Originaly posted on 11/3/10
Curriculum for Excellence, and the increasing decline in the way the future of our country is being handled. Oddly, the SNP come in for some flak too.
Are you Scottish and Currently in 3rd year at secondary school? Congratulations! You are among the last people to be educated properly. If however you are younger and if you are, well done for being intellectual enough to want to read this, your future will be governed by horrible education reforms which will serve purely to provide you with the most basic of human functions, with wonderfully unspecified education until you get to 4th year. You will learn to be a Responsible Citizen (listen to the song of the same name by The Automatic, live by it, you'll be fine), a Confident Individual (with no way to be confident about the choices you make in your life), a Successful Learner (despite never having learned anything) and an Effective Contributor (despite having nothing worthwhile to contribute).
Remember 5-14, where you were assessed as A through F for stuff like language, maths and various things? All gone. Replaced with a pile of gibberish that can be read here: http://www.ltscotland.org.uk/curriculumforexcellence/index.asp
Basically, from Primary 1 to the end of 3rd year of secondary, ie 10 years, you will not be assessed. Instead, you will be bombarded with outcomes that you probably wont even know you're getting assessed on, in ridiculous things as being able to work together and be a good team player (basically, the old four outcomes). What a pile of shite. As if the country wasn't screwed enough with the amount of people schools are churning out leaving in 4th year with no qualifications, nothing to offer society other than a name on a dole sheet or filling a cell. At least with CfE, you can have skills to go with your no qualifications, making you more likely to become a binman when you've been forced out of school because by the time you get to 4th year there's nothing there to help you. Remember sitting your standard grades? Nothing. All gone. To be replaced by absolutely heehaw. While foundation SG's weren't exactly the most promising of award, it could be the only thing some people could get. What now, you have people who are too, for whatever reason, unable to learn, and so get forced to stay in school until 18? My year had plenty of such delinquents, and i'm happy they're gone, as i'm sure they are too. Keeping the people whose future does not lie in academics in school will not benefit anyone. Teachers will suffer because they have to spend time with people who are less likely to benefit. The pupils who can benefit will have less time and so benefit less, and the poor screw-ups who would rather be out either stabbing folk or doing drugs will feel as if their time is being wasted, become restless and unruly, and cause more undue fuss than they do now.
If you haven't seen them, may I suggest the following "Downfall" parodies:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43OFjvTiNDg (Latest Developments)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfBgImjQDhw (Assessment)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FcaFHcvUG68 (The SQA)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGPmZXC3wYY (Glow)
and of course, the CfE song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfKKJ1Btmpg (I think my English teacher is in that video)
While side-splittingly funny, these videos are a worrying glimpse of the future, as they're all completely accurate. Teachers will be unable to teach, which is all they want to do. I've yet to talk to a teacher who thinks the CfE will be a success, and as you can see from the comments on those videos, there are a number of reasons. Aside from the horrible teacher problem now in that there are far too many teachers out of work because there were too many training spots open, and subsequently they got reduced drastically, prospective teachers (myself included) will be put off by this. If you want to teach, do you want to do it because you have a passion for whatever field it is you would teach, you have wisdom you wish to pass on or because you want to work in moulding the future of our nation? If it's any of those or more, then forget it. You wont be able to, you'll be too busy making sure people don't fall off their unicycles whilst writing an essay on Burns, because as it's Scotland as run by the SNP, Burns, Burns and Burns will be the only thing approved by them.
Speaking of the SNP, it's all their fault. I can't wait until the election so I can get that fat wank Alex Salmond the hell out of running my country. While they may have good intentions of doing everything their own way to show that Scotland is different from the rest of the world, it's not done very well. Think Tony Mowbray in charge of Celtic. Going in with good intentions about how something should be done, but ultimately failing catastrophically because he doesn't cover the basics. Mark my words, the SNP and the CfE, like dear Mogga, will fail, and the country will take years to recover.
And all the while, i'll be teaching Gatsby to every year I get....
Wednesday, 2 June 2010
It'll Get You More Than Six Inches, Even if it is a Dream....
Originally posted on 7/3/10
Heavy Rain - PS3 Game Review
For each generation of gaming consoles, there are games that define them, just as there are games that define genres. This is nothing new. What happens very rarely is the game that comes along that both defines a generation and creates a genre of its own. As such, Heavy Rain is a game so innovative that it could be a gaming yardstick by the time the PlayStation 5 is being released.
For a game where the sole method of control is quicktime events, the level of immersion present in Heavy Rain is something I have never come across in my years of gaming. Aside from the fact that I hard to start the game from scratch as it refused to go into the Blue Lagoon for me, the story present is one that, while never the same twice as it's affected by your actions, captivates you and takes your breath away.
Basic premise is that you alternate between 4 characters, all trying to find the mysterious "Origami Killer," a rather warped individual who drowns children in rainwater. When you think about it, that name is garbage, as the kids aren't killed by origami, merely left with a small piece of paper art when their body's dumped on a wasteland. But either way, the media needs a name, so you end up with that. Your characters are Ethan Mars, whose son has been taken by the killer, Scott Shelby, a private investigator looking into the case, Madison Paige, a journalist who's a nosey cow and Nahman Jayden, a drug addict FBI agent. While some characters are more likeable than others, there's no questioning the levels of depth present in each of them. When you're controlling the characters you can hear their thoughts about certain issues, which allows you to guage how you're going to act with them. Just about everything can be interacted with, and as I said, everything makes a difference. Do you want to send your kid to bed at 7 with no dinner? Or do you play by the schedule his bitch mother made you write up in the kitchen? Either way, the story carries on regardless, and it's this that keeps you captivated. Hell even having everyone die keeps the game going, although I imagine that it'd be over pretty quick when you do. Whatever path you choose, you will continue to be drawn in, finding yourself caring about the characters so much you take every blow with them. The acting is top notch, surprising considering it's not actually people in it but pixels.
Graphically, this is to humans what Gran Turismo is to cars. While most games can have things that look like people at a glance, Heavy Rain requires you to stare at them for a bit before you realise it's not real. As the name implies, there's a lot of water present, be it falling from the sky trying to drown Shaun or dripping off Madison's supple bosom, and again, it's impeccable. The level of detail is outstanding, and while it's caused some problems that led to me downloading a patch before playing the game despite getting it before the release date, on the whole, there were no real glitches. The rest of the craft in building the game is equally impeccable, so much so I honestly believe more games like this being made could lead to there being an Oscar category for games, as well as them being a more advanced medium for telling stories. While in this case it'd be a bit difficult seeing as the story is different depending on how you play, some sort of recognition is deserved, as the story present eclipses even that of BioShock, the best story i'd ever come across in a game.
In terms of criticism you can throw at it, there's not much. Using quicktime events for everything isn't as boring as you'd think, you even get your reaction time right up to scratch as you desperately try to keep folk alive as well. Re-play value is going to be a bit thin as well, seeing as whatever you do will be different from the way you know the story to go. Either way, if you go into Heavy Rain with no hang-ups and just want to enjoy it, it will draw you in, and will provide you with an experience unlike just about any other you've ever had.
Heavy Rain - PS3 Game Review
For each generation of gaming consoles, there are games that define them, just as there are games that define genres. This is nothing new. What happens very rarely is the game that comes along that both defines a generation and creates a genre of its own. As such, Heavy Rain is a game so innovative that it could be a gaming yardstick by the time the PlayStation 5 is being released.
For a game where the sole method of control is quicktime events, the level of immersion present in Heavy Rain is something I have never come across in my years of gaming. Aside from the fact that I hard to start the game from scratch as it refused to go into the Blue Lagoon for me, the story present is one that, while never the same twice as it's affected by your actions, captivates you and takes your breath away.
