Retrospective - Stargate

Kurt Russell as Colonel Jack O'Neil (Stargate, 1994) 

For many of you, the mention of the word Stargate might bring about thoughts of Richard Dean 'Macgyver' Anderson travelling to various destinations across the universe with his SG-1 team, smart mouthing his superiors and getting himself out of ridiculous situations with just a tub of moth balls and a roll of tin foil. Or it might remind you of the later series Stargate Atlantis, or even the recently cancelled Stargate Universe.

But for me, the mention of Stargate brings about thoughts of the distant and mostly disregarded 1994 movie, directed by Roland Emmerich at the highest point of his career. Unlike the TV show, the 1994 movie featured a rather restrained Kurt Russell in the role of Colonel Jack O'Neil. James Spader (Boston Legal) is Daniel Jackson, a role later taken over by Michael Shanks. There is no sign of Samantha Carter here, or the loyal Jaffa Teal'c. Infact, the only actors to appear in both the Stargate movie and the SG-1 TV series are Alexis Cruz as Skaara and Erick Avari as Kasuf. Everyone else is either absent or recast. So for those watching the film for the first time after seeing the TV show, it won't feel much like familiar territory, but the same underlying formula is all there.

Stargate was quite successful on its initial release, launching Emmerich and co-writer Dean Devlin into the mainstream, and presenting them with the opportunity to make more widely recognised movies such as Independence Day in 1996.

Richard Dean Anderson as Colonel Jack O'Neill (Stargate SG-1)

It's no wonder Stargate spawned a TV spin off that ran for 10 years and 10 seasons. The film was rich with ancient conspiracies, Egyptian mythology, new age 90s digital effects and well structured action with a sweeping music score by newcomer David Arnold, who had apparently been working in a video store before he was hired for the movie. All of these elements seemed to spark the imagination of its audiences, and the Stargate itself was the plot device responsible for literally opening up a whole world of franchise opportunity. Quite a number of real Ancient Egyptian historians believe in the existence of a Stargate, some having published extended texts aiming to prove their theories. Others think the pyramids were built by aliens, and all of these theories form the basis of the film, with the character of Daniel Jackson being the voice for these historians and their far flung ideas. It's a movie that answers so many 'what if' questions, and due to a very enthusiastic level of research on the part of the writers, it pulls it off in a convincing fashion.

Patrick Tatopolous' Anubis guard design

But in my mind, there's a far more obvious reason for the success of the movie. The narrative features a team of United States Airmen travelling to a desolate desert world to save its primitive inhabitants from the clutches of an oppressive overlord. Now is that tapping into the mentality of American audiences still sore from a Middle Eastern conflict or what?

The movie's Horus guard design

If I'm completely honest, I prefer the movie to any of the subsequent television adaptations. The film feels much more grand and cinematic, as you would expect. But in addition to that, the concepts are presented much more believably, and the integration of ancient Egyptian cultural reference gives it much more focus than the amalgamation of ideas presented on the show. The realisation of the Horus and Anubis guard costumes by Greek designer Patrick Tatopolous ranks as one of the most memorable and ridiculously cool costume designs in movie history, and Spader and Russell still feel like the definitive versions of their respective characters even after all these years. It's the character progression within the movie that sells them, depicting a Colonel O'Neil tackling the loss of his son by going on an apparent 'suicide mission', while Dr. Jackson is ever the face of optimism despite seemingly insurmountable odds.

Ra's original alien form before the
TV show abandoned the concept

Disappointingly, when adapting Stargate to the TV format, there were a number of changes made that create noticeable inconsistencies between the film and SG-1. In the movie, there were no such characters as the Goa'uld, who are represented in the show as host stealing parasitic worms. In the 1994 feature, Ra is depicted as a bipedal 'Roswell' type alien and described as the last of a dying race who takes human form through possessing a selected host. Other discrepancies between the film and series include various unexplainable character name changes, and a new arrangement of stargate symbols that almost completely re-engineers the gate dialling concept from the film. As you might expect, these inconsistencies have been integrated into the series canon via explanations by fans and extended fiction, but they're still there as a reminder of the original concepts set in motion by the 1994 film.

The Goa'uld parasite as depicted in SG-1

But despite these minor problems, I'm still a fan of SG-1. The first seasons in particular were excellent, with their plot lines expanding upon the themes touched on in the movie. Although the differences between Kurt Russell and Richard Dean Anderson's take on Colonel O'Neil(l) are enormous, both versions of the character are entertaining to watch. But as the series went on, things became overcomplicated, and a noticeable shift from the thematic material of the movie distanced a lot of viewers, including myself. But it could hardly have run for 10 seasons without introducing new concepts along the way, so this was inevitable.

Interestingly, Dean Devlin has explained that he always intended for Stargate to be a trilogy of films, but the rights were snatched up by MGM and rolled into a TV show before they had chance to put a second movie into production. He's now stated as recently as July 2011 that he intends to see the sequels made in an alternate continuity to the TV series, and apparently MGM is interested. Now that Stargate has run its course on TV, perhaps a new movie from the original creators is not such a far fetched idea?

How would you feel about another Stargate movie? Is it too late to resurrect the original cast? Should it be a sequel to the TV shows? Or should it be left well alone?

Sequels, Remakes, Reboots and Re-adaptations

The same origin story twice within 10 years

Every time I read an article on the Internet discussing an impending remake of a beloved classic from 80s cinema, I scroll down to see comments like 'Hollywood has run out of ideas.' With all respect to the comment author, this is simply not true.
I totally agree that current film is overcrowded by sequels, remakes, reboots and re-adaptations. But a lack of originality is not to blame for the derivative and cyclic nature of the film industry. We are.

