Whatever People Say I Am, That's Probably What I Am in All Fairness: A Quick Look at the Arctic Monkeys

Here's something guaranteed to make you feel old; it's been ten years since the indie-rific debut album of the accent-toting group from somewhere in Sheffield. If only they let us know of their original whereabouts during a gig...

Coming from somewhere near the steel city, the release of Whatever People Say I Am, That's What I'm Not was essentially unavoidable. In the post-Libertines wave of indie rock, few could stand out from the hegemonic wave of clean guitars and drug-induced lyrical plagiarism, but somehow, Alex Turner and friends managed to get their debut album a five-time platinum rating, and that's not even considering the various online leaks of their material.

They've come an awful long way since their days of singing about the Northern England club scene, and hence it's only fair to expect the group to have changed. But with their changes, have they subsequently betrayed their origins, and dumped their brashly honest tunes for a more sustainable model of pop? Let's start where it's most appropriate to do so, with Whatever People Say I Am...

This is one of few albums which seems to have appealed to the biggest audiences, and has continued to do so over the past decade. The overt theme of Northern nightlife is ever-present in the album, and is one of few examples that manages to adhere a certain set of ideas throughout all of its tracks. All aspects of a night out are appropriately covered in stark, honest detail. There's the excitement before the storm, the ultimately vain attempts at pulling, and the looming bar scraps. It was a refreshing narrative which we hadn't seen before; an accented adventure around Sheffield, not forgetting the return journey to High Green, via Hillsborough (a line chanted vigorously much to the dismay of taxi drivers persevering through their waves of 3AM piss-heads).

It's certainly made an impact which reverberates through the area, and across the country, to this very day. By having an unparalleled connection to a variety of differing audiences, the band set themselves up for popularity. That and a load of snarky and real people having "You're not from New York City, you're from Rotherham," as their Facebook cover picture.

Let's then venture towards the fast and loud distinctiveness of Favourite Worst Nightmare. For myself at least, it's a contender for their best album, only beaten by the completeness, uniqueness and pre-release excitement of their debut effort. That being said, the album managed to have all of its tracks within the UK's top 200 singles list, a feat rarely seen. For me, it wasn't as good as the first, but the overwhelming acclaim and success surrounding the album seem to suggest otherwise. Their second album was exactly what fans wanted; more of the same, with a little bit of safe experimentation thrown in for good measure.

Favourite Worst Nightmare explores the real consequences emerging after a night out, as one matures and experiences both the good and bad parts of life. The sound is heavier, the lyrics are much more emotive and the band is seemingly one which has already began to develop after the release of their debut album just over a year ago. With this effort, they proved they're not a band whose sole purpose is to provide a soundtrack to your night out, they'll soundtrack the love, the loss and the eventual optimism that come after, and connect with the listener in a remarkably distinct manner.

And then we enter a period which I regarded as sincerely mediocre. With the exception of a few individual songs ('Crying Lightning' and 'Pretty Visitors') the album seemed to have mellowed out into an exploratory mess. Moving to America, and getting Josh Homme on board must have ripped the Monkeys from their roots, because to me, this sounded like something which was worlds apart from their own material. Granted, many critics rightfully praised this new-found maturity. But in reinventing themselves, the group were no longer the indie heroes that inspired a generation. They may have perfected their craft in the process, but they also lost that special something that created some amazing tunes and live performances.

To further everyone's varying relationship with the band, Suck It and See served to mix things up even more than with Humbug. Their fourth album seemed to sit in a precarious position, an awkward compromise between pop and alternative which sat in a grey area which no-one necessarily wanted. It seems that Americana was creeping in on Sheffield-born group. What was once a growing influence on Humbug was now seeping into the core of their music. You can hear with the beginning riff of 'She's Thunderstorms' that the position of the group is somewhere new and uncertain, sounding mainstream but with an indie edge which somehow managed to retain their original audiences. So I suppose Turner's increasing bias towards the States wasn't necessarily a terrible idea; it was a new concept which saw some of the best experimentation since the group's conception.

But there's also a sense that the Monkeys simply stopped caring at this point; lyrics, while still cracking, are comparatively lackluster when put the next to those of the first two albums, leading to album which appeared to have no aim, and was subsequently mediocre. Although I must admit that outwardly random tracks, chiefly 'Library Pictures' and 'Don't Sit Down...' certainly did leave an impression; they were cracking tunes which somehow manifested the best of the newly Americanized group and their accompanying care-free lyricism.  

And then there's the latest offering from the Monkeys, the simply titled AM. Which, with a few exceptions, seems to have completely abandoned the origins which made the group what they are today. Although admittedly, that is a rather pessimistic perspective to view the album from.

