Grand Theft Auto 4 Review

Grand Theft Auto 4 Review

GTA 4 broke my 360! I say this statement in a mix of fear and pain, and yet I refuse to hold grudges against game for it. Instead I’ll hold grudges against this game for creating controversy and unrivalled praise that it doesn’t deserve. I’ll hold grudges against it for acting as a tutorial for the majority of the game, and I’ll hold grudges against it for giving the player the illusion of choice!

I’m going to start with the plot, a plot which has previously been called “genuinely engrossing” and “compelling”, and is neither of these. Having said that many of you can anticipate my opinion of the plot and I’m happy to say your all wrong! Grand Theft Auto 4’s plot certainly isn’t devoid of merit, indeed at points in the game I found that I had become genuinely attached to certain characters and found events I couldn’t control truly upsetting. Here lies my main problem with the games plot.

The game tries so hard to create the perfect plot, including elements such as romance which the player can pursue if they wish to. Unfortunately the games plot is set almost in stone (with a few minor choices that give a choice between money or instant and violent gratification), and characters that I didn’t spend to much time with were often integral to the plot. This often left me with a feeling akin to “who cares” and the game somewhat lost my respect because of this.

I have many problems with the plot of the game yet one of the main ones was it’s pacing, which often involves the player performing menial tasks in order to play an (often outstanding) climax mission, after completing these missions the player then has to complete more menial tasks. The main problem with this is the fact that the game barely rewards the player for completing these missions until the huge cash reward which is often available for completing the “climax mission”, and in a game where money does little more than allow a player to purchase weapons, ammo, and health in order to be able to complete more menial mission, this seems a little stupid.

Another problem with this method of storytelling is that the bank robbery mission, which occurs halfway through the game, is the most exciting and brilliantly realised mission available within the game, which in turn leaves no motivation for the player to continue the games storyline until the end mission. Now, whilst we're on the topic of the games final mission, I intend to rant about it (see my next paragraph).

I came to the final missions of the game expecting a shoot-out which would excel the bank mission in every single way, a driving section comparable to finest moments in any driving game, and a bitter-sweet ending to the plot, which by this point was confusing and broken. I sort off got one of these things, the endings bitter-sweet. The shooting section of the mission is all-right, a bit bland, but it's okay. The driving section of the mission is annoying, and uses boats (boats are bad in GTA 4).

To sum-up the plot is no mean feat, considering it's not finished, and never will be on the PS3 (this doesn't really effect me though, considering I own a copy of the 360 game), but if I absolutely had to, say if I was cornered by several angry Wii owners, I would say that it's okay, but nothing compared a good film or to a lesser extent the Metal Gear series. Needless to say any argument I may have in this area is useless, as everyone, their mother, and their pets now owns at least five copies of the game, and beholds the plot as the Goliath of God.

Now to the game play, which I have mixed feelings about; sort of like a retarded squirrel regarding a pile of nuts. I like the lock-on feature, as it works well the majority of the time (100% of the time being an unachievable goal) and genuinely helped me to find and kill people who were shooting me. I liked the guns, and I support the decision to take out about 50% of the guns from previous games. But the entire shooting section of the game is completely ruined by the cover system, which often embeds Niko in walls and refuses to let him go, and occasionally caused him to stand on top of the thing I was ducking behind.

Even on the few occasions that I did manage to separate Niko from the wall he had thrown himself head first at, he then proceeded to attach himself to a piece of cover directly behind him, and expose his entire back to every enemy in the area. This led me to the conclusion that Niko has all the survival instincts of a rabbit in a monster truck rally held at night.

A lot of people have been talking about how the driving in the game handles a lot more realistically, it doesn't really; most of the cars handle like one of two things:

Good cars: Handle like a cheetah on speed.
Bad cars: Handle like a slug on pot.

