Cigol

Oh. Well that's encouraging since I just bought the game.

What's the deal like between Activision and Blizzard? As a PC gamer should I start cutting my wrists?

I'm just saying it starts out with this ramped up mystery and suspense, and then the twist occurs with no fanfare, loses steam and spends the rest of the running time trundling along to its inevitable conclusion. It's as if the beginning of the film is thrown away - after intentionally building it up - and the transition between the two was jarring. Now that I know how the film plays out it's not a problem - but with the first viewing I found it disappointing and not because I wanted the twist to be revealed at the end (because it wasn't a twist to anyone who's watched sci-fi), but just because of the way that it developed as a whole.

I've stuck it on my rental list. Charlie Brooker has written about it; http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/nov/09/modern-warfare-2-game-review

I remember playing a ripped version of this. I never actually bought it (obv.) but I didn't download it either, it just happened to be on a CD compilation that my dad brought home from work. It's much more of a mindfuck when you don't have the cut-scenes (etc) but I was so entranced by it's menacing atmosphere. Until I got to a puzzle I couldn't complete and had to give up on it.

I realise the twist wasn't the story, I get that. The point is the build up in the first quarter suggests it is - but then the reveal happens and it's basically a character drama from there on. I'm not saying that's bad, I'm just saying the way it was set up with the mystery and suspense to begin with, only for it to then evaporate was something of a let down.

Probably has something to do with Activision being massive cunts. That and they probably want you to pop to the shops and buy it there rather than online. Activision charged £42 for Call of Duty 4 on release over STEAM on release day and beyond. Make of that what you will but for me it suggests they are just skimming off the top for those digital PC gamers who prefer to play legally as opposed to downloading the illegal copy.

I'm surprised the BBC hasn't done a mini-series adaptation yet, as they've done practically everything else. I've not read the book being the uncultured swine that I am - but if it's as you say then a proper adaptation wouldn't go amiss and would be perfect material for the BBC. As for 'Moon', I don't get it. It seemed to blow its load early on and spend the rest of the running time cleaning it up. It didn't help that it was as predictable and clichéd as they come. I'm sure I've seen a variation of this story about half-a-dozen times now in other sci-fi films, it just felt so familiar and predictable all the way through that it somewhat tempered my enjoyment. Still it wasn't a bad film, and like Sunshine (with it's ending), I'll be able to look past it in repeated viewings... over, and over again.

I'm tempted by the fact Morrisons and Tesco will be selling it at £26 (as opposed to the usual £39.99)... but I know deep down that I'd rather play it on the PC with a mouse and keyboard.

Yikes, when was the last time you actually upgraded? Love both games though, and they are both installed on my PC to this day... Some ideas; - Mirrors Edge (enable physx support) - ArmA 2 - Empire Total War - Left 4 Dead 2 (use console commands to spawn hundreds of zombies) - Dead Space - The Sims 3 - DCS Black Shark (or some other heavy simulator) - PS2 emulator running Shadow of the Colossus ...and maybe Grand Theft Auto 4. There's some new mods out that get rid of the nasty post-processing effects and make everything super-(PC clarity)-sharp, but when combined with its already poor optimisation it eats frames by the dozen. So it should be a good work out for a new system.

It doesn't take military training to understand that focusing on your shot and picking your targets is more precise than not. All I'm suggesting is the ability to 'focus' with perhaps a little adjusted zoom and control over the accuracy of the shot (as opposed to the scattergun approach it takes now). Maybe it's just me but it feels like its taking the control away and it's always there nagging that I don't have the option in scenarios where it'd be useful (such as picking off from a distance). I think it'd fit right in personally - better than the scoped rifle they have now which is nigh on useless as anything other than a rail-gun. Cover mechanics on the otherhand wouldn't make a lot of sense obviously - but there are some areas in the game where you crouch down and you can't see over the top. That's where a system like vietcong's which allows you to automatically peek over would come in handy. User classes would needlessly complicate things I agree - but I don't see why they couldn't get away with subtle characteristics for characters like they did in Goldeneye 64. The coach is a big guy for example, and Bill looks like he knows how to handle a gun... It's not out of the realms of possibility anyway, and if it were balanced right I don't see why it would take you out of the game - if anything it could have the opposite effect. And whilst the AI doesn't listen, the games pre-set audio commands combined with voice-chat work more or less as squad commands already. I'm not actually arguing for any of these in the game incidentally, just give me mini-zoom and less random accuracy for that aiming mechanic. Or at least produce an SDK so modders can create it for me. It's the only thing aside from a lack of variety in the core gameplay that irks me. That's fine with me. Where do I sign?

Maybe not iron sights, but the lack of ability to 'aim' is something that nags at me whilst playing. All you do now is shoot from the hip and it's wildly inaccurate at times. There's a lot of little things like this that the L4D series seems to ignore completely... I mean, I've pre-ordered the game a second time around so clearly it's not a big deal - but I wish they'd do more with the game.

Maybe back then, but after Episode 2 I think it's not so much the case anymore.

