dark

I'm somewhat at a loss as to whether or not I should get the new Alone in the Dark. The reviews it's getting seem to say the same thing - it's good, not great or you'll want to love it for what it does right, but you'll hate it for what it does wrong. I think this is a gamer's worst nightmare; a game that you seem really interested in, but the reviews don't really give a definite 'yes' or 'no' answer to whether you should buy it or not.

Luckily for me, though, I've got a trump card that I pull out whenever I'm in a game-purchasing-pickle. It's called Official Xbox Magazine UK. It has never done me wrong and on the one time I decided to go against what the magazine said I got a metaphorical kick in the balls by the game I decided to purchase against the better judgement of said magazine. That's right: 'better judgement'. I don't have time to spend deciding which games I should or should not buy, I need someone to do it for me, and as much as I love the internet, I don't quite trust it enough to decide for me.

That's why I still buy magazines. It's not so good for your back to do all your reading on a computer and that's merely one of the reasons I love, and probably always will love, reading articles, reviews and news from the glossy pages of gaming publications. For the sake of all that's innocent in the world, I've been doing so for at least 10 years, I'm not about to stop now!

A Problem: Game Saving

Mass Effect is an awesome game. It might have some issues with repetitiveness with regards to the side-quests, as well as technical issues with the game not loading the textures quickly enough and the fact that the inventory system is a complete shambles, the motions of characters can sometime be a little stunted and robotic and the conversations can be a little strange, but other than that it's an awesome game. But my biggest gripe with Mass Effect is that you have to keep saving it, just in case.

This is an RPG, and one of the biggest things that put me off RPGs (JRPGs in particular, like Final Fantasy etc.) is that you get massively punished for dying. Mass Effect lets you save anywhere you like as long as it's not in the middle of a battle, which is perfectly understandable. This is great, but if you have a big session on the game only to die without saving it, it's a complete chore to go back through the same section of the game. It can also be incredibly hard, especially on 'Veteran' difficulty. Add this to the fact that your squad members are nearly completely useless, with their only saving grace being that you can utilise their 'powers' as if they were your own, provided they're not stuck behind a wall or something.

What I'm trying to get to, though, is the fact that in this day and age you'd think that games would learn from past mistakes and not punish the player so much for dying. Originally, dying was a way to get people to stick more money into the arcade machines, but now, when a game's story can be a lot more important than the actual challenge of completing it, it seems a shame that game developers are stuck in the past and are insistent on having what I see as major flaws in their game such as this. I'm not saying that every game released hence should feature indestructible characters that can never die, because that would spoil it for those who love a challenge, I'm just saying that games with plots that are essential to the enjoyment of the player (like the Mass Effects of this world) should have a much better way of saving your progress and not punish those that are playing for the story.

Shepard: "Who do I gotta blow for some auto-save?"

Will all that said, though, I do enjoy a challenge, and I try to play Mass Effect on the hardest difficulty setting that I deem enjoyable. But for me, it's the 'Normal' setting which isn't much of a challenge at all, because you die a hell of a lot on the other, harder, difficulty settings and, like I said, if you don't save (it is very easy to forget) you have to go back to your last save, which is normally where you picked up the game from where you last left off. This can be really frustrating in a game like Mass Effect, where upgrading your character, buying and selling and inventory-management are all big parts of the game. Having to go through them all again when you die is a little dispiriting. But all this could be remedied by having an auto-save feature, or a checkpoint system like Halo. Gone should be the days of save-points; these are the folly of games that saved onto cartridges or memory cards, because being able to save anywhere would simply require too much memory. Now we have hard-drives, SD cards and more memory than we know what to do with, why can't every game have auto-saves? GTA IV had them and got rid of the ball-ache of having to travel the entire length and breadth of the city to save your game so you could have your dinner!

However, I still testify that Mass Effect is one of the most engrossing games that I've ever played (probably the reason why I keep forgetting to save), but not having auto-save is a far bigger nuisance than textures not loading properly. Mass Effect 2, you've got a lot to live up to!

So, Rock Band, Then!

I haven't posted for a while, I know. I've been playing Rock Band. It is definitely worth that £140, it's probably even worth the RRP £179.99 (I think). Analysis list time, because I can't be bothered with punctuation.

