Motoring, Sports and Computer Games.

Back Seat Driver: BMW 320Ci

2005-11-16T06:22:00.000-08:00

The new BMW 3 series has somehow become very attractive. So this week we Back Seat Driver scabbed a ride in one of them to work.

Some features which definately suit the passenger of this car are the nice wide leather seats. Definately a plus when you've got a big ass and need somewhere to plonk it. Other features include a digital TV reciever, good for catching up with your favourite shows when you need to. However, the 'safety' feature doesn't actually let you watch the TV while the car is moving. Apparently it could distract the driver. What rubbish. Its meant to be a luxury car.

The coupe doesn't really suit a true back seat driver however. As its only a two door car, theres that awkward seat shifting that has to happen before anyone can actually sit in the back. The back seats also seem to have a sense of inferiorness to them as well. They're smaller, seem to cover less space, and don't even have headrests (not that I can remember anyway). Its all about that European sense of superiority and for those romantic drives for two.

Handling seems ok. Its responsive and makes parking a breeze. It also has enough power to manuver in inner city environments, allowing you to weave in and out of traffic. Nice if the driver is one of those people who like getting there on time.

For all those passengers out there, if you're taking a ride in this car, just make sure you shotgun the front seat.

Call of Duty 2

2005-11-16T04:54:00.000-08:00

On the heels of one of 2003's games of the year is its sequel. In short, it delivers a stunning visual and gameplay upgrade to the original game and its expansion pack. The original provided an immersive, action packed, and suspense filled environment. Call of Duty 2 takes that same formula, revamps the visuals, and just keeps giving you more. So if you loved the first one, this is definately for you.

The game puts you in the shoes of a soldier from each of the major allied countries in world war 2. It starts off with the Russians, fighting off the invading Germans outside Moscow. It leads onto the eventual battle of Stalingrad, arguably the turn of the tide in on the Russian front. Other campaigns include the North African campagin, where you play a British soldier of the 7th armoured fighting back Rommel's troops. Theres even a bit where you play as a tank commander. It ends with another American campaign starting with D-day (thankfully not another Omaha beach landing).

Weapons haven't changed much since the last game. With a game based on history, I guess you can't really do much. One notable addition however, are smoke grenades. You can use these to create a smoke screen to block those pesky machine guns from being able to aim at you with any degree of accuracy. Problem is that the enemy can also use them. It gets a little tense when you're advancing through a cloud of smoke and you can't see the fat German soldier until he's right in front and just about to hit you with the butt of his rifle.

Visuals are one of the game's highlights. On a high end PC, you'll get the whole works. Smoke actually looks like smoke, explosions light up the screen predictably, bullets make the dirt fly up. Its visually spectacular. Enemies will also attempt to crawl away when injured and pull out their luger to take those last few shots before they die. If you happen to shoot the top of their helmet, it'll fly off and they'll look around in amazement before regaining their composure and getting back into the fight (if you don't happen to take them out before that happens). When you're wounded or if a grenade goes off next to you, you'll get the rather dazed and dizzy sense when the screen goes blurry and you get knocked to the ground.

The heavy breathing you'll hear when wounded also gives you the sense you're struggling to keep going. Sound in the game plays a significant role in putting you in the fight. From the sound of weapons going off to the musical score which accompanies some of the game, it all seems very appropriate. Artillery bombardments will take over most of the sound when they come in, causing your squadmates to shout to you over the noise. The thud of a grenade landing next to you can sometimes be the only warning that you'll get before it blows you away. Squadmates will also shout messages regarding enemy positions and ask for covering fire when they are reloading. If you're lucky, they'll even let you know if theres an incoming grenade.

The AI is actually pretty good in the game. Soldiers will take cover behind boxes and walls. They'll peek out and take a few shots before taking cover again to reload. When advancing, one will cover while the other soldiers will move up. They'll even move to pick up the grenade you've just thrown at them to throw it back at you. Not a very good thing if you're somehow stuck in a corner. The enemy also seem to catch you while your in the open, which means laying down covering fire or using a smoke grenade is usually quite useful. Your squad actually does useful things as well. While they might not be as accurate as the enemy (otherwise it'd be a pushover), they can actually shoot and kill the enemy if need be. There were numerous times where I'd run out of ammo and somehow a German soldier stood out from behind a tree or wall aiming his rifle at me when shots would come from behind to take him out.