Basic premise is that you alternate between 4 characters, all trying to find the mysterious "Origami Killer," a rather warped individual who drowns children in rainwater. When you think about it, that name is garbage, as the kids aren't killed by origami, merely left with a small piece of paper art when their body's dumped on a wasteland. But either way, the media needs a name, so you end up with that. Your characters are Ethan Mars, whose son has been taken by the killer, Scott Shelby, a private investigator looking into the case, Madison Paige, a journalist who's a nosey cow and Nahman Jayden, a drug addict FBI agent. While some characters are more likeable than others, there's no questioning the levels of depth present in each of them. When you're controlling the characters you can hear their thoughts about certain issues, which allows you to guage how you're going to act with them. Just about everything can be interacted with, and as I said, everything makes a difference. Do you want to send your kid to bed at 7 with no dinner? Or do you play by the schedule his bitch mother made you write up in the kitchen? Either way, the story carries on regardless, and it's this that keeps you captivated. Hell even having everyone die keeps the game going, although I imagine that it'd be over pretty quick when you do. Whatever path you choose, you will continue to be drawn in, finding yourself caring about the characters so much you take every blow with them. The acting is top notch, surprising considering it's not actually people in it but pixels.
Graphically, this is to humans what Gran Turismo is to cars. While most games can have things that look like people at a glance, Heavy Rain requires you to stare at them for a bit before you realise it's not real. As the name implies, there's a lot of water present, be it falling from the sky trying to drown Shaun or dripping off Madison's supple bosom, and again, it's impeccable. The level of detail is outstanding, and while it's caused some problems that led to me downloading a patch before playing the game despite getting it before the release date, on the whole, there were no real glitches. The rest of the craft in building the game is equally impeccable, so much so I honestly believe more games like this being made could lead to there being an Oscar category for games, as well as them being a more advanced medium for telling stories. While in this case it'd be a bit difficult seeing as the story is different depending on how you play, some sort of recognition is deserved, as the story present eclipses even that of BioShock, the best story i'd ever come across in a game.
In terms of criticism you can throw at it, there's not much. Using quicktime events for everything isn't as boring as you'd think, you even get your reaction time right up to scratch as you desperately try to keep folk alive as well. Re-play value is going to be a bit thin as well, seeing as whatever you do will be different from the way you know the story to go. Either way, if you go into Heavy Rain with no hang-ups and just want to enjoy it, it will draw you in, and will provide you with an experience unlike just about any other you've ever had.
Things I Have an Opinion On #12
Originally posted on 1/3/10
2010 Olympic Winter Games
In the build-up to these games, there was more than a little controversy. You can use this: http://2010observers.bccla.org/censorship-gallery/ if you'd like to see the absurd censorship levels exercised in the Vancouver area. Couple this with a distinct lack of snow, rumours of the over-spend on the budget making Holyrood look like a bargain, and it wasn't looking too good. Now in a Winter Olympics, the first thing I was always going to care about was the hockey, so we'll deal with that first. Of the entire Colorado Avalanche roster and prospects, 4 people went. Paul Stastny for USA, Peter Budaj for Slovakia, Ruslan Salei for Belarus and Jonas Holos for Norway. While you could say it reflects poorly on the team that we only have 4 Olympians that are with us now, it should help us for the remaining 20 games, and the players who went gave a good account of themselves. Holos was outstanding for the Norwegians, and I look forward to seeing him suit up in burgandy and blue in a few years. Budaj never played, but Slovakia almost made the final, and for someone who is such a team player, you can guarantee he would've been a key part of them getting so far. Salei was just coming back from a knee (or back, I could never remember) injury, so anything he did was good to see, although I was convinced he was right-handed when I saw my first Belarus game, but evidently not. Stazz was a different kettle of fish however, as while he was within a goal of a gold medal, and played most of the time with Zach Parise and or Patrick Kane, I wasn't overly impressed with him. It was nice to see hockey on the telly again though, as I could actually see where the puck was, rather than using a stream at around 600px that dies whenever I sit in a different position in my chair. This of course however leaves you at the mercy of the two eejits that the BBC have to commentate on hockey, Brent Pope and Bob Ballard. Ballard is the worst kind of play-by-play commentator, the kind of someone who uses wee bits of slang thinking it'll make him appear knowledgeable to people who know nothing. It may well do, but for people like me, it just seems stupid. That and he cannot for the life of him pronounce "Pavelski." Note: It's spelled phoenetically. Other gems from him these Olympics include:
"If the USA had ten Brian Rafalski's, they'd be set"
"Nash, to Crosby, unfortunately for the Canadians they don't have Stills and Young"
"Miller's a bit wiry, he looks like he could do with a good feed"
"Brian Burke is a bit more outspoken than Ron Wilson"
Pope must've felt left out however, giving it: "Toronto is the Mecca of global ice hockey in the NHL"
For the final, when it was the only thing on and they had to cover it, you had to laugh behind the thinking for presenter allocation. In the studio we had Steve Cram, some Canadian burd who won a skiing gold a few years back and Matthew Pinsent. Pinsent apparently watched hockey in Turin and "got right into it." Riiiiiiiiiiiiight. That'll be why you said that "The Canadians level of patriotism about these games has even reached that of the Americans." Almost as good as Steve giving it "The Canadians almost feel as if they invented ice hockey" in his dulcet Geordie tones whilst poring over the morning papers.
Embarassing coverage aside (I could've done a better job), the competition as a whole was fantastic, with a final worthy of any competition. Only problem was Sindey fucking Crosby scoring the winner. While I daresay it'll be mostly non-hockey fans who read this, please don't view this wee twerp as the face of the NHL. He jumps people from faceoffs: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c53DZ9iHrJE, he sucker-punches: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wqR17KrLKw and ever since he came into the league 4 years ago, has bitched and moaned about EVERYTHING. That he is being used as the face of the league world wide and while I realise it's not all down to his doing, I, and just about every hockey fan is sick of it. There are better players and better role models who could and should be used to market the game worldwide (see; Matt Duchene: http://www.milehighhockey.com/2010/2/23/1322799/make-mine-duchene)
All-in though, it was a tournament that we can be proud of. Just get rid of OLE OLE OLE after goals, airhorns and Canadian hockey fans in Canada. And get the NHL to Sochi in 2014, or better yet, get Gary Bettman out a job!
There were other sports at the games, and one of them I fell in love with was curling, something that Britain are actually good at (supposedly). Aside from the eye candy on offer (see Eve Muirhead, Sweden, 3/4 of Russia and whoever was playing lead for Denmark), it was a sport that was fairly easy to pick up, considering i'd never seen a game of it before. The strategy and planning involved was fascinating, and while some say it's not a sport (i've heard it described as bowling with strategy, and not a sport because pregnant women can do it) I think it was outstanding, although I would have liked at least one medal for Britain from it.
What really stood out for me this time however was the commentary. Featuring Steve Cram (who, to his credit, knew what he was talking about) and Rhona (Colin Hendry) Martin, I have never been as entertained in my life. I'm fairly sure that they've started pumping as a result of their partnership, and their exchanges were like nothing you've ever heard. For instance, the use of the word "guddle" by Rhona. Steve, being Geordie, had no idea what she was on about, and required an explanation, him saying he thought she had been saying "girdle." Both cringeworthy and hilarious in equal measure. As was them talking about things like where to go for lunch, whether the king of Norway would partake in a Mexican wave, and just general off-hand comments. Some of their guests were an absolute treat as well. Despite following it almost religiously for the last two weeks, I missed Wayne Gretzky being there. I did get to hear Carl Lewis talk about running for 15 minutes however, and in the mens playoff between Britain and Sweden, dear Paula pissypants Radcliffe. When the Brits were faced with a lot of Swedish stones to be removed, Paula, in one of her regular 15 minute intervals with which to share her though, remarked "they should just spin one round and knock everything out." Quite. Aside from the faults, it was still enjoyable to watch, and i'll be right behind all the chookters throwing stones down a sheet of ice in 4 years.
