Well, it's been a while since I found time to post and I am sorry about that - life has been rather hectic with one thing and another and time has flown past.
So, what's new? Well LittleBigPlanet has finally landed and, to be honest, I was getting to the point of expecting it to spectacularly fail to live up to its hype. The truth is, however, that it is an insanely great game - cute, funny and really quite challenging in parts. The voiceover by Stephen Fry just tops off a great package, really.
Much has been made of so-called "inclusive" games recently, a phrase which braodly refers to games which appeal to those outside of the traditional demographic definitionof "gamer". The Wii is basically living on this premise, with its lack of outstanding graphics, Gamecube-esque games and sub-par media playback options - without the wand, the Wii would be dead in the water and, because waving a wand like a club to play golf is more natural than using a thumbstick to swing and another to address spin, etc, the Wii has sold like hotcakes as a "family" console - gran can play it with minimal introduction. However, the problem with the Wii is that it is, essentially last-gen technology with a gimick - it won't appeal to hardcore gamers because trying to play Call of Duty on the Wii is difficult and unsatisfying when compared to PS3 (or XBox 360). The PS3, on the other hand, has suffered from almost the exact opposite problem - it has some great games for hardcore gamers, often single player only, but few titiles that you can casually play with friends and family - mainly football, racing or fighting games.
What LBP does is bring together the knockabout, fun-to-frolic feel of, say, Smash Bros Melee to the PS3, a liberal sprinkling of catchy tunes (you'll be humming some of them for weeks) and some great old-school platforming, all covered with a sugary coating that is as addictive as Crack. My wife loves it, I love it. The cats love it - ok, that might be a bit of an exaggeration, but you get the point... The game is brilliant and that is without getting into the whole world of user-generated levels that you can create, share or download. Think of it as a cute sackboy-related version of modding Quake, but without the need to learn any coding and you're part way there - suffice it to say that this game is likely to be around for a long, long time. Sheer class.
I recently got back in to Resistance:Fall of Man (primarily as Resistance 2 is out soon) - I had forgotten how good that game is. Even my wife, who is not a huge fan of FPS games, has given it a go and enjoyed it (admittedly she honed her shooting skills playing Uncharted, so she feels less intimidated), although it has scared the bejesus out of her at times. Then again, given its adrenalin-soaked nature and fast-paced action, it's not surprising it has made her jump - some of the set pieces can really get your heart pounding! Again, if you haven't got this game, I highly recommend it - it makes a change from the usual WW2 shooters and, whilst it might not be a true competitor to Half-Life 2 (what is?), it certainly has a lot to recommend it - not least the fact it is now available on the Platinum/Budget range.
Finally, I have been enjoying another guilty pleasure recently - the Sam and Max season 2 games. Currently, I am dealing with a zombie infestation, having dealth with mer-men living under Easter Island, a psychotic Santa Claus and giant killer robot amongst other things. To be honest, season 1 felt more well-rounded, but there are plenty of laughs and some great point-and-click adventuring to be had. If you liked the original Sam and Max game (or enjoyed the humour of the cartoon series), you'll love them. If you didn't catch the original, you might want to try Seasons 1 and 2 of the new games, as they are a nice set of lightweight point-and-click games that can be truly side-splitting at times.
Ok, that's it for now - I promise to write soon again!
Ok, so I'm due to change my mobile soon (contract expires at last!) and I had thought that I would get an iPhone, as they seem to be the default choice at the moment, but I've had second thoughts.
Now, I like Apple's products as a rule - they are usually easy to use, stylish and well-made, but the iPhone just doesn't grip me, even after it's much-vaunted 3G makeover. The simple fact is that it makes a very expensive phone, or a very poor PDA, but it doesn't actually do enough to warrant me giving up a decent phone and my iPod Touch. I know it can sync with Microsoft Exchange now, but email is not the be-all and end-all. Where is the handwriting recognition for faster note-taking? Where is the pocket office suite to allow Word, Excel and Powerpoint to be viewed and/or edited (at least Apple could bring out an iPhone/iPod Touch version of iWork, if they don't want to go down the MS Office route)? In short, the iPhone is not a PDA, it's not even really a smart phone. In fact, what it is frequently escapes me - it's just an iPhone that makes calls. Think about it - you can already check email, watch video and play games on your iPod Touch, but that's not a PDA - it lacks a lot of PDA functions. Exactly like the iPhone.
So, what am I going to get? Well, I currently like the idea of the latest Motorola Razr or a similar slimline flip-phone and I'm digging out some batteries for my old Newton Messagepad 110 - it'll do as a PDA until I think of a better option...
I know that we've had the eight-core Mac Pros and the the MacBook Air and, in fairness, the aluminium iMac (a machine I think is stunning, but I really don't like the keyboard), but they aren't, well, new.
Bear with me, as I think this needs some explanation - yes, we have had a myriad new products, but we haven't had anything to change the world in the same way that the original Macintosh did. Or, I suppose, the Macintosh II in the way it overturned the entire print and design industry and made Desktop Publishing mainstream. The iPhone is lovely, especially now it has 3G and GPS, but it's really nothing more than a logical extension of the Newton, although the Newton had handwriting recognition and the iPhone doesn't. I love my Blue Dalmation iMac G3, but the all-in-one form factor and simple, easy-to-use-yet-powerful design ethos are merely an update of the original Macintosh and all successive iMacs are iterative, rather than revolutionary. The Mac Pro is based on the Power Macintosh, which evolved from the Quadra series which grew from the ashes of the Macintosh II, whilst the consumer/low-end systems went from Macintosh to....well, Macintosh Classic, Colour Classic, LC, Performa (essentially reboxing the same technology), to the iMac. All compact, all usefully quick without setting your hair on fire and all pretty well designed and screwed together.
