There have been a lot of positive reactions to BBC’s new Sherlock programme recently and I, having missed out on the first two episodes, decided to catch up after hearing so many good things about it. I watched the first two episodes on the trusty BBC iplayer in quick succession, before watching the season finale that aired on Sunday, and I have to say, I really enjoyed the show.

Sherlock is a contemporary take on Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s classic detective stories featuring Sherlock Holmes, a man who has amazing powers of deduction. I’m not usually a fan of contemporary takes on old literature, because they usually just seem so bland and forced. However, I really do think Sherlock works as a modern re-telling of Sherlock Holmes and his trusty sidekick, John Watson. I think one of the reasons why it works so well is because it’s not just some re-hashed Holmes story set in modern times, but it actually takes advantage of modern technology. Mobile phones are quite prevalent in Sherlock (Sherlock prefers texting people rather than talking to them, something which fits his personality). Sherlock and Watson also get a lot of information off of the internet. At the same time, though, not everything is completely new: Holmes and Watson still live at the same address as they do in the original stories, Mrs Hudson is still their landlady, and Moriaty is still their enemy. There has even been a hint at Holmes’ drug use. This mixture of old and new is a really nice addition.

There were great expectations of Sherlock before an episode had even been aired, due to who its creators are; Steven Moffat and Mark Gatiss, both of whom are Doctor Who writers. While I’m not a fan of Doctor Who myself, Moffat and Gatiss really shine throughout Sherlock. Of course, any Sherlock Holmes story requires intelligent writing to make it work, and I think that is achieved here. Not only are the stories smart (again, they have to be) but the pacing throughout the show is great; there is never too much set up, nor is there too much unexplained action. The show spends an equal amount of time setting up a point as it does solving it. And with Sherlock Holmes, you cannot make a traditional crime mystery where it is all revealed at the end, because Holmes figures everything out so quickly.

I think another big reason why Sherlock works so well is the two main actors. Benedict Cumberbatch stars as Sherlock, with Martin Freeman as Dr. Watson. I’ve always been a big fan of Martin Freeman since I first saw him in The Office, but I had never really seen much of Cumberbatch before Sherlock, but he can really play the Holmes character well. Holmes comes across as a very intelligent person that can be a bit of a loose cannon, which is a potentially difficult role, but Cumberbatch really makes the character shine. Together with Freeman, the two play off of each other so well, even when they have very difficult lines, especially Cumberbatch with the quick-paced dialogue that Holmes often has. Both actors should get credit for their performances.

The only negative point I have with Sherlock is the show’s general structure. For this first series, there were just three episodes, at ninety minutes each. While you can think of that as three films, it just isn’t long enough. Perhaps I’m just being greedy in my want of more of this show, but four and a half hours is just too short. I have no problem with ninety minute episodes, because these mysteries deserve them, but with more of these episodes, I think we would really get a much better sense of the characters, and the tricky relationship Holmes and Watson have (which is, after all, a central theme in the original stories). A second series has been announced now, so I hope they make more than just three more episodes in the second series.

But overall, I really enjoyed my time with Sherlock. I thought it worked well to show that a modern day Sherlock Holmes story is completely possible, without coming across as some sort of high-budget money maker. The writing is intelligent and the acting is impressive. It’s just a very enjoyable piece of television for anybody even remotely interested in crime drama. This could definitely be something big in the future.

Andrew Cadman.

The original can be found at: http://studentpunch.com/sherlock.html

Comic writers and directors Ricky Gervais and Steve Merchant might be firmly established in the film industry with their brand new film Cemetery Junction, but they will always be remembered as two men that changed the face of TV comedy as we know it with their first, and arguably best, piece of work – The Office

The Office is literally a global phenomenon with the original version being showing all around the world, as well as several different remakes. While the UK version of The Office is the most important, as well as my favourite, I can also highly recommend the U.S. version of the show to anybody, as both are incredibly funny, with the big major difference being that the U.S. version of the show is much more upbeat in tone, something that reflects back to traditional and “miserable” UK humour. However, the very fact that Americans really connect with the original UK version of the show, despite it being very pessimistic and downbeat, provides a quick glimpse at the global offering that the show as a whole has.