There are thousands of original ideas and potentially groundbreaking screenplays out there waiting to be adapted into films, but they never get made. From the perspective of a film producer, who is investing millions of dollars in the production of a film, it's much safer to throw money at something that already has an established name, and therefore an existing audience and a guarantee of revenue. Think about it. Even if you're disgusted that your favourite cult movie is being given a fresh coat of paint, you'll go and watch it anyway out of curiosity, therefore selling a ticket that another original movie won't.

Therefore the only 'original' films that get off the ground nowadays are usually funded by independent investors, and although these producers have a much more limited budget, they have a more artisitic agenda and are more likely to support up and coming filmmakers. But unsurprisingly, these films rarely do well at the box office, suffering from a low marketing budget and lack of commercial exposure.

With all things considered, it's worth remembering that although the Hollywood machine delivers an abundance of terrible movies, the franchise/remake mentality has also generated material like Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight and James Cameron's Terminator 2. But franchise films of this quality are few and far between, and usually the product of a master director with a good footing at the studio.
But money is still the driving force here, as although many big name directors started out as artistic independents, they soon became household names and reliable marketing tools for the studios to sell their films with (Tim Burton I'm looking at you). Think of how many movies you've been to watch because the director was responsible for another film you already like, and think of the motive behind the slugline on the poster that reads 'From the Director of...'
When it boils down to it, there are many consistent ways that Hollywood markets it's films nowadays, such as with a big name director or producer, a big name star, or by selling us a sequel or a remake of something we already like. But it's all about selling a product, not high art.

The latest pointless prequel

So essentially, it's quite simple. The film industry supports films they think will fill seats, and refuses to support those that don't. So if you're so fed up with all the reboots and remakes, don't watch them, and instead spend your hard earned money watching a lesser known film from a more deserving director. It's us - the viewers - that decide the popular trends in this massive industry, but we all seem so obsessed with seeing the same material reinvented over and over again.

Game Reviews - November 2011

Being a fan of video games, I both love and hate this time of year. I love it because all of the game publishers in the world see fit to shower us with their finest interactive offerings in time for the christmas rush. I hate it because there's no way anyone human could afford all of these games, let alone find time to play them all to completion, or even just long enough to absorb what they have to offer.
Over the past months, I've played a number of these pre-christmas titles, and here I will attempt to briefly review four of them.

Gears of War 3 was the first game bought this Winter season. I can start by saying it's the best entry in the Gears franchise by a substantial margin, and although I was initially hesitant to pick up a 3rd game in the same series (as with movies, one would like to indulge in something more original once in a while) it was still worth the asking price. Despite its reluctance to stray too far from the formula laid out in the previous two games, a solid campaign wraps up the narrative in a satisfying way, and the frantic and violent multiplayer returns with some new features and an enhanced levelling and unlock system. Horde mode has been given a fresh breath of life with a set of constructible fortifications and upgrades that allow you to defend strategically alongside your teammates, and a range of additional competetive multiplayer modes increase the carnage to epic proportions. Not only that, it's one of the best looking games to run on my Xbox 360, and it's a riot in both local splitscreen modes, across the web with friends and with random opponents. The local multiplayer option for both Horde and Campaign definitely adds to the value of the package for me, making this game a viable contender for party game of choice. But all in all, it is just more Gears, and I'd be lying to you if I said there was anything groundbreaking here. If you're happy with a sequel that regurgitates the same idea, but refines it into a package which is the most focused and enjoyable in the series so far, then this is highly recommended. 7/10

Batman: Arkham City is a vast improvement over its predecessor. Rather than restrict the player to the confines of Arham Asylum as in the first game, this time the playground is a run-down area of Gotham City consisting of abandoned police department buildings, dark streets, gothic churches, crumbling subways and towering city blocks. Many have claimed that with this sequel, developer Rocksteady have made the game a free-roaming experience, but infact they've just taken the construct of Asylum and expanded it over a larger area. The game still consists of Batman villains occupying certain locales across the map, randomly generated gang members populating areas inbetween, and invisible boundaries keeping the player within a smaller-than-expected wedge of Gotham (try gliding down from the wonder tower without hitting an invisible barrier and you'll see what I mean). The 'free roaming' element of the game was a minor disappointment in that respect, however there is much enjoyment to be found stepping into the shoes of the Dark Knight in the Gotham City environment, and there is plenty to do within that space. The true star of the show is the game's refined fighting mechanic, and swooping down from a rooftop to dispatch a band of thugs with a puff of concealing smoke and a flurry of fists is an experience that is almost entirely unique to this game, mainly because it makes you feel like Batman. The game also looks great in terms of both graphical quality and artistic interpretation of characters and Gotham scenery, and although the gameplay here is purely designed for the single player, there is plenty to do even when the gripping main story missions are completed. For me though, the longevity of a game like this is questionable, as even an abundance of side-quests and trophies can't prevent me from seeking some multiplayer violence and online progression. To conclude, Arkham City is a great game, but it could have been better with a more living and populated world as the setting for Batman's crime fighting antics. I'm not saying in the next installment of the series I expect to be driving the Batmobile around the city with Joker's thugs plastered to the bonnet. This is no GTA clone and I never want it to be, but I would also never be naive enough to say Arkham City was the definitive Batman game, as there's cleary still room for improvement. 7/10