So where is the new paradigm shift? It's easy to watch the launch of the original Macintosh on youtube and think of it as hokey and rather sweet in a "aww, look at them going mad over something with less power than my phone" manner, but in 1984 the technology being unveiled was a world apart. In those days, even so-called "Personal" computers required expertise to use, as you loaded your games via a command line, or had to use a DOS Prompt to find your text documents and disparate interfaces and menus for your different packages. To put it in context, your PC keyboard used to have a clear plastic flap at the top under which you'd put your inlay (that shipped with each package you used) that told you what the 12 function keys did (at least three commands per key - the key, the key with Shift held and the key with ALT held). The Macintosh changed all that at a stroke. A child could use it, it worked logically and the interface was consistent across all packages. One of the least thought-about and most beneficial things that Microsoft hijacked when they pillaged Apple's IP during the creation of Windows was that idea of a consistent set of commands - CTRL+C for copy, CTRL+S for save, etc.
It is very hard for those people who grew up after the fallout of the introduction of Macintosh to understand just how far-reaching its impact was - they expect things like copy/paste and drag and drop. They expect their standard key commands to be consistent and they really fail to grasp the fact that all of it, every single thing they now see as "computing" is, in some way, linked back to that little beige box that spoke like Stephen Hawking and played a bleepy version of "Chariots of Fire" when an excitable guy with floppy hair and glasses pulled it out of a bag. Yes, I am sure that people will come out of the woodwork to point out that Xerox Parc had developed the bones of the WIMP (Windows, Icons, Menus, Pointer) interface and that, no doubt, some guy had created a full windowing, multitasking interfaces for UNIX in the 1970s that I don't know about, but the original Macintosh created the desktop computer revolution as we know it.
The Newton created the first usable PDA (before we even know we needed one) and the Mac Portable was, despite the execution, the first attempt to make a portable computer that was a full equivalent to a desktop machine (remember, at the time you could buy an Collosus PC which had a 10" CRT monochrome screen and an 8086 CPU and a couple of floppy drives and that was about the size of a suitcase, so the Mac Portable wasn't that bad).
So, the question remains, what's the next paradigm shift? Personally, I don't think it's the "cloud", with everything on the web and computers just accessing information and applications when needed - the restriction of bandwidth precludes any idea of it being faster than a decent machine on your desk working with local files. Besides, we already have web-based applications and data storage, so it's nothing new. Touch and gesture control is just a way of integrating the trackpad or mouse to the screen, so it doesn't really bring anything new and whilst we are already seeing some convergence with data push/pull from handheld/phone to web to desktop and back, you could sync your Newton to your Macintosh many moons ago. I think that where we'll see the next revolution will be in convenience. Think about it - at the moment you might have a MacPro or iMac, a MacBook of some kind for working away from your desk and an iPhone/PDA phone for keeping in touch when you are travelling. This means you have at least three devices, but imagine if you had something like and iMac with a Wacom Cintiq (the display/tablet) that acted as your keyboard/input and document "dock". If you wanted to save a web page you drag it off the main screen and onto an area of the "tablet", which might have a keyboard attached (given how thin the new mac keyboard is, it could slide out). When you then go out of the office, you unplug the tablet and take it with you and it's a fully functioning mobile Mac - low power CPU (like a MacBook Air), maybe even built-in 3G, with an iPhone-esque interface for your stored web pages, documents, etc, but which has fully-functioning desktop applications and, say, 20gb of flash drive - enough to store a few tunes, your presentations and your documents for the meeting, all in a tough A4 sized slab that fits in your bag neatly, unlike a laptop - hell it could even have solar cells to top up the battery. If it's got 3G, you could bluetooth a headest to it and make calls, then get back to the office and dock it back to the main part of your Mac where it automatically updates your files with any changes made to the copies on the tablet and recharges the tablet battery.
From a users perspective, your work becomes seamless, you're not having to use USB sticks, or email yourself files to transfer from desktop to laptop and you don't even need a phone. It's nothing new, really, as it's a logical extension of the old Powerbook Duo/Duo Dock system, but I think it's something that would appeal to home users (surf the net from the sofa or stream movies to the tablet whilst the main machine burns tunes to CD or suchlike) and business users, for the reasons described previously, alike.
I know that it's technically not a new paradigm in computing in the same way that the original Macintosh was, but I think that something that is so flexible and useful would become indispensible to consumers, students and professionals and the fact you wouldn't need to physically transfer files from one machine to another takes a lot of the pain out of using a computer for practical tasks and makes it much more acceptable to those resistant to technology. I think it would be the first step towards making the Macintosh as ubiquitous as the TV remote or the microwave - which is no bad thing, as such a product would form a sound base for stronger Pro-grade machines, or even tie-ins with car manufacturers to create in-car Mac/GPS entertainment systems, for example.
