It occured to me this evening (whilst looking through friend's blogs that haven't been updated in months)that I've disappeared off with very little explanation. In a manner akin to top politicians (apparently Political Satire is in vogue at the moment for some reason) I have set up a cushy second blog over at this address. It's all about advertising. Usually pretty/thought provoking/creative advertising, and sometimes crap advertising. It still contains my special brand of uninformed opinions and bitter rants, but this time about something I should know slightly more about.
On the other hand, I actually do update it at least once most weeks, and in bitesize chunks (and although this particular choice of phrase sounds like it has been stolen from an ad of somekind, it is actually fitting) which is much better than 1500 word diatribes about Piers Morgan's face. Probably.
Anyway, here is tonight's post...
"Just a very quick post, as I’ve been relatively busy over the last week or so, it might take a while to get what the advert actually was for (I got it from the hair tussling).
I thought it was quite a creative approach to attempting to change attitudes on wind power- the lack of hippies and men in white lab coats threatening us with imminent drowning probably made it slightly more accessible.
That’s all for now, as some spam in my inbox today might have said: expect something longer, soon."
Feel free to follow it
Wednesday 5 May 2010
Thursday 25 March 2010
I'm a video gamer. Not a murderer.
Anyone who plays games and spends a large amount of time on the Internet will probably have seen this video at some point in the last few days:
It shows a debate (I use this term loosely, as debates typically take place in a manner approaching fair to an audience willing to listen) on the Alan Titchmarsh show, between editor of Computer and Video Games Tim Ingham, insufferable waste of air- read TV personality- Julie Peasgood, and Kelvin Mackenzie, who was largely inconsequential to the argument- admitting that he doesn’t play war games, and making the comment that the age of the average gamer is 33 and bringing up the irrelevant fact that one of the Jamie Bulger murderers used to play games.
A great deal of praise has to go to Tim Ingham, who, in the face of this blustering, belligerent bint shouting down his claims with apparently non-existent- and definitely not named- studies, stayed calm and composed, making the point that games such as Modern Warfare do have BBFC certification in the same way that films do and that they should be viewed in the same sort of way.
When he brought up the government-commissioned Byron report into games, which found no links between violent video games and behavioural problems- precisely the opposite of Peasgood’s mystery piece of research- he was jeered by the audience in the manner you would only expect to find in a pantomime. Or possibly question time with Nick Griffin.
Peasgood (who it should be noted, despite being “categorically against violence for entertainment” actually voice acted for the game Martian Gothic: Unification) spent the entire interview spouting unsubstantiated, crowd-pleasing rhetoric, which made the audience cheer, and the entire game industry cringe.
An audience less horrendously set in their narrow, archaic mindset could possibly have been open to hearing some of the benefits of games- including improving cognitive skills in older people to mention one which would be directly of interest to the Daily Mail wielding viewers of the show (the link, by the way tells of a named study by real scientists).
The games industry is in something of a renaissance period, the relentless march of technology is giving developers finer and finer brushes with which to perfect games that appeal to all ages. Modern Warfare 2 has demonstrated that a game can be as cinematic- violence and all- as any war film (also as dumb). Games such as the original Bioshock or Heavy Rain have proven that games can be as challenging and thought provoking as any novel and the fact that you play as a character means that they can be far more immersive.
The wide availability of broadband connections and games which support online play give me the opportunity to play with my friends in Norwich- which is a good 80 miles away, often talking for hours at a time (a fact I think even Peasgood would have to concede is indicative of good social adjustment) whilst we play games that actually reward team work.
And once you get past the baying idiocies of some online game lobbies, I’ve actually had a lot of interesting conversations with Americans and even some English speakers from European countries, giving me a small glimpse into their world.
And these are the benefits that I, personally have experienced. I’d like to consider myself well adjusted- and I certainly have never killed anyone, even though I used to play games like Grand Theft Auto or Doom (both of which collected controversy in their days). I also used to play games like Animal Crossing.
I chose games not for their violence, but for their interesting presentation of ideas and for their ability to provide escapism, and in a world were a moronic audience can jeer a piece of rational thought, whilst their mouthpiece spewed fallacious, irrelevant claims to further approval, can you blame me?
It shows a debate (I use this term loosely, as debates typically take place in a manner approaching fair to an audience willing to listen) on the Alan Titchmarsh show, between editor of Computer and Video Games Tim Ingham, insufferable waste of air- read TV personality- Julie Peasgood, and Kelvin Mackenzie, who was largely inconsequential to the argument- admitting that he doesn’t play war games, and making the comment that the age of the average gamer is 33 and bringing up the irrelevant fact that one of the Jamie Bulger murderers used to play games.
A great deal of praise has to go to Tim Ingham, who, in the face of this blustering, belligerent bint shouting down his claims with apparently non-existent- and definitely not named- studies, stayed calm and composed, making the point that games such as Modern Warfare do have BBFC certification in the same way that films do and that they should be viewed in the same sort of way.
When he brought up the government-commissioned Byron report into games, which found no links between violent video games and behavioural problems- precisely the opposite of Peasgood’s mystery piece of research- he was jeered by the audience in the manner you would only expect to find in a pantomime. Or possibly question time with Nick Griffin.
Peasgood (who it should be noted, despite being “categorically against violence for entertainment” actually voice acted for the game Martian Gothic: Unification) spent the entire interview spouting unsubstantiated, crowd-pleasing rhetoric, which made the audience cheer, and the entire game industry cringe.
An audience less horrendously set in their narrow, archaic mindset could possibly have been open to hearing some of the benefits of games- including improving cognitive skills in older people to mention one which would be directly of interest to the Daily Mail wielding viewers of the show (the link, by the way tells of a named study by real scientists).
The games industry is in something of a renaissance period, the relentless march of technology is giving developers finer and finer brushes with which to perfect games that appeal to all ages. Modern Warfare 2 has demonstrated that a game can be as cinematic- violence and all- as any war film (also as dumb). Games such as the original Bioshock or Heavy Rain have proven that games can be as challenging and thought provoking as any novel and the fact that you play as a character means that they can be far more immersive.
The wide availability of broadband connections and games which support online play give me the opportunity to play with my friends in Norwich- which is a good 80 miles away, often talking for hours at a time (a fact I think even Peasgood would have to concede is indicative of good social adjustment) whilst we play games that actually reward team work.