The UK show, however, is definitely the most important in terms of changing comedy and that is why I recommend it to all. The writing of The Office, by Ricky and Steve, is sublime – and I don’t use that word lightly. The dialogue flows so easily from everybody and nothing feels forced in order to tell a storyline, but, instead, everything just happens, which is the entire point of the documentary style show; The Office is meant to be a realistic take on an everyday UK office, catching brief moments in time. Surprisingly, much of the show’s dialogue is actually in the script, and not improvised from the actors, which is exactly how the show appears, which again highlights the talented writing that lies behind the entire show.

The actors themselves were not particularly well known before The Office (Ricky and Steve have stated that they always like to find new talent), but they all convey the roles perfectly, whether it be their comic timing, dialogue delivery, or even just body language. The funniest moments often arrive in the form of awkward moments and these are almost always made hilarious by the subtle looks at the camera by a few characters, or even just the extremely long pauses by the star of the show, David Brent. Brent, the boss and central character, is somebody that has misconceptions about him as he constantly strives for attention by trying to be funny, usually just as an attempt to get people to like him. While Brent can be unappealing at times, he is generally a good guy, which allows the audience to sympathise with him when things get really tough. Gervais plays the part astoundingly good for somebody that had not really done any acting before the show.

It is hard to explain exactly why The Office is so good, but I think it is down to the fact that it is not trying to emulate anything, but show what the best comedy is, and that’s real comedy that anybody can experience, even when doing something as mundane as working in an office. Of course, the show is entirely written and planned out, with clear plots and storylines that are present, but when it all comes together, it is a real office with real people, with a couple of eccentric people thrown into the mix. Ultimately, The Office lets the world know that comedy does not need to be in a slapstick sitcom with a laughter track, but that it is everywhere you look and that you just have to be willing to laugh at it. The Office is a true eye-opener and that is why it has become a global success.

Andrew Cadman

The original can be found at http://studentpunch.com/the-office.html

So after three and a half years, NBC have cancelled Heroes. I’ve got very mixed feelings about the cancellation of one of my favourite shows on TV, and I’m sure I’m not the only one.

First off, let me just state that Heroes, despite my love for the show, has definitely been going downhill since the end of the first season, which, granted, isn’t a good sign for a TV show. The storylines, and the writing in general, just got pretty nasty as the show went on, and I don’t think it was even just the writers struggling to come up with new ideas, but more that they wanted to go in a different direction but were limited by what they had set up previously. That’s why in the later seasons, there are quite a few plot holes that appeared due to the storylines in the first two seasons.

The general action and hero powers in the show never really got worse, though. The special effects to show new powers were still fantastic towards the end of the show but the bad storylines just didn’t give those powers much justice, and made them just kind of throwaway for a couple of episodes.

But I think the worst trend that the show fell into was that it was just starting to repeat itself; not in the specific storylines, characters or powers, but the overall story of how the good guys beat the bad guys. In both seasons three and four, the show spent most of the season building up a supervillian to have a large amount of dangerous powers, before in the last episode that supervillian would crumble at the hands of a few heroes with pretty limited powers: this was done with at least three different supervillians (Sylar, Arthur Petrelli and Samuel). Inevitably, fans grew tried of entire seasons of expectations that ultimately lead to disappointing confrontations.

So yes, I definitely understand why the show has declined in ratings and why it’s no longer a viable option for NBC to keep the show running, but I’m still disappointed. The show, more than any other show for me, had so much potential. Even throughout the last season I thought it could still turn out great, but I was let down by the very disappointing ending. However, that bad ending was something I could live with when I thought another season was going to come along, and possibly make the show really good again, but this cancellation means that that ending might actually be the very end, which for any fan, is just a real disappointment. I’ve heard rumours of the show returning for a mini-series in order to give an actual ending to the entire show, but that’s unreliable, so I don’t want to get my hopes up for that. I really would like a proper ending though.