After a fairly heavy weekend, this seemed like a sensible suggestion, but I'm willing to hear your point of view!
Ok, so it's not my usual lightweight fare, but I've been thinking recently about this (what with the huge round of media coverage in the UK following record GCSE results that was then followed by the usual backlash from Universities and businesses saying that more and more children have low literacy rates and no actual knowledge of the subjects they have just gotten all A* grades in). Now, I for one do believe that the current government is more concerned about pass rates, especially with the idea of having higher pass rates than their predecessor administration, and less about the quality of education given, but I also realise that this is not the fault of the children and that if they were given the appropriate tools and support, they would no doubt be just as intelligent and capable as earlier generations.
So, what does this have to do with computer games? Well, first of all, you'll know that I have no real issue with computer games as I frequently review them here and I make my living in what can loosely be called "the computer industry". With that i mind, it is safe to say that I don't think that games should be banned and I certainly don't want us heap games consoles on a bonfire in some grotesque parody of the book-burnings in Nuremberg. No, I think what really sparked off this line of thought was the fact that I had recently wandered over to the Macintosh Garden (a great repository for old abandonware games) and grabbed a few text adventures as something to do on the train home from work instead of the usual Sudoku book. As I sat staring at the opening screen of The Hobbit, waves of nostalgia washing over me, the thought suddenly struck me that this would be a great way of encouraging imagination and reading skills in the child(ren) I hope to raise with my wife soon. Not only that, but it's a great way of spending an hour or so with a child that doesn't involve sitting in front of a DVD of "In The Night Garden" or "Bob The Builder".
As I thought about it more, I realised that, as a thirtysomething, I had played such games as a child, often with a friend, and we'd talk about them, draw out maps and make notes, work out the puzzles and enjoy the storyline. I also remember the fun to be had with the old Fighting Fantasy adventure books (recently republished), but I digress. The fact is that these games made literacy, reading and logic fun for us, without trying to be "educational" and, whilst such learning titles might be worthy and even viewed as the best option for entertainment at school, the truth is that anything labelled as "educational" is likely to be avoided at all costs by children unless they are forcibly made to play the game. So, instead they sit in front of their Playstations or Wiis and watch colourful event unfold that, whist they teach logic and hand-eye coordination, do not promote literacy in any way. Ok, maybe the child has to read the menu system, but that's about it - the fact is that most of their leisure time is spent pressing buttons repeatedly whilst shooting zombies, or collecting stars, or whatever.
Books such as Harry Potter, the Alex Rider and Young James Bond series' and the like have proved that, if it is done correctly, there is money to be made in things that get children into reading and using their imagination, so why is the computer industry so reluctant to revisit the parser-based interface? With PCs in every school and most homes having some sort of computer, there is no barrier to accessiblity and, if the technology used was, say, Flash-based, then there would be no reliance on having to have the latest hardware. Costs would be lower due to reduced development work being required and you could always combine conversation using a text parser with point-and-click interactions in the way titles such as Douglas Adams' Starship Titanic did. Providing the interface was simple enough, the graphics appealing enough and the script/gameplay enjoyable, I see no reason why such a venture wouldn't gain momentum - think of something like Monkey Island, but with more interactive dialogue, for example - wouldn't you want to give it a go? Of course you would, so your kids would be happy to try it too, especially if Mum and Dad joined in.
I might even dust down my copy of Flash and see if I can build something myself!
There are a lot of magazine articles (not to mention books and websites) that are dedicated to the theme of getting started as a digital design agency, either as a freelance going it alone, or as a group of designers forming their own business. Mostly, these are concerned with things like building your company website and ensuring your logo translates well from the screen to a printed business card or letterhead. Now, I'm not knocking such articles and, to be honest, some of them even inspired me when I was getting started in the wonderful world of work. However, most of the focus is given to the "design" part and, for the most part, little is given to the "agency" part. They talk boldly about sticking to your creative roots and espouse the idea that good creative will always win the pitch. Obviously, when you are selling to aspiring digital designers, such articles offer hope and encouragement to your readership. It has been in the back of my mind that, as someone who has run his own digital business, before moving into the folds of the big Ad Agencies and working client-side in the digital marketing world, that I might be able to offer a slightly different viewpoint and that, potentially, I could help those people who are looking to start out on their own (or even those who are starting out in the industry full-stop) by writing a book. A sort of learn-from-my-mistakes effort. I doubt I'll make millions, but if it helps some future icon of the industry get started on the right course, it'll have served its purpose.
Fundamentally, there are a few lessons that can be quite hard to stomach but which are undeniably true. Of course, I'll expound on these in my magnum opus, but I'll give you the benefit of my insight here and you can let me know what you think.
Lesson 1: You don't need to be creative, you need to be organised
We've all been to those great agency offices, where they have segways to get around, or organised Fussball tournaments and where you can create your own office cubicle out of over-sized Lego bricks, etc. The fact is, you'd love to work there, but if you run your own small business like that it'll be out of business within months. If you want an office where more effort is placed on fun than work, get a job working for one of those places, as they will inevitably be part of a huge multi-million pound company. If you want to work for yourself, or start a business, you'll be looking at VAT returns more often that you organise inter-office ping pong tournaments. The sad truth is that a lot of creative people think that they are being stifled by the company they work for, so they go off to set up their own company that works how they want it to. The problem with that is that your local Tax Office and your bank don't care if you had to work late on a deadline, or that you felt your profit-and-loss would look better as a Flash animation - all they care about is that the paperwork is correct and things are paid on time.