And once you get past the baying idiocies of some online game lobbies, I’ve actually had a lot of interesting conversations with Americans and even some English speakers from European countries, giving me a small glimpse into their world.
And these are the benefits that I, personally have experienced. I’d like to consider myself well adjusted- and I certainly have never killed anyone, even though I used to play games like Grand Theft Auto or Doom (both of which collected controversy in their days). I also used to play games like Animal Crossing.
I chose games not for their violence, but for their interesting presentation of ideas and for their ability to provide escapism, and in a world were a moronic audience can jeer a piece of rational thought, whilst their mouthpiece spewed fallacious, irrelevant claims to further approval, can you blame me?
Tuesday 23 February 2010
6 Lessons learned from the last 2 weeks
Just a quick post to indicate that I’m still alive. Regular readers may be disappointed by this. Nothing has particularly irritated me (other than a film below) over the last couple of weeks, so here are some things (films and stuff) that I have liked and one thing that I loathed:
(500) Days Of Summer: This film was a smart and savvy appraisal of being one of those pathetic hopeless romantic types- featuring the gorgeous Zooey Deschanel and “The Kid From 3rd Rock From The Sun” (more popularly as Joseph Gordon-Levitt), they were believable characters and shared reasonable chemistry- both in a coalescing and combusting sense. Quite brutal in places, it lightened up a bit at the end, but still didn’t result in being overly schmaltzy. Unlike He’s Just Not That Into You; a film which spent 2 hours saying that women are not the exception to the rule (he WAS a player but he’ll change for you etc.) and then ended with the most desperate lady ever seen on film gasping “I am the exception” whilst a man- who had spent the film being completely uninterested in her- was in the act of ravishing her. This made me far angrier than any film should.
The Lovely Bones: Peter Jackson back with that superb directorial eye of his- juxtaposing lavish dreamscapes with visceral scenes and some astoundingly tense moments in a rather horrible story of a girl who is brutally murdered and continues watching the repercussions of her murder- her family’s slow descent into ruin, her killer continuing to go free. Mark Wahlberg subtle turn as the father of the murdered daughter and Stanley Tucci’s equally restrained- and frankly quite terrifying- role as the murderer (who probably could evade suspicion more easily if he didn’t dress like a stereotypical serial killer) are both worth the price of admission- although I should add a special mention goes to Laura for paying for me to see this.
Bioshock 2: The long-awaited (by me at least) sequel to the original Bioshock game came out. I got it a day early- thank you very much zavvi- and went about completing it.
The art design- both character and location- is superb, having been set a decade after it’s predecessor, most of the underwater city in which Bioshock 2 takes place is becoming increasingly derelict and the inhabitants are less human in appearance (having messed with their DNA), and these are generally well thought out. This means that whilst it doesn’t look as realistic as say Modern Warfare 2, it still manages to look quite superb. If you’re into barnacles and Art Deco furnishings.
The story falls a little short of its predecessor, but there is still some mildly interesting philosophical debate to be had, if you’re willing to search hard enough, but nothing that you wouldn’t hear from a drunk student at the union after a few pints. The game is also fairly easy, even on the hardest difficulty. Still, despite these flaws, Bioshock 2 is a game that does a good job of capturing the tone and style of the first, and I’d recommend checking it out if you’re gaming inclined.
I finally got around to listening to The Shins’ “Wincing the night away” the other day, after “Black Wave” came on in a pub and I decided that I needed to own it, the rest of the album is quite wonderful as well.
Finally, in a surprise at number 6: Engineering works on Valentine’s day are awesome, having serendipitously introduced me to a girl who had skived off work in order to try and win her ex-boyfriend back. Thus restoring my faith in people attempting to make life more like a romantic comedy. Even if she failed in winning him back.
Honorable mention goes to "The Devil In Ember" by Mark Gatiss, a book which I have been enjoying for the last couple of days.
Monday 1 February 2010
6 Lessons Learned From Facebook Fan Pages
The Internet, it truly is a fabulous thing. I use it daily, I imagine you use it daily. In fact I bet you’re on it right now.
Anyway, I came across a superb site- a recommendation from my sister- this week: Stumbleupon.com, basically it is a website which directs you to other websites which people have recommended to it, when you’re bored of that particular site, click the “Stumble!” button and it will put you onto something else. The websites can be anything from webcomics to psychological journals explaining quirks of human behaviour, from flash games to playlists of songs that make you happy. It really is excellent and shows you how good the Internet can be.
Unfortunately the internet can also be a place for rampant idiocy. I, like many people in the 21-35 bracket, harbour something of an addiction to Facebook, spending most of my free time on it- a fact that becomes even more concerning when I consider the abundance of free time that currently I have.
Whilst doing what amounts to very little on facebook, I’ve noticed that with the advent of fan pages there has a new selection of moronic bandwagons for people to jump on. So here are 6 lessons learned from facebook fan pages:
1: The Fan Page: Behind every untrusting girl is a boy who made her that way.
Number of members: c.115,000
The Lesson: The internet is made up of sadists, or people who are pathetic.
Number one on my list of perplexing facebook fan pages is this one. I’m not even certain what the members are professing to be a fan of? Is it applauding the boy who broke the eponymous girl’s heart, because that would mean that there are a lot of emotional sadists on facebook.
Alternatively, it may just be for people who like untrusting women, which suggests it would be a call to arms for like-minded fans of distrustful women to get together to discuss the best way of breaking a woman’s trust.
Dropping the facetious-tinted lenses that I view most facebook fan pages with, this is obviously a page for people who consider themselves untrusting, presumably as a means to get even at whoever betrayed their trust.
Perhaps it is because I’m male, or perhaps it is because I’m British, but something seems intrinsically wrong about advertising the fact that you’re: a) untrusting, and b) the fact that you’ve let a boy hurt you in the past, to your entire network of friends. I can’t help but feel that this group single-handedly puts back the cause of feminism a good half decade.
2: The Fan Page: The sexist legend who put this on his maths paper
Number of members: c. 115,000
The Lesson: 1950s views of women are not only socially acceptable, but also funny.