If you wanted to have a gander at the album from a new angle, you could say (and you'd be well justified in saying so) that the band has now come full-circle. They're now the group of mature and developed individuals that they set out to be through their previous two albums. It's the most realised album yet, which experiments with a wide variety of genres; there's a touch of everything in the album, from stonking rock with 'R U Mine?', some 70's influence with 'Mad Sounds' and a bit of hip hop in the surprisingly catchy 'Why'd You Only Call Me When You're High?'. It's safe to say there's a little something for everyone, and while it is a far cry from their earlier work, if you refrain from viewing the album with nostalgic, rose-tinted glasses, you'll have a cracking time.

But of course, you already knew that. AM has been out over two years now, and the group have already done the rounds of touring, with Turner now once again teaming up with the superb Miles Kane for a new stint as The Last Shadow Puppets. So while they've departed for the foreseeable future, what has been the impact of one of the best new British bands in recent memory?

Well locally, the influence of the Arctic Monkeys hasn't been all good. In the time it took to say 'High Green, Sheffield', bands across the country began singing in their native accents, citing the fame and popularity of the Monkeys. As a northerner, once charming and laughable stereotypes have now become a focal point. Have a listen to their debut album, and subsequently everyone south of Nottingham begins to think that a northern individual is on a night out for one of two reasons, to pull, or to scrap, which is smashing.

You had record labels jumping at artists who sounded anything remotely like them, which was expected. But if it wasn't for them, you could've guaranteed that groups like Milburn, or Reverend and the Makers wouldn't have come to prominence as quickly as they did. Not to say they're undeserving, but it's likely that they would've been overlooked for something a tad different. I often find now that fans of the group now fall into two distinct parties; one who think that they're the epitome of the charming North of England, or that they're dislocated dickheads who've lost touch with themselves. And honestly? I don't know where I stand here.

As the line "You're not from New York City, you're from Rotherham" is sung with increasing irony, it has become apparent that the group have revolutionised music of the north, and of Britain as a whole. But has it been for the better? Well I suppose that's entirely up to you...

Is it Time to Upgrade Your Console Yet?

As someone who doesn't mind Christmas, but works during it, I'm personally lamenting the prospect of massive queues, shopping-centre shoving and seasonal tunes on repeat. You've all got an idea of how busy Boxing Day will be, so some sympathy would be appreciated.

So understandably, I'll need a way to unwind which refrains from any law-breaking. This method of relaxation used to be gaming, until university and work made any spare time vanish. Although, thanks to a combination of procrastination and a spurt of interesting releases, the medium of gaming has slowly inched its way back into my life somehow; I'm assuming that I'll be forgetting something important over the next few weeks, but I suppose it'll be fine. 

The thing is, over the past two holiday seasons, since the release of the current-gen consoles, I've had one and immediately took it back. For the past 24 months or so, I've been adamant that the highly-touted PS4 and Xbox One simply haven't been worth it. Upon their release, I kept telling myself that an equally priced computer could do just the same, and arguably more. Subsequently, I invested in a laptop and laughed at console users as I played the superior versions of Payday 2 and Battlefield 3 at a higher resolution and frame-rate. But that was two years ago...

Now, much like myself, my laptop has succumb to age, or is in the process of doing so. It's fine with tightly-optimized titles such as XCOM: Enemy Unknown and Metro: Last Light, and it's great for quirky indie titles like Papers, Please and the more recent Keep Talking and Nobody Explodes, but the big triple-A titles are beginning to become a bit of a struggle. 

For me, the matter of which console has never been a question: It'd always have to be a PS4, even if we're going solely on exclusive titles alone. But in the face of cracking works like Kojima's masterpiece, The Phantom Pain, or even the inevitably good Uncharted 4: A Thief's End, I'm starting to yearn for something new, something which requires a controller rather than a keyboard and mouse.

To ensure that this doesn't devolve into a fanboy conflict, I'm going to focus on Sony's machine, so take these following words with a pinch of salt. Because I'm going to be talking about PS4s so much, you'll start seeing blue.

Have you seen the release line-up for the holidays?

Ladies and gentlemen, let me give you a quick run-down of this year's top games. I realise how I sound like a marketing rep from GAME with that statement, but I'll carry on regardless...

Firstly, you've got Just Cause 3: A game which has thankfully realised its potential to be a simulator of Hollywood-style explosions and general buffoonery. Grapple onto a train, plant some plastic explosives on it, fly off in a jet and watch as you make a cracking thumbnail for a YouTube video in the process. 