For a country with poorly thought-out presenter/commentator distribution for a winter games, you wouldn't expect many medals. Our skaters were lucky to get anywhere, our bobsleigh team failed miserably, our curlers choked, our snowboard cross burd hurt her shin and the figure skaters never did too well. Our only medal came from the skeleton, basically a tea-tray on skates going down a huge chute. Looked like tremendous fun, and our gold came from Amy Williams, beating a rather tasty German burd into 2nd. Not bad for someone from a country with no skeleton track, although we probably could have got more medals.
All-in-all, despite its faults, you'd have to say that the 21st Olympic Winter Games were a success. They also taught us that hockey is something else that women shouldn't be allowed to play. Boy was that awful.
2010 Olympic Winter Games
In the build-up to these games, there was more than a little controversy. You can use this: http://2010observers.bccla.org/censorship-gallery/ if you'd like to see the absurd censorship levels exercised in the Vancouver area. Couple this with a distinct lack of snow, rumours of the over-spend on the budget making Holyrood look like a bargain, and it wasn't looking too good. Now in a Winter Olympics, the first thing I was always going to care about was the hockey, so we'll deal with that first. Of the entire Colorado Avalanche roster and prospects, 4 people went. Paul Stastny for USA, Peter Budaj for Slovakia, Ruslan Salei for Belarus and Jonas Holos for Norway. While you could say it reflects poorly on the team that we only have 4 Olympians that are with us now, it should help us for the remaining 20 games, and the players who went gave a good account of themselves. Holos was outstanding for the Norwegians, and I look forward to seeing him suit up in burgandy and blue in a few years. Budaj never played, but Slovakia almost made the final, and for someone who is such a team player, you can guarantee he would've been a key part of them getting so far. Salei was just coming back from a knee (or back, I could never remember) injury, so anything he did was good to see, although I was convinced he was right-handed when I saw my first Belarus game, but evidently not. Stazz was a different kettle of fish however, as while he was within a goal of a gold medal, and played most of the time with Zach Parise and or Patrick Kane, I wasn't overly impressed with him. It was nice to see hockey on the telly again though, as I could actually see where the puck was, rather than using a stream at around 600px that dies whenever I sit in a different position in my chair. This of course however leaves you at the mercy of the two eejits that the BBC have to commentate on hockey, Brent Pope and Bob Ballard. Ballard is the worst kind of play-by-play commentator, the kind of someone who uses wee bits of slang thinking it'll make him appear knowledgeable to people who know nothing. It may well do, but for people like me, it just seems stupid. That and he cannot for the life of him pronounce "Pavelski." Note: It's spelled phoenetically. Other gems from him these Olympics include:
"If the USA had ten Brian Rafalski's, they'd be set"
"Nash, to Crosby, unfortunately for the Canadians they don't have Stills and Young"
"Miller's a bit wiry, he looks like he could do with a good feed"
"Brian Burke is a bit more outspoken than Ron Wilson"
Pope must've felt left out however, giving it: "Toronto is the Mecca of global ice hockey in the NHL"
For the final, when it was the only thing on and they had to cover it, you had to laugh behind the thinking for presenter allocation. In the studio we had Steve Cram, some Canadian burd who won a skiing gold a few years back and Matthew Pinsent. Pinsent apparently watched hockey in Turin and "got right into it." Riiiiiiiiiiiiight. That'll be why you said that "The Canadians level of patriotism about these games has even reached that of the Americans." Almost as good as Steve giving it "The Canadians almost feel as if they invented ice hockey" in his dulcet Geordie tones whilst poring over the morning papers.
Embarassing coverage aside (I could've done a better job), the competition as a whole was fantastic, with a final worthy of any competition. Only problem was Sindey fucking Crosby scoring the winner. While I daresay it'll be mostly non-hockey fans who read this, please don't view this wee twerp as the face of the NHL. He jumps people from faceoffs: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c53DZ9iHrJE, he sucker-punches: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wqR17KrLKw and ever since he came into the league 4 years ago, has bitched and moaned about EVERYTHING. That he is being used as the face of the league world wide and while I realise it's not all down to his doing, I, and just about every hockey fan is sick of it. There are better players and better role models who could and should be used to market the game worldwide (see; Matt Duchene: http://www.milehighhockey.com/2010/2/23/1322799/make-mine-duchene)
All-in though, it was a tournament that we can be proud of. Just get rid of OLE OLE OLE after goals, airhorns and Canadian hockey fans in Canada. And get the NHL to Sochi in 2014, or better yet, get Gary Bettman out a job!
There were other sports at the games, and one of them I fell in love with was curling, something that Britain are actually good at (supposedly). Aside from the eye candy on offer (see Eve Muirhead, Sweden, 3/4 of Russia and whoever was playing lead for Denmark), it was a sport that was fairly easy to pick up, considering i'd never seen a game of it before. The strategy and planning involved was fascinating, and while some say it's not a sport (i've heard it described as bowling with strategy, and not a sport because pregnant women can do it) I think it was outstanding, although I would have liked at least one medal for Britain from it.
What really stood out for me this time however was the commentary. Featuring Steve Cram (who, to his credit, knew what he was talking about) and Rhona (Colin Hendry) Martin, I have never been as entertained in my life. I'm fairly sure that they've started pumping as a result of their partnership, and their exchanges were like nothing you've ever heard. For instance, the use of the word "guddle" by Rhona. Steve, being Geordie, had no idea what she was on about, and required an explanation, him saying he thought she had been saying "girdle." Both cringeworthy and hilarious in equal measure. As was them talking about things like where to go for lunch, whether the king of Norway would partake in a Mexican wave, and just general off-hand comments. Some of their guests were an absolute treat as well. Despite following it almost religiously for the last two weeks, I missed Wayne Gretzky being there. I did get to hear Carl Lewis talk about running for 15 minutes however, and in the mens playoff between Britain and Sweden, dear Paula pissypants Radcliffe. When the Brits were faced with a lot of Swedish stones to be removed, Paula, in one of her regular 15 minute intervals with which to share her though, remarked "they should just spin one round and knock everything out." Quite. Aside from the faults, it was still enjoyable to watch, and i'll be right behind all the chookters throwing stones down a sheet of ice in 4 years.
For a country with poorly thought-out presenter/commentator distribution for a winter games, you wouldn't expect many medals. Our skaters were lucky to get anywhere, our bobsleigh team failed miserably, our curlers choked, our snowboard cross burd hurt her shin and the figure skaters never did too well. Our only medal came from the skeleton, basically a tea-tray on skates going down a huge chute. Looked like tremendous fun, and our gold came from Amy Williams, beating a rather tasty German burd into 2nd. Not bad for someone from a country with no skeleton track, although we probably could have got more medals.
All-in-all, despite its faults, you'd have to say that the 21st Olympic Winter Games were a success. They also taught us that hockey is something else that women shouldn't be allowed to play. Boy was that awful.
All I Ended Up With Was Snow
Originally posted on 28/2/10
Heavy Rain - PS3 game first impression....
My copy has frozen. As such, i'm going on hiatus until it's patched (again) and I can finish it and comment on it properly.
Heavy Rain - PS3 game first impression....
My copy has frozen. As such, i'm going on hiatus until it's patched (again) and I can finish it and comment on it properly.