Also, the next time you visit one of these big, funky, agencies, you'll notice that the finance staff and the teams that negotiate the contracts are generally wearing smart business wear and are surrounded by binders and filing cabinets. Much like an office, really. The sad truth is that the creative and technical teams in such businesses are given a lot of freedom and that when you take the plunge to work for yourself, you're more likely to end up more involved with paperwork and internal organisation just because you won't have a team of people doing it for you.
Lesson 2: The best creative doesn't always win the pitch
Here's a secret - you don't always have to have an award-winning piece of creative to get paid. In fact, some companies would be scared off by things they see as too left-field or outside of their comfort zone. Also, more pitches nowadays are being won on the strength of delivery methodologies and Project Management in the agency, as larger businesses especially are wary of giving business to "wacky" creatives who then go over budget or push back on deadlines. They would rather have less outlandish and more derititave creative if it's guaranteed to be under budget and delivered on time, flawlessly. So, be realistic in your estimates and provide exacting details of what you are proposing and what is going to end up costing extra. Outline deliverables clearly and limit the creative work to fit the budget unless the client agrees to extend the budget before you do the extra work. It's all simple stuff, I know, but it does make the difference between turning a profit and going broke. The hard part is reining in your creative urges to suit a budget - you'll be tempted to think "well, I'll just do this for them and make it look nice", but that's billable time not being paid for, or a potential argument over the value of the estimate compared to the final bill. A lot of agencies are now pitching their Project Management skills as hard as they are pitching their creative abilities. So, the secret of success might be to ensure you think about contingency plans and always have the budget foremost in your mind, as opposed to going crazy with the Sharpies and creating a million Mood Boards.
Lesson 3: Newest isn't always best
You don't need that Eight-Core Mac Pro with 30" display. You don't always need to work in CS3 and, you can make calls on something other than an iPhone. Given that a lot of clients will have restrictive IT policies that means they won't have up to date browsers or Flash players. So, given that and the fact that a lot of adservers only allow Flash 8, why spend thousands on the latest and greatest gear and software just to do the job of making a few Flash banners for a client? Unless you're the size of Saatchi and Saatchi, you only need the minimum tools to do the job in hand. Of course, it means you're not going to win the bragging contest down the pub, but you'll be turning a profit.
The fact is that, whilst I'd love a 17" MacBook Pro to take to client sites, an iPhone 3G for use as a PDA and the mother of all MacPros on my desk, I can run a multimillion pound project using nothing more sophisiticated than Mac Project II on a Macintosh Classic. I could do my company accounts on it, too. If you want a "funky" office, equip your reception area with Tangerine G3 iMacs running Airport cards, so that the secretary can check their email and use Word and visitors can surf the company website. Your designers might want £4000 of MacPro, but they can work on £1000 of quad CPU G5, or even a brand new iMac. And the machines will look just as nice on the desk, for those people who worry about such aesthetic niceties.
There are plenty more ideas I can share and, because I'm a nice guy, I'm happy to, but I'll be getting on with the book soon enough, as I've finally finished writing a custom project delivery framework for a multinational company to work with their rostered agencies and have some evenings to myself again!
Sorry there weren't too many jokes, but I thought it'd be useful to some of you to give a different angle on setting up in business for yourself. I hope it doesn't put any of you off, as the truth is it's a great adventure, but you just need to focus on the important things that aren't necessarily why you'd thought of going into business for yourself. Good luck!
As we all know, Microsoft used the tagline "what do you want to do today?" (or "where do you want to go today?" in web-related ads) in a lot of PR, whilst Apple tended to stick with "Think Different" or, in earlier advertisements, "Tomorrow's PC, today" or variations on that theme. So, putting aside all the hyperbole, it seems that both are focusing on pushing the user experience, as opposed to the hardware itself. Windows' advertising aims itself at the audience by asking what you want and, by implication, suggesting that Windows has the ability to get you there. Apple tedns to position itself as a bit left-field, more creative in its thinking and thus better able to understand your needs. In fact, in reality, its products do tend to meed the users' expectations far better, so maybe it's a case of the ads just reporting on the reality. However, all this talk of advertising is getting me away from the crux of what I wanted to talk about, which is that, whilst I love older Macs, just how useful are they? Should I stop lusting after a quad G5 with full RAM and top-spec graphics and settle for a brand new top-of the line iMac instead, given the cost of G5s at the moment? Is there any value in buying last-gen technology when the current stuff is available from such (comparitively) low costs?