On the other hand, though, I’m kind of glad the show ends here. Because of the reasons I previously highlighted, the show has definitely gone down hill, and although I’m a sucker and kept believing the show would turn good again, it’s probably for the best that there can’t be yet another season or two which would make the show even worse.

But with Heroes cancelled, and Lost about to conclude, I’ve lost two of my favourite TV shows in a short space of time, and that sadly might force me out into the sun.

Andrew Cadman

The original can be found at http://studentpunch.com/heroes-is-cancelled.html

Whether you love him or hate him, Ricky Gervais’ TV career has taken some dramatic turns over the past decade, with Ricky now being world famous, as well as moving on up into the film world. However, Ricky Gervais has a “new” TV show out in the UK now which you might have not heard about – The Ricky Gervais Show.

The Ricky Gervais Show is not actually new material written by Ricky Gervais and Steve Merchant, but, instead, the Ricky Gervais podcasts (which are hugely successful in their own right) have been turned into an animated TV show. The first series of the podcasts literally makes up the first series of the animated TV show, with each podcast being animated professionally and with great success.

Presumably, the idea was formed out of some amateur animations (but still hilarious) that Ricky found on the internet, as he would often link to those videos on his personal blog. There was potential in animating an audio show and Ricky Gervais has taken advantage of that potential.

The show consists of Ricky Gervais and Steve Merchant talking to their (slightly bizarre) friend, Karl Pilkington. Anybody that has listened to the podcasts, or even the old radio shows, knows what is so special about Karl, and that really boils down to his insane opinions on everything. Whether it is which animal he would make extinct because it doesn’t have a purpose or on the definition of art, Karl’s opinions are almost always hilarious, and sometimes they are scarily correct too.

There was perhaps a danger that Karl’s personality wouldn’t transfer over to the TV world, and this is definitely untrue. Blended with the animations, the stories that Karl tells, often involving some sort of monkey, definitely help Karl’s personality transfer onto the screen. The show was almost guaranteed to be funny on the TV, however, as Karl is so funny, with the help of some prodding by Ricky and Steve, that they could have just taken the audio from the podcast and played it on TV, with only one background picture present at all times, and it would still work.

Still, the animation does actually make the TV show unique. Most of the show is just a cartoon version of the three men sitting at a table talking, just like they did for the podcast, but some inserts are also made when stories are being told, working much like flashbacks. Every little detail that we would miss by only listening to the show, such as the unique looks to each other or body gestures as Ricky gets angry at Karl’s idiotic theories, is highlighted by the animations. The animations are also brilliantly done, from a technical standpoint: it is a simple, cartoony style that does not get too flashy, but it carries the theme of the show itself, which means the core of the show is not lost in translation.

I’m not going to say the animations make this new TV show better than the podcasts, because I literally don’t know which format I prefer, but they are both outstanding comedy works that are unscripted and downright hilarious. The podcasts, and by extension, the TV show offer a different look at Ricky Gervais and Steve Merchant because they did not spend months writing every little detail, like they did in The Office and Extras, but they just talk and are naturally funny, and although Karl is the superstar of the show, it is impossible to overlook the two comic geniuses that sit opposite him, steering Karl into saying ridiculous, hilarious things.

Everybody should watch this show as it offers something slightly different to the usual Ricky Gervais productions, but also still features that magical touch that Ricky and Steve have.

Andrew Cadman

The original can be found at http://studentpunch.com/the-ricky-gervais-show-review.html

Recently, for the first time in its 25 year history, Eastenders broadcasted a live episode of the show. Yours truly spent the week watching the show in the lead up to the live episode, as well as the episode itself, to see if this was a special event in television history, which is what I kept hearing/reading before the show had aired.

