The Questionable Horizons of Liam Gallagher

Oasis is a peculiar phenomenon indeed. Despite having witnessed its untimely demise seven years ago, the varied army of fans are still crying their collective hearts out for any hints and rumours of a reunion. And until the next bit of tabloid gossip states otherwise, it seems that it is still a possibility.

Obviously, Noel's still going strong, and Liam wouldn't say no to the cash, but more importantly, the younger Gallagher seems to be adapting to his waning voice. We all know that for Liam's voice to return to its peak would be nothing short of a miracle, so I suppose we should be thankful that after all these years, he's now took to actually singing, instead of his particular throat-shredding style of shouting. 

Of course, this performance isn't exactly on par with the likes of 'Supersonic' back in the nineties, but it's certainly the best he can do with what he's now got. 

But anyway, you know how there seems to be some news which can be classed as relating to Oasis at least once a month? Well, the latest piece of Gallagher-created click-bait stemmed once again from the younger brother, and seemed arguably more conclusive than any of his previous outbursts. On the 24th of May, you could hear the quiet sound of acceptance from thousands of people, as fans came to the realisation that an Oasis reunion would likely never come to fruition. This wave of overwhelming emotion can be traced back to a refreshingly concise and direct tweet by Liam Gallagher: 

Oh, okay then...

  
Just read back through Liam's tweets around that day, and you'll get an idea of why fans are starting to completely disregard their hopes of seeing a fully reformed Oasis. So after endless speculation, perhaps we can finally see the end of such rumours, once and for all. 

As you may have gathered by the title, what's next then for Liam Gallagher?

Well, to put it frankly, I've no idea whatsoever. Not a clue. Not the foggiest. It's a mystery. 

While Noel's been off making his third album and enjoying both critical and commercial success, Liam seems to have had some polarising luck, with the split of Beady Eye and a couple of divorces. The fall from grace for Liam seems to have been a very slow and arduous descent. 

Regardless of how uncertain Liam's future appears, let's have a gander at what the former front-man could do next. 

The Oasis reunion rumours

Let's start with the big one, and have a look at this fabled Oasis reunion which eludes lovers of dad-music to this very day. 

Picture this; you're stood in a stadium of around 80,000 people, each individual slightly more mad for it than the last. Your nostalgic expectations are through the roof, that's if there was a roof on the place. You remember Knebworth, Wembley and Glastonbury, and think that this gig will be just like that, with a cracking set and a stellar performance by the Gallaghers and friends. 

In reality, they clamber on stage with little care, and apart from the odd, raspy 'Evening' by Liam, hardly any of their notorious banter or stage antics actually take place. Then Liam starts singing, and you're thankful for the deafening roar of the crowd. 

As much as we keep saying we'd like to see a reunion, what would it really be like? Surely with Liam's predicament, it'd be an event fuelled almost entirely by financial motivations. If the voice of Oasis hasn't recovered, then we'd be left with a gig that served only to spoil the already tarnished legacy of the band. 

Simply put, the voice and presence which rocketed the band into the popularity just isn't there any more. And the proven temper of Liam Gallagher certainly wouldn't help the matter. A reunion would be an emotionless, money-centred affair. It seems that the only positive thing would be a new load of fans getting the chance to see the band, and experience one of Britain's greatest musical acts in the flesh. 

Beady Eye, or something a bit more personal

The next viable option for the younger Gallagher would be for a reunion of Beady Eye, or even to delve into a solo career. But unfortunately, this could raise even more questions and worries than the great big Oasis affair. 

There's a strange problem with Beady Eye. Despite playing solid classics such as 'Rock 'N' Roll Star' and 'Cigarettes and Alcohol', no-one really seems to care about them, and as a result, the group faded into obscurity almost instantly. Since they split, few people seem desperate for them to get back together. 

There were some great ideas though, like the democratic choices which the band made, even down to their songwriting, although this consequently hindered their tunes through a lack of direction and cohesion. 

Despite all these problems, they did have a few decent tracks. That being said, most of these were covers, whether it be the aforementioned Oasis tracks, 'Gimme Shelter' or even the obscure gig-ender 'Sons of the Stage'. When all of their heavy-hitters are cover songs, there's little wonder why the band had little success in the long term. Add to this the problem that a reunion would only appeal to the most niche of audiences, and there seems little reason for a reassembling of Beady Eye. Unless you're a massive fan of Liam Gallagher doing covers...

So forget about Beady Eye. Their lack of critical success and widespread interest grounded them from their inception. So what about the younger Gallagher doing his own thing? Well apart from some previous comments disregarding such a possibility, this looks like the best option, should he want to stay in the music industry. 