To be honest, I’ve seen this before and it caused a small amount of mirth, it’s a question from a maths paper featuring a woman- Tracey- quoting an equation, the question then asks the participant to say why Tracey is wrong. The answer given on this particular paper is “She’s a woman”, which, as I said, did raise a smile. However, I did not find it funny enough to warrant starting, or even joining a group supporting the bloke (or woman with no self-esteem) who wrote it.
Then again, whoever started the group wasn’t applauding the joke itself, but “The sexist legend” who wrote it, which sort of implies that he likes people who are sexist, and that he also lacks the intelligence to produce the curt response himself.
He also uses the word “legend” in a stupid place- which for some reason really irritates me. I doubt that the story of “The sexist with a sense of humour” will endure as long as that of say, King Arthur, but then again I’ve done my part to pass it on.
3: The Fan Page: ALARM…Snooze…ALARM…Snooze…ALARM.*Checks Time*…SHIIIIT
Number of members: c. 1,559,000
The Lesson: Some people are not good at waking up
It is one of the fundamental truths of human existence that after a decent night’s sleep, people do not enjoy getting up, and that some people may, on occasion, hit snooze a couple of times and regret it. I don’t understand why it is necessary to become a fan of something so utterly banal. Unless it’s crumpets. Crumpets are awesome.
4: The Fan Page: Kill The Lot: Paedophiles, rapists, abusers of all kinds
Number of members: c. 29,200
The Lesson: Paedophiles, rapists and abusers of all kinds are bad.
Yes, much like the previous point, this group points out the blaringly obvious. Only this group goes much further and suggests that they kill Paedophiles, rapists and abusers of all kinds, presumably “all kinds” includes abuse of human rights, and with one member advocating that the any of the above groups should be shot on site [sic], bypassing the right to a fair trial, I suppose that suggests that some members of the group should also be shot. And not just for their abuse of the English language.
5: The Fan Page: WOW…YUH DON’T LYK ME…>What do you expect me to cry or summink
Number of members: c. 1,774
The Lesson: People are so, so stupid
This group, just going by name, irritates me in so many ways, the lack of punctuation other than ellipses, the lack of spelling, the apparently aggressive demeanour of whoever created it, defending their right to be a moron in as loud and as objectionable a way as possible. I read this title and I am immediately reminded of a 14 year old chav who I once saw on the bus, who was near enough chewing the ear off anyone who looked at her, this brought her further attention.
6: The Fan Page: 6 Lessons (and other miscellaneous ramblings by Jonathan Crouch)
Number of members: c. 80
The Lesson: The internet is awesome and has a great deal of fun and readable content. It also fosters shameful amounts of self-indulgence and shameless self-promotion.
And in a surprise entry at Number 6 is my very own facebook fan page, I suggest that you join it if you haven’t already, and invite all of your friends to it.
The majority of the fan pages I have joined have been local bands or DJs who I am friends with, and the fan pages of facebook are perfect for helping them keep in touch with their fan base (the fact that having a group of people being you can refer to as your fan base is wonderful in itself) and publicising their events to people who may be inclined to see them. For evidence for fostering of self-indulgence and shameless self-promotion, look no further than the previous 1,000 or so words.
Thursday 21 January 2010
6 Lessons 2.0
HELLO! And welcome to the J.J Abrams-esque reboot of 6 Lessons, now with 32% more CAPITALS.
Now that I have your attention, any eagle-eyed readers may have noticed a distinct lack of posts for a good 2 or 3 months. This was largely because I started an article entitled “6 Lessons learned from 80s rock music”, but found that, in reality there were so few lessons to learn from 80s rock music (unless you count different ways of snorting cocaine off a groupie’s body) that it became something of a sticky wicket -an appropriate analogy, considering the fact that most lyrics from the 1980s seemed to be about Tommy Lee’s wicket and the manner in which he got it sticky.
Anyway the whole experience of researching (see what I do for you?) the exploits of Lee and company left me feeling somewhat disgusted with the capabilities of drummers of rock bands, and humanity as a whole. I committed myself to solitude, embarking on a mental detox made up of 18 hours a day looking at videos of kittens on youtube, and watching reruns of The Good Life. Also I couldn’t be arsed.
But it’s a new year, so I figured I’d end the silence and start writing the blog again, with some small changes- I’m going to keep the “6 Lessons” moniker, but drop the 6 Lessons formula. Except for when I feel like doing it. Hell, I may even do 5 Lessons when I feel like it. This isn’t a democracy.
Anyway, whilst away, I have done some little non-list based rants for a new London-based online magazine This Weekend (What was 2009 for?, page 22) I finally landed my dream job (or at least the dream job of my 16-year-old self) at HMV- seasonal temp. Which meant I got to deal personally with lots of the idiots who got Susan Boyle to number 1. In a fashion so cordial the 16-year-old me would be ashamed, but screw him, he’s an idiot.
I witnessed an interesting sight the other day. A gentleman standing in front of a group of thirty women, wearing nothing but a butler’s collar and a pair of boxers, wheeling about a tea trolley. The women then pressed a button decide whether they would like to date him or not. No, this wasn’t Virgin Atlantic’s new attempt at sexing up air travel (although kudos to them for trying to make terrorist targets sexy again with the new ad doing the rounds), this was prime time television- ITV’s “Take Me Out” (Saturday, 7:30pm on ITV1)- a new dating programme to fill the void left behind by Blind Date.
Yes, it’s ITV’s. The premise is simple, a man comes on, talks a bit about himself, does some needless bit of showboating, and women decide if they’d like to date him or not. It sounds like an empowering new front of the feminist movement. Hosted by that guy from Max and Paddy.
However it quickly turns into thirty women clamouring for the attention of one awful, attention-seeking prick, and then another. Over and over again.
Over the duration of a show you can really see characters evolving amongst the women. There’s desperate (one slightly overweight fairly short girl who stays in on two-thirds of blokes), quite desperate (one woman sporting a long list of daddy issues, who gives the impression she’d jump on with a trouser based bulge) and very desperate (one incredibly tall woman who it appears wouldn’t say no to anyone).
Ultimately the decision is left to the man, who, having learned nothing about the girls’ personalities, decides (presumably by looks alone) who he is going to take on a date from the women left wanting to date him. A clip of their date is shown the subsequent week, and from what I’ve seen, it typically reveals that the man is a self-obsessed narcissist and that the woman is desperate. They sit in a tastelessly lit restaurant (although it appears to be a studio, no doubt adjacent to the studio that the show is recorded in) and the woman shuffles uncomfortably for a bit, whilst the bloke talks about himself some more. These clips are cut with the happy couple talking about how passable the date was. No doubt before going their separate ways.