If you learn which cars fit into these categories you'll be fine. Basically these rules define the driving of the game, and prove that any claims that the driving is realistic; profoundly wrong.
I have one other major problem with the way that driving has been implemented into the game, and that is the selection of vehicles available in the game. Okay lets take a look at all the classes available in San Andreas:

1. Cars
2. Motorbikes
3. Pedal bikes
4. Boats
5. Helicopters
6. Tanks
7. Jet planes
8. Trucks
9. Golf carts etc.
10. Jeeps

Now lets take a look at the vehicle classes available in GTA 4:

1. Cars
2. Motorbikes
3. Boat
4. Helicopters
5. Trucks
6. Golf carts etc.

So on closer inspection we've revealed that four whole vehicle classes have been removed from the game. Now I don't know about you, but when I hear that a new GTA game is going to be released I immediately begin to think about what vehicle types Rockstar could add to the game. This time I was expecting hot-air balloons, submarines, and loads of other weird and wonderful transport systems – and reality we aren't even allowed to drive tanks, a benchmark of the series!

Don't get me wrong, I understand that Rockstar are trying to take the series in a new, realistic direction and it's unrealistic to assume that Niko, an uneducated thug, already knows how to pilot every vehicle under the sun; but when realism gets in the way of the tried and tested formula which has made the series fun, then I don't see the point. Recently I've been having the very same gripe with a lot of games, and I'm starting to wish that the games industry as a whole
would stop trading fun for realism or artistic direction.

Right, before you (well at least those of you who can form a grammatically correct sentence) start spamming my inbox with complaints about how things like realism, artistic development and complex plots are advancing the industry, not only as a form of entertainment but also an art form, please allow a chance to explain myself. I whole-heartedly agree the aforementioned argument, but only up to the point where these things (realism, artistic development and complex plots) don't stop the product from being entertaining. For the purpose of an example, lets take a look at the Metal Gear series.

Hideo Kojima, the director of the series, has created in the Metal Gear and Metal Gear Solid games one of the most complete, complex, and meaningful video game plots ever; and as a result of this the Metal Gear series as a whole has suffered. The game play is often overlooked, complete understanding of all prior events in the series is often mandatory, and only the few hardcore fans (myself included) of the series remain able to sit through the often feature length cut-scenes. So whilst the Metal Gear series undoubtedly has an accomplished plot, and remarkable art direction; it does not qualify as an excellent video-game, because at times it is dull to it's target audience.

So anyway, back to GTA 4. I'm going to sum-up now because nothing I say about this game is going to do anything other than mildly amuse you. The plot's okay, the gameplay's underwhelming for the series, and the graphics are all right for the current generation of consoles. Ultimately get the game if you want a slightly less wacky GTA.

7/10

Life on Mars Review

Life on Mars is a BAFTA award winning drama starring John Simm and Philip Glenister as detectives in 1973 (or possibly 2006 in Simm's case). The drama spans two seasons which I have decided to review in one review.

I was expecting to hate Life on Mars before I began to watch it; this was mainly due to the fact that I don't generally enjoy serialised dramas, and partly due to the BBC's inability to create dramas which aren't aimed at upper middle class morons with a love of us simple country folk and our jolly music (I'm lower middle class or at the high end of the working class scale).

But everyone should admit it when they're wrong, and I was horribly wrong, because Life on Mars is the best drama that I have ever seen, and to explain why I'm going to have to spoil a small amount of the plot for you good people.

Simm plays Sam Tyler, a detective working in 2006, until his life is turned upside down when gets hit by a car and wakes up in 1973. The audience are led to believe that Sam is in a coma throughout his period in 1973 by the use of voices which Sam can hear in his head and other strange occurrences which no-one but Sam picks up on. This is an extraordinarily clever device which never confirms that Sam is in a coma but merely hints at it.

Whilst in 1973 Sam works as a DI (Detective Inspector) under DCI hunt (played by Glenister). Hunt is the most complex and interesting character ever written into a serialized TV drama and Glenister performs the part perfectly. In fact, all of the acting on displayed in Life on Mars is brilliant, with absolutely outstanding performances from Simm and Glenister who are undeniably the leads.

Life on Mars' real strength lies in its ability to hold a viewer's interest until the very end and beyond that. The finale of the programme is spectacular; not only is it a more-than-satisfactory ending to an excellent series, it manages to single itself out as one of the best pieces television (get that television, not just drama) ever shot; it's thought provoking, meaningful, and gripping. Best of all the last episode challenges everything you know about Life on Mars, and leaves you still challenging it.