Liam has always been a pain to work with, or so we've been told, but collaborations with others never seem to produce anything decent. Maybe it's best that he just cuts himself loose of any liability and just goes mental on a solo album. I'd be more interested in this than anything to do with Beady Eye, and enough time has passed to ensure than he'd have very few expectations, and therefore few people to immediately disappoint. 

Even in a peculiar setting, 'our kid' seems much more at home when doing his own thing. He seems to have vastly improved compared to the likes of 'Songbird', and given little bit of time, it sounds like he could easily make these few tracks into fully produced bits of solo work. 

Additionally, he seems to have changed his attitude towards the press over recent years, and this calmer, more relaxed Liam is one which doesn't seem suited to any grandiose reunions. I mean, if he'd retained the same manner all the way through his career, there's no chance than documentaries like these would ever be produced. You get the feeling that LG can now finally sell himself as necessary, and is no longer the one-trick pony who can only commandeer the brash, northern working-class hero persona. We're seeing a Liam Gallagher who is finally fully realised, and it's a side that I'd very much like to see. 

A life outside of music

What else could work for the man most frequently referred to as a former Oasis member? How about something completely different?

While I may have stated that he could probably do with a quick quid, I'm pretty sure that Liam Gallagher is financially sorted for the foreseeable future. The safest option may be to sit back, relax and let his other ventures do their work. With Pretty Green providing people with the perfect instantaneous LG look, and his production company trying to get to grips with a Beatles film, he's still got plenty on his plate. 

It seems that the most viable option for Liam is to sit back and have a bit of a break. Just like we tell ourselves that we really, really want an Oasis reunion, we all know deep down that Liam isn't the same polarising character that he used to be. He's not the same cultural figure that could wield expletives with a distinct northern brand of authority, and while he'll always appeal to a particular audience, he doesn't thrive in the limelight like he once did. 

We can see a correlation between Liam's musical endeavours and public interest. With every new tune, or piece of tabloid speculation, people seem to care a little less about the man. Because of this, the outcome of a solo career or a reunion could be woefully underwhelming, as people slowly lose interest in Liam Gallagher. With the persisting success of his older brother, the comparative mediocrity of Liam's work wouldn't stand up in the modern music scene which he so vocally criticises. 

To put it simply, this seems like the best option, away from criticism and judgement. While we may all tell ourselves that a sought-after reunion is just around the corner, the reality of the situation couldn't be more different. To maintain the legacy he's had a part in creating, Liam's best bet is to leave it alone entirely. 

We do need a new band to front working class culture, one which takes inspiration from Oasis, and their predecessors. It just happens that it'd be much better for everyone if Liam Gallagher wasn't a part of it. 

The Predicament of Student Nightlife

Being a student is fairly great. Granted, it seems that the government wants to put a stop to that, with talks of scrapping maintenance grants and further upping tuition fees, but in the mean time, the student experience is one which is almost universally acclaimed as being 'pretty top'.

And I for one, would certainly have to agree. Despite the constantly looming shadow of massive debt and adult responsibility, university has so far been one of the best experiences of my life, and the same can be said for many, many others too. And of course, one of the key factors of a great three years, would be copious amounts of alcohol consumption.

Thanks to £1 Jagerbombs and £2 mixers, it's relatively easy to have a night out on a tenner, something which I'm proud to have proven on multiple occasions. That being said, the prospect of student nightlife is looking increasingly grim. Over the past ten years, an alarming amount of clubs have permanently shut their doors; the Association of Licensed Multiple Retailers (ALMR) have seen 1,411 venues close from 2005.

So what's going to happen to student nights? As the figures suggest, they'll be few and far between, and how will us young people get extraordinary pissed now? Well, we may just have to resort to more traditional methods. To tell you straight, it seems that a good student night is becoming harder and harder to find. 

I've always been torn between the idea of going out to a pub or a club. Both have their benefits and flaws, and these subjective terms often differ greatly across the country. For example, a night out around Sheffield would often cost me around £50, whereas a equally good night in a series of pubs in my local town would be about half of that, (and local pubs will often treat you to music with the odd guitar or two thrown in, which is always a bonus). Of course, my opinions on what constitutes a decent night out will differ drastically from your own, so I can't really say which night is better for certain. But I'll give it a go regardless.

I'm sure I've mentioned somewhere before, but to keep you informed, I'm at the University of Lincoln. It's good, although admittedly I've not had many other universities to compare it too. However, as I hinted at earlier, the nightlife here does leave a bit to be desired every now and again. And coincidentally, this weekend has been a prime example.

If you enjoy rock, or generally alternative music in Lincoln, you may struggle from time to time. The key nights consist of Cubesday, (Tuesday), Dive, (Friday), and Propaganda, or occasionally the odd Transmission (Saturday) or Subculture (Friday). Unfortunately, the two most consistent nights are both on a Saturday, which leaves you essentially stumped for the remainder of the week, and don't say a single night is enough, because if so, how dare you call yourself a student...