Battlefield 3 hasn't been done any favours by the big talkers at EA, who have been very busy telling everyone how much they want to knock Call of Duty off the top of the sales charts, and thus building an expectation that BF3 is the new and valid alternative to Call of Duty when infact it's a different type of first person shooter entirely. Not only that, but this competitive mentality has caused the game developers to create the weakest and most derivative portion of the game - the short campaign, which tries too hard to be like Call of Duty, but fails in almost every way to be entertaining at all.
Now that Call of Duty has been released, it's clear that Activision's title will most definitely be holding onto that top sales slot for yet another year. But I strongly believe that, although Battlefield 3 may not demand to be played with the immediacy of MW3, it almost certainly has a longer life expectancy in terms of replayability and the durability of its new game engine.
Battlefield's strength has always been in its multiplayer modes, and it's here that the game succeeds undeniably. Featured are huge matches with sprawling maps and high player counts, the inclusion of ground sea and air vehicles, a sandbox style physics destruction engine that forces players to change tactics on the fly, and a squad based mechanic that encourages teamwork and support based actions. A huge array of weapons and upgrades are here, perhaps managing to top the vast arsenal presented to players in Call of Duty. But in Battlefield, weapons handle more uniquely, with no limitation of which attachment can be assigned to which weapon. If you wish, you can put a red dot sight and tactical flashlight on a sniper rifle and try your luck blinding people and hitting them with a close range one shot kill. Unlocking the next weapon or upgrade is genuinely satisfying and leads to lots of weapon experimentation, and there's plenty to keep the most committed players focused for quite some time.
BF3 can hardly be called realistic, but it distances itself from the simulation genre and injects just enough action game design to convince the player they're involved in an factual depiction of warfare, without the mundane accuracy sometimes employed in games like Operation Flashpoint. But while steering away from ultra realism, Swedish developer DICE also know not to indulge themselves too much and create an almost arcade-type experience in the vein of Call of Duty, reducing the formula to a simple question of 'who should I shoot next?'
Battlefield can be played any number of ways, allowing you to become the top scoring player in a match by sniping accurately from afar, by jumping into the fray with close range weapons, by booby trapping buildings and roads for the next unsuspecting passer-by, by aerial bombardment, by support actions such as medication and repair, by armoured assault and so on and so forth.
Before you assume that I'm an entirely biased reviewer who's going to take every opportunity to throw dirt in the direction of Call of Duty, I can tell you that Battlefield 3 isn't a perfect game. To get the negative points out of the way, the game has some irritating bugs, and release week saw a number of server related issues that probably lost the game a lot of potential fans. In addition to that, BF3 has been promoted entirely using footage taken from the PC version, which looks incredible. The current generation of consoles are nearing the end of their lifespan now, and this is clearly demonstrated by the need to install HD textures to the gaming platform's hard drive to see the game in highest quality. I can tell you the game doesn't look quite as good on an Xbox 360. This is fair enough, as Battlefield was bred for the PC platform and it's only fitting that the game gets a PC version that breaks new ground in the visual department, but the resulting console release receives graphics which vary from 'stunning in terms of console capability' to 'downright ugly.' This doesn't mean it looks awful. It could more than hold its own against the likes of Call of Duty on the console. The dynamic lighting from flashlights and explosions, the visual presentation of flaming wreckage and the finite detail on weapon models is very impressive, and all generated in real time by an engine that seems to put the Xbox 360 hardware to the test. The overall presentation is polished and detailed, and special mention must go to the sound design which is possibly the best I've heard in a video game to date. But in terms of graphical draw distance, slow buffering of high resolution textures and the obvious compression of distant objects, the console version suffers considerably. Anyone expecting to see visuals as represented in the trailers should go for the PC version, but those interested in playing on that platform will have made that decision already. (NOTE: Subsequent patches and expansion packs have improved the visuals of the Xbox version of Battlefield 3 significantly, but the consequence of the existing HD texture pack and all these updates is now a mandatory hard drive install of nearly 13 Gigabytes.)
This Winter season, I bought Battlefield 3 and not Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3. I intend to get MW3 at a later date, but for now, I'm entirely happy with my decision. Battlefield is a unique experience in that it allows a personal approach to every single battle. If you want to take a fighter jet and ram it facefirst into someone's battle tank at full throttle, your mastery of piloting that aircraft might come into question, but you've still been permitted to approach that situation as you saw fit. And the game encourages you to make these decisions, rather than force limitations upon you that funnel you into a narrow and repetetive pattern of run and gun gameplay. Its a game that doesn't assume you just want to kill things in vanilla fashion, but that you want to kill things in the most artistic way possible, and in between killing actually have time to consider that all important and drastically overlooked word in the FPS arena: strategy!
BF3 provides you with the battleground and the tools with which to ensure your team victory, and then it lets you go about your business. 9/10

The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim is difficult to sum up in one short article. That's partly because it's a rich open world game with numerous approaches to the gameplay, and a customisation system that ensures that no two people's game experiences are the same. It's also partly because I'd much rather be playing it than writing about it.
Skyrim has received universal praise across the board from both critics and gamers alike, and while I think it's an incredible game, I can't admit to believing it's perfect in every way. And i'm not saying that just for the sake of opposing popular opinion - I genuinely do love Skyrim, but for all the times I'm telling people how incredible the game is, there's an equal measure of time that I'm cursing the clunky combat system and the supposed 'quick' inventory system that isn't quick at all. There are bugs in the game which break missions and force you to reload previous save games, and minor visual flaws which involve mammoths falling from the sky. I'm well aware that technologically, this game is a giant leap forward from the likes of Fallout 3, and even moreso from the last Elder Scrolls entry, but if this were any other game, you'd be disgusted at such immersion breaking problems.
Yet despite this, these bugs and annoyances aren't at the forefront of my mind. What I keep thinking about is the open world of Skyrim - the beautiful open landscapes, the unique locations and characters inhabiting them, and the thought of what I havn't explored yet and what might be round the next corner. Skyrim presents a world in its entirety - places, people, myths, beliefs and a rich history. There are hundreds of books scattered throughout the map, each providing a fresh insight into the world you're exploring and a slice of game enriching detail, and reading some will earn you skill enhancing knowledge. They are but one example of the care and attention invested in this world, but I could name so many others. You don't play Skyrim, you become part of its world until the minute you cease to play. It's escapism in its purest digital form.
And that is the reason for Skyrim's success. It offers one of the most detailed fantasy worlds in any contemporary medium - perhaps even rivalling Tolkien's Middle-Earth for unbelievable attention to detail. When taking all that into consideration, the bugs seem like minor flaws in a much broader picture, and aren't the part of the game that will leave a lasting impression.
I bought Skyrim with the intention of working my way through the quests slowly, at my own pace, leisurely exploring the world and levelling my character to a point where I could tackle enemies with ease. Unfortunately, my partner - who rarely plays video games at all - has developed quite a liking for Skyrim, created her own character and outlevelled me in a matter of days. While this is quite upsetting, it's also shown me how different another player's experience of the game can be, with her character sharing almost nothing in common with mine, having tackled an entirely different range of side missions and NPC encounters. And it demonstrates how wide reaching the appeal of Bethesda's new creation really is, with the most non-typical gamers enthusiastic to play. Although the experience is hardly flawless, it's more than enough to keep us all occupied until the studio releases more content, or their next overwhelmingly immersive open-world RPG title.
9/10