Things I Have an Opinion On #11
Originally posted on 26/2/10
The best kinds of salmon
Salmon is the common name for several species of fish of the family Salmonidae. Several other fish in the family are called trout; the difference is often said to be that salmon migrate and trout are resident, a distinction that holds true for the Salmo genus. Salmon live in both the Atlantic (one migratory species Salmo salar) and Pacific Oceans, as well as the Great Lakes (approximately a dozen species of the genus Oncorhynchus).
Now that wikipedia's had its say, lets see what kinds of salmon there are for you to see and eat, and ultimately, which is best.
Salmon are one of the most dogged an determined animals in the world, and this is most evident in their breeding methods. Typically, salmon are anadromous: they are born in fresh water, migrate to the ocean, then return to fresh water to reproduce. However, there are rare species that can only survive in fresh water. Folklore has it that the fish return to the exact spot where they were born to spawn; tracking studies have shown this to be true but the nature of how this memory works has long been debated. Salmon eggs are laid in freshwater streams typically at high latitutes. The eggs hatch into alevin or sac fry. The fry quickly develop into parr with camouflaging vertical stripes. The parr stay for one to three years in their natal stream before becoming smolts, which are distinguished by their bright silvery colour with scales that are easily rubbed off. It is estimated that only 10% of all salmon eggs survive to this stage. The smolt body chemistry changes, allowing them to live in salt water. Smolts spend a portion of their out-migration time in brackish water, where their body chemistry becomes accustomed to osmoregulation in the ocean.
There's obviously different kinds that live in the different oceans in the world. Salmon is a popular food. Classified as an "oily fish", salmon is considered to be healthy due to the fish's high protein, high Omega-3 fatty acids, and high vitamin D levels. It's actually one of the few fish that I can stand eating, as it doesn't reek and it doesn't feel as if you're eating a bit of fat from the Chinese that's been left too long in the fryer. Smoked salmon is another popular preparation method, and can either be hot or cold smoked. Lox can refer either to cold smoked salmon or to salmon cured in a brine solution (also called gravlax). Traditional canned salmon includes some skin (which is harmless) and bone (which adds calcium). Skinless and boneless canned salmon is also available. Bear in mind that the pinker the salmon, the healthier it is, and therefor safer and tastier to eat. Of the companies to produce canned salmon (the one I have most frequently, if I have it at all), John West is the best one to get. Generally very tasty, and supposedly they don't source their salmon from farms which over harvest the fish. You should get that one!
The best kinds of salmon
Salmon is the common name for several species of fish of the family Salmonidae. Several other fish in the family are called trout; the difference is often said to be that salmon migrate and trout are resident, a distinction that holds true for the Salmo genus. Salmon live in both the Atlantic (one migratory species Salmo salar) and Pacific Oceans, as well as the Great Lakes (approximately a dozen species of the genus Oncorhynchus).
Now that wikipedia's had its say, lets see what kinds of salmon there are for you to see and eat, and ultimately, which is best.
Salmon are one of the most dogged an determined animals in the world, and this is most evident in their breeding methods. Typically, salmon are anadromous: they are born in fresh water, migrate to the ocean, then return to fresh water to reproduce. However, there are rare species that can only survive in fresh water. Folklore has it that the fish return to the exact spot where they were born to spawn; tracking studies have shown this to be true but the nature of how this memory works has long been debated. Salmon eggs are laid in freshwater streams typically at high latitutes. The eggs hatch into alevin or sac fry. The fry quickly develop into parr with camouflaging vertical stripes. The parr stay for one to three years in their natal stream before becoming smolts, which are distinguished by their bright silvery colour with scales that are easily rubbed off. It is estimated that only 10% of all salmon eggs survive to this stage. The smolt body chemistry changes, allowing them to live in salt water. Smolts spend a portion of their out-migration time in brackish water, where their body chemistry becomes accustomed to osmoregulation in the ocean.
There's obviously different kinds that live in the different oceans in the world. Salmon is a popular food. Classified as an "oily fish", salmon is considered to be healthy due to the fish's high protein, high Omega-3 fatty acids, and high vitamin D levels. It's actually one of the few fish that I can stand eating, as it doesn't reek and it doesn't feel as if you're eating a bit of fat from the Chinese that's been left too long in the fryer. Smoked salmon is another popular preparation method, and can either be hot or cold smoked. Lox can refer either to cold smoked salmon or to salmon cured in a brine solution (also called gravlax). Traditional canned salmon includes some skin (which is harmless) and bone (which adds calcium). Skinless and boneless canned salmon is also available. Bear in mind that the pinker the salmon, the healthier it is, and therefor safer and tastier to eat. Of the companies to produce canned salmon (the one I have most frequently, if I have it at all), John West is the best one to get. Generally very tasty, and supposedly they don't source their salmon from farms which over harvest the fish. You should get that one!
It's Not New Order, But is it New?
Originally posted on 21/2/10
Acolyte - Delphic - Album Review
A city's musical legacy is one of the biggest curses that can befall an up-and-coming band. As such, a band from Manchester that uses synths is forever doomed to be called New Order's predecessors. Just like any Mancunian band that combines 3 guitarists and as many chords with bored, drawling vocals is as likely to be called the next Oasis and is subsequetnly doomed to failure. In many cases, comparisons like this are akin to saying that Kyle Lafferty must be like George Best because they're both Northern Irish.
As such, Delphic are a band who of course draw influence from New Order, who wouldn't, but ultimately end up creating with debut album Acolyte that was released in January sometime something that can stand up on its own two feet, proudly showcasing the bands ability to make brilliant dance/rock crossover music. Even though i've only had it on a few times, the one best thing that can be drawn from it is that singles Doubt and This Momentary, while both brilliant, are by no means the strongest on the album. When you hear the title track, a 9 minute long instrumental and you hear how it morphs from beginning to end, starting off small and quiet with the odd ping from the guitar and then it rushes up to a crescendo which will make you dance and wish it'll never end. Delphic seem to have gotten this dancing business down, as there's hardly a moment where you can't imagine yourself in a club somewhere with the filthy beats on offer pulsing through your veins.
Lyrically, it's not actually that bad for a dance album. Normally with a band who embrace the synthesiser so openly you'll get maybe two lines to a chorus repeated over and over, but that's not the case here. There's actually coherent sentences, and the crooning voice of.... the guy who sings sounds as homely as your wallpaper. It's nothing particularly distinctive, but it's not boring either. It's also a voice that can go well with either the dance or rock stuff, it transfers well and never sounds out of its depth.
A fairly short review this week, but Delphic are a band with no frills. They make a good tune, stuff that you can dance to and sing along to, and it's surely a candidate for album of the year.
Acolyte - Delphic - Album Review
A city's musical legacy is one of the biggest curses that can befall an up-and-coming band. As such, a band from Manchester that uses synths is forever doomed to be called New Order's predecessors. Just like any Mancunian band that combines 3 guitarists and as many chords with bored, drawling vocals is as likely to be called the next Oasis and is subsequetnly doomed to failure. In many cases, comparisons like this are akin to saying that Kyle Lafferty must be like George Best because they're both Northern Irish.
As such, Delphic are a band who of course draw influence from New Order, who wouldn't, but ultimately end up creating with debut album Acolyte that was released in January sometime something that can stand up on its own two feet, proudly showcasing the bands ability to make brilliant dance/rock crossover music. Even though i've only had it on a few times, the one best thing that can be drawn from it is that singles Doubt and This Momentary, while both brilliant, are by no means the strongest on the album. When you hear the title track, a 9 minute long instrumental and you hear how it morphs from beginning to end, starting off small and quiet with the odd ping from the guitar and then it rushes up to a crescendo which will make you dance and wish it'll never end. Delphic seem to have gotten this dancing business down, as there's hardly a moment where you can't imagine yourself in a club somewhere with the filthy beats on offer pulsing through your veins.