The former two nights, if my memory serves me correctly, were poor, for lack of a better word. One is cheap, so great if you don't mind the possibility of getting stabbed, and the other is expensive and seldom busy. Admittedly, a particular genre of music shouldn't dictate your nightlife, some of the best nights are often had when you go out with a great group of friends and just get slaughtered, regardless of what happens to be playing. 

But, if I wanted a consistently grand night out, my options at uni are regretfully slim, there's only so many times I can hear 'Mr. Brightside' or 'When the Sun Goes Down' before they make me slip into a psychotic rage, and leave you wanting something a little less mainstream. Sure, cheap drinks and the opportunity to meet new folks is good, and is often something which you don't get in pubs, but how do the free houses and bars back home compare to the student-centered nightlife of Lincoln?

You'll have to forgive the informal focus and first-person references in this article, but I can't see many other options I'm afraid. Back home, nights are of equally reputability. Clubs are essentially a miss here, so it's better to boil this discussion down to a pub and club comparison. 

Of course, a round back home is notably more costly, more so than the student-friendly campus pubs, and if you're not a fellow who can understand the broadest of Northern accents, be ready to have a plethora of dirty looks thrown in your direction. But, unlike the Lincoln scene, the nightlife of this particular small town is fantastically Northern: There's live bands covering all types of music, most days of the week. There are jukeboxes, which are essentially non-existent in Lincoln. There's even £1.50 pints, and more importantly, friends that you haven't seen in ages. All these factors add up into a solid night out. 

Pubs are great, in all their different varieties, and for all their unique flaws. I can't think of a building much more welcoming that a Wetherspoons, (possibly a McDonalds when you're abroad, but that's a different story). Not much can top the consistently cheap deals of a 'Spoons, and the chain itself is a brilliant concept; rock up for either a casual drink and a curry, or proceed to get suitably pissed. No-one at a Wetherspoons seems to care, nor judge, it's a church of inebriation, and that church also happens to be a wonderfully restored market hall, theater or bank. If a consistently welcoming atmosphere or reliably cheap prices don't appeal to you, think of the impact of a Wetherspoons on the local community, and I mean that in a good way...

Pubs bring people together, in a rather casual and friendly manner. If you've noticed that your local Spoons is refreshingly lacking when it comes to music, it's because a conversational atmosphere is king to whatever's currently in the charts. And that is one thing that I hate about clubs. Not the sticky floors, the intrusive gentleman in the toilets, or even the less than favorable characters, it's the atmosphere and lack of communication.

In an age which highlights the worrying lack of understanding when it comes to consent, pubs are still welcoming places of chivalry and manners; I've never once been spoken rudely to in a pub, or barged past. Everyone manages to remain content, even when pissed. Clubs, regardless of the music they play, still stand as somewhat intimidating arenas, in which jumped-up lads jostle for position on a hierarchy that only exists in their heads.

Your average club, (please note, while I say 'average', this isn't a description of all clubs), tends to be a dark and crowded place, abiding to a wave of lad culture which should've been vanquished from existence as soon as it became a thing. Every time I've ventured into the wilderness of such a venue, I can guarantee that you'll bare witness to one of two crappy practices: Firstly, you may witness a guy trying to dance or grind on a woman with a begrudging look on her face, which I always find to be both awful yet amusing. This amusement isn't from the position of the woman, it's the desperation of the male, who can't conjure any basic conversation, so he subsequently proceeds to just rub his genitals over his chosen lady. How lovely. Are you that worried that if you open your mouth, this poor soul will immediately realise how much of a shitty person you are? 

The second, and arguably worse practice that I encounter, is that you'll always see someone stirring shit, or trying to start a fight. I can seldom think of a night in which I haven't seen one of these things occurring, unfortunately. I appreciate that alcohol makes people behave differently, but surely if people in clubs learnt how to use their words, everyone would be much better off in the long run, with no trips to A&E. 

All this unnecessary hostility does make me wonder, why do people bother with clubs at all? Then I remembered, it's not really a case of the venue, more the people you go with. Admittedly, the aforementioned £1 Jagerbombs are a bonus, but some of the best nights out I've had have been with people that are great to be around, and because of this, we've endured some of the worst venues with a smile on our faces. If I had to sum all of this up in a sentence, I'd stick with that idea; it's not the venue, it's the people that make a night out.

While that middling perspective does seem pretty obvious and predictable, recently, I've discovered a new medium which has led to nothing but cracking nights for me. I don't know what these places are classed as, but that simply doesn't matter. I'm talking about places that somehow straddle the line between pub and club, mixing the perfect atmosphere with music and decent prices. Maybe it's the creeping adulthood which is causing this change of heart, or maybe it's a reality of nightlife. Places like Lola Lo's and Subculture, (for Lincoln anyway), have given me my answer to this debate. I've never had a bad experience at these places, and I can't see one happening anytime soon. And I mean, Subculture is held in a really nice waffle house, how can you say no to that? 