• The Drums
• Awesome
• Work incredibly well
• Well made
  
• Quite loud (clack, clack, clack, clack)
  
• Steep learning curve
• Ultimately satisfying

• The Guitar
• Feels quite cheap
• Works well
• Not as good as GH III guitar
• Added extras are cool

• The Microphone
• Is basically a real microphone
• Feels incredibly cool to hold
• Works very well

• The Songs
• Practically all tastes accounted for (provided you like Rawk!)
• It's got Little Sister by Queens of the Stone Age = enough said
• The DLC stuff is amazing
• Also, My Sharona by The Knack
• More Than a Feeling by Boston
• Detroit Rock City by Kiss
• I mean, I could go on
• Paranoid by Black Sabbath
• Crushcrushcrush by Paramore
• That enough for you?
• This Ain't a Scene, It's an Arms Race by Fall Out Boy
• Needs some System of a Down, but so did GH, GH II and GH III (at least there's some Serj Tankian)
• Learn to Fly by Foo Fighters :D

• The Actual Game
• Yes, it is better than GH III
• Rock Band World Tour is a revelation
• Achievements are nice and fair, unlike GH III
• Can see myself playing this for a long, long, time

Also, I've been playing Rez HD. I missed it the first time around when it came out for the Dreamcast, and I have to say it is now one of my very favourite games ever. And I haven't even used the Trance Vibration yet!

1, 2, 3, 4, 5…

… once I caught 12,345 Gamerpoints on Xbox Live :D

Twelve thousand, three hundred and forty five gamerpoints. It looks so cool. 12,345 G. Thanks go out to Devil May Cry 4 (which is so much better on the second play-through) and, ultimately, GTA IV. I know, I keep mentioning GTA IV, but the fact is that I created this blog to pass the time and to bang-on about my anticipation in one place rather than have to spew it out to my friends, who, unlike me, don't like to talk about gaming all the time. GTA IV got me the 20G I needed to take my Gamerscore from a rubbish looking 12,325Gs to an awesome 12,345Gs. So props to it. Also, to being awesome as well.

By the way, I still haven't completed it, despite clocking up a massive 60 hours on it.

Also, after getting paid, I've given up under the strain of the huge weight of my wallet and have splurged £140 on Rock Band (from Play.com). I know it's going to be worth it and I knew it wasn't going to be cheap over here anyway. What with some people (not me, obviously) getting all het up by the injustice of the game's price, I decided that, yeah, maybe we are getting stiffed for the bill, as it were, when really we're just being charged more because of VAT. It's the country we live in and there's not much we can do about it. Also, our minimum wage is higher than most of the states of the USA, so we should expect to pay a little more for things than them. Anyway, I'm going to pretend I never went all political about Rock Band's pricing. If I don't get it, I feel I'll miss out on something truly special.

So, 12,345Gs. Expect that to rise to a rather less sequential number once I get the chance to kick the shit out of Rock Band's drum-kit in a couple of days.

Foo: You're Lovely New Administrator

I've just been made an Administrator on my very favourite forum, TGN. So get on down there and see the amazing job I'm doing there (if I do say so myself).

LOL @ Microsoft

Having given out an announcement that their Xbox 360 console has sold 19 million units worldwide, Microsoft went on to claim that this was "more than any other current generation console." GameDaily, gawd bless 'em, contacted Microsoft to remind them that the Wii has currently sold 25 million units worldwide, much more than the 19 million Xbox 360s sold. Microsoft responded with this: "Good point, and we apologize for any confusion. Xbox 360 has the largest global install base of any current gen, high definition gaming console" (emphasis added).

I had to laugh when I first read this. The Wii is very much the bitch of the console wars at the moment. Microsoft might have well have said any of the following:

• "… and your point is…"
• "*laughs* yeah, they have haven't they?!"
• "That very well may be the case, but at least people are still playing their Xbox 360s after three weeks."
• "yeah, but … shut up! *hangs up*"
• "we apologize for any confusion. Xbox 360 has the largest global install base of any gaming console that doesn't have a stupid name."
• "we apologize for any confusion. Xbox 360 has the largest global install base of any current gen, high definition gaming console that has more than three games worth buying (thereby pwning the PS3 even more so)."
• "Tits or GTFO."
• "Better them than fucking Sony."
• "You can't play GTA IV on a Wii thereby rendering it irrelevant."
• "… ya mom."

If you have any more, please, leave a comment.

GameTrailers GRID Debacle

GameTrailers have posted a console comparison video comparing the Xbox 360 and the PlayStation 3 versions of the racing game GRID. In these videos, they capture the game on both consoles and play them side by side and/or one after the other to really get a feel for the graphical differences on each console. This particular video labeled footage from the PS3 version as the 360 version and has caused quite a lot of controversy, as people are claiming that it's a conspiracy against the PS3 and that GameTrailers is showing too much bias towards the 360. The site has gone on to explain that this was a mistake and have pulled the video, but that hasn't stopped the fanboys bleating on about how crappy GameTrailers is, when we all know they've got it on their bookmarks toolbar and visit it everyday.