I thought it was alright but the added weight of expectation placed upon it by all the waiting and constant delaying was always going to be too much for such a tiny morsel of demo to stand up against. Saying that I never liked the pre-order demo for Left 4 Dead 1, but loved the final game, so the fact I enjoyed the L4D2 demo bodes well. It's basically the same game with some refinements. It's a shame they don't do proper demos like 'Uplink' anymore. Instead of cutting out a couple of levels from the full game, why not a specially created mini-chapter. That would be a real pre-order bonus, and if it were anything like Uplink it would also demonstrate the strengths and weaknesses of the game a lot better.

Not sure if you've already fixed this but I read the neoGAF thread occasionally and I've heard if you go into your download history it's still registered there somewhere.

Now that's an intro. As usual I'll be spending 5 minutes watching the intro to the new Left 4 Dead as I did the original. The facial modelling and animations towards the end are just... wow...

On a similar subject, check out 'Last chance to see' with Stephen Fry. The earlier episodes are still available on iPlayer if you missed them. No jaw dropping, eye popping visuals, but a humorous and entertaining road trip (of sorts). If you like this sort of thing I recommend it. ...as for this, I look forward to the bluray

Did you buy it on STEAM? I've never been one to play the scenarios myself, so if you're the same (and you bought it on STEAM) all you need to do is install Beyond the Sword. You'll lose out on some of the scenarios in the previous versions but you'll have the bug fixes and improvements of Beyond the Sword and save yourself some disk space in the process. I personally just play the custom games and lose myself in their just-one-more-turn addictiveness. The nights aren't long enough!

A good race is more than half-an-hour, not less... making tyre wear, fuel and pit-stop strategy all important. To hell with you console lightweights that lead exciting real lives.

Sense of speed is mostly physical. I've driven a sports car and SUV at fast speeds and done the same test and found that if you focused on the environment ahead you quickly notice how 'slow' you are going. It compares very favourably with the visual representations of simulations on both PC and console. The big differences between reality and game, are in the physicality of the car your driving. So for example the SUV is heavier, larger, and your position is much higher. These are all things you can physically sense and when it's combined with the fact it can't corner for shit, and is sluggish in everything it does you get a real sense for what it can and can't do. The sports car on the other hand is much smaller, lighter and has a lower point of view. You can almost feel the bottom of the road underneath you and when you accelerate - where in the SUV it's like waiting for a bus - in the sports car you're subjected to various forces, your head is maybe snapped back, and you can feel the speed. It's not just visual. It's mostly physical. You're both going the same speed (the SUV and the sports car) but the big difference is in the physical aspects. Here's GT5p F1 vs real F1; L023Gxp4pWM The F1 in the game is extremely poor in terms of physics - so I'm not bigging up GT here - but you can see the visual representation of speed is not that bad at all - even though of all the games GT5p is often the one cited as the worst in terms of 'sense of speed'.

I'm not sure how far you've gotten, but once you've started upgrading your troops and in particular you NPC characters you can start to rely upon and trust them a little more. You'll never be able to count on their survival 100%, but to be honest that's something I admire about the game. Death is just a single arrow or glancing blow away - and at least is not a lottery like it in other games, but brutal like it should be. Try Warband again. Assuming the first release was as bad as you say, you will completely blown away by its current state! It's phenomenally good - and the fact both your team mates and opponents are all human means none of the mass brawling that occurs in singleplayer. There's nothing like preparing a wall of pikemen, organising the archers, and keeping a watchful eye out for approaching enemy cavalry only to see them finally crest a hill in tight formation and stop there, waiting... taunting you. Then the attack comes from the side, your formations are broken, people are running around wildly and the main brunt of the enemy charges off from the hill ready to deal the final blow. ...of course you'll also get in battles were everyone charges head first into one another, but it doesn't take long before they can be coerced into a more tatical approach. That is the only problem with the singleplayer portion and it's that the AI is very one dimensional. They rush into the battlefield and basically mop up what they can see. The orders as you say are largely, if not completely, useless. But, I still enjoy it immensely so it's a credit to the core gameplay that it's that satisfying - both to take part in the fights and to build and maintain an army. But it is a tough game, and the multiplayer magnifies that.

The structure of the game is pretty poor from a beginners perspective but after a lot of practice, some fooling around... and maybe a little cheating... you'll soon start to get the hang of it. The singleplayer portion is a huge time-sink, especially with third-party modifications - and the free-form gameplay is reminiscent of Pirates! ...then, when Warband is released, we can take it online. I've been playing in the beta recently and it's just fantastic. 9 times out of 10 there is no lag, whatsoever, and the experience is exactly the same as the singleplayer battles with around 50+ people running around killing one another on horseback and foot. The added complexity of strategies being formed on the fly and all-human opponents takes it a step above as well. The only problem with it right now is that like the singleplayer portion of the original, it has its quirks, bugs and a rough and amateurish feel. It's like they have this awesome game buried underneath a pile of shit - but assuming you like the core gameplay then that's fine, you'll live with it.

Nostalgia is one thing, but lets not forget that if they made KOTOR today it would be different. Games are just as much a product of their time - and without KOTOR they wouldn't have had the jumping off point for Mass Effect.

Well I've set my calender, but in the meantime I'll go and play all these cool PS3 exclusives

As someone completely new to the PSP I'm looking at this supposedly barren catalogue and seeing quite a lot of titles I'd like to play now, and in the future. Is that my imagination? Are they all forgettable pap?