Who says romance is dead?
Now that I have your attention, any eagle-eyed readers may have noticed a distinct lack of posts for a good 2 or 3 months. This was largely because I started an article entitled “6 Lessons learned from 80s rock music”, but found that, in reality there were so few lessons to learn from 80s rock music (unless you count different ways of snorting cocaine off a groupie’s body) that it became something of a sticky wicket -an appropriate analogy, considering the fact that most lyrics from the 1980s seemed to be about Tommy Lee’s wicket and the manner in which he got it sticky.
Anyway the whole experience of researching (see what I do for you?) the exploits of Lee and company left me feeling somewhat disgusted with the capabilities of drummers of rock bands, and humanity as a whole. I committed myself to solitude, embarking on a mental detox made up of 18 hours a day looking at videos of kittens on youtube, and watching reruns of The Good Life. Also I couldn’t be arsed.
But it’s a new year, so I figured I’d end the silence and start writing the blog again, with some small changes- I’m going to keep the “6 Lessons” moniker, but drop the 6 Lessons formula. Except for when I feel like doing it. Hell, I may even do 5 Lessons when I feel like it. This isn’t a democracy.
Anyway, whilst away, I have done some little non-list based rants for a new London-based online magazine This Weekend (What was 2009 for?, page 22) I finally landed my dream job (or at least the dream job of my 16-year-old self) at HMV- seasonal temp. Which meant I got to deal personally with lots of the idiots who got Susan Boyle to number 1. In a fashion so cordial the 16-year-old me would be ashamed, but screw him, he’s an idiot.
I witnessed an interesting sight the other day. A gentleman standing in front of a group of thirty women, wearing nothing but a butler’s collar and a pair of boxers, wheeling about a tea trolley. The women then pressed a button decide whether they would like to date him or not. No, this wasn’t Virgin Atlantic’s new attempt at sexing up air travel (although kudos to them for trying to make terrorist targets sexy again with the new ad doing the rounds), this was prime time television- ITV’s “Take Me Out” (Saturday, 7:30pm on ITV1)- a new dating programme to fill the void left behind by Blind Date.
Yes, it’s ITV’s. The premise is simple, a man comes on, talks a bit about himself, does some needless bit of showboating, and women decide if they’d like to date him or not. It sounds like an empowering new front of the feminist movement. Hosted by that guy from Max and Paddy.
However it quickly turns into thirty women clamouring for the attention of one awful, attention-seeking prick, and then another. Over and over again.
Over the duration of a show you can really see characters evolving amongst the women. There’s desperate (one slightly overweight fairly short girl who stays in on two-thirds of blokes), quite desperate (one woman sporting a long list of daddy issues, who gives the impression she’d jump on with a trouser based bulge) and very desperate (one incredibly tall woman who it appears wouldn’t say no to anyone).
Ultimately the decision is left to the man, who, having learned nothing about the girls’ personalities, decides (presumably by looks alone) who he is going to take on a date from the women left wanting to date him. A clip of their date is shown the subsequent week, and from what I’ve seen, it typically reveals that the man is a self-obsessed narcissist and that the woman is desperate. They sit in a tastelessly lit restaurant (although it appears to be a studio, no doubt adjacent to the studio that the show is recorded in) and the woman shuffles uncomfortably for a bit, whilst the bloke talks about himself some more. These clips are cut with the happy couple talking about how passable the date was. No doubt before going their separate ways.
Who says romance is dead?
Thursday 1 October 2009
A 6 Lessons Review: Halo 3: ODST
So I’ve been thinking for a while that I should use this blog for something other than ill-informed rants about The Daily Mail (although at least I can accept that they are ill informed rants). It’d be nice to attempt to give something back to the world other than sheer negativity. The Daily Mail does it with skincare products and early 90s BBC dramas, I can do it with advice on purchases of games or films or music.
I’ve been dragging my feet on kicking this reviewing milarkey off as I haven’t really had anything worth reviewing- the 1990s has yet to reach the town in which I live, we’ve recently heard about this great new band called The Pet Shop boys- however, today a copy of the new Halo game dropped through my letterbox (courtesy of a very good friend who found himself with 2 copies after a slow delivery from amazon and an impulsive trip to game), I spent the day playing through it and figure I can probably write something informative about it.
Since I’ve started this blog, I’ve started thinking about everything in terms of sixes, so I’m going to try and cut it down to 6 major points. So yeah, see you at the other end…
1: Halo 3: ODST
For anyone who has lived in a cave for the last 8 years, Halo is a game developed by Bungie for the Xbox and Xbox360 (and the PC if you’re that way inclined). It has had 3 instalments so far (plus a strategy game that doesn’t count because its not a first person shooter), all of which have followed Master Chief, an awesome genetically modified super-soldier capable of jumping a couple of metres in the air, running face-first into battle and basically committing some of the biggest acts of badassery known to the gaming public. It has never failed to be a huge critical and commercial success.
ODST, the fourth (or third-and-a-half, I guess) instalment of the Halo series has taken a rather large departure from this run-around-an-alien-planet-and-spray-bullets-mindlessly approach. The entire game is set on Earth, in New Mombassa, shortly after the covenant (alien) forces have attacked, and you play a member of the Orbital Shock Drop Troopers- the Halo equivalent of the Paras. Gone are the shields that render you near-invulnerable, gone is the ability to leap sheds in a single bound, gone is the battle rifle. Now it’s all about the pistol.
2: A Geek’s dream
The first thing I noticed in the opening FMV was the voice acting. Halo stalwarts Nathan Fillion, Adam Baldwin and Alan Tudyk are all on hand to voice the main characters in the game. Anyone who has seen Joss Whedon’s Firefly (and it should be everyone, it’s a superb series which was cut down before it truly had a chance to blossom) will recognise these stars as members of the crew from there, and in ODST they’re essentially playing the same roles.
The voice acting is good, although it’s a bit odd to see a computer-generated version of Nathan Fillion (the only actor to have his likeness used in the game) enacting movements very similar to mincing. After getting over the initial shock of seeing an actor- who had still managed to look tough whilst wearing an old fashioned bonnet- waving his hands about like Graham Norton, I was able to actually get on with the game and enjoy it.
