GTA IV Review

“Life is complicated.”
- Niko Bellic

Never has such a short sentence summed up a game that is so morally questionable, yet so diverse and ambiguous, so perfectly. Life is complicated, and no one’s life is more complicated then that of Niko Bellic – protagonist to Rockstars’ new game: Grand Theft Auto IV.

Morally ambiguous as ever, the critically acclaimed developer has taken the series to the next chapter by officially crowning their latest release as the fourth GTA. (As opposed to Vice City and San Andreas, which are considered ‘spin-offs’ of the third game.) Returning to Liberty City, GTA IV has you take over the life of Niko Bellic, a Serbian with a dark past and the desire to make a new life for himself in America.

From the moment you step off the boat, you can tell there’s something different about this game. The rain falling down around you, the street lights desperately trying to hold the darkness at bay, even the people going about their business… for the first time, Liberty City feels alive.

This sense of realism is a feat not many can achieve, and whilst Rockstar come close, they don’t quite manage it with perfect execution. Like the previous GTA games, IV carries with it some bugs, some oddities, and those little things that can sometimes ruin the experience for you. The controls can also seem a bit ‘fiddly’ at times, especially with the new ‘cover & shoot’ combat system that’s been added. But if you look past this, if you ignore the hype and just enjoy the game for what it is, then you’re guaranteed a worthwhile experience.

One of its high points is the story, the character of Niko Bellic. Unlike previous GTA titles, Niko’s story revolves around the irony of his situation; that of a man who wants to do good, who doesn’t want to be controlled by others, yet inevitably finds himself reacting to other peoples actions. Previous characters, whilst being well-rounded, have often come up short when trying to factor in the sociopathic behaviour that comes as a result of the players actions.

Niko himself is a troubled man; he fought in the Bosnian war, he’s killed, smuggled and traded people and illegal wares…and now he’s on the run, and looking for a new life in the ‘land of opportunity’. The game starts you off in the ‘working-class’ district of Liberty City, Dukes & Hove Beach, where he lives with his cousin Roman who moved to America years before.

As you progress through the game, you meet new people, not all of them good. Despite his reformist dreams, Niko finds himself time and again do other people’s dirty work, and he makes more then a few enemies. As you slowly fight your way up through the districts of Liberty City, you’re confronted with betrayal, jealousy, friendship, love, and hope.

The physical world of GTA IV is smaller then that of the last game and other little things like the use of planes have also been dropped. This is because Rockstar have tried to shift the entire focus of the game; instead of just randomly walking around and blowing stuff up which was the favourite hobby of most GTA players, you actually get engaged in the story and what it has to offer.

Graphically, GTA IV is stunning, equally on par with the likes of BioWare’s Mass Effect, or even Creative Assembly’s Viking. As mentioned earlier, Rockstar have really brought Liberty City to life in this game. The pedestrians now act in a more realistic manner, they stand around and talk, they react to the environment, and even the weather. Other tweaks like the ‘escape radius’ for police chases, and the impact damage on cars, add to reality that this is a city, and you can do damage.

The multiplayer adds yet another layer of depth, letting you team up online with up to 16 people in a variety of different modes – Deathmatch, Car Chase City, and Free Roam to name but a few. Both fun and challenging, this extra mode will help ensure the game is played well passed the single player story.

If you were say that GTA IV was a triumph, that it was the best in the series, and that it is one of the best made games this year, then you wouldn’t be far wrong. That said, GTA IV is not a God, it’s not perfect, and whilst it my have wide appeal, they’ll still be those that question the ambiguous morals that it teaches to those that play. Still, it’s a damn good game.

Viking: Battle for Asgard

Despite a slow start, Viking quickly picks up speed until you’re smashing your way through the game. Short and sweet, this is a hack ‘n’ slash with a twist that’s fun to play. Unfortunately, all good things come to an end, and the linear quality to the game may put you off another play through…

For a company that’s in the middle of redefining its main franchise, it probably comes as no surprise that Creative Assembly’s Viking is as ‘safe’ as it is mythical. Whilst not being the most ground-breaking of action/adventure RPGs, like Spartan: Total Warrior before it, Viking certainly has its charm.

Based in ‘Midgard’, the mortal realm of men from Norse mythology, Viking has you travelling through three islands on a mission to take back man’s dominion from the evil forces of Hel - a rather good looking goddess on a power trip. Aiding you is the equally attractive Goddess Freya, ruler of Midgard. The basic theme of the game is to free any brethren held captive by Hel, and kick the ‘Legion’ back into the underworld.

Anyone with preconceptions of how this game might play out is in for a bit of a surprise. There is no flashy opening with fire and brimstone, despite the pre-rendered 3D images on the box. Instead the beginning sequence is a more subtle affair: a mix between the narrative style and in-game cinematics of Fable, and the storyboard imagery of 300.