Well, maybe not in the case of a G5, as it's no longer the top-dog workhorse and prices are artificially high from all those private owners who are trying to recoup the cost of purchase and are, thus, maybe being a little unrealistic in their acceptance of depreciation. For example, I bought a Xeon-powered Windows workstation in 2002 that cost in excess of £10000 (for a business I was running). It had 4GB of RAMBUS memory, a 128mb Wildcat graphics card, Audigy soundcard with I/O box, etc and is still usefully quick today. However, it's worth about £4.50 if I stick it on eBay and I think the G5 towers are suffering the same thing - they're more than just useful (in fact, only those who are doing feature film editing or working on high resolution images for use on billboards are likely to call them slow, but adding the full compliment of RAM would help with that). However, if I can buy an old quad G5 with monitor and it costs £1000-£1500 by the time the bidding stops, why wouldn't I just save up a bit more and get a new quad-core, dual CPU MacPro? Or buy an iMac 24" with dual-core 2.8GHz and 512mb Nvidia graphics? I'm not being a nay-sayer, as I still love the old G5, but the fact is that people are being unrealistic in the market value at the moment, so I'd steer clear for a year until they drop through the floor. They'll still be able to edit your video, or tinker with your photos, but you won't pay through the nose for it.
So why do I like the G5 so much? Well, aside from the design, which is a thing of Bauhaus-ian beauty inside and out, the fact is that I like the ability to fire up Classic mode and use all my old applications without the need to run an emulator. Not only that, but as someone whose home computing is mainly web-surfing, blogging and the occasional bit of image and video work, a G5 is more than adequate. Even my desire to get back to doing some Flash and Director coding is not going to tax it. Also, I'm always nervous about my main workstation being an all-in-one, as if the screen dies, I can't work, whereas if my old PowerMac screen died, I could change the monitor and carry on. That, and I'd really like the 30" display on my desk for artwork and layout work. Then again, the 24" iMac would be fine for that, too. Basically, whilst I am what would be considered a power user, the G5 would do all I need and be fast enough. Hell, my old G4 was fast enough. This is really the point - do you want the latest, greatest, oh-my-god-it's-so-fast machine to boast to your friends, or do you want to actually get stuff done. If it's the latter, then most Macs still running are useful (for a given value of useful). You can word process, do some DTP or web design, look at your photos, listen to tunes and edit/watch a movie. Who can honestly say they use a home computer for much else? Especially if you own a PS3 for gaming? Not me, that's for sure - I want something reliable (so I don't come in from work and then get stressed during my leisure time by a computer that won't work), well designed and that is quick enough.
So what is "quick enough"?
Last post, I talked about my love of Silicon Graphics machines, but the truth is that the central processors in them are slow. The machines are usable because of the huge array of custom hardware taking work away from the CPU, but in the Megahertz wars, they are trounced by cheap Intel chips. What they are, though, is stable. my old Iris Indigo was only ever rebooted when software installations required it. My Powermac G4 was also stable - working quite happily for weeks at a time until Software Update asked me to reboot. This means that renders can be left overnight if needs be, safe in the knowledge that they'll be done in the morning. If I left my windows machine to do that, it'd crash and reboot or run slower and slower until I restarted because Windows leaves junk in the memory and bloats its registry. So, in real world terms, the Windows machine was screamingly quick, but because it would require at least one restart a day, the truth is you only got the same amount of work done. Now, if the MacPro has all of the clock speed and none of the instability of a high end Windows machine, then it will be a thing of wonder, but in the real world, I think I'd get a good two or three years out of a quad G5 mac, because I don't really care if it takes an extra half hour to render out my hour-long film - I'll be billing for time if it's work and drinking tea and chatting to my wife if it's something I am doing as a hobby. In fact, the ability to let it chug away whilst I stare out of the window is a plus point in my books - it forces me to slow down and relax a little, as opposed to tearing along at 90mph all day, then getting in and doing the same in my leisure time. "Quick enough" means that a machine doesn't take two hours to respond to a key-press, but that it might take a little while to think about some hugely intensive task. It means you might not be able to do fifty things at once all at a million miles per hour, but that you would surely be able to do the tasks you were trying to do. Given that criteria, the G5 is perfect for me and, depending on the cost, I hope to pick up a quad G5 with maximum RAM and top end graphics ASAP.
So, there you go - buy a G5 and avoid a heart attack. Surely that's a tagline that someone can use?
A while ago I posted about the little G3 iMac and the PowerBook G3 I bought and how I thought they were great, which I am sure you remember and, given that I am typing this on the PowerBook, I think it's safe to say I haven't changed my mind just yet. So, when I was recently left to my own devices for a week, I thought I'd investigate this passion for so-called "obsolete" computer stuff. Or, more precisely, Macintosh stuff.
There is a very good reason I stayed away from the PC side of things - they are not in any way inspiring. I can recall my first 396SX machine, but I don't wish to relive that experience. No way am I going back to voluntarily creating DOS batch files just to get a game to work, or having to manually edit Config.sys or Autoexec.bat files in order to get Windows to work, no matter how cool I thought "Catacomb: The Abyss" or "The Rocketeer" were. Besides, I can happily run them on my Vaio as it's still fundamentally x86 architecture.
So, what's so appealing about old Mac stuff? Well, from a purely personal perspective, it goes back to the time I was going to get a computer for studying and doing my GCSE in Computer Studies on. Pocket money, birthday and christmas money and a generous father meant I had about £1500 saved up and I tried out a Macintosh Classic and an LC with 13" colour monitor. Compared to the 12MHz 286-based RM Nimbus harddisc-less machines at school (and they were good for the time, so how old do I feel?), both the Macs felt light years ahead in what they could do, but I couldn't afford the LC, the screen, software and a printer, and my dad wasn't keen on me spending hours in front of a 9" black and white screen. In the end, I was cajoled into buying the 386 and, whilst it did the job, I always felt a bit let down.