I have a loose knowledge of Eastenders, for reasons that I am unsure of, so I managed to pick up the story quickly enough for the week, so by the end of the week, I was fully up-to-date with the events unfolding on the show. Firstly, the show throughout the week consisted of completely convoluted stories in order to hype up the live show approaching. Naturally, as a British soap, the storylines are, of course, completely unrealistic, especially when they have a ‘big’ storyline that they are embarking on. The live show was the big reveal of Archie’s (somebody who was murdered a few months ago) killer, so in order to create tension, the shows during the week were just building and building each of the potential killers up, making them all just as plausible as the next. Obviously, they would never want to hint at the true killer before the big reveal, but some of the things that happened in order to give them all equal standing were ridiculous: for instance, somebody tries to set somebody else up and so the show points to that person as the killer and the only hint that it gives us is that this person wears woolly gloves, so, naturally, each of the prime suspects starts wearing similar gloves from that point on. Yes, tension must be created, but come on!

Another thing that Eastenders highlighted during the entire week was that the soap was approaching an anniversary. There were several characters that made a re-appearance this week, under the guise of a wedding, that were thrown in to mainly serve as a memory of times gone by. Given the circumstance of the wedding, this all fits in contextually, but, unfortunately, this ‘nostalgia effect’ is made too obvious in a scene during the live show when Ian and Dot, two of the oldest-serving characters, watch an old homemade video from the early years of the soap. This moment was meant to be emotional for the characters, and perhaps any long-standing fans, but the writers’ true intentions were so transparent throughout this scene that they might as well have flashed a message up on the screen along the lines of “Happy Anniversary, Eastenders!”

Moving on to the live show itself and, honestly, it wasn’t that bad. The best thing I could say about it is that it was an episode of Eastenders, but that statement also happens to be the worst thing about it too. There were no major mistakes that occurred throughout the live show, which is impressive. I noticed a few camera focusing issues, and a few actor mistakes, but nothing that the casual viewer would notice. The acting, which is what the episode really tried to focus on by having very intimate scenes, was acceptable throughout. The solid production of the show, however, is made less impressive once you started to notice a pattern: the scenes never lasted for too long and would constantly switch around in a rotation, which clearly reduced the chances of any mistakes occurring, which is understandable, but, again, very obvious to anybody paying enough attention. Apart from this, though, it was just like an episode of Eastenders, and the bearing of it being live really had no long-lasting effect. In fact, because the actors had already shot the episodes that were to directly follow the live episode, it was clear that the story was going to tame down again and not deal with the specific issues raised in the live episode.

I think, in the end, the live episode was a success for the show itself. 16+ million people tuned in to watch the show at one point or another. The live show also got people talking about Eastenders again, raising the show’s profile and raising a bit of money too. However, the live show was not anything special outside of the Eastenders world, and I’m sure the event will be completely forgotten about soon enough, and, instead, the monotony element of the soap will take back its rightful place.

The original article can be found at http://studentpunch.com/eastenders.html

Lost, the show that made crashing into a remote island cool has just started back for its sixth and final series.

To anybody that has watched Lost from the beginning, you know that it started out as a very interesting show that had a basic premise: a plane crashed onto an island and the survivors of that crash wanted to get rescued. As the show went on, however, it started to get more and more ‘weird,’ for the lack of a better term; strange storylines were being introduced and nothing was ever straight forward. In the last season, however, the show transformed from ‘weird’ to complete and utter science fiction. Obviously, it would be far too easy to spoil the show for anybody that hasn’t watched all of the seasons, so I will stay away from anything specific, but let me just say that Lost is crazy.

There is nothing wrong with science fiction, and Lost moving into that was expected as the show progressed, but now, after all these years, I am finally starting to get frustrated with the way in which Lost presents pretty much everything. Every new plot twist is usually a ‘dramatic’ cliff-hanger at the end of an episode, which does grain on you. As humans, we always want to know the answer, and with Lost, they always make you wait a while for that answer. In fact, it could be argued that we are still waiting for some answers from something that was set up several seasons ago, and this is really the big problem with the show; it’s extremely fragmented. Due to the sheer pace of the show, it can be hard to keep up with everything that has happened, and while the show does well to remind you of important events at the start of every episode, there are still important things it misses out. It almost seems like the show is just too crazy for itself and the writers never really know where they are going with a plotline until the very end.