Lyrically, it's not actually that bad for a dance album. Normally with a band who embrace the synthesiser so openly you'll get maybe two lines to a chorus repeated over and over, but that's not the case here. There's actually coherent sentences, and the crooning voice of.... the guy who sings sounds as homely as your wallpaper. It's nothing particularly distinctive, but it's not boring either. It's also a voice that can go well with either the dance or rock stuff, it transfers well and never sounds out of its depth.
A fairly short review this week, but Delphic are a band with no frills. They make a good tune, stuff that you can dance to and sing along to, and it's surely a candidate for album of the year.
Things I Have an Opinion On #10
Originally posted on 20/2/10
European football qualification requirements
In a week where a playoff for the 4th Champions League spot in England has been brought up and it was announced that from 2011-2012, only the Scottish champion will get a crack at the Champions League, and even then after going through 3 qualification rounds, you have to ask, what has happened to the competition that was revamped to prevent elitism in European club football?
Initially, the format for the European Cup was to include the champions of each league in Europe from the previous season, as well as the current holders if they were not already in it. This format allowed truly the best teams in Europe to test themselves against each other, and allowed tournaments such as the Cup Winners Cup and UEFA Cup to flourish, with big teams who'd finished 2nd in their league contesting this. This was a perfectly fair format for everyone, as it allowed the smaller teams to get a crack at Europe, with teams like Aberdeen and Dundee United doing well. However, it was changed to the current Champions League format, where, based on UEFA's good old coefficients rating, up to four teams from a country can qualify. So in reality, the 4th best team in England or Spain can play in the Champions league. Seems a bit unfair to me. As such, the UEFA cup's popularity has declined such that it has became the same format as the CL, and the Cup Winner's Cup has been disbanded altogether.
Seeing that the 7th best team in England could potentially make it to the Champions League was the final straw for me however, as this has completely undermined the point of the competition. Such a format will never happen thankfully, but that it was even thought of is cause for concern. As is Scotland, a country which in the last 7 years has seen two clubs reach European finals, and seen many a venture into Europe past christmas. The Scottish champions, whoever they may be, do not deserve to play 3 qualifiers to get to the Champions League. The system has declined and became so elitist that it has descended into farce, as everyone simply craves the easy money of the Champions League, and no-one seems to notice that limiting the places available would increase domestic competition, and boost the status of the Europa League (or whatever it may be called).
My proposed system follows:
UEFA has 53 national associations which fall under its jurisdiction. If you were to take the champions from each league, you would have 53 teams which could split up thus:
12 groups of 4, 1 group of 5
Have each team play each other home and away, as is the current format.
Have the top two teams in each group go through, giving you 26 teams.
To get to a last 32, the remaining 6 places go to the runners-up in their group who have the best points to games ratio. If teams are tied, go to goal difference etc, the basic tie-breaking rules applying.
The last 32 will be played knock-out, home and away, as is the current format of the Europa League after christmas.
Does this not seem awfully simple? And get back to the whole point of the European Cup, that it is contested for by Europe's best individual teams, rather than the best countries' teams?
The Cup Winner's Cup could be reinstate to allow clubs a further opportunity, though there could be problems if teams are already in another competition. Someone else could work that out.
As for the UEFA Cup, 64 teams, the 53 runners-up of the UEFA league plus the 12 best 3rd placed teams going by the poxy coefficient ratings. This would allow the UEFA Cup to regain some form of prestige, and make all domestic leagues much more exciting, as winning the league would be much more beneficial, rather than being able to finish 4th and still get in to Europe's premier competition.
This will never happen obviously, as the money involved will make the big teams too afraid to risk giving it up, but it would be better for football.
European football qualification requirements
In a week where a playoff for the 4th Champions League spot in England has been brought up and it was announced that from 2011-2012, only the Scottish champion will get a crack at the Champions League, and even then after going through 3 qualification rounds, you have to ask, what has happened to the competition that was revamped to prevent elitism in European club football?
Initially, the format for the European Cup was to include the champions of each league in Europe from the previous season, as well as the current holders if they were not already in it. This format allowed truly the best teams in Europe to test themselves against each other, and allowed tournaments such as the Cup Winners Cup and UEFA Cup to flourish, with big teams who'd finished 2nd in their league contesting this. This was a perfectly fair format for everyone, as it allowed the smaller teams to get a crack at Europe, with teams like Aberdeen and Dundee United doing well. However, it was changed to the current Champions League format, where, based on UEFA's good old coefficients rating, up to four teams from a country can qualify. So in reality, the 4th best team in England or Spain can play in the Champions league. Seems a bit unfair to me. As such, the UEFA cup's popularity has declined such that it has became the same format as the CL, and the Cup Winner's Cup has been disbanded altogether.
Seeing that the 7th best team in England could potentially make it to the Champions League was the final straw for me however, as this has completely undermined the point of the competition. Such a format will never happen thankfully, but that it was even thought of is cause for concern. As is Scotland, a country which in the last 7 years has seen two clubs reach European finals, and seen many a venture into Europe past christmas. The Scottish champions, whoever they may be, do not deserve to play 3 qualifiers to get to the Champions League. The system has declined and became so elitist that it has descended into farce, as everyone simply craves the easy money of the Champions League, and no-one seems to notice that limiting the places available would increase domestic competition, and boost the status of the Europa League (or whatever it may be called).
My proposed system follows:
UEFA has 53 national associations which fall under its jurisdiction. If you were to take the champions from each league, you would have 53 teams which could split up thus:
12 groups of 4, 1 group of 5
Have each team play each other home and away, as is the current format.
Have the top two teams in each group go through, giving you 26 teams.
To get to a last 32, the remaining 6 places go to the runners-up in their group who have the best points to games ratio. If teams are tied, go to goal difference etc, the basic tie-breaking rules applying.
The last 32 will be played knock-out, home and away, as is the current format of the Europa League after christmas.
Does this not seem awfully simple? And get back to the whole point of the European Cup, that it is contested for by Europe's best individual teams, rather than the best countries' teams?
The Cup Winner's Cup could be reinstate to allow clubs a further opportunity, though there could be problems if teams are already in another competition. Someone else could work that out.
As for the UEFA Cup, 64 teams, the 53 runners-up of the UEFA league plus the 12 best 3rd placed teams going by the poxy coefficient ratings. This would allow the UEFA Cup to regain some form of prestige, and make all domestic leagues much more exciting, as winning the league would be much more beneficial, rather than being able to finish 4th and still get in to Europe's premier competition.
This will never happen obviously, as the money involved will make the big teams too afraid to risk giving it up, but it would be better for football.
Things I Have an Opinion On #9
Originally posted on 17/2/10
JLS, and any music artist who got famous from a reality TV show
In a blog completely unrelated to recent events, i've decided to explain once and for all why music is going down the shitter.
Radiohead guitarist Ed O'Brien said recently that creativity in music is being sacrificed for money making: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/8477675.stm and the man is right. Why do people listen to music? The primary reason is to be entertained. As such, stuff like The X Factor could be seen as music for the 21st century, purely based on entertainment and nothing else. But that undermines the very reason music was invented in the first place, to be creative. There is nothing creative about the artists who got famous from TV shows. None of them write their own songs, none of them are particularly memorable, and they could come of a production line for all the difference that exists between them. Everything that is churned out by the happy smiling goliath that is The X Factor is swallowed up by the equally happy smiling mindless drones of the people that this drviel is aimed at. Remember when I said that the album is dying? It's because people no longer have the attention span to devote 40-50 minutes a day to giving a band the time to listen to what they can do. Everything is geared towards the one crap song ala Beat Again, which sticks in your head for a week until the next manufactured drivel comes along to win the hearts of unfortunate saps who don't know any better. There's no feeling behind it, absolutely nothing that makes you think the people behind the noise care about what they're doing.