If you look at this video (with a propaganda-like name; GameTrailers LIES AGAIN!), you can see some of the footage from the pulled video for yourself along with the text commentary of an indignant fan. It's all really quite facepalm-worthy.

"GameTrailers try to fool fans once more…"

Why? Why would they do this? Unless you're claiming that GameTrailers is affiliated with Microsoft, which they're not. They would have nothing to gain from it. If you're claiming that they're mere fanboys, well I'd say that people who can create and run a profitable website such as GameTrailers are far beyond such pettiness. They aren't all 13 after all.

"They try to claim that the side with the fancier crashes is the 360 version, while the dull ones belong to the PS3. Most likely to cause fanboys to say the 360 has better physics."

"Fancy crash done on PS3, but claimed as 360. Slower straight on crashes, which do not have as much dynamic impact as a crash at an angle."

Ignoring how an impact could be anything other than dynamic, the creator of this video is claiming that GameTrailers posted videos of the PS3 version of GRID with really cool crashes and labeled it as the Xbox 360 version, whereas they labeled the more boring crashes as the PS3 version. It really doesn't make sense why they would do this on purpose. If they really wanted to give the PS3 a good kick-in, then all they had to was whack in some shoddy Xbox 360 crashes and label them as the PS3. But no, they haven't done that, probably because (other than the buttons in the bottom left corner of the screen) the two versions of the game are completely indistinguishable from the other, and they mistakenly edited the PS3 version together with itself because they couldn't tell which version was which.

Like most of the comparison videos GameTrailers do, this one is just as unnecessary, because all they show is that there isn't any difference in graphical power between the two consoles. Actually, maybe in this respect, they are completely necessary, and show up the fact that neither console is graphically superior. This causes the fanboys to blame something else when such a fact is displayed, or look way too hard for any sort of difference and claim that their console is better because of it. If their console has richer colours, they'll say so, but if the other console has them, they'll claim they're over-saturated and say they prefer their consoles duller colours. Swings and roundabouts. STFU.

Quick GTA IV Update

Nearly 40 hours in and it still feels like I'm incredibly far from completing the main story missions. I'm finding it incredibly hard to do any of them when, instead, I'm doing the multitude of side-quests or just exploring. It's either one of those or I'm going to see shows, hanging out with friends, buying clothes, getting into fights (I love the melee combat) harassing people, bowling, shooting some pool or playing darts and getting an 8 dart check-out.

Then there's the multiplayer, which is far from perfect, but is still heaps of fun, especially when playing with a friend or 7.

I think I've got a few ideas of mine that could make GTA IV even better and, with any luck, might appear in the game's upcoming downloadable content. But that, my friends, is for another day. Look out for it.

GTA IV - A Theory

Having spoken to a few of my friends about GTA IV, I've come to the following theory about how people play GTA games. There are two groups of GTA gamers. There are those who play the game to blow things up, bang hookers, kill people and maybe play the odd mission. Generally they only play the game to mess about and don't play it for too long. For them, GTA games are a pick up and play experience and not much else. The second group are those who play the game to complete it, whether just to complete the main storyline, where they become the involved with the game's plot, or to collect everything and complete it 100%. The former shall hereon in be referred to as Group A; the latter, Group B.

The thing is, I don't think GTA IV is made for the members of Group A and I think Rockstar have done this on purpose. I haven't ever made a videogame, but if I did and I was incredibly proud of what I had done, I wouldn't feel all too great about the fact that a lot of people only play the game to mess about on it, especially if it was a game as big and as detailed as GTA IV, or any other GTA game. Let's face it, a hell of a lot of work has gone into GTA IV. Not only have Rockstar created a massive game world filled to the brim with things to do, but they've also used a completely new engine. Essentially, they've built the game from the ground up instead of reusing the game engine from GTA: San Andreas. So with all this time, money and energy spent on developing this game, you'd be hard-pushed not to feel slightly disappointed that a hell of a lot of people who play the game barely scrape the surface of what it has to offer. Seeing as though roughly 95% of everything in the game is unlockable by completing the missions, it's obvious that those in Group B get a lot more for their money.