You've got a cracking experience with the aforementioned Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain, which is quite possibly the most coherent and enjoyable Metal Gear game yet. Be the boss of your own army, and run around with a dog, killing people.

If you're after something old, yet new, look no further than the incredibly recent Fallout 4, a title which has already claimed many hours of time and has challenged many relationships with its involving new mechanics and accessible renovations.


You've also got the upcoming edition of Uncharted, an experience which consistently manages to remain cinematic, yet involving. And it looks like it has a brilliant car chase too, (as to be expected). And if the stars align, No Man's Sky will be on the PS4 in our lifetime, too. Admittedly, some of these games will eventually make their way onto PC, but it's almost gospel that they won't be as optimised, and in the case of Arkham Knight, they may not work at all. 

The value of PlayStation Plus

Initially, I was a tad annoyed that a PS Plus subscription would be required to play online with the PS4, but then I remembered; Microsoft has been doing this for years with their last-gen system, with little consequence. 

When Sony's service was launched in June 2010, it seemed like a very tempting deal indeed. This was before a Xbox Live Gold membership came with free games too, so for the £40 a year, (and with many ways to get a free trial for a couple of months), you got the likes of Bulletstorm, Just Cause 2, Vanquish and Borderlands 2, all of which are cracking titles. 

If you're one to have a gander at the pre-owned section of your local game retailer, PS Plus was an excellent, convenient alternative, and still is. The array of free games available for the PS4 is still relatively short, although is somewhat forgivable, given that games for the console are still few and far between. Regardless, players have already been treated to a few quirky indie titles which were once seldom seen on consoles. Rocket League, Guacamelee! and Transistor have all made their way onto PS4 consoles for free, as part of the service.

PC users are having to upgrade

Unfortunately for myself, and many other semi-casual PC gamers, modern titles are getting more and more demanding. I shouldn't complain, really. How else are games going to improve if they don't take advantage of constantly developing hardware?

So while little indie gems and the less-demanding shooter are still fine on my laptop, the likes of GTA V and Mad Max would most certainly struggle. Most developers nowadays seem to require a quad-core processor to run things smoothly, something which would require a costly upgrade, especially with a laptop. 

So unless you want to fork out for a brand new (or at the very least upgraded) system, it seems that your best bet is one of the current-gen consoles, bundled in with one of these new, somewhat demanding titles, like Fallout 4, for example. 

A waning focus on visuals

I seem to be going on about Bethesda's most recent, and arguably best game, Fallout 4 in this post, albeit with good reason. I mean, have you seen it?

One of the major worries surrounding the title when people first caught a glimpse of it, was the graphics. While a conclusive improvement on those offered in Fallout 3, some thought that the visual fidelity of the sequel wouldn't live up to expectations; it looked good, but not 'next-gen' good. 

Personally, I blame the unrealistic standards flaunted by GTA V, The Last of Us, Driveclub and even the very forgettable The Order: 1886. It seems that the latter two titles favoured cracking aesthetics in order to promote the ridiculous importance of console exclusivity, leading to a very good looking, but overall somewhat disappointing experience.

But thankfully, more recent titles such as Fallout 4, and hopefully with Just Cause 3, graphical prowess is merely an afterthought to good mechanics and solid gameplay. Although, with both games set to strive in both visual fidelity and mechanical fluidity, maybe some developers are just excelling when it comes to planning their games, and nailing the execution too. 

Support for last-gen is being slowly discontinued

I've never been too involved when it comes to franchises like the WWE 2K series, or more notably the latest Call of Duty title. Every now and again, I'll get a few hours of entertainment from one of these copy/paste installments, but for the most part, they seem to escape me.

But while critics, and myself, often tend to poke fun at these games for a lack of progression or development over time, the two latest editions in these series' have seen some notable differences when it comes to versions on the last-gen and current-gen consoles. A deterioration of graphics is to be expected when you go back to the PS3 and Xbox 360, but that was often it; the rest of the game mostly remained the same.

Understandably, Activision wouldn't just throw away the potential custom of millions by leaving out the older consoles, but this does have some woeful results. The campaign of Black Ops 3, for example, has been touted as one of the best single-player experiences in ages, when it comes to the franchise; so it does perplex me as to why the mode would be left out of the editions for the PS3 and Xbox 360. If you're after an online-only experience, you've got plenty of other options, and for some fans, the absence of the single-player may be the reason for missing out this iteration. But the same can also be said for WWE 2K16, too. 