Drive - Review

As I left the cinema following the closing credits of Drive, I realised I'd just experienced an incredible piece of filmmaking - the likes of which only comes around very, very rarely - and I couldn't stop talking about it. Remarkably, within 10 minutes of the film's opening sequence, I'd already decided it was my favourite film of the year, but by the time the credits rolled, I knew without a doubt that it was a potent anti-blockbuster that would develop a cult following within no time. The movie unfolds with a tense and realistic getaway chase that places the viewer in the passenger seat of an escaping vehicle, followed by a pop-noir styled main title sequence edited to a pulsing 80's style soundtrack. It was clear to see why Drive had left with the best-director prize at this year's Cannes film festival.

I had high hopes for Drive from the outset. Not only was it under the control of Danish Director Nicholas Winding Refn, who managed to launch Tom Hardy to ultimate stardom in the unlikely role of Bronson in 2009, but it was also the action vehicle that was tipped to launch actor/musician Ryan Gosling into the public eye. Originally pitched as a blockbuster action title with Hugh Jackman attached to star (which seems an impossibility once you see Gosling in the role), the script eventually changed hands and was redefined as a lower budget film that could appeal to both fans of mainstream genre films, and those who enjoy a more alternative, art-house approach to their cinema experience.

Drive tells the story of an un-named 'Driver,' who uses his expert skill behind the wheel to take work as a stunt man and race driver during the day, and getaway driver-for-hire by night. He has a set of rules which define his operation - no guns, no helping the criminals run it down - he just drives. After becoming involved with the plight of his neighbour Irene and her son, the Driver develops feelings for her that change his situation entirely, and he gets inevitably drawn into her conflict.

Drive doesn't really spend any time exploring character origins or specific details, and certainly doesn't feel the need to explain anything we don't really need to know. Dialogue is also fairly sparse, and the conversations that do take place do so with a natural flow. There are many telling smiles and awkward glances that tell as much story as the words themselves do.

The overall plot isn't exactly revolutionary, and revisits ideas seen in many similar genre pieces, but with artistic and unique directing choices, it manages to feel fresh and inventive regardless of it's well worn formula. To those complaining that Drive is weak on plot, narrative detail wasn't the focus here anyway. The subject of Drive is the un-named protagonist and his character arc, and a fascinating character he is. At the beginning of the movie, he is almost shy and reserved, and we know very little about him. He comes across as gentle and caring, and hardly the violent type. His refusal to carry a weapon reinforces our belief that the driver is of a more peaceful disposition. Then as the film escalates into violence and Irene is endangered, the Driver suddenly becomes more and more brutal as he dispatches one would be assailant after another in an attempt to protect her from harm. The brutality of his actions reaches a peak during the latter part of the film that culminates in the elevator scene, and the violence reaches a shocking climax. As we look on the Driver through Irene's eyes, we wonder how a character who was so gentle at the beginning of the movie could be transformed so dramatically into a remorseless killer, and in that moment we realise it's because of his feelings for her, and the scene immediately tells a whole story within itself. The collision of violence, romance and suspense in this pivotal sequence is quite staggering, and the entirety of it is told without a single line of dialogue, clearly displaying Refn's unique and powerful directional ability. In Drive, actions do indeed speak louder than words.

Credit must go to the casting department, for there isn't a single bad casting choice here, and it seems that everyone knew they were involved in something particularly special. Brian Cranston of AMC's Breaking Bad is well cast as the Driver's partner and mentor, Carey Mulligan is appropriately vulnerable as Irene, and Albert Brooks is far more than a two-dimensional villain stereotype. Even Ron Perlman - who has garnered a reputation over the last few years of signing onto one terrible film after another - turns in a brilliant and unexpected role and gets some fantastic dialogue.
Director Refn seems to present these potent characters so effortlessly, that all other details feel inconsequential, and I was thoroughly absorbed in their world. I'll be greatly anticipating his next film, Only God Forgives, and it's interesting to see Gosling attached to star here too.

Drive is in equal parts thrilling, romantic, violent and nostalgic. But essentially it's a tragic love story, described by Gosling himself as a Romeo and Juliet for the modern era. The nameless hero of the story is so selfless in his defence of Irene that he sacrifices all personal desires to ensure that she is safe. The song by College fills in on the soundtrack where the dialogue is void, describing the Driver as a 'real hero, and a real human being.' It's the Driver's selfless acts that subconsciously resonate with audience members, and perhaps this is the real human being that so many of us wish we could be. Thankfully, Drive is an incredibly well balanced movie, and the love story doesn't force itself upon us, instead letting the emotional themes simmer beneath the stunning visuals, the sound of squealing tires, and a crackling 80's electro soundtrack.

Forgotten Hope 2 - Review

While everyone else is mentally preparing themselves for the release of Battlefield 3, and the inevitable toll it will take on people's social lives as they attempt to unlock every weapon set and achievement under the sun, I've been spending my time with the classic Battlefield 2 on the PC, and enjoying the return of an old friend lost from the series known as 'going prone.'