So, in my opinion, Rockstar have done certain things to dissuade people from using the game as a mere virtual playground and missing out on that 95% of the game. Don't get me wrong, Rockstar don't want to stop people messing about in GTA IV, they just want people to do the missions as well. The driving is a lot more realistic this time around. Turning corners is a lot harder, as you have to release the accelerator or brake before you turn otherwise you'll career off the road. Hand-brake turns are also a lot harder to do. Contrary to the beliefs of some of my friends, though, they're not impossible, otherwise Rockstar wouldn't have given you the option of using the hand-brake at all. Also, racking up a wanted level is much more punishing to the unwitting player who causes a crime. The LCPD come down a lot harder on you this time around. Get anything above three stars and you're not likely to escape the cops' attentions alive. Again, it's not impossible, but it is harder, especially if you've just started playing the game.

So, the scope for creating havoc in the game and driving like a maniac has been decreased dramatically. You can still do these things, but you have to be a lot better at the game to come out the other side unscathed. How do you get better? Well, you play the missions, don't you? The missions make allowances, such as erasing your wanted level should you complete them, and thusly allowing the gamer to get better at the game through tutorials and by practicing what you'll need to cause the freeform mania you want to.

So, if you're incredibly disappointed with GTA IV because of this, then I urge you to play the game's missions. They are there for a reason. Of course, if you take my advice and go away to complete the game and come back with an unchanged opinion, then I'll accept that. At the moment, though, your opinion, in my opinion, is misinformed.

Poll Results III

Hmm. 2 votes. 2 measly votes and one of them was mine! Oh well. Anyway, thank you Gator from TGN (if it was you) for voting, gawd bless ya.

The new poll should be up … now! So vote, please, it only takes two mouse clicks and it doesn't open up a new window or tab or anything like that, so even if you have the slowest computer in the world, have iTunes running or are downloading things illegally, it shouldn't stress your computer too much.

It's either that or I start taking things literally and claim that gamers all over the world are unanimous in their agreement that GTA IV is awesome, a claim that is, in fact, incredibly believable.

The Legend of Zelda Introspective - Part II

When the original Legend of Zelda was released for the Famicom/NES in 1986, it broke the mold for what an adventure game should be. It had a new and highly innovative bird's eye view perspective, as well as a completely open and massive (for the time) game world to explore at your own wont or whim. You amassed yourself weaponry instead having it all from the start, and you upgraded how much damage you could take before dying by adding to your health bar. It was an incredibly important game for industry as a whole and the Zelda franchise itself, as every Zelda game since has re-used most of the features from that original 22 year-old game.

But has the Zelda formula lost its lustre? Is it time for Nintendo to go back to the drawing board with its next game, set to be released on the Wii, a console with ground-breaking videogame technology? Probably. At least that's what I think. As I said in Part I of this Introspective, it might just have been what Twilight Princess got wrong that makes me feel this way, but I thought it'd be interesting to see what I could come up with if this was indeed the case. Imagine, if you will, that I was tasked with creating the next Zelda game. This is what I'd do:

There are things I'd want to remain constant for the next Zelda, because there's no need to get rid of everything, as I might just as well create an entirely new game. For this game to be a re-imagining of the Zelda series as a whole, the main characters (Link, Zelda and Ganondorf) need to be integral to the plot, otherwise it's not really a Zelda game. Like Ocarina of Time before it, which was a plot reboot (of sorts) for the series, these characters need to appear in all their glory. There's nothing wrong at all with keeping the characters the same, but the gameplay mechanics haven't really changed in 4 games and 10 years. Neither has the formula of the actual game. A Link to the Past, Ocarina of Time, Wind Waker and Twilight Princess all have pretty much the same layout. Three dungeons act as a prologue, of sorts, to the game, before you're then given another 5 or so more dungeons to complete the game.

So what could possibly change? Well, straight away I'm going to go out on a limb here and turn the game upside down by changing the setting. I'd be lying if I wasn't intrigued by this video from Wii.tv. Although it was quite a blatant April Fools, the prospect of playing a futuristic Zelda game had me positively drooling. So, I'm going to steal that idea and run with it. In the video, it says that Link doesn't have a horse, but instead rides a bike named Epona. I'm not too sure if that'd work. I think I'd keep Epona as a horse, as Link riding around a futuristic, metallic, industrial Hyrule on horseback would be an intriguing prospect. Not only that, but I'd keep the bow and arrows and definitely his sword. Not a lightsaber style Master Sword, but the original blue-hilted Master Sword. This, I think, would create quite a cool concept, of this humble and courageous young boy who uses ancient weaponry to fight an industrial evil.