As the story developed, I actually found myself caring for all of the members of the team- and even the other random troops who had been dropped in, something which I hadn’t done in any of the previous Halo games, because I was too busy charging into battle, firing two guns simultaneously whilst throwing grenades and punches like Rambo and Bruce Lee respectively. And whilst I wasn’t as affected by the plight of my team as much as say, the first Modern Warfare game, it was still nice to see.
3: ODST: Like Halo 3, only different
When ODST was first announced, I was a little dubious of Bungie tackling stealthy aspects of game play. I liked Call of Duty for the fact I had to engage my brain to play it, I liked Halo because it made me feel like Sly Stallone. Mixing the two just wouldn’t work.
On the surface, ODST appears to be a lot like its predecessors; there’s a similar HUD and you’re still fighting the same enemies with the same weapons. But the gameplay couldn’t be more different, it’s more intelligent, and there is a far greater sense of achievement when you manage to get through an area without alerting any groups of aliens than just killing every one of them.
It’s like walking into your living room to find a complete stranger wearing your recently deceased uncle’s skin. Only he’s far more articulate than your uncle and is far kinder regarding Christmases and birthdays, he even offers to help with the dishes after you’ve had Sunday lunch. Basically it’s weird, but in a good way.
4: I’m all alone, there’s no-one here beside me…
The general mood of the game is also very different to the previous Halo games. In Halo 1, 2 and 3, aside from you playing a near invincible super soldier, you nearly always have assistance from a few NPCs (who if nothing else, are fodder for the alien’s guns).
In half of the sections of ODST, you play a rookie trooper (intelligently named “Rookie”) who is left on his own in a city teeming with alien invaders, attempting to regroup with the other members of his squad.
I had been told that the game was far better to play through on your own (Halo is always fun to do on co-op, so I was planning on playing through with a friend) and I can see why, the sense of solitude is incredible in places, I genuinely felt alone. Having someone else on my team probably would have prevented this.
These feelings of isolation are helped by some rather superb musical scoring. Usually after you’ve just played through a section as one of the other characters-who typically had at least one additional NPC with them- you’re thrust back into the place on your own, and treated to a swell of strings which helps add to the feelings of loneliness.
The parts of the game where you’re not playing as the rookie are still enjoyable- it’s still fun to fly around in a banshee, or drive around in a warthog or tank with explosions and gunfights going on all around you- and they serve to accentuate how lonesome the rookie is.
5: The ending
The game finishes with a drive along a highway in a tank and then defending a building from a few waves of jetpack toting apes. It is, despite sounding promising on paper, a slightly anti-climactic end to the game, and (unsurprisingly) leaves a bit of room for a sequel. But ODST takes place during the events of Halo 2, so it simply wouldn’t work if they were to win this intergalactic war. Also, the game is short. I completed it (albeit only on Normal) in a single sitting. I will no doubt go through it on co-operative on harder difficulties, but its still fairly short.
Still, these are minor qualms, Halo ODST was only meant to bridge the release gap between Halo 3 and the upcoming Halo Reach game (another prequel) due in 2010, and it does that nicely.
6: Multiplayer
I imagine you’re thinking that the previous paragraph sounds like a fairly conclusive paragraph for a review, but I’ve glossed over what is likely to be the strongest part of ODST for replay value: the multiplayer.
Bundled along with ODST is an additional disc that allows you to play the Halo 3 multiplayer. The same Halo 3 multiplayer that hasn’t left the top 10 most played online games on xbox live since it was released 2 years ago, that’s a success rate in line with Bryan Adams’ “Everything I Do”. In fact, it’s been number one for the majority of those weeks. It’s a varied selection of games both involving deathmatch and objective games, and its good, scrappy fun.
As well as this, there is the firefight mode, which is a completely new thing for ODST, much like Nazi Zombies in Call of Duty: World at War, or The Horde in Gears of War 2, it involves killing wave after wave of enemies until they kill you. I have yet to play it with 4 players, but playing with 2 players, it was an enjoyable addition to an otherwise fairly packed game.
Also worth mentioning is the fact that ODST comes with an invitation to play the multiplayer beta for Halo Reach when they release it. This will no doubt be a worthwhile addition when it becomes available.
So now for the proper summary bit: Halo 3: ODST is a pleasant addition to the Halo series, I feel that focusing on a character who isn’t a genetically enhanced supersoldier gives the game a beneficial element of stealth, and the general feel of the game is better than its prequels. Or sequels.
Halo ODST changes enough things to make it more interesting than the other ones, whilst keeping enough aspects of it in place to maintain the feel of a Halo game. The narrative is more interesting than previous instalments, seeing the story through a variety of character’s eyes. It feels more like a Tarantino film in its style than most games, and this works to its favour. It allows sections that are heavily action led, and stealth sections, which, as you can probably tell, I really enjoyed.
Sadly though, by the end of this game, this unique style (at least as far as Halo is concerned) is jettisoned in favour of an action ending, when I was hoping for something more.
There are other flaws in the game too, whilst its length makes it easy enough to play through in one sitting (although admittedly it does help if you’re jobless and bored), I would have liked it to have been a bit longer. Also the graphics, after playing Call of Duty, leave a little to be desired. The controls aren’t as intuitive as Call of Duty- I’ve never liked having the beatdown button assigned to a face button (but refuse to do anything about it as it would make me a horrendous geek), and for a game involving elements of stealth, the lack of a sprint button can be quite frustrating. I got caught casually strolling to stationary cars I was planning on using for cover a couple of times.
The online multiplayer doesn’t have enough new things to tempt me to throw out my Halo 3 disk any time soon, but anyone who hasn’t already played a genuinely embarrassing amount of time on Halo 3 online would probably appreciate being able to play online.
These are all fairly small things, which I would like to have seen fixed in the new game. Nevertheless, I enjoyed the game and look forward to playing through it again.
Using the new 6 Lessons rating system, I’d give Halo 3: ODST
5/6. Or 83.3%.
Monday 21 September 2009
6 Lessons learned from advertising (recent edition)
One of my final year modules for my degree was “Behavioural aspects of Marketing”. This was, without doubt, my favourite module in my entire degree. It provided an interesting insight into the minds of consumers- and more often than not a rather more disturbing insight into the minds of advertisers- and basically revolved around using psychology to make people buy your stuff.