Indeed, anyone thinking this game will be a simple hack ‘n’ slash will also be surprised. Stealth elements are frequently added into the game, usually in the form of quests that require you to sneak in and out of strongholds instead of killing everything in plain sight. Paired with some other features it proves to make a more dynamic game.

The combat system can take some getting used to if you’re unfamiliar with the dynamics – a button combo system similar to God of War. However as you play, you realise that half of the game’s fun-factor comes from this system: pulling off a successful combo is certainly satisfying – especially when it goes into a slow motion death-blow sequence, again in true 300 style.

On the other hand, sometimes it goes a bit too far – especially when all you want to do is open a crate or use a teleporter. The action, or ‘do things’ command, is attributed to the ‘B’ button in this game and you may well find yourself sick and tired of mashing it just to do simple things. A commendable attempt at getting you more involved with the mundane, but still pretty annoying.

Graphically, Viking is stunning. The backgrounds are well defined, and the texture of your surroundings is detailed down to a single blade of grass: realism is the tone. However everything does look a tad ‘shiny’, like the cell-shaded effect you could see on 13 or Wind Waker. It really depends on your tastes whether you like it or not.

Apart from combat and quests, Viking has little else to offer in terms of mini-games, side-quests, or any other form of game mechanic. Barring quest items, gold is the only thing you can find in jars or chests. Finding ale barrels enables you to trade for more gold, but it’s pretty basic. Upgrades are few and mostly focus around combat, and there are only two methods of travel: walking and using ‘leystones’.

This simplistic theme does nothing to harm the game, but it does nothing to flesh it out either.

As mentioned before, the game’s fun comes in two halves, both to do with combat. The other half of the fun in this game is derived from the quests, and the different situations those quests put you in. Freeing a group of Vikings is simple enough, but the real juicy bit is when they ask you to ambush a horde of baddies before they agree to join you. These choreographed sequences are one of two of such sequences that really make this game stand out from both its predecessor and the rest of the genre in general.

The second type of sequence is really what sold the game in the first place – large scale RTS type battles in a third person action style. To trigger one of these epic clashes, you must first complete quests, raise an army, and do the usual preparations. Once all the conditions have been satisfied, it’s time for the main event…

The forces of good are always the attacking side. Your army lines up in front of the town gates, whilst the enemy’s own battle lines sally forth to confront you. Both sides posses ‘shamans' that resurrect more troops for their particular side. The way to win is to kill the shamans, thus driving your enemy back into the town where you begin the process again.

You can gain advantages over your enemies by using special powers or by calling on dragons. It’s easily the best bit of the game, and these events usually serve as a climax for that particular section of the game.

All in all, Viking is fun. Whilst a bit slow to start, the game certainly picks up pace and any disappointment you may feel at the beginning gradually fades away as it grows on you. Unfortunately, since it only spouts two difficulty levels and little leeway on how you actually go about playing the game, its life-span is short. Be prepared to find yourself trading it back in for something else before too long.

Note: Sorry for popping up randomly with this. I've decided I want to become a Video Games Journalist, and so this is me practicing. I'll try and start posting more regularly from now on. (If i hear anyone utter the "If i had a penny" line, I'm going to gut them like a fish...)

Hallows and Horcruxes

Yesterday I bought, read, and finished the final Harry Potter book. I'll admit, it felt like the end of an era. (By the way, i am going to proceed to talk about the book now, if you haven't read it, avert your eyes. Although, to be honest, if you haven't bought it yet, you probably don't care that much anyway)

I never was one of those people who got uncontrollably excited about this book. I didn't camp outside Waterstones in the rain for days prior to the release. I didn't wet myself after reading the first few lines, and i didn't cry a river when people died right at the beginning. Very grim book this one. (Although I nearly, nearly got a bit teary towards the end)

I liked it. I felt it was a very good ending to the series. Part of me wishes certain aspects of it had been developed a bit sooner, like some subtle hints as to what really was going on in slipped into the Half-Blood Prince or whatever, but never mind. It was just almost a bit too...sudden, if you get me. I also didn't like the fact that Harry kept using his link between himself and Voldemort (Which was supposed to be closed down). It just was a little too much like cheating. The reasons for Snape's actions also fit into this critique, because even thought the reasons themselves were quite good i thought, and portrayed quite well in the end, I still wish they're had been some hint in earlier books, but there you go.

The Deathly Hallows themselves were a very interesting concept to introduce. Everyone assumed Harry had to die (which he did) because he was a Horcrux (which he was), the Hollows was the hidden catch to that theory, and once you find out what they are, it becomes clear, and is quite nicely done.

Big fight scene at the end which was quite good., even if it did start to feel like some cheesy high-school reunion moment. I'm glad it ended in Hogwards to be honest. The series started there, it is fitting it should end there too. Death toll is a bit grim mind, you can't help but wonder whether it was necessary for certain people to die, but never mind. I really was like "Oh my god! Not Hedwig!" though...

Yes, a good end to an all round good series. Lets see how the rest of the films match up, shall we?