Okay so I was horribly wrong about this drama, but I refuse to accept the majority of dramas as acceptable. Life on Mars is a rare jewel, a diamond in the rough and something that is now sacred to me. Which is why I shan't be following up this review with a review of the Life on Mars spin off, Ashes to Ashes, as I previously intended.

9/10

Hancock Review

Hancock is an odd, and somewhat messy film, which I went to see purely because The Dark Knight hasn't been released yet. Let me say that I had no prior knowledge of the film,except that it features Will Smith (Men in Black, I Am Legend) playing an alcoholic superhero, who is obviously quite bad at his job, and that the film is apparently a comedy.

The film opens with a fairly generic chase sequence which confirms the above statement in all of three minutes and serves as one of the four major action sequences, and whilst the sequences has the feeling of Spiderman scene and less of the directing ability, it has two saving features:

The script: This sequence, and indeed all of the film up until the main plot reveal (more on this later), is superbly scripted and features some of the funniest and wittiest dialogue I've seen in a cinema for a very long time.

Will Smith: I often hold Independence Day against Smith (despite the fact that I know it was all Emmerich's fault) but I do know that he is in fact a very good actor, particularly suited for comedy roles (Men in Black I and II), but still able to pull of some semblance of a serious role (I Am Legend, and to a far smaller extent The Pursuit of Happiness); and it is in the role of Hancock that Smith's talent hits me. He pulls of each line and gesture with a wave of charisma that lesser actors would never be able to achieve. Indeed in some places Smith carries the film.
After this sequence's conclusion Hancock spends most of it's time mocking the superhero film genre, Will Smith, anyone who takes these sorts of films seriously and organised crime, whilst occasionally, and regrettably, attempting to carve itself a memorable plot from false hopes, lost dreams, and candy floss. The film continues in this direction, making absolutely no progress in the plot department, and yet still managing to be both witty and likeable, until the major plot twist, which hit everyone in the cinema like a ton of bricks; made of acid.

SPOILER ALERT!

Brace yourself. This plot twist isn't easy to take in, and it ruins what has been otherwise a fairly breezy little comedy which I would have actually recommended. Are you ready? Okay then. Hancock is an alien. Yeah that's right, you read it right, Hancock is an alien! Almost as big of a disappointment as Indiana Jones and the Aliens the Kingdom of the Crystal skulls, isn't it?

Oh, and get this – another character whom I haven't mentioned thus far is not only also an alien, but apparently Hancock's wife. Hancock can't remember any of this because he has amnesia from the last time his wife beat him up.

NO MORE SPOILERS!

Anyway the main problem with this plot twist is that because it's so absurd, unexpected and downright stupid, the film feels that it has to explain itself, a lot. Now I'm all for reasonable and fathomable explanations to Sci-Fi plot devices, but only when they are presented in small, manageable chunks, and the rest of the plot can function alongside these explanations. Unfortunately Hancock completely fails to function as a result of these explanations, and the explanations don't make any sense either.

So, to sum up, Hancock is an extremely broken and disjointed film, which whilst being fairly funny and well scripted up until the halfway point, crumples under the weight of a simple plot twist which would have made the writers of Doctor Who blush.

6/10

Epic Movie Review

All right before we begin let me say that I'm trying not to hold grudges any more, I find that it clouds my judgement and makes my reviews seem tacky. There are only four people exempt from this rule, they are: Uwe Boll (House of the Dead, Bloodrayne, Alone in the Dark), Roland Emmerich (Independence Day, The Day After Tomorrow), and the two Scary Movie writers still going (Jason Friedberg, Aaron Seltzer), these people are purveyors of filth and I will relentlessly pound their movies into the ground no matter what.

The [Insert adjective here] movie series has been going since 2000 and for the love of god I have NO idea why, I'll admit Scary movie had some good jokes, but everything since that film has caused me severe brain damage. You want me to explain why? Okay then here's an example of a common [Insert adjective here] movie joke:

Character One: I sure hope nothing terrible happens.


[Character one rounds the corner and green sludge spews from somewhere.]


Character One: Ewwww... it smells like poo.