But this is no vanilla Battlefield 2 I've been playing. Rather than return to the sandy deserts of 2005's modern warfare blockbuster, I've been satisfying my cravings for a decent new World War 2 game with the mod Forgotten Hope 2.

Forgotten Hope 2 is a total conversion modification for Battlefield 2 which, as you would expect, puts the focus on the multiplayer and delivers one of the most immersive World War 2 experiences I've ever seen in a game. In terms of detail and scale, it surpasses anything achieved in the genre by any fully-fledged game studio, and to think this was all done by a group of volunteer developers is remarkable. Forgotten Hope 2 won the ModDB 'Mod of the Year' award in 2010, and I'm honestly convinced that if it was a retail title, and not constructed on a dated graphics/physics engine, it would be a true contender for the title of top World War 2 shooter. It just goes to show what a Dev team can do with total control over a project, outside the constraints and time restrictions of a studio.

The main interface of the game is roughly the same as the original BF2 design, requiring an EA online account to begin playing on various Forgotten Hope servers, kept running by donations from a generous fan community. Once into the match, you'll find yourself in either North Africa, Normandy, Greece, Germany, Luxembourg or Belgium during World War 2. The maps themselves - although leaving something to be desired by the modern gamer in terms of graphical quality - are something to marvel at when considering their scope, realism and historical accuracy. These aren't just generic maps thrown together for the purpose of a good gameplay experience. Each map depicts a specific real life WW2 battlefield location, and the developers must have seriously done their homework, as the terrain is a very good representation of what the locations would have looked like during the 1940s, with roads, buildings, rivers, bunkers and trees in the actual places of their real life counterparts. Rather than force the maps to work, the designers have simply imitated the real terrain and let the rest flow its natural course. Here is a good post on the official forum showing map similarities to the real life locations.

The assortment of maps vary in size, from close quarters suburban encounters to expansive stretches of rolling countryside, woodland and desert. Each plays differently, as the movements and tactical options of troops moving from flag to flag are designed to echo the tactical restrictions of the actual battlefield in question. The Africa maps are visually the least impressive, having been included when the Mod was first released, but the more recent Western Front maps feature a much greater level of detail. Grass covered fields and meadows provide cover for crawling infantry, hedges and ditches provide safe passage for otherwise exposed players, explorable buildings and church towers allow snipers to sit atop the scenery and spot incoming units from afar, and long roads and railway lines snake off to the limit of the viewing distance.

The game engine is six years old, and in an industry of rapidly evolving technology, that qualifies as ancient. But with all the meticulous details and masses of rustling foliage - especially in the Normandy maps - the designers have managed to hide its age well, and deliver a huge number of maps (36 at present) that are nothing short of impressive. Seeing an enemy tank rumbling towards you as you lay hidden in a stretch of hedgerow - knowing that one bullet is absolutely fatal in this refinement of the Battlefield formula - is particularly tense and satisfying.

As far as game models are concerned, an equal amount of consideration is shown towards detail and accuracy. I can't recall seeing a single static object in this mod that's been lazily plucked from the core game and dumped onto the new maps, and although there are some to be found, they remain so well hidden that I certainly couldn't identify them. Almost everything down to the finest detail has been created from scratch. That's quite insane when you consider that five armies are fully represented here, including soldiers from seven different nations. The British army alone has twenty-five unique weapons, thirty-two ground vehicles, seven aircraft and six stationary artillery weapons. And depending which map you find yourself on, a selection of weapons will be assigned according to historical availability during that particular battle, and vehicles will be skinned differently according to campaign or weather conditions. I assure you, that no matter where you look, you won't find a World War 2 game that takes its fine details more seriously.

So it looks alright for it's age, and the maps are packed full of detailed places to lay low and plan your assault. But how does it actually play?

Forgotten Hope 2 isn't a perfect game experience at all. Infact, I recall playing it for the first time and being quite shocked by the clumsy jumping function and archaic keyboard mapping. Trying three times to leap over a waist-high wall while bullets are flying past your head is a little bit absurd when considering Call of Duty's auto-scaling mechanic, but games have improved a lot since 2005. Also sadly missed is the destruction system incorporated by Dice in the more recent iterations of Battlefield, such as Bad Company 2, where the Frostbite engine is used to simulate destruction on an entirely convincing level. Firing a tank's gun at a wall in FH2 results in nothing but dust and smoke, and the absence of this destruction feature is felt if you're used to playing the contemporary versions of the game.

It's plainly obvious that all of the above complaints are down to limitations of the original core game, and can't really be held against Forgotten Hope 2, which squeezes far more out of the Refractor 2 game engine than Dice ever managed to, and more than makes up for its own shortcomings. We as gamers have been utterly spoiled by the best technology the interactive entertainment industry has to offer, and the gameplay here isn't bad at all. Once you get used to the fact that there are a few age related flaws, you'll realise this was cutting edge technology back in 2005 (bullet material penetration) and the game engine is sturdy and very playable. It may not be competetive with current game design, but Refractor 2 certainly isn't a bad engine. There's quite an experience to be had here. The more you play, the more involved you get, and the more other first-person shooters just seem to pale in comparison.

Accuracy and timing is key to surviving on the battlefield, as even with standard rifles and carbines, shooting distances are incredibly lengthy and realistic. Peeking down the tiny reticule of your ironsight and seeing an unidentified footsoldier as a few tiny pixels on the horizon (at 1080p) is quite a common occurrence, but all the more satisfying when you can drop him from that range. Recoil is vicious, so unless your firing location is very well concealed, you wont often get a chance to line up your sights for a second shot before someone homes in on you. It's at this point when I realised that trying to jump over waist-high walls wasn't the best idea anyway, and it was much more beneficial to my health to crawl around them unnoticed.