Having been a teenage computer geek, I obviously read Personal Computer World regularly (it used to be interesting and covered Mac and Unix as well as DOS - windows was only at 3.0/3.1 at that point) and I harboured a desire to work on machines such as NeXT, Sun and, the Holy Grail - a Silicon Graphics workstation. Unix, with a friendly GUI-led operating system that had multimedia, 3d and digital audio support in 1992? That was the stuff of dreams. In fact, a review of the Iris Indigo stated that whilst the Indigo cost nearly £15,000, as opposed to an average of £1,000 for a 386/486 PC, it was definitely worth the money as it was far more productive than trying to do the work on 10 or more PCs.
Later in life, whilst working as a software developer, I worked on SGI machines and they were truly as good as I'd hoped they would be. I bought myself an SGI Indigo on eBay for £150 (MIPS R4400 processor upgrade at 150MHz, with 192Mb of RAM and the Elan graphics, with 21" inch monitor) some time ago and I loved it.
Given that it was made in 1993, my dad (who is now 66 and who has zero experience of video editing) was able to find his way around and tinker with some video clips within ten minutes. I would personally say that the only systems worth using are a Mac running OSX (with Classic supported), a NeXT machine or an SGI machine running IRIX. Anything else is compromised.
Eventually, I bought myself a swanky new Powermac G4 (I was a early adopter of the G4) running OS9, then later OS X. It was everything I hoped it would be - usable, stable, reliable and a joy to work on. To put it in perspective, I later ran my own business and the Mac G4 was the preferred choice for video editing despite the fact it was sat next to a hugely expensive dual Xeon workstation with 4GB of memory. It just worked better and gave less hassle. Not only that, but I could probably sell the G4 setup for £200 today, despite it's age, whereas the windows machine is essentially worthless. Look on eBay for a used Powermac G5 (a machine that is some 4 or more years old now) and compare that to the cost of a Dell running a four year old Pentium. The price difference is down to the fact that Macs are usable for far longer (their obsolescence is far longer in coming). Windows bloats and bloats and you spend so much time fighting bad OS coding and built-to-a-price hardware, whereas the expensive (comparitively) Apple machines are still good as a workhorse years down the line. If you're more concerned about getting something done than about having the latest new toy, then buy a Mac. You won't ever regret it.
So, what does this have to do with my original point? Well, aside from an urge to pick up a Mac Classic (or, ideally, a Colour Classic II) for the sake of nostalgia, my love of my old Powerbook G3 means that I'm not likely to be playing Quake 4 anytime soon (ok, I have a PS3 and a PSP, but I was talking about computers!), so I looked into the world of abandonware games. My word, there's a ton of cool things you can play on your old Mac and, because in those days we thought the Megadrive (Sega Genesis to our US friends) was graphically amazing, it means gameplay had to be more engrossing and plots had to mean something. With that in mind, I've explored the universe of Cosmic Osmo (this is the first game any child of mine will play!), along with Broken Sword, Monkey Island 1 and 2, Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis, Day of the Tentacle and Sam and Max.
If you noticed a pattern, then you're right - they are all graphical point and click adventures, a genre which is sadly underwhelming nowadays, but in the days when these were made, they were the nearest you'd get to playing a film and enjoying it.
I've posted a few clips to give you an idea of what you are missing - if in doubt, you don't need to buy an old Mac (although I would), you can run them under either ScummVM, or you could download a Mac emulator from the trusty old interweb.
Personal favourites of mine are:
Sam and Max (I love the cartoons, too, as I get the humour)
Indiana Jones and The Fate of Atlantis - a great sequel to The Last Crusade and very funny in parts.
Day Of the Tentacle (again, it's funny as hell and looks great)
The final choice is Broken Sword - great scripting, great graphics, the sound is fantastic and you really get sucked in. I believe I've played Broken sword on every platform it's been released on. The second one is good, too, although the later sequel on the XBox was a bit poor.
So, have a look, enjoy and realise that whilst new games are lovely, sometimes you can't beat something a decade old for sheer enjoyment. And if anyone has an old Mac Classic/Classic II or Colour Classic they want to donate to aloving home, please let me know!
Ok, I've finished Metal Gear Solid 4. In a word - "wow". First up, I don't really want to spoil the plot for you, as the story-telling is what really puts the MGS series apart from its rivals (Splinter Cell, et al), but suffice to say that yes, it was weirdly Japanese in some of its dialogue, but overall it makes for a jaw-dropping experience - if the trailers whetted your appetite, let's just say you won't be left feeling cheated once you've completed it.
One of the rumours flying round the internet is that the game finishes with a final cut scene that is 90 minutes long. This isn't exactly true - it finishes with a series of movies, punctuated by some gameplay/QT Event-style sequences, so that the whole thing plays like a (much) bigger version of the escape sequence in Halo, or the climax of a blockbuster movie. Oh, and without wishing to spoil any surprises, can I just suggest you don't turn off the console as the credits start to roll...