Do you want to live forever?

I do. Not to be famous or anything, just want to live forever really. It'll give me time to catch up on all the work I’m behind on.
I went and saw FAME today. It was being performed by students here at the university. Naturally given the time, space and everything they were restricted by, it was a bit of a truncated version, but I had never seen any version of it. I was impressed.
I grew up around amateur dramatics, and I appreciate how hard it can be, but it was bloody good, singing, acting everything in general really. Sure, it you good pick holes in it, and be left with a huddled, twitching sack of meat, instead of a performance...but what’s the point? They gave it there all, and to be honest, taking everything into account, they did bloody brilliant. A course-mate of mine was in it....God knows why he chose Journalism.
I will say this though: I noticed a lack of ethnic diversity in the cast. Not that I care, but a sad, cynical person might pick up on that. Even the black character was white.

The power of children

"It's very odd, what happens in a world without childrens voices"

This quote is from director Alfonso Cuaron's Children of Men, which i saw for the first time last night. (Bought it on DVD as part of Monday's operations) Ill tell you this, straight of the bat, its bloody good.
Its one of those intriguing films that takes a glimpse into the not-so distant future, and tells the story of a world filled with terror, destruction, despair, oppression....all the usual rackets, bar one: Children. The Human Race has become infertile, and for the past 18 years, there have been no children. (Which naturally sent the world to pot.)
The story begins with the main character, portrayed by Clive Owen, in a coffee shop watching a news story on how the youngest person, aged 18, has just died. Said coffee shop is then blown up a few minutes later. The rest involves Clive Owen's character getting unwittingly drawn in to perform "escort duty" for a girl, who it later turns out is pregnant (shock horror). From then on in its a nerve-racking escape to the coast, as anyone and everyone wants to get there hands on the baby for their own agendas, and the lil tot is actually born towards the end.
Camera work for this film is nothing by spectacular, with Cuaron pulling out all the stops to shoot the film in such a "realistic" way. A trademark of the film is seamless, uncut sequences that last 10/15 minutes, that really add to the atmosphere and the sense that its happening. Yet this is not the best this film had to offer.
For me Ladies and Gentlemen, this film boiled down to one, simple, beautiful scene. Ironically, it's not one of Alfonso's seamless sequences, nor does it contain any outstanding acting (as such), but it’s still magical. Picture this:
Bexhill: a grimy, decaying town, outlined as one of Britain’s many Refugee camps where all outsiders are shoved inside like sardines. It is the ultimate symbol of what the world had become, very reminiscent of a war-town town from World War II. The Scenario: The refugees (lovingly named 'Fugees' in this film) are having an "uprising" within the camp, and the Army has been sent in to deal with it. There is fighting everywhere, on the streets, in the buildings, Army guys duking it out with the militants, smoke, blood, death....Owen and the girl are trapped inside a building with militants, a tank is outside battering the place in, the soldiers storm the building, they see the baby....and then it stops. The Soldiers, the militants, the death…it all stops. And for what must be 5 glorious, breath-taking minutes, there is peace. As Owen leads the girl outside, everyone just stares at the baby, some even pray. Then of course some twit lets of a grenade whilst everyone is distracted and it all goes to pot again. For me, this scene did it, it really captured the essence of the film and was one of the best moments of the film.
Yes, it is very odd what happens to a world without children’s voices...but just look what happens when those voices return.

Tittybangbang, A review

Tittybangbang returns for its second series, with comedy actresses Lucy Montgomery and Debbie Chazen portraying “even more weird and wonderful characters”. (According to the official BBC blurb) Weird? Certainly. Wonderful? Not really.
With a name like “Tittybangbang” for a comedy show, you’re immediately half drawn into thinking it’s going to be about tits.....and it is. But it’s so blatantly obvious you can’t help but cringe slightly. An example, within the first 5 seconds of the episode, Chazen's character sticks a Hoover to Montgomery’s boob. To be honest, I have porn for that sort of thing. Dotted throughout the show are other similar scenes, tending to involve smutty foreigners. Not that Italian maids aren’t dirty madams, but it’s been done.
Despite the director’s obsession with sexual innuendos and foreigners, this show does have some hidden gems. Montgomery’s portrayal of Hollywood superstar Tom Cruise is one of the best I’ve seen. And it’s funny. Other good pieces include more ‘Cultural’ scenes, like the ‘elegant Mrs Baxter’, an upper class English woman who likes fighting with everyone. ‘The darters’, were Montgomery and Chazen play a couple of small down pub darters…Carol, the lazy wife, The two welsh friends….whenever they stray away from crude, OTT, sex-obsessed ‘humour’, the show actually starts getting funny.
All in all, the second series of Tittybangbang, while trying to carry on from the success of the first series, still seems like a show trying to shadow Little Britain with over the top, obvious sexual innuendos and impressions. Still, it’s worth a chuckle.

By Joe Robinson