Usually, you can see the thought processes of the marketers at work in adverts, you can see how they use attractive models- whom you wish to associate with- eating a KFC or other equally unattractive meal, and it makes you want to buy it. In theory.
However, some of the adverts seem to be making a fairly concerted effort to dissuade you from purchasing their product, by clearly aiming their advert at the wrong audience, or just by being so odd or useless that you sort of forget what the advert is actually for. There are some absolute classics from the past (The Flintstone’s flogging cigarettes anyone?) but I’m going to attempt to write only about adverts you’re likely to see in an ad break this evening. I'm also going to try and avoid going into great (and often rather boring) psychological detail.
6 Lessons learned from advertising (recent edition)…
1: The Lesson: People can’t tell the difference between an actual sporting hero and a terrible 128-bit rendering of them
Learned From: Gillette Fusion
There isn’t anything fundamentally wrong with this advert. I think Gillette’s strength of branding- and frequent use of Tiger Woods, Thierry Henry and Roger Federer- is good enough to overcome this utterly bizarre change of direction.
The previous Gillette adverts featuring the sports equivalent of the super friends (assuming that the super friends was based around Superman and company mildly inconveniencing people until they ditched their old razors) were not bad. They showed a particularly mercenary side of Woods, Henry and Federer as, in the pay of the Gillette corporation, they used their not inconsiderable collective sporting talents to force one poor bloke into ditching his razor- completely ignoring the risks of hitting balls at a guy with a razor sharp, er, razor to his face. But, after their initial success getting this man to adopt the Fusion (having confronted him in a public restroom), something odd happened.
Perhaps it was a member of the Wilkinson Sword faction enacting some devious plan (straight out of a terrible comic book from the mid-60s), but all of a sudden Tiger Woods and Roger Federer were both replaced with what appears to be Playstation 2 generated doppelgangers. And there seems to be a bitter rivalry in the place of the co-operative (albeit slightly malicious) spirit of the former advert.
As I said at the beginning, there is nothing wrong with this advert; it’s just that it makes absolutely no sense considering the previous advert. And in the English version (it’s the American ad featured above) they aren’t even shown jumping out of the television, so there is no clear reason why two of the best loved sporting heroes of this generation are suddenly rendered in awful 128-bit shadows of their former selves.
2: The Lesson: Clearasil: May cause confidence, also rape.
Learned From: Clearasil
Ok, admittedly this sounds like an extreme and irrational conclusion to make- largely because it is. But I'll stick with it anyway. In this advert, having used his daily cleansing solution, this teenager has come over all ‘confident’ and ‘capable of talking to women’. It’s sickening to see.
In order to show off his newfound confidence and his lack of spots he approaches a girl putting on lipstick before going into the cinema and asks if he can borrow some. Being a generous and kind hearted soul, she obliges, albeit whilst wearing a quizzical expression.
But as she hands the lipstick to him he lunges towards her, in an attempt to place his lips upon hers. Now I’m not a fancy big city lawyer (nor am I above quoting the Simpsons), but I’m fairly certain that there is a law against forcing yourself upon someone without their prior consent. I was genuinely hoping to see him dragged off her by cinema security and delivered to a police station.
Then, as the scene cuts to a judge, he is sentenced to a couple of years in juvenile detention. And then 2 months into his 2-year sentence, covered in spots having been cut off from his precious supply of Clearasil he is shivved by a 12-year old arsonist for taking the last of the Apricot Munch Bunch. Fade to black. Admittedly this probably wouldn’t have sold any more Clearasil, but at least it would have been gritty and realistic.
Hell, disregarding the sexual assault, it’s not even a very good line.
3: The Lesson: The internet is a good place to find romance.
Learned From: eHarmony, Match.com
Good news! eHarmony, the website responsible for setting up 2% of marriages in America is coming to the UK! eHarmony is a business (I find that it sounds much more romantic if you put it that way) responsible for matching people together using some sort of complicated algorithm which compares their interests and beliefs and stuff like that.
Admittedly, if I were the sort of person who would be tempted by some sort of online dating service- which I’m really definitely not- I would probably appreciate the use of “science” (or at least someone’s ability to match up favourite films or books) to find me a match.
In fact, I am actually quite tempted to sign up on there. Posing as a staunch anti-Semite whose favourite film is Bambi, and who passionately loves Belle and Sebastian. Also enjoys weekends away on his 42-ft yaught, during which he throws kittens in bags overboard. Loves dogs. Go on eHarmony, find a woman with flexible enough morals for this fictitious man.
Also worth a mention is match.com, with their brilliant(ly lazy) approach to tv advertisements. Every few weeks they flip between having too many men, and having too many women. To be fair, this probably is the case; after all, if there are more fish in the sea and less anglers attempting to catch them, you have a better chance of hooking a really hot fish even if your rod is useless. So there will be more people going out attempting to be fishermen, so the fact that they're suffering from stock problems (I find it more romantic if you think of people as 'stock') shouldn't really come as a surprise.
Crumbling metaphors aside, I just think this is a fairly lame approach to marketing, surely match.com wants to be showing off the vibrancy of its clientele? Focusing on how wonderful they are, rather than just repeating an identical advert every 4-6 weeks and drawing attention to the fact that they’re not particularly discerning when it comes to screening. I wonder if they’d happily accept my neo-nazi-kitten-drowning profile.
Perhaps in both of these cases I’m just being rather petty because I’m fundamentally opposed to dating websites. I actually enjoy getting to know someone though conversation, and if every minutia of someone’s interests and beliefs is clearly spelled out in their profile, then that experience is lost. Nevertheless, it seems to be an increasing trend in America, where 1 in 8 marriages are between people who met online (and 4 in 8 marriages result in divorce), so the UK will no doubt be close behind. But yeah, I'd still prefer to date someone the traditional way...
4: The Lesson: ED is the most uncomfortable thing on television
Learned From: 40over40.com
Whilst on the subject of uncomfortable social situations involving love, let’s talk about erectile dysfunction in over 40s. Sure, it may be a prevalent problem, but if you’re wishing to show someone being a formerly-impotent-person-who-suddenly-has-a-new-lease-of-life, surely it would be better to have someone more, well, attractive.