So, was it worth the hype? In short, yes, it was - it won't be everyone's cup of tea and it certainly has the odd moment of hokey dialogue or the odd camera issue in certain areas, but overall those gripes are so minor that they prove very easy to ignore once the game has sucked you in. Critics of the PS3 (hello to all of you 360 fanboyz!) will say that graphics don't make a game, which is a churlish way of saying that they think MGS4 is all show and no go, but the truth is that the in-game graphics look as good as most games' CGI sequences, but the gameplay is more than up to matching that high standard. The graphics are take-your-breath-away stunning in points, but they mainly serve to help you engage with the characters, as the way they interact together and their varying emotional states are portrayed in an eerily realistic manner (at times you really could believe you are watching a live-action movie). I think a lot of the sniping does indeed come from the XBox 360 fraternity who, having watched the PS3 gain momentum, the death of HD-DVD due to the victory of Bluray and also the recurring reports of the Red Ring of Death, are now starting to see the PS3-exclusive titles really show the difference between the platforms (in fact there is a little sequence that makes fun of the storage capacity of non-Bluray formats in the game). Unlike GTA IV, there is no way this game could be played on an Xbox 360 without it requiring the user to change discs at least three or four times, or without cutting the game down hugely to fit the limited storage formats available to the 360.
Is this the last MGS game? Well, Hideo Kojima has struck out on his own and, in reality, the script of this game ties up an awful lot of storylines that have been going on for the last three games, so that it is hard to see where the franchise can go without treading dangerously close to cynical post-mortem equine flagellation. That said, there is a narrow scope for taking the franchise in a new direction, albeit without some familiar names, as the final sequence does make a big show about history repeating itself and there is a new potential faction to contend with, so I could see that being where things go. With Kojima out of the Konami stable, though, can the team left behind carry on his vision without falling down the trap of endless ever-degrading sequels (think Tomb Raider: Angel of Darkness, compared to the impact the first game had) or will they manage to breath life into this old warhorse (in the way Tomb Raider: Legend re-vamped the franchise when compared to the aforementioned Angel of Darkness)? I don't know, but I can safely say they'll have their work cut out to match this solid-gold beauty.
Without doubt the best game out on the PS3, if not any console, with Uncharted currently running in my number 2 spot - this game is an absolute must. You really do need to see it in action before it makes sense, but this game alone puts the PS3 into a league of its own.
Ok, Hideo Kojima's long-awaited, much hyped and potentially platform-defining game is here. I've got it, I've played it and I've done my best to keep up with the plot, so what's the verdict? Should I even try to answer that question?
I'll be honest, I hated the original Playstation. I had a Saturn on which I played Resident Evil, Tomb Raider, Sega Rally and Nights Into Dreams. I had an N64 on which I played Mario 64, Lylat Wars, Diddy Kong Racing, Zelda and Goldeneye. I never felt the urge to buy a PS One - the only game on it that I vaguely enjoyed (and couldn't get on the Saturn) was Die Hard Trilogy (and even then, only for the cab-driving section). Oh and Final Fantasy VII, of course. I mention this only as a reason why I never played the original Metal Gear Solid. I did, however, buy a PS2 and rather enjoyed Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty.
I'll freely admit that some of the cutscenes were more ambitious than the platform really could cope with and that, overall, Splinter Cell on the XBox proved a more engaging experience for me. Despite this, I always appreciated what Kojima was trying to do - he was trying to make a game that didn't just get the trigger-finger twitching - he was trying to engage your brain and emotions and address deeper issues than just "can I sneak by this guard and shoot the bad guy?".
Shenmue 1 and 2 tried to do this in another way and, whilst I consider it one of the truly great experiences on a console (please let there be a Shenmue 3 on PS3!), many of my gaming friends think it's too long-winded and slow. Personally, I felt it had the open-world immersion of something like Eldar Scrolls: Oblivion, or World of Warcraft, without the cliched fantasy stroyline, or the subscription fees. Actually, if you like Hong Kong films, Japanese culture or RPG games, I can't recommend Shenmue 1 and 2 enough. Buy the boxed set on the Xbox, as it's been polished over the Dreamcast release (or buy the Dreamcast and Shenmue for the originality) and just go with it, but I digress...
So, what's the deal with MGS4? Well, it seems to me that, whilst I haven't completed the game as yet (hey, I only got it last week!), it seems to be tying up various storylines that have been around since the first MGS game. I'll be honest and say that some of the dialogue is a bit hokey and sometimes you're just left thinking "if I was Japanese, that probably would have made a lot more sense", but overall, silly codenames aside (Big Boss, Big Mama, Naked Snake, Liquid Snake, Solid Snake, Ocelot...need I go on?), the plot holds together rather well. Yes, I know that a child held captive by soldiers rarely takes on the power of a psychotic horde of Ravens, but it's a computer game, so we need to cut it some slack.
The production values are sky-high, with the various cutscenes being firmly of the "show-your-360-owning-mates-what-they-are-missing" variety - the scene with Raiden and Vamp is a definite winner in that category - and the action sequences are just as good as Splinter Cell, albeit you can't do the more outlandish moves (no hanging by your feet as you zip-line and shoot, etc), but if using the OctoCamo suit to try to sneak past a compund full of enemy soldiers, or hanging off the back of a motorbike with a machine pistol, or trying to take out a machine gun nest with a sniper rifle when you have no cover and are in no man's land between two warring factions doesn't get your blood pumping,then I think you are probably already dead.
