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.