While the overall story can be confusing and frustrating, the show has something special. It has a core mixture of characters that have been there since the first plane crash, and still, for the most part, they remain with each other as a group. As the audience, we are following this core cast at all times, through their triumphs and tribulations. Over the years, many other groups and characters have been introduced and have mingled with the core group, and this has lead to interesting developments. The characters are extremely interesting, and the show has made sure that we know each of their individual stories, allowing us to know them and what drives them. One of the most unique aspects of Lost that I haven’t encountered that much in a TV show before, is the critical importance of the location, which in Lost, is the island. I would go so far as to say that the island is an extra character in the show, and it is probably the central character of the show. Everything revolves around the island; so much so that when the show moves away from the island for small sections, the show has a different feel to it, and there is always a driving force for us to return to the island.

I am both happy and sad to announce that, on the basis of the season premiere, Lost has still not changed. The new season starts right back up from the cliff-hanger of the previous season, and it takes us on the same, crazy, journey. The show seems to have set up an alternate time line for the start of this season, which might be a flash-forward, which they have done before, or it might be something else entirely, who knows? It certainly looks like this season will be interesting as the current storyline progresses further. At this point, though, I really just want to see how the hell the writers can wrap up so many years of confusion – I just hope they manage it well.

While I really do love Lost, I would never recommend anybody to start watching this new series right now with no prior knowledge. If you do want to get into Lost, you would need to watch it from the very start and never miss an episode. I have watched every episode of every season and I still get regularly lost in Lost.

AC

The original article can be found at http://studentpunch.com/lost.html

The world of television has become a dark place in recent years with the monstrous rise of reality TV featuring z-list celebrities or people who want to become z-list celebrities. I am personally fed up of it, but that’s the way things are these days. However, all is definitely not lost as we have had some fantastic TV shows over the past decade and I think it’s time to highlight a particular favourite of mine – The Sopranos.

The Sopranos first aired in the distant past of 1999, but I did not watch it when it first came out. In fact, I only watched the show for the first time a few years ago. I can safely say, though, that The Sopranos is a masterpiece of TV. I would actually go as far as to say that The Sopranos is the best TV show ever, so far.

The Sopranos, as I hope you would know, is about a mafia mob boss, Tony Soprano, based in New Jersey. The show is about Tony’s life and family, both personal and business. Looking in from the outside, it might seem like ‘just another gangster story’, but it goes further than that. An advantage that the show has being on TV, as opposed to film, is the longevity; it has six full seasons of at least 13 hours per season. This allows the show to delve deeper into the characters than any mob film, and that’s what separates it from most of the riff-raff on TV today. David Chase, the show’s creator, allows viewers to fully engage with the characters in the show, especially Tony, and it engages with a mobster’s psyche more than anything I have seen before it. You get to see Tony in every aspect of his life; with his own family, with his associates, with enemies, making decisions, his therapy, and the list goes on. You begin to understand everything that Tony does, without condoning it all.

Don’t be completely fooled, though, as The Sopranos might just be a TV show, but it transcends what TV traditionally represents, and, instead, you wouldn’t be completely wrong to think of the show as a damn good film that just so happens to be 80 hours long. While the writing is probably the strongest aspect of the show, everything else blends together to form this excellent final product. As a TV show, there was a large list of directors that worked on the show, all of whom are extremely talented in what they offer as individuals, but they all seem to work together in end, which was due to David Chase making executive decisions on the show. The music throughout the entire show is flawless. The music department seemed to find a perfect song for any moment or emotion, ranging from classical Italian music to classic rock. A particular favourite of mine is the ending of the entire show that features Journey’s ‘Don’t Stop Believing’.

The cherry on top of this large and delicious cake is the cast. There was not one casting mistake. Everybody that appears on-screen fits their role, whether it is one of the main characters that appears throughout the entire show, or just somebody that only appears for one episode. The highlight, obviously, is James Gandolfini, who plays Tony Soprano. As an actor, James Gandolfini was not particularly well-known before The Sopranos, mainly appearing in films, but he really solidifies the role of Tony and he shows a tremendous amount of acting ability in a difficult and demanding role. Many of the other actors found in the show have appeared in some mobster films before The Sopranos, such as Lorraine Bracco, who played a main character in Scorsese’s Goodfellas. Having an identifiable mob-story cast helps the show seem grounded and believable. The cast work so well together that everything on-screen feels incredibly genuine.