Rage Against the Machine proved that not everyone is a drone. While the concept behind it wasn't exactly wonderful, ie everyone buy the one thing with the sole purpose of beating some tranny Geordie whose name i've already forgotten, at least they're a real band, and the music is real and has a real message. Any other band who was ever beaten to a number one spot by some rent-a-tune from a TV programme is always going to be infinitely better than what beat them, and further proof that the chart system is both completely irrelevant in judging the musical ability of an artists, but scarily and sadly representitive of the population today. If you have ever bought a single from one of these people, you are wrong. If you have ever bought an album from one of these people, you are wrong. If you have ever been to see one of these people in concert, you are wrong.
JLS, and any music artist who got famous from a reality TV show
In a blog completely unrelated to recent events, i've decided to explain once and for all why music is going down the shitter.
Radiohead guitarist Ed O'Brien said recently that creativity in music is being sacrificed for money making: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/8477675.stm and the man is right. Why do people listen to music? The primary reason is to be entertained. As such, stuff like The X Factor could be seen as music for the 21st century, purely based on entertainment and nothing else. But that undermines the very reason music was invented in the first place, to be creative. There is nothing creative about the artists who got famous from TV shows. None of them write their own songs, none of them are particularly memorable, and they could come of a production line for all the difference that exists between them. Everything that is churned out by the happy smiling goliath that is The X Factor is swallowed up by the equally happy smiling mindless drones of the people that this drviel is aimed at. Remember when I said that the album is dying? It's because people no longer have the attention span to devote 40-50 minutes a day to giving a band the time to listen to what they can do. Everything is geared towards the one crap song ala Beat Again, which sticks in your head for a week until the next manufactured drivel comes along to win the hearts of unfortunate saps who don't know any better. There's no feeling behind it, absolutely nothing that makes you think the people behind the noise care about what they're doing.
Rage Against the Machine proved that not everyone is a drone. While the concept behind it wasn't exactly wonderful, ie everyone buy the one thing with the sole purpose of beating some tranny Geordie whose name i've already forgotten, at least they're a real band, and the music is real and has a real message. Any other band who was ever beaten to a number one spot by some rent-a-tune from a TV programme is always going to be infinitely better than what beat them, and further proof that the chart system is both completely irrelevant in judging the musical ability of an artists, but scarily and sadly representitive of the population today. If you have ever bought a single from one of these people, you are wrong. If you have ever bought an album from one of these people, you are wrong. If you have ever been to see one of these people in concert, you are wrong.
Not Quite in Rapture Anymore....
Originally posted on 15/2/10
BioShock 2 - PlayStation 3 game review
In terms of living up to previous installments, this game was always going to be The Phantom Menace to the Original Trilogy. Kid A to OK Computer. This is Hardcore to Different Class. As such, you obviously dive headlong into BioShock 2 with high expectations, given the sheer class of the original and the trailers/excerpts we've seen of the follow-up. Obivously it'll focus on someone different than BioShock, as the chap you played in that has since went to the surface and lived out a happy enough life for a product of Rapture. So now, you're a Big Daddy, and the premise of the story is that you're fighting through Rapture to find your Little Sister.
BioShock 2 takes a lead from GTA in terms of weapons, as, like before, you can carry a drill, a rivet gun, a .50 cal machine gun, a spear gun, a grenade launcher, a camera, a hack tool and a shotgun, with no visible encumberment of your person. Weaponry is one of the few points where the original is bested, as weapons like the spear gun and drill are pieces of brilliance, and being able to fire plasmids at the same time helps make combat more entertaining. It's also necessary, as the splicers are tougher and there's some new ones, and being able to spam them with everything you've got certainly comes in handy. Your opponents in Rapture are pretty much the same except harder to kill, and the Brute Splicers are downright annoying. Where 2K have outdone themselves however is with the Big Sisters. The shriek from these things when they turn up is the scariest thing that happens to you in the game, because you know that you're going to get battered about, and the damn thing ain't going to stop screeching until you give it what for. What helps here however is a Hypnotise plasmid, which makes your enemies attack each other. Really handy when you get nearer to the end and have to fight two of them at once.
As it's over ten years since civil war broke out in Rapture, and it's been left unmaintained, you can understand it'd be in a bit of a bad state. There's more water in it for instance, and as the ocean is getting back in, there's coral everywhere. This is one of the sticking points of the game and the most obvious, as the colour everywhere ruins the atmosphere. A city in ruin at the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean should not be brightly coloured, it should be dank, it should be barely lit and make you feel like it's going to fall apart if you step too heavily. Fortunately this was rectified at points however, as you can still see the former grandeur of what was created purely as a haven for the creative minds of the world. There is a level where you can see how Rapture was built. Big no-no. To build a city at the bottom of the ocean in 1946 is infathomable, but in BioShock, you never questioned it. BioShock 2 however feels the need to describe how it happened, and if you thought that it wasn't believeable before, you may as well just turn off the console now. Andrew Ryan's boat floated the foundations out to sea, plopped them in and hey presto, instant city. Fantastic, there goes that illusion. There are less locations too than the first game, none of them as iconic as the originals.
Given that in BioShock you put Ryan's head in with a golf club and Fontaine got stabbed to death by Little Sisters, you were going to need new enemies and characters. Main antagonist is Sofia Lamb, a social troubleshooter brought in when Rapture started to go down the tubes, who somehow has made the splicers listen to her, and directs everybody to try and kill you. She also happens to be the natural mother of the Little Sister you're trying to find. Well, nobody said this was going to be easy... She gets quite wearing after a while however, as she refuses to listen to reason, and while neither Ryan nor Fontaine listened to reason, they didn't not do it (wtf?) for the whole game. Lamb just gets irritating about three hours in. You see, what she wants to do is put the whole of Raptures' peoples' abilities in to one person. A bit hard considering there's about three sane people left you would have thought, as well as being completely fruitless, because it had been tried before, and failed. The example of this was a chap called Gil Alexander, who is now a blob living in a tank. Fantastic characterisation, it's right up there with Jar Jar Binks. He makes about as much sense as JJB, and silly characters like this are not what Rapture is about. People can be insane, and you would expect them to be, but psychotic insane, not insane like Jim Carrey in The Mask. Other folk pop up, like Grace Alexander (racist) and Stanley Poole (a scummy journalist who did something bad to you), and you have the choice of killing them, but you really don't want to. Mainly because they're so bland and one dimensional you take pity on them. There's also a chap called Sinclair who follows you around with a crap Southern accent, and you don't see him, at all. He pops up once at the start, then hides for the rest of the journey, ordering you about. There's no depth to any of the characters, the only one that you care a jot about is Eleanor and even then she only appears for half an hour at the conclusion. A lot of the characters feel very poorly thought out, and nothing compared to the high standards created in game number one. Only plus point here is that Eleanor's hot when she's all grown up.
There is one explanation for the poorer parts of the single player however, and they lie in the multiplayer. Multiplayer works in games like COD. They have the formula down, with stories that take you in (or the Infinity Ward games do) while still managing to give you a multiplayer experience that will have plenty of people playing COD4, when it came out over two years ago. So what do 2K do? Exactly the same.
You have ranks, 40, and you get promoted when you get more adam (points) from games for kills and objectives.