The latest evolution in the wrestling franchise is, without a doubt, a massive improvement on its predecessor, that is if you're playing on a PS4 or Xbox One. The older consoles are missing out a fully formed career mode, due to constraints with disc-space, and the graphics do seem worlds apart if you have a side-by-side comparison of the two, a difference which 2K marketing have described as an almost "night and day" level of variance. 

Then take a look at all these games which are exclusive to current-gen consoles, and see if there's anything you feel like you're missing out on. 

The price isn't too shabby

Upon their launch, the current-gen consoles really weren't worth their price. Granted, the original £350 cost was a nice change from the PS3 launch price, which if I remember correctly, hovered around the range of £425. 

Two years ago, all we had was the latest iterations of the Assassin's Creed, Need for Speed, Battlefield, FIFA and Call of Duty franchises, with a slim selection of actual exclusives, including Killzone: Shadow Fall (which was alright), to Knack (which was not). The same could also be said for the Xbox One; both consoles had fairly terrible lineups, and nothing which compared to the previous generations offerings, like Motorstorm or Resistance: Fall of Man. 

But now, with a fully varied range of remasters and original titles, these consoles now make a lot more sense. If you managed to persist with titles which pushed the limits of the nearly decade-old hardware, (see The Last of Us and GTA V), you can now enjoy them in their full glory, with stable frame-rates and higher resolutions.

Once you've had a nostalgic trip, you can then proceed to all the new and exciting aforementioned titles which are coming soon. For £300, you won't have to persist with Assassin's Creed IV for the foreseeable future; granted, there's hardly as big a collection as there is on PC, but these new consoles do need time to create a sizable library of games, something which they are well on the way of creating. 

But rather than conjuring up a series of slightly coherent points, I'll propose the initial question: Is it time to upgrade yet? 

Unless you're a die-hard fan of the PC master race, and want to involve yourself in that particular sphere, then I would certainly recommend upgrading. The PS3 and Xbox 360 have long since been squeezed of all their potential, and their hardware shortcomings are now becoming woefully apparent as newer and newer games are released. 

A PS4 is cheaper to buy than a PS3 when it was released back in 2006. I can appreciate if you haven't got the money to throw around, especially coming up to Christmas, but the excuses for sticking with the last-gen consoles are becoming increasingly scarce. Admittedly, my PS3 is remaining in it's current place, purely for the collection of games I amassed for it, and Sony's answer for backwards compatibility (PlayStation Now), is still full of flaws in its infancy.

That being said, you shouldn't have to resort to old games for much longer. There's no question about it; you will get your value from a current-gen console. Even the fact that we refer to the PS4 and Xbox One as 'current-gen' does say something about how behind the older consoles are. So do the developers a favour, get with the times, and invest in a new piece of gaming technology. 

A Brief Gander at a Lincoln Ghost Walk...

I've always wondered who actually indulges in ghost walks, haunted house experiences and trick or treating; my initial guess would involve two distinct demographics; children, and people who intend to get shitfaced later on in the night. Apparently, I must fall into the latter category.

Two days before Halloween, me and a few friends thought it'd be a good idea to see what the fuss is all about. Surprisingly, in the 21st century, stuff like this (while quite seasonal), is still quite popular. I mean this particular group does tours all year round at 7 PM, Wednesday through to Saturday. I imagine the walk becomes pretty boring when you're trying to avert the eyes of the guide all by yourself, but still I must admit, they do seem like a rather dedicated bunch.

So, it's Thursday, (the 29th of October, to be precise), and after a hurried walk up Lincoln's aptly and imaginative named Steep Hill, (points for originality there), we meandered for a while in the square outside the Cathedral. A square which is normally relatively quiet is now host to around 200 men, women and children, all stood around in the cold with a somewhat perplexed look on their collective faces. While I was going into this experience with a very reluctant attitude, I assured myself that a turnout this big, and with claims that their stories had been shared on radio and TV, that the walk would be at least somewhat believable and legitimate; unfortunately, that wasn't the case.

The night began with a sizable crowd, a mass of people which would mistake you into thinking something important was occurring. Admittedly, the night was home to some low fog which encompassed the cathedral, so if you were into this kind of thing, the atmosphere must have been pretty great for you. I've no idea how she managed it, but the guide for the party of a few hundred managed to stand a tad taller than the rest. In a black cape and fragile glasses, everyone assumed she was selling tickets, but quite frankly, it's not like you actually needed one. For a receipt-less £4, you were granted a ticket with nothing more than some information from the company behind the walk, and even then, just their email, website and contact number. 

Truly spooky stuff.