I could easily keep listing reasons why you need to see The Sopranos, and I’m tempted to do just that, but I think it’s best to let the show do the talking. You do not need to be a lover of mob stories to appreciate and enjoy The Sopranos; you just need to be an appreciator of good TV and/or film. The entire show can be found in a DVD box-set for under £60, which is ridiculously cheap for the quality and quantity of the show found within.

AC

The original article can be found at http://studentpunch.com/the-sopranos-find-it-and-watch-it.html

Big Brother, and its celebrity counterpart, for that matter, has declined in quality with every passing year, and there can be no doubt about that. It used to be a massive phenomenon in the UK, but now it’s a programme that everybody loves to hate, and for good reason too. However, something strange has happened to me recently: I have been enjoying the last season of Celebrity Big Brother.

Let us get this straight right now: Celebrity Big Brother is still not a good show. In fact, the Big Brother franchise represents everything that is wrong with TV today, with this recent series of Celebrity Big Brother being no different. However, there is something about this recent series that I have enjoyed, despite my natural desire to hate it as much as possible.

The show’s list of celebrities ranged from the famous (Vinnie Jones) to the “Who the hell is that?” (Ronnie Wood’s ex-girlfriend). While the show’s list of celebrities was nothing exceptional, it seemed to be a good mixture. Obviously, the producers tried to create arguments and tension at all times, even before the celebrities entered the house, but these arguments never happened and I’m always glad to see the producers fail to get the reaction they wanted. The housemates seemed to get up to a good mixture of mischief and harmless fun, without just shouting at each other in order to create entertainment, which I find to be extremely tedious and boring.

The producers of the show did have a couple of tricks up their sleeve, though. The house featured a tree outside in the garden that would occasionally talk to the housemates if they were outside and alone. The tree would give tasks to the housemates and they always consisted of something funny for that housemate to try and do to the other housemates. The voice of the tree itself was funny and it would take the piss out of the housemates where appropriate, but all of these tree tasks were harmless and just a bit of fun, which the show might have been lacking if the housemates were left to their own devices. It’s also a breath of fresh air as usually the producers just want everybody to either fight with each other or get into a relationship, and while that nearly happened, it certainly was not as pronounced as years gone by.

Another new feature of the series was montages. Everybody loves a good montage, and the show did well to feature montages to break up the monotony of certain tasks or parties. In previous years, if the housemates had a task, we would just see them moment for moment, and it ran the risk of being extremely boring because we don’t need to watch ten people do the same exact same thing, over and over. The montages broke it up and just gave us highlights of some of these events, which sometimes made them funnier. They were a bit off-putting at first, but I eventually came round to them.

The show just seemed to be a bit more fun than it had been for many years. I think Celebrity Big Brother is generally more enjoyable than the normal Big Brother anyway, but I do think this series has improved over the last few years…and that’s something that I really did not think I would be saying about a show that is, like I stated earlier, really not a good show. However, I am still endlessly happy that this franchise is ending and I really hope that the death of this show creates a shift in the television world that moves away from the celebrity focused reality TV shows on our screens now, and towards good original programmes.

So, there, I enjoyed it. Maybe it’s because I knew it was the last celebrity series ever and that the full franchise will be dying later this year. Maybe it’s because I am a maniac. I do not know. I am quite willing to side with the latter option, though.

AC.

The original article can be found at http://studentpunch.com/celebrity-big-brother.html

Even though Uncharted does not have many characters in it, the characters that are there are, for the most part, great. Nathan Drake is the slightly annoying but charming protagonist, and he can be quite humorous at times. Sully is the older, but certainly not wiser, man of the group, that appears to only care about finding the treasure, but he is likeable enough. Even the damsel in distress character, Elena, is likeable. The interaction between the three main characters, and even with some of the enemies, is something worth seeing. The voice actors behind these characters deliver great performances, which certainly help make the characters as likeable and enjoyable as they are.