Weapon combat in Forgotten Hope 2 is about as real as it gets, as in almost every instance a single bullet will kill. When you first start playing, you'll get used to the pop, whizz and crack of a bullet appearing from God-knows-where and flinging you to the dirt in a tumble of amusing ragdoll physics. It's a case of having a keen eye and being quick to take the shot, but despite the frustration involved in dying so quickly and frequently, things get easier as you become accustomed to the setup, and there's much more satisfaction to be had from gaining a kill here than in any other first person shooter I'm familiar with.

Vehicles are employed well in the game. Seeing a tank rumbling towards you as you plod down the street with a rifle in hand is an encouraging sign to dive into the nearest door or window, or simply play dead. Like other Battlefield games, enemy units remain unmarked on the mini-map unless 'spotted' by yourself or an allied player, so playing dead can often be a very valid tactic. The tank, on the other hand, finds it very difficult to hide, and can easily be outsmarted by fast moving troops on the street with explosive charges. The balancing is good, so nobody can enter a vehicle and spend the next hour on a killing spree.

But what this mod nails so well is the atmosphere. Wide open fields bordered by hedgerows that conceal narrow country lanes. Dead livestock littering farmyards and flocks of birds scattering from the sound of a gunshot. Eruptions of dirt flying skyward as artillery rains down around allied soldiers, rushing to find a covered position to plan their approach across open terrain. Spitfires and Messerschmitts dogfighting high in the sky, diving down for lethal strafing runs at scurrying units on the ground. German MG42s spraying lead across the frontline. It's all here, and unlike the corridor based WW2 shooters that have obliterated the market, it lets you play the game however you want. In the spirit of the Battlefield name, Forgotten Hope 2 doesn't just concentrate on the deeds of an individual soldier in a tunnel view of warfare, but instead creates a convincing backdrop and the means to go into combat, and lets you decide the rest.

If World War 2 shooters really are your preference, and you can overlook the older graphical finish to this fantastic mod, it comes highly recommended. Infact, I'd happily say if you don't atleast try it, you're missing out on something that stands not just as an unbelievable undertaking in game modification, but also as true competition for the games we spend £40 for. And in Forgotten Hope 2, you probably get more content. The mod is being updated all the time with new maps, vehicles and weapons (a recent update added some post-processing effects that arguably improve the look of the game) and I doubt the community will let the support of their project slide for some time to come. 

Forgotten Hope 2 v2.4 with extra post-processing effects (focus blur while aiming)

The highlight of the game? Definitely the Ramelle/Neuville map, which takes the fictional scenario shown at the end of Saving Private Ryan, where Tom Hanks and co. defend the bridge from a German armoured division. The ruined town, as seen in the film, is recreated so well in-game that you'll be running around scouting out your favourite movie locations within minutes.

The Saving Private Ryan map

Playing Forgotten Hope 2 will cost you next to nothing. You will need only the following items, in this order:

• A copy of Battlefield 2 - no expansion packs needed, just the core game. You can get it for £3.99 on Amazon or Play (bargain)
• Battlefield 2 patch 1.41
• Battlefield 2 patch 1.50
• Forgotten Hope 2 (Latest Version) part 1, 2 and 3 from here
• Manually install Punkbuster from here and make sure Battlefield 2 is added to the program list

Game of Thrones - Series 1 Review

I'm not normally into this sort of thing, but there's been so much buzz about this show around the internet, I had to give it a watch.

To be as brief as possible, Game of Thrones is a 10 episode series based on the first in a series of books by George R. R. Martin, and as the title suggests, it's about the political plotting and head-severing vilolence involved in winning the throne of Westeros from the grasp of competing houses. I haven't read the books, but the majority of this first series is rooted in a real-world sort of fantasy, reminiscent of our own medieval ages, with only glimmers of high-fantasy shining through. I have reason to believe this might change significantly for season 2, as a number of our fantasy genre expectations will be more fully addressed.

So what did I think of it? Well, it's great, if a bit slow moving for a first season, but no doubt this is due to loyalty to the source material. The entire series plays out like an extended introduction to the events that will follow in season 2 (an adaptation of the second book), so tension building, political plotting, character development and story setup is the main emphasis here. Don't expect any huge battles this time around.
As someone who hasn't read the books, I found there was enough information for me to quickly pick up on who was who, and what was going on without it being overtly thrust in my face. I've no doubt though, that for readers of the books, this is Game of Thrones Lite with simplified characters and significantly less depth.
It genuinely took me by surprise on a number of occasions aswell, as the narrative moved in a completely different direction than expected. This was nice and one of the most notable things about this series for me, and also a true reason I'm glad I hadn't read the book first.
It's also very obvious this is a HBO series, coming from the same producers as TV's Rome. The violence is quite strong in places, and the creators certainly aren't shy of sex and nudity. It earns its 18 rating well, and it gets bonus points for being a TV show geared for adults, and not pandering to the lucrative teen market.

Game of Thrones is well worth watching, and I know this because I'm now considering reading the books myself before the second season arrives. A true fantasy epic suited well to the episodic TV format, the series is a good start to something that could be even greater with further developments in season 2, and a higher budget with which to bring the fantasy world to life.

A Game of Thrones prequel real time strategy game, based on the books, is on its way for PC also, which I might just pick up on release. Well done Game of Thrones for managing to kick off a big fantasy franchise that isn't in any way related to Lord of the Rings.

A Game of Thrones: Genesis on PC

Retrospective - Call of Duty

This multiplayer map was copied almost identically from the real-life location of Carentan, Normandy. That's dedication.

Back in the day, when the Call of Duty franchise was based on the Quake 3 engine, there were no perks or weapon modifications, no ridiculous far fetched Russian world invasions, no online ranking or prestiges, and the series was most definitely rooted in the meticulously recreated reality of World War 2. No matter how addictive or widely selling the current Modern Warfare entries of the franchise are, I miss World War 2. I miss having a bash at taking down the Third Reich single handedly, and the gritty atmosphere of a digitally-rendered occupied Europe.