But even if the setting wasn't changed, I'd change a few more things for the next Zelda game. Namely, the structure of the game and how it unfolds. A much less generic structure for a start. Twilight Princess did its part to remedy this somewhat, but in the end, the game was pretty much the same as each Zelda before it; find dungeon, complete dungeon, find next dungeon, complete dungeon, repeat till fade. A simplified version of events from any Zelda game you care to mention. Apart from the aforementioned Majora's Mask, however. You did have the dungeons to find and complete, but what set it apart was the game's world and the people in it. The game had you helping out almost every occupant in Termina in one way or another. Doing this unlocked things for you to use, such as Link's horse, Epona, or a new mask to wear, which gave you special abilities such as a faster running speed or the ability to talk to animals. Without going into too much detail, certain events happened at certain times on certain days, and you could shape how these events transpired. It wouldn't be a complete tragedy if this reappeared in one way or another. Majora's Mask was also quite mature. It still kept a lot of the Zelda humour and whimsy, but some parts of the game were incredibly hard-hitting, especially if you failed your mission to prevent the moon from crashing into Termina, and the music that accompanied the game's main antagonist, the Skull Kid, was genuinely unnerving.

Majora's Mask also gave Link an incredibly cool super-hero type mask if you collected every other mask on offer. The dark power of the Fierce Deity's mask transformed Link into a powerful adult-like version of himself. He could take more damage, deal out more damage and just looked plain awesome. However, the Fierce Deity's mask was incredibly restrictive to use. It could only be used against bosses. I don't think it'd be far from the truth that everyone who managed to play as Fierce Deity Link would love him to reappear in a future Zelda game, in any way, shape or form.

So what have we got at the moment? A new futuristic setting, that, if done properly, could mean a revolution for the series. Square did it with Final Fantasy VII, why can't Zelda? Not only would this reinvigorate the series and make it feel fresh again, like Ocarina of Time, but it might also give the game a wider appeal and therefore a bigger audience, something the Zelda games richly deserve. A less formulaic approach to the plot would also refresh the series, and giving the bit-part players from the games stories of their own, à la Majora's Mask, would expand upon one of the series' high-points (as like I said, there's no need to get rid of everything and there's no harm in taking inspiration from the franchise itself). This would also give the game depth and allow the player to become emotionally involved with the game, something Zelda is famous for, especially since Ocarina of Time. Lastly, the Fierce Deity's mask to be expanded upon, with it's origin's explored and a greater use for it, as it has been criminally under-used (read: not used at all) since it made its debut in Majora's Mask.

Coming up: what other franchises or media could the next Zelda game take inspiration from?

Part I

Ghostbusters The Video Game

Oh, yes! If, like me, you are a child of the 80's (and even if you're not) then you probably love Ghostbusters. The movies, the cartoon series, the toys, everything about it. So late last year, when Sierra announced they were publishing a brand new Ghostbusters video game, I shat myself.

The thing is, though, will it be any good? It looks to be so, what with the cast of the films reuniting to do voice acting along with other such things that are mentioned in the following video. Definitely one to keep that eye on. That floating eye that's behind you! Who you gonna call?

GTA IV First Impressions

I'm not going to spoil anything for you as I've not played it that much, but by God, this game is terrible. Not really, it's awesome and anybody who says otherwise should have their teeth painfully removed via their anus. By the way, I'm sorry I haven't updated for a couple of days, but I've been playing GTA IV a hell of a lot. It sucks your life away from you and you'll love it for it.

Public Enemy once said 'Don't Believe the Hype'. A very roundabout way of saying 'don't get your hopes up'. But prior to the game's release it was very hard to abide by such a rule, as, deep down, we all knew it was going to be awesome. Practically everything works and works well in the game. The driving is fantastic and incredibly satisfying, much more so than in previous GTAs. The shooting system, whilst not being perfect, is very well implemented, incredibly robust and solid and once you've had your first taste of gunnery in the game you'll want more and you'll want it quickly. Melee fighting can be a bit hit and miss (literally), but when you land the counters and take your enemy down, it's incredibly satisfying. The plot is compelling and Niko and Roman (the main characters) are incredibly likeable. You'll want better for them and you'll try to complete the missions so you can see the Bellics get what they want.

I haven't had much chance to play the online multiplayer, but what I have played was rather fun. I'm waiting to finish the main storyline of single-player before I properly sink my teeth into it.