If 40over40 had come to me to design this advert, I would have got George Clooney in (sure he can impregnate a woman just by exhaling within 30 feet of her, but that doesn’t matter. He's an actor. He can act impotent), doing some sort of car chase- driving into a tunnel, diving into some water, perhaps kissing in front of a fountain. Basically I'd fill it full of rich, disgusting imagery. Perhaps have Julia Roberts in there somewhere in a bikini. I'd more or less just be condensing the 3 ‘Oceans’ films into a 30 second spot.
As it is, there is still some sort of imagery- only in this event it involves some unattractive 40-something bloke shuffling around uncomfortably with his wife in a manner akin to dancing, whilst bolero plays in the background.
Actually thinking about it, I think this advert is brilliant. So many people are going to be permanently turned off by it, sales of whatever they’re selling will rocket.
5: The Lesson: Actually…
Learned From: Bird’s eye salmon fingers
First of all I’d like to doff my cap to Birdseye for trying to make fish fingers sexy. Secondly I would like to severely chastise Birdseye for trying to make fish fingers sexy.
I first saw this advert a couple of weeks ago, whilst my parents were in the room. Its 30-second duration was so heavilly laced with innuendo that I found it very difficult not to burst out with laughter at how plain horrible it was. About fish fingers.
It was frequently touched upon in the marketing units of my degree that humour is a good way to convince people to buy things. Typically with things like chocolate bars, or alcohol (where strict guidelines mean that they can’t actually sell the beer on its own merit as encourages alcoholism, so they have to focus on the brand) this works well.
I’d say this doesn’t work so well with fish fingers, to be honest I was mainly disturbed by the fact that they were a) animate and b) possessing some sort of libido. This advert caused me to yearn for the days when Captain Birdseye would roam around his little boat, looking like John Peel after a few years at sea. Then he'd give frozen goods to children, without being hideously unpleasant.
6: The Lesson: It sounds scientific, it looks scientific, so it must be scientific.
Learned From: Any cosmetic product
Cosmetics adverts are possibly the most transparent of all advertisements when it comes to using psychology to make people buy things. They use celebrities on the grounds that people want to emulate them and have hair just like Davina, or a face just like Andie MacDowell’s when they’re 50 (although its probably easier to look prettier when you’re 50 if you’re a famously attractive person who used to earn millions of dollars for her film roles). Then they use make up science to substantiate their claims.
This is possibly the best known of all of the sneaky tricks that businesses use to sell products, they use long words which the average layman won’t understand (pentapeptides anyone?), then they show diagrams of blue dots melting into the hair follicles and making them stand up, or showing little white orbs filling up gaping crevices in an elderly woman’s face.
Then they bring in studies that have shown (usually quite inconclusively if you read the small white text, using a very small sample group) that 82% of people agree that their wrinkles ‘appear’ to have been reduced. This rather ambiguous language allows them to get away with boasts which otherwise wouldn’t be allowed through the Advertising Standards Authority.
All of this gives a façade of the product being good (according to science, no less), despite the fact that typically it’s not hugely different from the regular Tesco shampoo or conditioner. Except, of course, for the price tag.
Still, I can’t complain too much about cosmetics products. Were it not for Pantene, there wouldn’t be this advert:
Usually, you can see the thought processes of the marketers at work in adverts, you can see how they use attractive models- whom you wish to associate with- eating a KFC or other equally unattractive meal, and it makes you want to buy it. In theory.
However, some of the adverts seem to be making a fairly concerted effort to dissuade you from purchasing their product, by clearly aiming their advert at the wrong audience, or just by being so odd or useless that you sort of forget what the advert is actually for. There are some absolute classics from the past (The Flintstone’s flogging cigarettes anyone?) but I’m going to attempt to write only about adverts you’re likely to see in an ad break this evening. I'm also going to try and avoid going into great (and often rather boring) psychological detail.
6 Lessons learned from advertising (recent edition)…
1: The Lesson: People can’t tell the difference between an actual sporting hero and a terrible 128-bit rendering of them
Learned From: Gillette Fusion
There isn’t anything fundamentally wrong with this advert. I think Gillette’s strength of branding- and frequent use of Tiger Woods, Thierry Henry and Roger Federer- is good enough to overcome this utterly bizarre change of direction.
The previous Gillette adverts featuring the sports equivalent of the super friends (assuming that the super friends was based around Superman and company mildly inconveniencing people until they ditched their old razors) were not bad. They showed a particularly mercenary side of Woods, Henry and Federer as, in the pay of the Gillette corporation, they used their not inconsiderable collective sporting talents to force one poor bloke into ditching his razor- completely ignoring the risks of hitting balls at a guy with a razor sharp, er, razor to his face. But, after their initial success getting this man to adopt the Fusion (having confronted him in a public restroom), something odd happened.
Perhaps it was a member of the Wilkinson Sword faction enacting some devious plan (straight out of a terrible comic book from the mid-60s), but all of a sudden Tiger Woods and Roger Federer were both replaced with what appears to be Playstation 2 generated doppelgangers. And there seems to be a bitter rivalry in the place of the co-operative (albeit slightly malicious) spirit of the former advert.
As I said at the beginning, there is nothing wrong with this advert; it’s just that it makes absolutely no sense considering the previous advert. And in the English version (it’s the American ad featured above) they aren’t even shown jumping out of the television, so there is no clear reason why two of the best loved sporting heroes of this generation are suddenly rendered in awful 128-bit shadows of their former selves.
2: The Lesson: Clearasil: May cause confidence, also rape.
Learned From: Clearasil
Ok, admittedly this sounds like an extreme and irrational conclusion to make- largely because it is. But I'll stick with it anyway. In this advert, having used his daily cleansing solution, this teenager has come over all ‘confident’ and ‘capable of talking to women’. It’s sickening to see.
In order to show off his newfound confidence and his lack of spots he approaches a girl putting on lipstick before going into the cinema and asks if he can borrow some. Being a generous and kind hearted soul, she obliges, albeit whilst wearing a quizzical expression.
But as she hands the lipstick to him he lunges towards her, in an attempt to place his lips upon hers. Now I’m not a fancy big city lawyer (nor am I above quoting the Simpsons), but I’m fairly certain that there is a law against forcing yourself upon someone without their prior consent. I was genuinely hoping to see him dragged off her by cinema security and delivered to a police station.