Unfortunately, I don't know if I'll be treasuring this ticket for the foreseeable future. After a less than ideal first impression, the guide who described herself as "Harry Potter's Grandma" in an attempt to gain a few laughs off of the kids, bellowed to the group that the tour had begun, before directing our eyes to the nearby Widow Cullen's Well pub. Apparently there's a dead body at the bottom of the well, not that any of us actually ventured into the pub to have a look, but regardless, it was gripping stuff for the first 30 seconds. 

Myself and many others then continued onwards, with an unjustified wave of optimism, guessing and hopelessly assuming that the tour would pick up the pace. The next stop was only a few dozen feet away, at a nearby hotel. The capturing narrative for this locale was that of a key which shot across a room, shitting up a patron in the process. How this underwhelming tale managed to leave the walls of the hotel and make its way to this guide, I have no idea, but it was the next step on this increasingly underwhelming adventure. To make matters worse, and possibly because the climate of Lincoln appreciates some pathetic fallacy, it had now started to rain...

Another two stops went by, both equally forgettable but with a single exception; a drunk gent had joined the fray, and was stood among the kids at the front of the crowd, with a girlfriend who had a look varying from 'playful and self-joking' to 'distressed and murderous'. At this point, this gentleman, with his well-timed quips between pauses in the guide's stories, becomes the central attraction of the tour, reimbursing out four quid through a series of laughs which were only matched when my mate laughed in the piercing silence of a particular character named 'Mrs. Biggerdyke', which does seem surprisingly legitimate.

An hour into the 90 minute tour, and becomes woefully clear that this poor lady is ill-equipped to handle such a crowd; she begins rambling about different dimensions, of "civil war people", and of a particular "staunch royalist lady", (a phrase which initially draws me in, but is then ruined by the guide's countless repetition of it). At this point, I'm assuming the guide has built up some kind of connection, or at the very least, feels comfortable with more informal conduct in front of complete strangers, but that just wasn't happening here. All these little pieces of bullshit and links to the real, tangible world were presumably meant to draw us into the story, to help us suspend our disbelief, but some odd spouts of stuttering, some unchanging lexis and narrative inconsistencies quickly put a stop to that.

We could sense the end was near; we were now approaching the ominous cathedral, layered in fog and a dazzling of rain. Even if the story was awful, it'd still make for a bit of a spectacle at the very least. After trekking down narrow roads and dark pathways which I'd never seen before, the building came into sight. Anyone who's ever been near Lincoln and seen this marvel will know how it's portrayed, lit up like the centerpiece of the city, so I began to get my hopes up for the first time in the night. 

But then, we just stopped. Down a miserable road with the cathedral in sight, the diminished party came to a standstill, and we were told one last story before being sent on our merry way. We didn't even go into the cathedral...

Note the drunk gentleman beneath the clear umbrella

As we had done before, we laughed at the stories themselves, and how terribly unbelievable they were. We had a giggle at the drunk chap, and at why people even come to these superstitious events anymore, (because, I mean, we'd come out of a sense of irony, right?).

Yet after I'd proclaimed, "Pub!" and we'd took refuge in a local guest house, I got thinking: At four quid for a useless ticket, and assuming that around half of the group had paid, this 90-minute exhibition of implicit extortion had garnered a good £400, for a job which everyone was stating they could do. Everyone then went quiet, and with a internal though of "shit", we went back home. 

It's all well and good us slating things such as this, ghost walks and haunted houses, but as with annual atrocious game releases and the latest Paranormal Activity film, if some people demand it, then why not supply it? And make a good few quid in the process.

Are Vloggers Really the Future of Media? (Link)

Vloggers are a peculiar bunch. Being constantly happy, or talking about your day for what must seem like the millionth time, has got to take a lot of effort.

I'm sure that the act of recording yourself doesn't seem too daunting, but what about all the responsibility and authority which comes with it? With millions of followers, you're bound to witness a bit of conflicting opinion along the way.

On Student Wire, I've had a go at writing something on the future of vlogging, and the significance of vloggers themselves. Due to certain agreements, I unfortunately can't post said piece up on here. But don't fret, as it's easily accessible by what I can only presume is an advanced form of witchcraft. (It's that last link, by the way).

If you wish to have a gander, then cheers! Please try not to be offended if I happened to have mentioned one of your favourite YouTube personalities. If you didn't have a look, well, there's not much I can do anyway.

The Payday Problem

Game developers can, occasionally, be dicks. This isn't news to us, many people have learned to regretfully accept it when a season pass is announced, or some free-to-play title has unbalanced purchases. But we normally see these kind of acts from big developers, those who annually whack out another triple-A title; you know, EA, Ubisoft and friends...