You get new weapons, plasmids and tonics as you level up.
Game modes include team deathmatch, free for all, domination and capture the flag
How original. While the mulitplayer is fun, it's not necessary. Games don't have to have multiplayer, especially not a game that's so focused on the single player experience as BioShock should be, and ultimately, the BioShock 2 multiplayer takes away from what should have been a masterclass in game-making. Multiplayer is not the only or the worst thing about this game, but it is a large contributing factor towards it, and proves that it's not needed on all games.
Too conclude, i'm torn. BioShock 2 is by no means brilliant, but it's not as bad as I thought it was when I first played it. Maybe there's more depth to it than the first play, because it seems to be better the second time of playing the single player. I hope it does, because as a series of games, BioShock has the potential to be up there with the best.
BioShock 2 - PlayStation 3 game review
In terms of living up to previous installments, this game was always going to be The Phantom Menace to the Original Trilogy. Kid A to OK Computer. This is Hardcore to Different Class. As such, you obviously dive headlong into BioShock 2 with high expectations, given the sheer class of the original and the trailers/excerpts we've seen of the follow-up. Obivously it'll focus on someone different than BioShock, as the chap you played in that has since went to the surface and lived out a happy enough life for a product of Rapture. So now, you're a Big Daddy, and the premise of the story is that you're fighting through Rapture to find your Little Sister.
BioShock 2 takes a lead from GTA in terms of weapons, as, like before, you can carry a drill, a rivet gun, a .50 cal machine gun, a spear gun, a grenade launcher, a camera, a hack tool and a shotgun, with no visible encumberment of your person. Weaponry is one of the few points where the original is bested, as weapons like the spear gun and drill are pieces of brilliance, and being able to fire plasmids at the same time helps make combat more entertaining. It's also necessary, as the splicers are tougher and there's some new ones, and being able to spam them with everything you've got certainly comes in handy. Your opponents in Rapture are pretty much the same except harder to kill, and the Brute Splicers are downright annoying. Where 2K have outdone themselves however is with the Big Sisters. The shriek from these things when they turn up is the scariest thing that happens to you in the game, because you know that you're going to get battered about, and the damn thing ain't going to stop screeching until you give it what for. What helps here however is a Hypnotise plasmid, which makes your enemies attack each other. Really handy when you get nearer to the end and have to fight two of them at once.
As it's over ten years since civil war broke out in Rapture, and it's been left unmaintained, you can understand it'd be in a bit of a bad state. There's more water in it for instance, and as the ocean is getting back in, there's coral everywhere. This is one of the sticking points of the game and the most obvious, as the colour everywhere ruins the atmosphere. A city in ruin at the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean should not be brightly coloured, it should be dank, it should be barely lit and make you feel like it's going to fall apart if you step too heavily. Fortunately this was rectified at points however, as you can still see the former grandeur of what was created purely as a haven for the creative minds of the world. There is a level where you can see how Rapture was built. Big no-no. To build a city at the bottom of the ocean in 1946 is infathomable, but in BioShock, you never questioned it. BioShock 2 however feels the need to describe how it happened, and if you thought that it wasn't believeable before, you may as well just turn off the console now. Andrew Ryan's boat floated the foundations out to sea, plopped them in and hey presto, instant city. Fantastic, there goes that illusion. There are less locations too than the first game, none of them as iconic as the originals.
Given that in BioShock you put Ryan's head in with a golf club and Fontaine got stabbed to death by Little Sisters, you were going to need new enemies and characters. Main antagonist is Sofia Lamb, a social troubleshooter brought in when Rapture started to go down the tubes, who somehow has made the splicers listen to her, and directs everybody to try and kill you. She also happens to be the natural mother of the Little Sister you're trying to find. Well, nobody said this was going to be easy... She gets quite wearing after a while however, as she refuses to listen to reason, and while neither Ryan nor Fontaine listened to reason, they didn't not do it (wtf?) for the whole game. Lamb just gets irritating about three hours in. You see, what she wants to do is put the whole of Raptures' peoples' abilities in to one person. A bit hard considering there's about three sane people left you would have thought, as well as being completely fruitless, because it had been tried before, and failed. The example of this was a chap called Gil Alexander, who is now a blob living in a tank. Fantastic characterisation, it's right up there with Jar Jar Binks. He makes about as much sense as JJB, and silly characters like this are not what Rapture is about. People can be insane, and you would expect them to be, but psychotic insane, not insane like Jim Carrey in The Mask. Other folk pop up, like Grace Alexander (racist) and Stanley Poole (a scummy journalist who did something bad to you), and you have the choice of killing them, but you really don't want to. Mainly because they're so bland and one dimensional you take pity on them. There's also a chap called Sinclair who follows you around with a crap Southern accent, and you don't see him, at all. He pops up once at the start, then hides for the rest of the journey, ordering you about. There's no depth to any of the characters, the only one that you care a jot about is Eleanor and even then she only appears for half an hour at the conclusion. A lot of the characters feel very poorly thought out, and nothing compared to the high standards created in game number one. Only plus point here is that Eleanor's hot when she's all grown up.
There is one explanation for the poorer parts of the single player however, and they lie in the multiplayer. Multiplayer works in games like COD. They have the formula down, with stories that take you in (or the Infinity Ward games do) while still managing to give you a multiplayer experience that will have plenty of people playing COD4, when it came out over two years ago. So what do 2K do? Exactly the same.
You have ranks, 40, and you get promoted when you get more adam (points) from games for kills and objectives.
You get new weapons, plasmids and tonics as you level up.
Game modes include team deathmatch, free for all, domination and capture the flag
How original. While the mulitplayer is fun, it's not necessary. Games don't have to have multiplayer, especially not a game that's so focused on the single player experience as BioShock should be, and ultimately, the BioShock 2 multiplayer takes away from what should have been a masterclass in game-making. Multiplayer is not the only or the worst thing about this game, but it is a large contributing factor towards it, and proves that it's not needed on all games.
Too conclude, i'm torn. BioShock 2 is by no means brilliant, but it's not as bad as I thought it was when I first played it. Maybe there's more depth to it than the first play, because it seems to be better the second time of playing the single player. I hope it does, because as a series of games, BioShock has the potential to be up there with the best.
More Than Just a Shock to the System
Originally posted on 7/2/10
BioShock - PS3 Game Review
I first saw a review for this in the Daily Record when it came out for the 360 and PC originally in 2007. It got 5 stars, and from seeing the picture alone, I wanted it. It was the only thing I would ever have considered buying a 360 for, and that shows you how glowing a recommendation i'm giving it.
Fortunately however, it made its way onto a real console a year later, with the demo alone captivating you and transporting you into an underwater world that both amazes you and terrifies you. The game itself I completed in a day. While not a glowing recommendation, that was playing it continuously for a day. Like anything with a good story, BioShock draws you in and makes you lose track of time. I seriously had no idea how long had went past as I was playing this, for all I knew it could have been 1970 when the game was set.
Graphically, it's faultless. It's nothing groundbreaking, but it does everything it has to in order to work. The water everywhere is particularly well done, and adds to the feeling that all that's separating you from an ocean is a single pane of glass, the majority of which is falling apart. These graphics help the enemies come to life, from splicers (genetically deformed folk who don't like the look of you) to Big Daddies (the large chaps in diving suits on the front of the box) each of them poses a challenge to defeat, the biggest one being getting over how terrified you are when you first see them. Or, in the case of stuff like Spider and Houdini splicers, who crawl along walls and teleport respectively, when you don't see them at all.