There have been some criticisms of the game, though. I, being the GTA Fanboy that I am, would like to argue those views until I'm red in the face. The following quote is from a user review on Metacritic which is typical of some of the criticisms GTA IV is getting:

"Good gameplay, better than average audio, mediocre graphics. 10/10? No way in hell."

"Good gameplay"? Hmm. Okay. I'll go along with that, for now. Little vague, though.

"Better than average audio"? What does this mean? Playback quality? If so, then it's much better than average, it's near-perfect. If you mean voice-acting, sound effects and things like that, then that's incredibly harsh and you're an idiot.

"Mediocre graphics"? ARE YOU FUCKING MENTAL? A game that loads a whole city on the fly to have graphics like GTA IV has is a fucking stroke of fucking genius you fucking tw@.

I realise we're all entitled to our opinions (hell, I've made a whole blog about mine), but when people's opinions are like this, you have to worry for their mental health. You just have to.

To sum up, then, if you own either a PS3 or Xbox 360 and don't at least own a copy of this game (with the intent to play it, of course) then you're either going to get it soon (which I applaud you for), still haven't received your copy (hang in there buddy, we understand your pain), or are an elitist gamer c*nt who only buys certain types of games because you have an inflated sense of self-worth and thrive on being the under-appreciated gaming scholars who shit on those that you think know less than you. If you are in this third group, then more fool you, sirs and madams, because (judging by little more than 10 hours of gameplay) you're missing out on quite possibly the greatest game ever made.

Oh, and by the way, Euphoria is a Godsend. It is so very, very, very awesome.

Look at This Picture [Update II]

Can't say fairer than that, can you?! It'll probably change soon, but as of 27th of April 2008 at 20:46 (GMT+1) and based on 12 reviews, it's 100/100, 10/10, top marks all round etcetera (at least on the Xbox 360).

[Update] It's now dropped to 99 with another 5 reviews added, but still with none of the reviews dropping below 95, it's an amazing feat. Not long left to go now!

[Update II] Ten more reviews and it's still at 99. I don't know whether to feel relieved because I wanted this game to be this good, or cry because I haven't got it yet.

GTA IV Released!

The countdown clock has gone and GTA IV is now available to purchase, at least in theory, as it's pretty much sold out everywhere, much to my dismay as I haven't got my copy, yet. Play.com said they'd posted my copy on Friday, then sent me an email saying they'd only posted it today.

Oh, well. Shit happens. Still, I bought myself a spanking new and really rather awesome 26", widescreen HD TV last night and am currently playing through my back catalogue of Xbox 360 games and checking out the upgraded pictures. It certainly makes a difference when compared to a 4:3, 21" SD TV. Some of the games are letterboxed when viewed on a non-widescreen TV and sometimes the HUD can be hard to read. So no more squinting when trying to see how much life Urdnot Wrex has left when playing Mass Effect (which looks so much better in HD).

With all this said, Xbox 360 games look good in SD anyway, so an HD TV isn't essential, but it's definitely worth getting one to see the games as they were meant to be seen.

Poll Results II

The second ever results from a poll on GOOF! Woo. Here they are. Everybody who voted owns a Wii, but all of you own at least one of the consoles I put in the poll, which is rather irrelevant seeing as I didn't add a 'None of the above' option and forgot portable consoles like the DS and the PSP (which I don't care about). Pretty much all the relevant info I could get from that poll.

I didn't vote twice this week, so all in all a more successful poll. Make sure to vote in the next poll soon!

GTA IV Prospective - Cancelled

Sorry. I felt that there would be no point, seeing as all the reviews are popping up on your internets thick and fast.

So, instead, read all the reviews, they're from people who have actually played the game, and watch all the videos!

GameTrailers go GTA IV Mental

Fancy watching all the GTA IV goodness you could possibly get in video form? Then head on over to GameTrailers.com and take a gander at all the HD hi-jinks going on. GTA IV video after GTA IV video. It's almost too much to bear. The best thing is that it's all real gameplay footage. Running at real-time, with someone actually playing the game. Even though all of GTA IV's trailers have shown footage of the game running at real-time, this is the first time the actual game has been shown, HUD and all.

I, myself, have decided to not watch these videos, as I'd rather wait for the actual game before I first experience all these delights, but if you're dying to see some real GTA IV gameplay footage, then go for it.