So, what's the verdict? Well, as I say, it's not Quake - yes, there is action, but it's more about the adrenalin you feel trying to stay alive than any rampant blood lust - the nearest I can think of is Full Spectrum Warrior on the Xbox: all the gunfire, confusion and struggle to stay alive, without the Uber-Big-Killy-Death-Gun to blast the entire enemy army to pieces. It's not really a direct opponent to Splinter Cell, either, although I'd say that the two compliment each other. Splinter Cell was always more about the action and the graphics, whereas MGS was always more about the story and it can be told via cutscenes (yes some are really long), via in-game dialog and plot points or by the action in the game. The story is first, the gameplay (in some ways) being subservient to it. However, if you own a PS3, a decent TV, have any past history of playing MGS, or games like Shenmue, or even enjoyed a Splinter Cell game, then I think you deserve to give yourself the opportunity to experience this game.
It's not like anything you've played before, yet it's instantly familiar; it's as much about watching plot develop as it is about gameplay; it's slowly-paced, yet the action can be fast and furious... it is a game of contradictions and it is all the more impressive for it. Sure, it's not perfect, but it's close enough - this game, Uncharted: Drake's Fortune, Resistance: Fall of Man, Ratchet and Clank and Assasins' Creed (and GTA 4 if you're that way inclined) are the very definition of Next-Gen and are what your PS3 was made for. Buy it now!
Ok, so I made a mistake. I'm only human and it happens to us all. The mistake I made was to play Uncharted: Drake's Fortune on a TV less than 32" wide and in standard definition. This made the shooting sections almost impossible and, thus, made for a very hit and miss gaming experience. The jumping/story sections were brilliant, but the gunfights were just a drag. However, once I'd installed the LG plasma (got to love that discount from Tesco!) and my wife and I had finished off Assassin's Creed (an awesome game, I don't care what anyone says - the secret is to play it in one or two hour stints, not try and finish it in a day) and the oddly enjoyable Pirates of The Caribbean, we were at a loss for something to play. My wife decided we should start Uncharted from the beginning and, boy, what a difference.
Obviously, watching the game on a 42" plasma at full 1080p is rather nice, but what really amazed me was the difference in the feel of the game. Because things were crisper and more defined (not to mention bigger), the shooting became a more fluid affair, as opposed to the hit-and-miss random bouts of death and frustration they had previously been. Suddenly, the frustrations with the game were gone and the brilliance shone through.
I've been a gamer since I was something like 6 or 7, which means that I have been around games for at least 20 years, and games that truly stand out are few and far between. Things that mean something to me are Turrican 2 on the Commodore 64 (great game, amazingly well done on the platform), Doom on my first PC (386 powerhouse that it was), Sega Rally on the Saturn, the first Tomb Raider (again, on the Saturn), Mario 64, Zelda: Ocarina of Time, Shenmue on the Dreamcast (and Shenmue 2 on the XBox - will they ever make the 3rd?), Half Life, Goldeneye (N64), Final Fantasy VII, Final Fantasy X on PS2, Mystical Ninja Goemon (N64 - brilliant fun and catchy tunes), Zelda: The Wind Waker and Resident Evil 4 on GameCube, The XBox Prince of Persia games (all three), Assasin's Creed and Resistance:Fall of Man on PS3 (for the sheer Next-gen goodness and interesting storyline). Now I can add Uncharted to the list of Games By Which Others Are Measured. In fact, along with Mario 64, Ocarina of Time, Shenmue and the first Tomb Raider, Id' say Uncharted is at the top end of the scale.
Don't get me wrong - it's not perfect by any means, but it is the first truly Next Gen game that I have seen that feels neither rushed, cramped or like it's been ported from old hardware and given a bit of polish. The platforming sections are almost as good as those in Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time/Two Thrones/Enemy Within, The adventure feel is up there with Tomb Raider or an Indiana Jones film, the visuals are astounding, the immersion is on a par with Shenmue and the characters are the first I wanted to actually engage with since, well, maybe Final Fantasy VII.
I know it's out on XBox 360, but really do yourself a favour and try it in full 1080 on a PS3. Once you do, you'll realise just how good the PS3 is and how anything else would just feel like second-best.
Other than that, We've recently been playing Devil May Cry 4 (stuck on the final boss at the moment), which is a great game and another good way to show off your big TV. We picked up a cheap copy of Heavenly Sword, which is actually very good, if rather short - I think Andy Serkis (of "Gollum" fame) makes a great villain and also helped the game developers bring a lot of empathy to the characters - it's a really under-rated title that I can recommend.
But the stand-out new game has got to be Lego Indiana Jones.
I have to admit that I love the lego games. Star Wars: The Orignal Trilogy will make you laugh out loud with some of the cutscenes and hidden moves and the Indy game is no different.
From trying to palm off Belloq with a rubber ducky, to the hidden move where Indy grabs the girl with his whip, pulls her in and kisses her, to transferring Sean Connery's Henry Jones into Lego superbly, this game is packed full of fun.
Yes, you could argue that the game is "childish", but the films are simple wholesome fun and the game follows suit - it's not dark and gothic, there's not a disturbing sub-story and it doesn't offend anyone. Instead, you'll get hours of honest fun and a face that hurts from laughing. I cannot recommend it highly enough. Roll on Lego Batman, says me!
See you again soon!