MOH: Allied Assault - defining the genre

Sometime during the creation of blockbuster movie Saving Private Ryan (1998), Steven Spielberg decided the Second World War would make a pretty cool video game, and if kids were going to be playing games and shooting at things, they should be learning something aswell. His concept was for an action game based on the war with the Nazis, and he set about directing and producing the first Medal of Honor (we English spell it Honour btw) with his own company Dreamworks Interactive. The game was a huge hit on the original Playstation and spawned numerous sequels, including Medal of Honor: Underground, which follows the movements of resistance operatives fighting the Germans in occupied Europe, and the particularly successful PC based Medal of Honor: Allied Assault by game developer 2015, which closely mirrors entire sequences from the aforementioned Spielberg movie. Still under the guidance of Spielberg, it featured groundbreaking gameplay which allowed the player to storm the beaches of Normandy, and became the template for every WW2 shooter to follow.

Call of Duty - clearly using the Allied Assault template

While the Medal of Honor series branched out further, spawning titles for various platforms and delving into the Pacific conflicts, members of the Allied Assault development team at 2015 went on to establish the Infinity Ward studio. Their objective was to continue developing their previous concepts under the Call of Duty name, in an environment where they would have more creative freedom.

The first Call of Duty game from Infinity Ward, released in 2003, plays like a very refined and more realistic version of Allied Assault. It deservedly won numerous Game of the Year awards, and made quite an impact on me as a gamer. I'd been a massive fan of Allied Assault, and to find Call of Duty had improved on such a flawlessly entertaining game was mindblowing. It doesn't matter how many COD or MOH games I've played since, I just can't forget some of the incredibly convincing and atmospheric moments in that game. And as I watch the evolution of the Call of Duty franchise - from the graphically superior but mostly underwhelming sequel Call of Duty 2, to the Zombie Survival modes and Michael Bay-like destruction in Black Ops and Modern Warfare 2 - I wonder what Mr. Spielberg thinks of the latest iterations of the gaming series he helped create back in the late 90s?

Pegasus Bridge - the finest level of the single player campaign

Maybe I'm overly nostalgic, but I genuinely think Call of Duty is the best game in the series, and superior to anything else in the genre. The game features a campaign that flows effortlessly from start to finish. It's one of the only games I've restarted immediately after completion and gone for a second consecutive playthrough - the number of times I've played through the campaign far exceeds any other game.

The multiplayer features the best range of maps the series has ever seen - particular highlights being the wide open hedgerows and fields of Bocage, the trenches and open country of Brecourt, and the narrow town streets of Carentan. The maps are wide open and so well designed, that the developer seems to reskin and revisit atleast one of these maps with every subsequent Call of Duty game.

The game atmosphere is pitch perfect, capturing the unique feel established in Allied Assault and refining it to perfection. Music by Michael Giacchino (Star Trek, Super 8) is possibly the best written for a video game, being every bit as good as the music heard in any Hollywood production. The music underscores the key moments of the game for full dramatic impact, rather than take a redundant ambient role which would have been the more obvious and less exciting route for a composer to take on a game like this. Dynamic and high-profile scores from composers such as Joel Goldsmith, Graeme Revell, Harry Gregson-Williams and Hans Zimmer have since become a staple of the Call of Duty franchise.

Call of Duty was created back in a time when Infinity Ward was free to make whichever game it wanted to, and as a newly formed company they really had something to prove to the gaming community. They were trying to make the definitive WW2 action game, and the first time round they succeeded. While Gray Matter Studios handled the United Offensive add-on (the last time Call of Duty saw a full expansion pack if I remember), Infinity Ward worked on Call of Duty 2, in which we received a nice new graphics engine developed in-house by IW. The visuals were a huge upgrade from the first game, but there was just something missing from this installment in terms of the feel of the overall package. Notably, the best maps in the multiplayer here were the re-textured ones from the first Call of Duty.

With Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, IW delivered the goods again with a modern era campaign that felt convincingly real, but didn't resort to the action movie cliches that would later blight the series. The game here uses an even more advanced Infinity Ward Proprietary Engine that made the series look better than ever. I enjoy COD4 immensely, and would happily rate it as a close contender for best Call of Duty game, but regardless of how highly many other people rate it, I still prefer the ironsights and bayonets of the classic Call of Duty to the laser targeting and chopper strikes of the newer games.

Call of Duty 4 - the sniper level

Call of Duty1 and 4 have something in common - they're rooted in reality. They both strive to achieve a convincing approach to their depiction of warfare, and this feel of authenticity adds to the gameplay experience in spades. Anything beyond Call of Duty 4 brings far fetched ideas such as Russians (most overused modern era villains) trying to take over the world (again), resulting in American forces fighting them off in downtown burger bars and on the front lawn of the ruined White House. I couldn't stomach this, and the upcoming Modern Warfare 3 looks about as over the top and fantastical as a real-world shooter can get, responding to the demands of the competition by trying to make each subsequent game bigger and more explosive.

It seems that these days, Infinity Ward is merely part of the Activion money-machine which involves routinely releasing a new Call of Duty game every year, juggling the load between Infinity Ward and Treyarch. The newest entries in the COD series feel manufactured and created out of contractual obligation, wheras the original Call of Duty feels like a game with some real heart behind it.

There was a point when the games market was so overcrowded with World War era shooters that gamers everywhere cried out for something new, and they got the Modern Warfare games, modern era Battlefield games and the Medal of Honor reboot (developed by Danger Close, a reformed division of Spielberg's Dreamworks Interactive). Now it feels like the same is happening all over again, and I'm genuinely getting tired of the hi-tech contemporary action games that are flooding the market as every developer takes a crack at being the best. Right now, I'd really quite like to see somebody go back to basics and make a WW2 shooter that ups the ante again, and does it better and more convincingly than ever before.