I can assure you, this isn't a sponsored post. Of course, the right group of friends is essential, but a location which combines the best of both worlds really manages to turn a solid night out into a great one. 

So if you want something different, which isn't your usual battle between rock and pop music, go somewhere new, where no-one has been before. Venture into the inebriated unknown, and you might just find yourself a new favourite place. And if you simply can't be arsed with such exploration, there's always one of the places that I just mentioned. Props to them for having something unique, and for providing a haven for tired individuals such as myself. 

What Did You Expect from The Stone Roses?

Twenty-one years is a very long time. As someone who has yet to reach that magical age, I can’t even properly comprehend it.

However, in that space of time, the world has changed a great deal, and more importantly, so has the music landscape of Britain. Since we last saw The Stone Roses, their previous single, also a personal favourite of mine, was ‘Begging You’, released in 1994. We’ve seen the rise and fall of the Britpop movement which arguably muscled the Roses out of prominence. We’ve seen new bands like the Arctic Monkeys and Kasabian rise to maturity, headline festivals, and subsequently retreat to their back to their positions as key players in British music. We’ve also witnessed the reunion of the four-piece back in 2011, taking the world by storm and leaving fans itching for new material to stick their teeth into.

And it seems the stars must have aligned, because they released the new single, ‘All for One’, just six days ago, polarising fans in the process.

With a series of massive shows on the horizon, it seems that interest in The Stone Roses is as high as it ever has been. Get out your bucket hats and anything with Adidas all over it. Dust off your lemon-themed merch and your Pollock-inspired prints, because it seems that this summer will be the home of a Madchester revival, fronted by the chief figures of the movement. Some tabloids are even predicting a new album to drop soon, coinciding with their summer gigs. I mean, with streams of The Stone Roses’ material increasing by 500 percent, it seems that the sudden appearance of a new single may have very well attracted a whole new younger audience for their work, alongside older fans who were involved with the band in their earlier years.

It really is a cracking time to be a Stone Roses fan. But if there’s so much love for the Manchester band, why are people utterly divided when it comes to ‘All for One’?

The first thing that hits you in this track is the riff, and with this being The Stone Roses, I’d be a tad surprised if it was any different. You’re immediately struck by Squire’s distinctive playing, taking you swiftly back to the nineties. It reminds me of the gap between their eponymous debut album, and Second Coming, with the sound reminding you that the group have had a lot of time to practice. It certainly provides a solid foundation for a memorable Stone Roses tune, with its original and catchy riff, something which is bound to get thousands of fans jumping at the Etihad later this year. 

The one understandable quarrel that many have with the new single would be the lyrics, which have been almost universally panned. Between the repeating jingle of "me", "be", "see" and "family", along with an opening line which could've very well been scribbled down five minutes before recording, there's not a lot of lyrical love for the new track. Although, chances are you'll remember the words for how bad they are, and that definitely won't stop tens of thousands of people from singing them. Despite these judgements, the song is undeniably optimistic, and this makes it all the more potent, especially when we've been deprived of new Stone Roses material for so long. If you're longing after masterful lyrics, have a look back at their older stuff.

The format of the song makes sense, or at least by Stone Roses standards. The chorus is a simple three-chord affair, with some easy to remember lyrics; there aren't any adventurous rhymes or complex meanings behind any of the lyrics, as to be expected. The chorus repeats until a welcome stop, which then holds you in place for a blinding solo. 

If you're still not getting the gist of this article, 'All for One' is exactly what it needs to be: A simple, no-nonsense deal which brings attention back to the band, while providing us with a tune which instantly sounds like The Stone Roses with very little effort. Thankfully, Brown and friends haven't tried anything new, or at least not yet. All of their experimental bits and pieces can stick around as B-Sides or filler album tracks. That being said, 'Begging You' could be classified as a little on the experimental side, and quite a few people are fans of it. 

Ultimately, can't we all be happy that there's a new lot of Stone Roses material on the horizon? It's a miracle that the band haven't permanently tarnished their legacy with their third coming. They're not returning to be the band which pioneered a new wave of indie music, they're too far gone for that. They're returning for a giant, feel-good nostalgia trip, and so far they're doing just that. Alternatively, the four of them could be bored and skint, but let's look past that and keep an optimistic outlook. If you've got a problem with the new tune, rather than immediately going with the flow and slating it, why don't you simply ask what you expected of a band who've been stagnant for the best part of two decades?

Regardless of what you think, 'All for One' could've been worse. A lot worse. I just hope they keep this going for the summer of the Stones. 

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.