Personally I'm just going to watch the review and leave it at that. Okay, maybe one or two. But definitely not the whole lot …

Euphoria - Coming To a Game Near You

Meet EuphoriaMan (as I've dubbed him). He's awesome. Look at his little eyes. He's the unofficial mascot for Euphoria and appears in their tech-demos to show-off just what Euphoria does. Below is one such tech-demo. Euphoria develops the concept of ragdoll physics by adding natural behaviour patterns to in-game player-characters and non-player-characters (NPCs). Basically, what this means is that when you interact with a Euphoria powered character, they act just like they would in real-life. Beat them about the head and watch, point and laugh as they collapse to the floor holding their bonce. If they fall, they'll try to grab hold of anything near them, including other NPCs, to stop themselves dying. They have self-preservation in spades.

What they also do is react to where about their person they are shot. Shoot them in the arm and they'll drop whatever weapons they're carrying. Shoot them in the leg on a flight of stairs and they'll tumble down just like they would in real-life, trying to stop themselves, but inevitably succumbing to the effects of gravity and a bullet stuck in their femur. None of it is scripted, either, as it uses the CPU dynamically and should therefore make each and every interaction unique.

Brilliantly, the Euphoria engine has been incorporated into GTA IV and will help add that real-life behaviour that creating such a game entails. So, watch the following video and imagine it all occuring within Liberty City, feel your anticipation for the game doubling and then weep because you can't have it for another couple of days. It's also being utilised in Star Wars: The Force Unleashed with seemingly stunning effect.

The question, though, is will Euphoria actually add anything significant to games? It's hard to see why it shouldn't, but what's definite is that it certainly won't detract anything. It also screams of next-gen technology, certainly something not to be scoffed at.

Coming Soon - The Team ICO Retrospective

As brilliant as it is, for those of you who are getting a little sick of GTA, I've decided to go off on a complete tangent from it and get away from all its modern day America, real-world, violence-driven, gun-toting, testosterone-fuelled, car porn, sex-action for my next captivating series of articles.

So, let's go for a fantasy game, let's go for a game without guns, let's go for a game that hasn't sold 70 million units (but should have), let's go for two games, actually, both made by the same developer but not sequels and not franchises. Can you guess what I'm aiming at (because the title and the pictures obviously aren't clues enough)?

Games that could possibly be described as complete polar-opposites to GTA; ICO and Shadow of the Colossus.

So keep watching, peeps, because soon my Team ICO Retrospective will be posted and all shall be right with the world once more.

It also gives me the excuse of playing them again! Yes!

GTA Retrospective V - Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas

• Game: Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas
• Console: PlayStation 2, Xbox, PC
• Developer: Rockstar North
  
• Publisher: Rockstar Games
• Released: 2004

Massive. Huge. Monstrous. Just some of the words used to describe the size of GTA games, they somehow seem redundant when describing just how big GTA: San Andreas is. The game-world is roughly 5 times the size of Vice City's and it seems incredible just thinking about the step-up Rockstar has made from its previous titles to this magnum opus. When comparing the game to its predecessors, it seems silly calling them huge, because if they were huge, then what is San Andreas? 'Supermassive'? I'm not taking about how big the game world is, though, or even how long it takes to complete the main storyline, even though that, in itself, is a huge task. I'm talking about how much content this game provides the player.

When you first play the game, every time you continue the main storyline the game gives you something new to do. The very first mission you're given is to escape from an enemy gang's territory on, for the very first time in a GTA game, a bicycle. Not long after that, you're given a spray-can and are tasked with daubing your gang's tag across the game-world. Keep playing and you'll get the girlfriend mini-game, the burglary mini-game, low-rider racing, low-rider 'dancing' and more. All this in just the first few hours. What's notable is the fact that most of these things are completely new to the GTA series. Every GTA game added its own innovations of some sort, but San Andreas went above and beyond the call of duty in every respect.

GTA: San Andreas has you playing as Carl 'CJ' Johnson. Having seemingly run-away from his home city of Los Santos, Carl returns for his mother's funeral after a phone call from his brother, Sweet, telling him that she was killed in a drive-by shooting. When he returns he is immediately pounced upon by the crooked cop Tenpenny (voiced by none other than Samuel L Jackson), who threatens him by seemingly framing CJ with a cop killing. A cop who was close to outing Tenpenny as corrupt, coincidentally. When he gets home, he finds his former gang in disarray and pledges to help retake the streets of Los Santos for the Grove Street Families, thereby avenging his mother's death. Events conspire against him, though, which leads him to the different parts of the state of San Andreas.