We don't normally expect this kind of behavior from a developer who has previously been avidly against it, stating that their game will never utilise such villainous methods to sustain itself. So what's happening with Overkill, and Payday 2?

Payday 2 is a good game, or at the very least, the core concept was. You, and three friends, must successfully execute a bank heist, or robbery, or infrequently, make meth. It has a varied palette of enemies, balanced and customisable weaponry, and some solid gameplay mechanics. Accordingly, over the past two years, Payday 2 has accumulated a fairly large and dedicated fan-base, but for lack of a better term, it now seems that Overkill are taking the piss.

This slippery slope seems to have begun with the plethora of paid weapon content back in 2013 with the Armored Transport DLC, and as of September this year, 26 paid DLC packs have been released for the game. This content consequently divides the Payday community, and the situation has only become worse with the inclusion of some free-to-play elements. You can now gain 'safes' (which serve the same functionality as crates in Team Fortress 2), but they can only be opened with a drill, which cost around £1.90, or around $3.

Oh, okay then... (accurate as of 19/10/15)

Is this acceptable? Well, it's debatable, but it's probably not. Admittedly, with a PvE game, you're not going to have a direct impact on other players, as you're not competing with them. But when it comes to statistics and bragging rights, your slightly better rifle will give you an advantage, an advantage which you gained via putting down actual money.

In order to keep this to a small rant, you're better off having a gander at Jim Sterling's video, which summaries and explains the situation in a much better manner than I have.

Come on, Overkill, sort it out...

Rocket League and the Fantastic Concept of Sports Games

Ages ago, when it seemed slightly relevant, I scribbled down some thoughts on E-Sports, and their growing popularity. I say 'growing' when 'exploding' was probably a more apt term. The resulting piece was essentially a quick look at StarCraft in South Korea, and how it was utterly ingrained in the culture of the country. Apart from your average, relatively popular E-Sports such as LoL, DoTA 2 and the aforementioned StarCraft, there seemed to be few games which could actually maintain a solid competitive community. Even if a game had a thriving E-Sports scene, they had an incredibly high barrier to entry, (understandably, of course).

Even games which were focused on a future of competitive play, like ShootMania Storm have somewhat vanished into thin air, and games focused on groundbreaking accessibility such as Smite are still part of the traditional MOBA genre, and are subsequently avoided by casual players. I've thought for quite a while, that an ideal E-Sports title, one which is easily understandable, fun to both play and watch, would have to be based around something really simple; something like a sports game. Enter Rocket League.

By basing itself on a familiar sport, Rocket League has instantly made itself recognisable and understandable. It's far from an actual sports game, like FIFA or NBA 2K, but it doesn't need to be. Unlike some MOBAs, in which the rules or objectives aren't crystal clear, it takes very little patience or understanding to know that a giant ball should be placed in an opposing goal. Granted, it isn't shaping a unique identity for E-Sports by borrowing from physical variants, but it makes the rules evident, the gameplay familiar, and the matches fun. Gloss over the lack of credibility offered to games by real-world sports, and you can make an experience which everyone and their elderly relatives can enjoy. 

Skilled players are certainly present in Rocket League, just as they are in Heroes of the Storm or Smite. However, the diversity within the player-base of Rocket League is much, much greater. For example, see exhibit A below:

And then note the improvement after a few hours of gameplay:

This self-sufficient cycle of interest is something which traditional MOBAs seem to be lacking: new players get the game due to its simple rules and enjoyable gameplay, play with other new players, and eventually move up the ranks after witnessing some different play-styles and tactics in the game itself. Elements of this are a part of MOBAs, but in a game like Rocket League, it's wonderfully simple to understand, and woefully hard to master. You go from boosting around the pitch, merely attempting to hit the ball, to scoring with beautifully timed mid-air touches.

This kind of familiar gameplay has created an almost immediate interest from the E-Sports community. Take a look at this game between Cosmic Aftershock and Kings of Urban, in the grand final of a MLG tournament, and bare witness to the possibilities of such a relatively simple game. Take football, (not soccer), give it cars, some boost and the ability to defy gravity and drive up walls, and you've got a cracking game, and a cracking E-Sport.

Given that the game, and the competition surrounding it, was still in its infancy, you can surely forgive the presentation, but a look at the core mechanics and the utterly fantastic finish will surely convince you somewhat, that Rocket League may just bring E-Sports to the masses in all of its spontaneous and explosive glory.

With many games focusing on E-Sports as a pre-release strategy, I'm still surprised that they still remain missing from TV. Of course, they have a home, and an immense following online, but will the concept gain true legitimacy until it has made its way onto the screens of family living rooms?