One of the first things that you will notice when you start up Uncharted is how good the game looks. The environments that you are in look amazing, as do the character models. When exploring the world, you will come across some fantastic looking places, and if you have a high definition television, you will see things in outstanding detail. One of the best things about the game’s graphics is the water effects. Water in Uncharted looks amazing. One of the neat things about Uncharted is that if Drake gets wet, you see it on his clothes, and they stay wet for a few minutes until he dries off. If you walk through water, the bottom of your jeans gets wet, but if you then roll in it, your entire body is wet. It’s a nice little touch that I appreciated.

The game doesn’t only look great, but it runs great too. The frame rate stays constant throughout the game, whether you are fighting multiple enemies or just exploring the jungle. Uncharted also animates brilliantly. Every time you reload a gun, you see the clip flying out of the gun, and Drake reaching round and grabbing another clip, before placing it in the gun. The characters are also very well animated while interacting with objects, as well as while doing other things, such as hanging off of ledges. While Uncharted does run brilliantly, I did notice quite a few instances of texture pop-in. This is only a minor problem though, and it certainly doesn’t detract away from how impressive this game looks.

One of the reasons Uncharted looks as good as it does is due to the setting of the game. The game mainly takes place in the jungle and in ancient and deserted buildings. Uncharted does well to create an almost perfect atmosphere for the setting. The jungle feels authentic, as well as the buildings that you find yourself battling in. The soundtrack also lends itself to creating a great atmosphere as it is authentic for the setting that you are in, which really helps you become emerged into the story. The sounds you will hear from the jungle are great too.

Uncharted is not just about story and setting though; there is some great gameplay there too. Uncharted is not just a simple third person shooter that consists of shooting your way through the entire game. There are some platforming elements, some basic puzzles, and a few driving sequences. The gun play is quite standard for a third person shooter, but it does feel satisfying enough that there are no complaints over the core shooting. However, enemies can take far too long to die, sometimes. You can pop an enemy in the head multiple times and he just shakes around a little bit and starts shooting back. This would not be a problem if it only happened sparingly, but it does seem to happen quite often. There also isn’t a great variety of weapons, and you will find yourself sticking to using the same guns throughout the game, until you get to a section where all of the enemies start to carry different guns, but that only means instead of the AK47, you will start using the M4, not a huge difference. You can branch out, if you really want to, but I never found a need to. Also, the grenade throwing is done by the sixaxis control, which I did not enjoy. It makes it feel clunky and it can be awkward to throw a grenade when in the middle of a challenging battle.

The platforming in Uncharted is great. It never feels too hard, but it can be just hard enough that it is not a total breeze to do. It’s enjoyable, and helps split up the gunplay. The camera often changes if you need a wider view of the jump, and while this works well the majority of the time, sometimes the camera is too wide, but luckily this only happens a small number of times. The puzzles in Uncharted are done well as they are not impossibly hard to figure out, but they can be just challenging enough that it takes a few moments to catch on. The game does well to integrate Francis Drake’s journal at these moments, which helps guide you through the puzzles. There are also a few driving sequences spread throughout the game, which are also enjoyable. The first one is only an ‘on-rails’ section with you on the gun, but it’s incredibly fun speeding through the jungle blowing up foes with the grenade launcher. The other two driving sequences consist of you driving a jet ski as Drake, and then if you press L1, you can control the shooting with Elena, which means that you are not relying on poor AI shooting. This is also quite fun, and a change of pace for the game, which is welcomed. These driving sequences do not feel thrown in, and because they do not last too long, they are fun and enjoyable. While Uncharted does do well to mix up the gameplay, there are moments where you feel that you are just running from one big gun battle to another, and this puts the game in danger of feeling repetitive at points.