Then, as the scene cuts to a judge, he is sentenced to a couple of years in juvenile detention. And then 2 months into his 2-year sentence, covered in spots having been cut off from his precious supply of Clearasil he is shivved by a 12-year old arsonist for taking the last of the Apricot Munch Bunch. Fade to black. Admittedly this probably wouldn’t have sold any more Clearasil, but at least it would have been gritty and realistic.
Hell, disregarding the sexual assault, it’s not even a very good line.
3: The Lesson: The internet is a good place to find romance.
Learned From: eHarmony, Match.com
Good news! eHarmony, the website responsible for setting up 2% of marriages in America is coming to the UK! eHarmony is a business (I find that it sounds much more romantic if you put it that way) responsible for matching people together using some sort of complicated algorithm which compares their interests and beliefs and stuff like that.
Admittedly, if I were the sort of person who would be tempted by some sort of online dating service- which I’m really definitely not- I would probably appreciate the use of “science” (or at least someone’s ability to match up favourite films or books) to find me a match.
In fact, I am actually quite tempted to sign up on there. Posing as a staunch anti-Semite whose favourite film is Bambi, and who passionately loves Belle and Sebastian. Also enjoys weekends away on his 42-ft yaught, during which he throws kittens in bags overboard. Loves dogs. Go on eHarmony, find a woman with flexible enough morals for this fictitious man.
Also worth a mention is match.com, with their brilliant(ly lazy) approach to tv advertisements. Every few weeks they flip between having too many men, and having too many women. To be fair, this probably is the case; after all, if there are more fish in the sea and less anglers attempting to catch them, you have a better chance of hooking a really hot fish even if your rod is useless. So there will be more people going out attempting to be fishermen, so the fact that they're suffering from stock problems (I find it more romantic if you think of people as 'stock') shouldn't really come as a surprise.
Crumbling metaphors aside, I just think this is a fairly lame approach to marketing, surely match.com wants to be showing off the vibrancy of its clientele? Focusing on how wonderful they are, rather than just repeating an identical advert every 4-6 weeks and drawing attention to the fact that they’re not particularly discerning when it comes to screening. I wonder if they’d happily accept my neo-nazi-kitten-drowning profile.
Perhaps in both of these cases I’m just being rather petty because I’m fundamentally opposed to dating websites. I actually enjoy getting to know someone though conversation, and if every minutia of someone’s interests and beliefs is clearly spelled out in their profile, then that experience is lost. Nevertheless, it seems to be an increasing trend in America, where 1 in 8 marriages are between people who met online (and 4 in 8 marriages result in divorce), so the UK will no doubt be close behind. But yeah, I'd still prefer to date someone the traditional way...
4: The Lesson: ED is the most uncomfortable thing on television
Learned From: 40over40.com
Whilst on the subject of uncomfortable social situations involving love, let’s talk about erectile dysfunction in over 40s. Sure, it may be a prevalent problem, but if you’re wishing to show someone being a formerly-impotent-person-who-suddenly-has-a-new-lease-of-life, surely it would be better to have someone more, well, attractive.
If 40over40 had come to me to design this advert, I would have got George Clooney in (sure he can impregnate a woman just by exhaling within 30 feet of her, but that doesn’t matter. He's an actor. He can act impotent), doing some sort of car chase- driving into a tunnel, diving into some water, perhaps kissing in front of a fountain. Basically I'd fill it full of rich, disgusting imagery. Perhaps have Julia Roberts in there somewhere in a bikini. I'd more or less just be condensing the 3 ‘Oceans’ films into a 30 second spot.
As it is, there is still some sort of imagery- only in this event it involves some unattractive 40-something bloke shuffling around uncomfortably with his wife in a manner akin to dancing, whilst bolero plays in the background.
Actually thinking about it, I think this advert is brilliant. So many people are going to be permanently turned off by it, sales of whatever they’re selling will rocket.
5: The Lesson: Actually…
Learned From: Bird’s eye salmon fingers
First of all I’d like to doff my cap to Birdseye for trying to make fish fingers sexy. Secondly I would like to severely chastise Birdseye for trying to make fish fingers sexy.
I first saw this advert a couple of weeks ago, whilst my parents were in the room. Its 30-second duration was so heavilly laced with innuendo that I found it very difficult not to burst out with laughter at how plain horrible it was. About fish fingers.
It was frequently touched upon in the marketing units of my degree that humour is a good way to convince people to buy things. Typically with things like chocolate bars, or alcohol (where strict guidelines mean that they can’t actually sell the beer on its own merit as encourages alcoholism, so they have to focus on the brand) this works well.
I’d say this doesn’t work so well with fish fingers, to be honest I was mainly disturbed by the fact that they were a) animate and b) possessing some sort of libido. This advert caused me to yearn for the days when Captain Birdseye would roam around his little boat, looking like John Peel after a few years at sea. Then he'd give frozen goods to children, without being hideously unpleasant.
6: The Lesson: It sounds scientific, it looks scientific, so it must be scientific.
Learned From: Any cosmetic product
Cosmetics adverts are possibly the most transparent of all advertisements when it comes to using psychology to make people buy things. They use celebrities on the grounds that people want to emulate them and have hair just like Davina, or a face just like Andie MacDowell’s when they’re 50 (although its probably easier to look prettier when you’re 50 if you’re a famously attractive person who used to earn millions of dollars for her film roles). Then they use make up science to substantiate their claims.
This is possibly the best known of all of the sneaky tricks that businesses use to sell products, they use long words which the average layman won’t understand (pentapeptides anyone?), then they show diagrams of blue dots melting into the hair follicles and making them stand up, or showing little white orbs filling up gaping crevices in an elderly woman’s face.
Then they bring in studies that have shown (usually quite inconclusively if you read the small white text, using a very small sample group) that 82% of people agree that their wrinkles ‘appear’ to have been reduced. This rather ambiguous language allows them to get away with boasts which otherwise wouldn’t be allowed through the Advertising Standards Authority.
All of this gives a façade of the product being good (according to science, no less), despite the fact that typically it’s not hugely different from the regular Tesco shampoo or conditioner. Except, of course, for the price tag.
Still, I can’t complain too much about cosmetics products. Were it not for Pantene, there wouldn’t be this advert:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