[A masked maniac appears from no-where and a coloured person immediately starts making out with him, you know because it's bawdy humour so racism is funny (Disclaimer: The reviewer doesn't think that). After five minutes of making out, character one goes on to vomit on people for the next five minutes. A naked Paris Hylton lookalike runs across the set.]


There you go I've “written” an [Insert adjective here] movie script, and I'm not joking; that is it! That's all that happens; ever! If anyone reading this has ever laughed at any of the jokes in an [Insert adjective here] movie then they can go, I refuse to review for morons.

Epic movie's storyline can be sumed up within a paragraph. Four orphans taken from separate films (The Da Vinci Code, Nacho Libre, Xmen and Snakes on a plane) win tickets to go to a chocolate factory, where they discover a wardrobe that leads to the world of Gnarnia, which they have to save, after saving Gnarnia they get killed and Borat appears to say “Is Nice!”. THE END

Okay, how many of the movies “spoofed” are “epic”? Lets have a more in depth look at this:

The Da Vinci Code – I'm not entirely sure I would class this as an “epic” movie, although I'll be fair, I can sort of see where they're coming from.

Nacho Libre – Question: How do you spoof a comedy? Answer: You don't, this is only here so we can here the word nacho shouted really loudly and laugh with nostalgia... unfortunatley for A and J, I hated Nacho Libre.

Xmen – I sort of get this, although it would seem more suitable for Superhero Movie (out now for the more sucidal among you)

Snakes on a plane – Oh come on this film was meant to be a piss-take, so it's only in here because it's easy prey, and so everyone can have a nice laugh at SLJ.

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory – This is in no way an epic movie, and again it was only picked because it's easy prey, and to make fun of Depp because every one needs to do that.

Pirates of the Caribbean – They really like taking the piss out of Depp don't they? Maybe he had a deal with them but then Burton gave him a call. I doubt it but it might explain this meaningless prejudice.

Borat – This is only here so Borat can say “Is nice” quite a lot. It's not an epic movie and A & J don't even spoof it! I'm gonna take a chance and say the target audience of Epic Movie enjoyed Borat, but I didn't so the novelty of the this is completely lost on me. While I'm going I may as well try to explain why I didn't like Borat, so here goes. I didn't like Borat because it was a racist pile of shit, I couldn't even sit through it at the cinema! I even complained and go tickets to a film of my choice, which I waste on Click... turns out cinemas don't respond kindly to you asking for more free tickets.

All right now that's done I can move onto acting... if that's what you can call it. I can't tell whether the acting is bad or if the actor s have just given up trying to make anything in this film at all funny. Most of the time the actors simply stand there not speaking whilst not much happens, and when they do speak it's awkward and annoying.

I realise I've run out of things to say so I'm going to sum up. Epic movie is awful, truly terrible, but it doesn't matter what I think because it sells despite any of the bad press I'm glad to say that everyone in the journalistic world has given it. Just bear it in mind that the next time you go to see an [insert adjective here] movie I'll be waiting in the back with a shotgun to shoot anyone who laughs.

0/10

Futurama: Bender's Big Score Review

I loved Futurama, it was (at least in my opinion) one of the wittiest and best written comedies ever conceived, and in my opinion beats The Simpsons in every way possible. I had to stop myself from stabbing everyone in the Fox network when it was cancelled in 2003. Now after 6 years Futurama is back, and it's better than ever.

There's really not that much to say about this film due to the fact that it's a well conceived comedy which doesn't once show itself up. The jokes in this film are a true return to form for the series and everything fits perfectly. The voice acting and animation on display here is outstanding, and to be quite there's nothing left to say other than: it's Futurama go and buy it, NOW!

Unfortunately my reviewer sense is telling me that I'm going to have to pad up some space now, so I'm going to mention the fact that the DVD is packed with extras that will make fans of the series wet themselves with excitement, including a full length episode of “Everybody loves Hipnotoad” and some more Al Gore stuff.

All right I've covered the film and the extras what else can pad this out with? Not much. I could talk about the joke about “Family Guy” (another superb show) or the fact that three sequels are to follow this film, but I won't because the bottom line is that this film is brilliant, and anyone who liked the series should buy it.

9/10