Uncharted: Drake’s Fortune is a great game; there can be no doubt about that. The story is great and something that you will definitely get involved in. The characters help make the story as enjoyable as it is, as does the setting of the game. The game also plays well. The mixture of different gameplay helps keep any repetitive nature of the game to a minimum. Uncharted certainly isn’t perfect though. The lack of an incentive to use different guns is a problem, and that does not help keeping the game from being repetitive. One of the biggest problems is the enemies that just refuse to die, as it really hinders some of the great gun battles you have in the game. Perhaps the saddest thing about Uncharted is that the game doesn’t really do anything new. It’s great at most of the things it does, but it’s still a fairly typical game of its genre. It is better than most of the games that can be directly compared to it, such as the Tomb Raider series, but there is nothing that makes it stand above some of the other superb games of this generation. There is still something to be had here though, and if you are interested in it, I definitely recommend it, as it is a game worth playing.

8.0

Gaming is an expensive hobby; it always has been and always will be. Most of us were children when getting our first consoles and games, which meant we had to rely on our parents getting us our games and they would often inform us “Games are too expensive!” That was then though and compared to now, they were not expensive. Just one of things that make games so expensive is the evolution of the music-rhythm game genre.

This crazy gaming genre arrived back in 1999 when Konami released its arcade games GuitarFreaks and DrumMania, both of which involved using controllers shaped around musical instruments to play a rhythm game based around music. This was the start of something huge as in 2005, Red Octane and Harmonix released Guitar Hero which sparked something very special, but very expensive!

What Harmonix and Red Octane didn’t know is that many people would fall in love with their very addictive product. Harmonix had managed to create a game that was based around Konami’s arcade games of 1999 but made it so fun and so easy to pick up and play that it attracted gamers and non-gamers alike. As any successful game in this age, a sequel was made and eventually publisher giants Activision bought publishers Red Octane and gained a new but very successful series to add to their already impressive line up. With this, Harmonix split off and joined with MTV and created a new game, the multi-instrument edition, Rock Band.

Now, Activision are releasing sequels and expansions to Guitar Hero every few months while Harmonix announces a Rock Band 2. So, where is the money problem? The problem arises when you think about the quantity of plastic controllers that you have to buy in order to play these games. Of course you don’t have to buy the controllers every time one of these games comes out but some do. The full Rock Band bundle includes a guitar controller, a drum controller and a microphone and costs a pretty penny to buy. Rock Band only came out in November in the US and May in Europe and already a second one has been announced and is to be expected in the fall. There will be more controllers to buy this time round and many people might, although there should be no need to.

To add to this, Activision has announced Guitar Hero: World Tour, which is basically the same as Rock Band in the sense of its more than just guitar now, despite “Guitar” still being in the title. There is a whole new drum kit controller and of course a new guitar controller. The main problem is that the two publishers are not working together to make controllers compatible with each other’s games, which means there could be a massive hole in your wallet or purse if you are a fanatic of the genre and want to play both games on more than just guitar. To add to this even more, Konami has decided to jump into the console rhythm market too with Rock Revolution, which again features multiple instruments.

How long is the genre going to continue to grow like this? How many times are we going to have to buy these expensive bundles just to enjoy a game to its fullest? There is strong reason to believe that this genre will just get even more insane as it’s managed to grow so fast in a relatively short period of time. These companies are always going to keep outdoing each other with the next best thing and the only ones that suffer are the consumers who are too addicted to this genre to skip these games.

To anybody who doesn’t play a lot of the genre, you may be wondering what is so addictive that makes players crazy enough to buy all of this, over and over. Well, it is simply because they offer fun, great and addictive gameplay both single player and multiplayer. The best thing about Rock Band is getting a group of friends together and going crazy. It is reminiscent of the old days where friends would get together and play 4-player splitscreen and have a ball of a time. It can provide many nights entertainment, even if your friends don’t play games very often. It can be so much fun, even on your on, which is why many people keep buying all of this hardware. It might be a lot of hardware, but at the end of the day, it’s totally worth it!

It’s easy to see why gaming is more expensive these days compared to several years ago, especially if you are a big fan of the music-rhythm genre. With constant sequels and even more newcomers, there is an almost constant stream of these games being released, which is great because there is more fun to be had, but just keep an eye on your wallet before it decides to attack you because of serious abuse!

]]> http://caddywriting.wordpress.com/2008/07/10/wallet-abuse/feed/ 1 caddy0688