Honestly, no; many, many E-Sports have already gained followings and viewing figures equivalent, or better than, many American TV networks. In a future which seems to be happily hosting the rise of gaming, E-Sports are simply the next logical step, hence why Rocket League has my praise for creating a simple and enjoyable stepping stone to more traditional forms of virtual competition. 

Just as you need a bat and ball to partake in cricket, all you need now to enter the E-Sports scene is a PC or console, and an internet connection. And in 2015, who hasn't?

Call of Duty 4 is One of the Most Significant Shooters of Our Time

Nostalgia is a powerful thing. It can make people remember things through a set of rose-tinted glasses. It can warp our perception of what we had, and what we want. Nostalgia changes our current ideas, and associates a previous time with by-gone occasions. What I'm getting at, is that looking back in time can be a dangerous and unreliable thing. If you think that older games such as Haze and Red Faction: Armageddon were good, you're most likely just being all nostalgic about something else, because I can assure you, those games were nothing special.

But one of the games which seems to defy this convention is a granddaddy of the modern FPS game. Sure, Doom, Quake and Wolfenstein all withhold their rightful place as forerunners of the shooter genre, but what about the evolution of the genre? What about shooters which have come far away from their roots, and which have subsequently transformed into something almost completely different?

For me, this change can most notably be marked around 2007. At that time, shooters went from the grey and shelled fields of WW2 battlegrounds, to the bright and refreshing landscapes of the Middle-East. Of course, games have changed their settings before, not every FPS before this time was based in the Pacific or Western fronts, but there is a certain one which has cemented the change, and hence altered the standard for the first-person shooter.

That game would have to be Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, hence the terribly click-bait title, although I feel it is a apt statement.

It is a game which has been copied and reattempted by many, to no such avail, even by games later in the franchise. So what makes this particular installment so special? I'm not too sure, but here's what I remember from my time with the game, around eight long years ago.

One of the most striking things of Modern Warfare to begin with, was the very initial introduction. Very few games have managed to drop you into their setting in such an immersive and apt manner. It's at this point I realise that if you haven't played this title, (for some unbeknownst reason), you should probably stop reading, what with the threat if spoilers and all that.

You know by now how important first impressions are, and despite the importance of leaving a mark on the player, it still puzzles me how so many games fall flat when it comes to making an entrance. Take Skyrim, for example, which utilises an introduction that insists on throwing confusing lexis in your face while tied to a cart and unable to move. It does very little to aid your understanding of the location, or the events which have previously occurred there. For all the player knows, Skyrim is merely another middle-earth adventure with an extensive back-catalogue of lore. Modern Warfare, on the other hand, does this very differently, and rightly so.

You start off as a the president of an unnamed country in the Middle-East, although you have very little choice, apart from turning your head. The similarities between the chained characters here are few and far between, as Modern Warfare gives you a vibrant stream of scripted events to look at, giving you some context on the story while refraining from using a great, big information dump. You can see the chaos happening in this fictional country as you are driven through it, as people are executed by the roadside, and as ultra-nationalist soldiers fire their Kalashnikovs into the air in celebration at your impending demise.

The ending to this section isn't an unlikely escape due to a dragon happening to attack at the perfect time, the ending involves you being handled into a main square, flung against a post, and being executed with a Desert Eagle. The beginning of Modern Warfare is edgy, (for the time), gripping and unexpected. The player is put into the same shoes as the murdered president, a perspective which has been seldom seen in such games. This merciless killing sets the scene perfectly for the upcoming levels of the game, introducing a near-perfect tone and manages to make death feeling significant, in a game all about killing, a feat which has been only rarely replicated.

Do you remember what was happening in the world in 2007? I don't, I was about eleven or twelve. I remember the announcement of the iPhone, and that's about it. But one thing that Modern Warfare encompassed was the tension in the Middle-East and in Western Asia, making the conflict it created seem authentic, despite the fictional setting.

This atmosphere of realism essentially sparked the explosion of a new sub-genre. Before Modern Warfare, a FPS game with a modern setting was a rarity, but after 2007, this was seldom the case. Of course, you had a variety of shooting games, but after Modern Warfare's release, we witnessed our fair share of such similar games; you had some forgettable titles, Soldier of Fortune and Combat Arms, and the following year gave us Counter Strike Online, Army of Two, and one of my personal preferences, the beginning of a new Battlefield series in Bad Company. 

Thankfully, this aftershock of shooters has died down now, or at least the wave of modern military shooters has. The two main franchises in this area, Call of Duty and Battlefield have now moved on to hopefully greener pastures, delving into the future, with the likes of Black Ops 2, and Battlefield have attempted something rather different with Hardline, which was released earlier this year. It does now seem that shooters are now looking ahead, rather than to the present or past.