Rapture's insane inhabitants aren't the only thing that'll dampen (sorry) your day however, as the folk who strived to create a perfect haven of creativity and progress are even more mental than the splicers.
First, a backstory. You crashland in the middle of the ocean, find a lighthouse, and go down it to find yourself in an underwater world, called Rapture. You learn it was built in 1957 (don't ask how 50's technology could construct a full city in the Atlantic Ocean), as a way of shielding the worlds best minds from censorship, allowing them to fully realise their talents.
It went tits-up however, as there were nobody to clean the toilets. As such, there's very few people left in Rapture who can possess a rational thought, and as you progress through the city most of them die anyway. From Atlas the Oirishman to Sander Cohen the Tenneessee Williams lookalike, all the characters are well acted and believeable. You start to identify with them, you realise you know people who would be like them if they were in an underwater city that went down the tubes.
Naturally, with so many people wanting you dead, you'll need weapons. BioShock takes the GTA weapon route, allowing you to carry a spanner, a pistol, a machine gun, a shotgun, a rocket launcher, a crossbow and a camera with no discernable bulk on your person. That and there's 3 different types of ammo for all but the spanner and camera. But then again, you have no feet. Plasmids however add a different dimension to fighting folk, allowing you to set people on fire, freeze them, electrocute them and even pick them up and throw them around. Each different weapon, be it mechanical or biological, allows you to fight the battle through Rapture your way, doing it however you see fit.
Story-wise, BioShock has the best story of any game i've ever played. Everything contributes to it, from the characters, to the enemies, to the setting, to the music in the background and to the fate of your character. The highest accolade I can pay the story is that I managed to construct an essay for it for my Higher English exam if it was required. It wasn't, but I could've written a damn good one. As such, the game is being made into a film (hopefully), and as I mentioned in my games of the decade list, it deserves Oscars if it ever materialises.
BioShock does have DLC. 3 extra side quests, based around the Little Sisters (i'll come to them later), you have to fight various enemies, or find weapons to get the Little Sister to safety. They add a certain dimension to play that wasn't present in the full game, as it requires you to plan out what you're going to do a lot more. Planning was necessary in the full game, but very often you could get by by simply spamming the hell out of anything trying to kill you. The Challenge Rooms however need you to think, or if you're lazy, youtube them.
Now, the Little Sisters and the moral choice system present. Remember the Big Daddies? Well they were created to protect the Little Sisters. Little Sisters were kidnapped girls (much more prevalent in BioShock 2, check somethinginthesea.com) who were implanted by an ADAM slug. ADAM was something the scientists found, which allowed them to make plasmids, which rather imaginitvely run on EVE. Follow? When you kill a Big Daddy, you have the option to kill the Sister and get 160 ADAM, or rid her of the slug and get 80, but leaving her still alive. Now its up to you how you do it, but the moral choice system here only affects the end, and only has three outcomes (although 2 are basically the same). It's not exactly wonderful, although it's supposedly improved in the sequel (which to the best of my knowledge, my copy of which is yet to be sent out), so i'll wait to see how they take that.
To sum up, while BioShock never made the best game of the last decade, it fully deserves its place in the top 5, and I strongly implore you to go and buy it now if you haven't already, and prepare to be sucked into a world that wouldn't let you leave if it had its way.
BioShock - PS3 Game Review
I first saw a review for this in the Daily Record when it came out for the 360 and PC originally in 2007. It got 5 stars, and from seeing the picture alone, I wanted it. It was the only thing I would ever have considered buying a 360 for, and that shows you how glowing a recommendation i'm giving it.
Fortunately however, it made its way onto a real console a year later, with the demo alone captivating you and transporting you into an underwater world that both amazes you and terrifies you. The game itself I completed in a day. While not a glowing recommendation, that was playing it continuously for a day. Like anything with a good story, BioShock draws you in and makes you lose track of time. I seriously had no idea how long had went past as I was playing this, for all I knew it could have been 1970 when the game was set.
Graphically, it's faultless. It's nothing groundbreaking, but it does everything it has to in order to work. The water everywhere is particularly well done, and adds to the feeling that all that's separating you from an ocean is a single pane of glass, the majority of which is falling apart. These graphics help the enemies come to life, from splicers (genetically deformed folk who don't like the look of you) to Big Daddies (the large chaps in diving suits on the front of the box) each of them poses a challenge to defeat, the biggest one being getting over how terrified you are when you first see them. Or, in the case of stuff like Spider and Houdini splicers, who crawl along walls and teleport respectively, when you don't see them at all.
Rapture's insane inhabitants aren't the only thing that'll dampen (sorry) your day however, as the folk who strived to create a perfect haven of creativity and progress are even more mental than the splicers.
First, a backstory. You crashland in the middle of the ocean, find a lighthouse, and go down it to find yourself in an underwater world, called Rapture. You learn it was built in 1957 (don't ask how 50's technology could construct a full city in the Atlantic Ocean), as a way of shielding the worlds best minds from censorship, allowing them to fully realise their talents.
It went tits-up however, as there were nobody to clean the toilets. As such, there's very few people left in Rapture who can possess a rational thought, and as you progress through the city most of them die anyway. From Atlas the Oirishman to Sander Cohen the Tenneessee Williams lookalike, all the characters are well acted and believeable. You start to identify with them, you realise you know people who would be like them if they were in an underwater city that went down the tubes.
Naturally, with so many people wanting you dead, you'll need weapons. BioShock takes the GTA weapon route, allowing you to carry a spanner, a pistol, a machine gun, a shotgun, a rocket launcher, a crossbow and a camera with no discernable bulk on your person. That and there's 3 different types of ammo for all but the spanner and camera. But then again, you have no feet. Plasmids however add a different dimension to fighting folk, allowing you to set people on fire, freeze them, electrocute them and even pick them up and throw them around. Each different weapon, be it mechanical or biological, allows you to fight the battle through Rapture your way, doing it however you see fit.
Story-wise, BioShock has the best story of any game i've ever played. Everything contributes to it, from the characters, to the enemies, to the setting, to the music in the background and to the fate of your character. The highest accolade I can pay the story is that I managed to construct an essay for it for my Higher English exam if it was required. It wasn't, but I could've written a damn good one. As such, the game is being made into a film (hopefully), and as I mentioned in my games of the decade list, it deserves Oscars if it ever materialises.
BioShock does have DLC. 3 extra side quests, based around the Little Sisters (i'll come to them later), you have to fight various enemies, or find weapons to get the Little Sister to safety. They add a certain dimension to play that wasn't present in the full game, as it requires you to plan out what you're going to do a lot more. Planning was necessary in the full game, but very often you could get by by simply spamming the hell out of anything trying to kill you. The Challenge Rooms however need you to think, or if you're lazy, youtube them.
Now, the Little Sisters and the moral choice system present. Remember the Big Daddies? Well they were created to protect the Little Sisters. Little Sisters were kidnapped girls (much more prevalent in BioShock 2, check somethinginthesea.com) who were implanted by an ADAM slug. ADAM was something the scientists found, which allowed them to make plasmids, which rather imaginitvely run on EVE. Follow? When you kill a Big Daddy, you have the option to kill the Sister and get 160 ADAM, or rid her of the slug and get 80, but leaving her still alive. Now its up to you how you do it, but the moral choice system here only affects the end, and only has three outcomes (although 2 are basically the same). It's not exactly wonderful, although it's supposedly improved in the sequel (which to the best of my knowledge, my copy of which is yet to be sent out), so i'll wait to see how they take that.
To sum up, while BioShock never made the best game of the last decade, it fully deserves its place in the top 5, and I strongly implore you to go and buy it now if you haven't already, and prepare to be sucked into a world that wouldn't let you leave if it had its way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)