Modern Warfare 3 - Michael Bay would be proud

In late 2010, Activision fired key members of Infinity Ward for apparent 'insubordination,' and as a result 46 members of the key development team upped and left for undisclosed reasons, all but disbanding the company that had been designing our favourite military shooter for 7 years. This has caused Activision to contract developer Sledgehammer Games to co-develop Modern Warfare 3 alongside the remainder of the Infinity Ward team. For this reason, I don't hold out a lot of hope for the Call of Duty franchise. The key ingredients which made it so successful are slowly being watered down to a rag-tag Activision team, and the not so talented Treyarch.
As far as I'm concered, Infinity Ward is no longer the games developer it used to be, but merely a name printed on the cover of a game to help Activision convince us to buy it.

For anyone who hasn't played the game before, the original Call of Duty is highly recommended and is also available to download from the Xbox Live Arcade. For those fixated on cutting edge graphics, perks, weapon attachments and killstreaks, the game may seem primitive in comparison to what's available now. For me, Call of Duty is the definitive title in the history of WW2 action games, and a striking effort from a group of developers who had been working to perfect the formula for many years. It's a classic bit of gaming which is in many ways superior to the subsequent efforts in the genre.

Music from the Pegaus Bridge level by Michael Giacchino - the most memorable section

of the game and possibly one of my all time favourite gaming moments.

Interestingly, Dave Mirra Freestyle BMX developer Z-Axis was working on a Call of Duty game between 2007 - 2009 when it was cancelled by Activision. Call of Duty: Devils Brigade would have been set entirely in Italy during World War 2, and would have been Call of Duty 4 had Activision seen the project through to completion. By this point though, the World War 2 setting had become overused and stale due to such an overabundance of WW2 games on the market, so Activision returned to Infinity Ward and decided to move the game setting to present day. Below are screenshots of the Devils Brigade in development.

Most Wanted List

I never pretend to be one of these 'professional' type gamers who spend most of their waking hours immersed in some virtual world somewhere. I am purely the hobbyist, spending a few hours on the weekend getting my kicks by shooting some 12 year olds on Battlefield or causing wanton free-roaming destruction. But like anyone remotely interested in gaming, I have a checklist of all the upcoming titles I want to play, and here it is.

The Elder Scrolls: Skyrim
I can honestly say I never finished the Elder Scrolls: Oblivion. From what I've heard, it was one of the longest offline RPGs to play through, and take the add-on content into account and I would probably still be struggling to see the light of day if i'd persevered. But here comes Skyrim, and despite the knowledge that I'll have to fully sacrifice my social life for even the slimmest chance of seeing this new game through to completion, I'm still going to buy it. Stunning updated open-world graphics, lots of ideas carried across from the successful Fallout 3 (which is Bethesda's best game) improved dual wielding combat, more immersive dialogue sections and free-roaming dragons. What's not to like?

 

Aliens Colonial Marines
This game has been delayed almost as long as Duke Nukem Forever (also published by Gearbox) and look how badly that turned out. Although I'm not holding out much hope for this game actually delivering the goods, it's still on my most anticipated list. Touted as the 'true' sequel to James Cameron's Aliens, and bringing back all the things we loved so much about that film - like pulse rifles, drop ships, hard-ass marines and lots and lots of blue tinted lighting - this game will be a nostalgic and terrifying trip. If it's not crap.

Battlefield 3
Battlefield Bad Comany 2 has occupied the majority of my casual gaming time for the last year. And that's right, I havn't been playing Call of Duty. Infact, Call of Duty is nowhere to be seen on this list at all. Strange you say? In my personal opinion, Call of Duty was one of the finest shooter franchises out there, but now it's become uninspired and formulaic, and the campaigns are ripping off Michael Bay movies, which is a very low level of creativity in anyone's eyes. The upcoming Battlefield 3 has a shiny new graphics and destruction engine, and it gets my vote purely because this franchise is still trying to perfect the modern military shooter and is pushing itself in new directions and not rehashing the exact same game structure to cash in on the naivety of the masses.

Mass Effect 3
Mass Effect (1) was a brilliant concept well executed, but it was still far more linear than it needed to be. It also suffered from a number of sections that caused my Xbox 360 to drop to about 5 frames per second (buggy parts of game coding i guess) and failed to sustain my attention long enough to see it through to completion. So I waited a year before picking up the sequel, and regretted the delay immediately. ME2 is everything I wanted the first game to be - epic narrative, free roaming space RPG, improved shooter controls and dialogue - and most importantly, the game depicts an original sci-fi universe that stands wholly on its own this time round.



Batman: Arkham City
Arkham Asylum was clearly the best Batman game ever to hit the market, and I admire it for following its own interpretation of the material rather than pursue the movie rights. It was a bit like Assassin's Creed, a bit like Splinter Cell, and a bit like the much loved saturday morning cartoon, with Mark Hamill returning to ham it up as the Joker. This time we're off the narrow confines of the Asylum, and in full free-roam mode in Gotham City.

Deus Ex: Human Revolution
Although the preview videos and trailers for this have done nothing to convince me it will be the blockbuster they say it will be, it's still on my list purely for being a sci-fi cyberpunk 'Bladerunner' type action game. And being a sequel to Deus Ex certainly does help. If all fails, I'll find it in the bargain bin in 6 months and make my own judgments.

Gears of War 3
Although Gears 2 hasn't entered my Xbox in over a year, this game will be a definite purchase. What other console title has local split-screen campaign, horde, and deathmatch to play at a party? (I mean a real party, where real people come to your house and talk to other real people). On that note, the lack of local co-op multiplayer games on console is infuriating. They must forget we like to share the sofa sometimes.

Dead Island
With any luck this will be everything Left 4 Dead should have been - co-op zombie slaying on an open world island with vehicles, weapons which consist of anything and everything, and nice visuals. The screenshot below isn't from a cutscene. It's an ingame screenshot, and it looks great.

Far Cry 3
Maybe I should save myself the pain and stop hoping this will be any good? But it's returning to the jungle, and the jungle is where this franchise belongs.