Admittedly, for all of Modern Warfare's significance, it did do some damage too. The excess of modern military shooters has only recently been quenched, and the following games in the franchise threw away quality gameplay and innovation for a formula which they knew would sell. Although these consequential action should not detract from how important the game was, and still is.

It paved the way for the FPS multiplayer experience, and while a dash of dedicated servers would've been nice, the addictive nature of the matches was something which we hadn't really seen before. Ignore the screaming kids, and you'd have yourself a blast with a fairly simple concept, which had yet to be done properly; run around and kill everyone. This was furthered preached by the growing focus on multiplayer, the almost necessary season passes, and even failed practices such as Call of Duty Elite, but then who remembers that? But despite how captivating the experience was, and how much time, effort and money was sunk into it, competitive online gameplay didn't quite trump the campaign mode, at least for me it didn't.

Picture this: A smooth, 60-frames shooter with competent graphical fidelity. Then take the fluid mechanics, put them into an authentic-feeling world, and utilise a story straight out of Hollywood. You've already then got a new, fresh product which people are almost immediately attracted to. Then get a very good story, with a handful of well-placed, unexpected plot changes, and you've got a campaign which sets the bar unfairly high for future games. I must remind you of my earlier spoiler warning as I quickly indulge into what made the campaign absolutely superb.

The main mission for me, would be 'Shock and Awe', which involves you, along with a large contingent of US forces going for the main palace of the ultra-nationalists. The tone gets serious from the off, as you're told that this is a chance to end the war, today. The sky is engulfed by a tint of red in a bit of foreshadowing which initially goes straight over your head, and as you fire a grenade launcher from a chopper, you do truly feel like part of the most powerful army in the world; what could possibly go wrong?

The mission itself can easily be done in about 10 minutes, and is often done quicker, as the tension and pace of the mission perfectly ramps up. Talk of a nuclear device get you on edge, talk of getting to the minimum safe distance gets you gripping the controller like you're right there, in the game. After reassuring yourself that you can, and you will make it, a supporting chopper is shot down. Being the good soldier that you are, you go and grab the pilot, despite the ominous threat of nuclear annihilation. You run, you grab the pilot within thirty seconds. You've done it. You take off, you've managed to complete the mission.

Then your commander comes over the radio. A confirmed nuclear threat at the palace. But you're already on your retreat, you'll be safe. A shock of sound and a piercing glow fill the sky, and the radio cuts out. The nuke has gone off, and worryingly close. The mushroom cloud rises, and along with it, you see the shock-wave advancing, engulfing everything. Choppers behind you are tossed aside, as all you can do now is accept the inevitable. 

The chopper spins helplessly, another passenger flies out of the false safety of the tail-door. You descend, trying to desperately make sense of where you will crash. You meet the ground to a chorus of frantic beeps and building music, and cut to black. 

As you make sense of what has just happened, your worst fears are confirmed. Radio chatter, smoke and fallout fly around the carcass of the chopper as you gasp frantically. You crawl to the outside of the wreckage and witness the destruction around you, as a mushroom cloud still stands prominently in the distance. A building crumbles a few blocks away, as you fall to the floor and perish from the effects of a nuclear warhead detonating. You die. The might of the army seems insignificant now, and it burdens you with new purpose as you continue the story as members of the SAS. But still, the harrowing scene is something which hasn't been replicated to the same effect, nothing else has left such an impression on so many gamers in quite a while. It's a commentary on the US forces, it's a reminder of the atrocities of war, but most significantly, it reminds you, a super-soldier with once regenerating health, that you are woefully mortal. 

Despite the sadness of this scene, Modern Warfare managed to captivate players. It spawned an almost cinematic experience which people were instantly addicted to. Take one of the best FPS stories in recent memory, along with groundbreaking multiplayer, and you rightfully get a plethora of awards. Aggregate scoring systems gave the game at least a 92/100 on the Xbox 360, PS3 and PC, and the title achieved an array of nine and ten scores, five star ratings and recognition from the Spike VGAs, the Golden Joystick awards and the Academy of Interactive Arts and Sciences. Rightfully so. 

I'm not one to look at games like this from such a rose-tinted perspective, especially none of the following Call of Duty titles. But I, and many others, do believe that this particular iteration was truly something special, which will be nigh on impossible to recreate, no matter how big the budget, nor the team behind it. 

Let's just keep Modern Warfare as it is, and appreciate it accordingly.