So even though the first part of the game seems to be ripped straight from 'Boyz N The Hood', most of the game takes place far away from this ghetto setting. There's a countryside, replete with country bumpkins and small townships, farms, a mountain, large expanses of land, forests and everything else you'd expect from such a place. Hours can be whiled away exploring or just enjoying the scenery, becoming one with nature (albeit of the digital kind). Then there's the next two cities (San Fierro and Las Venturas) as well as the desert between them, which holds just as much as the countryside.

San Andreas also adds RPG-like elements to the game, but in its own way. Gorge yourself on Chicken Bell or Pizza Shack and you'll get fat. People will comment on your fatness, too. Calling you names and such, which you can respond to. Want to lose that weight? Go running, go swimming and stop eating so damn much. Simple and just like real-life (although at a slightly more accelerated rate). Want to tone up, get some muscles on them bones? Use the weight-lifting machines or dumbbells in the the various gyms dotted through-out San Andreas. You can upgrade your stamina, too, to make CJ run or swim for longer. Every weapon has different levels, making each weapon easier to use and allowing you to strafe the more you use them. Your driving ability gets better as the game progresses too, be it on bicycles, motorbikes or cars. You can also customise CJ by giving him different hairstyles and even more clothing options than Vice City which merely allowed you to wear different suits. You can even give CJ's skin a make-over and tattoo him, whether he likes it or not!

There are murmurings by some that GTA: San Andreas was too big. Can a game be too big? Certainly, if it becomes a chore, but there's something about San Andreas that grabs your attention and keeps you held until you complete the game, at least for your first play-through. As with every iteration of GTA, some of the flaws from previous titles are repaired, such as the aiming-system, which works remarkably well compared to past versions, but some flaws return, like draw distances and pop-up and the game can be incredibly glitchy. Sometimes you can drive through parts of the city that haven't loaded properly, but it's understandable, what with the game having to stream it all off the disc as you play it. The volume of activities in the game more than make up for such piffling issues like that, though.

GTA: San Andreas might give you the impression that it's trying to do too much. There is a hell of a lot in there, but most of it is optional. The racing activities, the gang-territory side-missions and such are there if you want to utilise them but you don't have to if you just want to complete the game. It makes things a little easier if you do these, as it gives you money to replace weaponry should you die (Wasted!) or get arrested (Busted!) and lose your arsenal, but you can still complete the main missions without touching the optional elements of the game. Completionists will have an absolute riot with this game and so will casuals, as it favours different types of gamers, those who jump in for the occasional burst and those who spend hours finding every little thing.

After playing GTA: San Andreas, you're left thinking that this is what Rockstar North imagined the game being, or at least becoming, when they first started work on GTA III. This was what they set out to create the moment they even thought about making a 3D GTA game. San Andreas is incredible. The story is compelling, each of the cities are completely unique, the characters are incredibly well rounded, the voice acting is superb and the game can look absolutely beautiful at times, especially at sunrise or sunset in the countryside. The soundtrack is probably the best yet in a GTA game, defining the setting and era of the game almost perfectly.

This game marks the end of the GTA III era and does it in style. It's still GTA III, but it's been refined and improved. So, the baton is passed to GTA IV. In five or so years will we see GTA IV's San Andreas? Just how big and just how good will it be? For now, though, we've got IV to look forward to, regardless of how many sequels the game could have or how good they could be.

Coming up: The GTA IV Prospective, just in time for the game's release.

Part I | Part II | Part III | Part IV

Zero Punctuation Lays into SSBB [Update]

Yahtzee, you large-testicled stallion, what have you gone and done? You've only gone and bashed a much-loved Nintendo game!

But Yahtzee knows what he's done, as the man is a fupping genius. If you've ever held even the slightest contempt for Nintendo fanboys, or at rather a loss as to how or why Nintendo are popular, then take a look at his review of Super Smash Bros. Brawl for the Nintendo Wii. Chances are you'll agree with every word of it. If you are a Nintendo fanboy (in denial or otherwise) then you're pretty much going to disagree with every single thing he says.

However, the former will probably end up laughing their tits off, whilst the latter will probably end up on their favourite forum spewing bile about the man. However, he's quite prepared for it, and could probably give it back, too, inhisowninimitablestyle, no less.

[Update] Not an update about this story, but rather that (should you care) Super Smash Bros. Brawl has finally been given a release date in Europe. That blessed day is the 27th of June, according to the Official Nintendo Magazine UK website.

"So if you had any plans for the final weekend in June you should cancel them now and get ready to play what is set to be one of the finest fighters of the century!"

I can see myself still playing GTA IV, to be honest.