The game does a good job in making you feel part of something bigger. You're almost never alone, and fallen comrades will usually be replaced by unlimited repawns. Enemies will sometimes seem to have unlimited respawns as well. Thats only until you advance on the position, but it gives the impression that theres hundreds of soldiers holed up in bunkers or defending a position. You'll also see aircraft dogfights, even doing bombing runs on your position while tanks support your advance. Theres also a sequence in which you call a naval barrage on a bunch of Nazi merchant ships.

Overall, a brilliant sequel. If you liked the first game, then this is definately something for you to get. However, if you've had enough of the WW2 themed shooters, this is only more of that, so it may not be worth the effort.

Out for Xbox and PC.

Rating: 8/10

First Person Shooters: Part 2

2005-09-06T00:31:00.000-07:00

Sorry for the delay people, I've been doing some err.. research (read: playing waayyyyy too much Battlefield 2)

Quake 2

Quake 2 started a whole new trend in graphics. It was one of the first games which required gamers to have a dedicated 3d graphics processor in their computer. This was way back when Nvidia were still competing with 3dfx. 3dfx even had 3d cards which required their own power supplies. Oh, those were the days.

Anyway, Quake 2 was another Id software venture into first person shooters, and just as successful. Personally I didn't think it was as fun as the first Quake, but I guess thats a subjective opinion.

Red Faction

Now this was a funny game. The selling point of this game was about the game environment. Basically what you could do is blow up any part of the level. This includes walls, ceilings, and holes in the floor. The problem was two fold, the graphics engine sucked, and blowing up every part of a level just didn't cut it. What you could do is just blow your way all the way to the end of the level without encourtering anyone. However, it was fun to play, for a little while anyway.

Red Faction never really took off. They even made a sequel for it, which nobody has really heard much about. I don't know why they bothered.

Quake 3

Another release of Quake was inevitable. Quake 3 was geared towards the multiplayer platform, and did not even offer any single player modes except against bots. It was good fun while it lasted. I don't really have much to say about it because I was still playing Quake 1 and 2.

Half-Life

This was a game that turned heads. The single player game was loads of fun, building a storyline out of a theoretical nuclear physicist named Gordon Freeman. The innovative gameplay and graphics engine provided tons of fun to those of us who played it. In addition, its modding capabilities were on par with previous first person shooters, and allowed popular such as counter-strike and Day of Defeat to be created, which ensured the continued success of the game.

Splinter Cell: Pandora Tomorrow

2005-08-22T04:26:00.000-07:00

The light cast by the overhead lamp is bright. Too bright. I'm not gonna be able to get through the corridor without the sentry seeing or hearing me.

Drawing my silenced Mk23, I shoot out the light, instantly plunging the corridor into darkness. However this spooks the sentry who comes around to check out what happened. Perfect. I flick on my NVGs and see him walking towards me, clear as day. Such a pity for him, I think as I line his head up in my sights. Phut...Thud. The corridor is cleared.

The Splinter Cell series follows in the same footsteps as games like Thief and Metal Gear Solid where stealth, not firepower, is the best way to achieve your mission objectives. You're cast in the role of Sam Fisher, an operative working for the National Security Agency's covert arm, Third Echelon. Third Echelon takes on tasks where absolute discretion and secrecy are necessary and maintain plausible deniability: If you're caught, we never knew you. You're a Splinter Cell: a one man field operative backed up by a remote team and armed with the latest in electronics and weaponery. Your purpose is to infiltrate and acquire intelligence with little to no disruption or detection. Using lethal force is only a last resort.

Sam Fisher is cool. So cool that he has an incredibly dry sense of humour and is the toughest man around. Voiced by Michael Madsen, he has the dry, gravelly voice that displays his experience and ability. He can move like a ghost, creeping just a few centimetres behind a bad guy without them even smelling him. His ultra cool headpiece contains both thermal and night vision goggles and he carries an experimental SC-120k silenced bullpup rifle with an attached grenade launcher that can launch all sorts of nifty gadgets and non-lethal items. Pity he doesn't have X-Ray vision.

SC:PT's gameplay is what makes this game a winner. You are made to think of your environment and how you might use it or take it into account to achieve your objective. For example, the faster you move, the more noise you make. Different surfaces will make different sounds and so your movement has to be suitable. Steel floors clang but carpeted areas make less noise.

The action takes place from a third-person perspective, with the player independently controlling the camera position. When your firearm is drawn, the camera zooms in to look over the shoulder of Fisher, kind of like a 1.5 person view. Being able to rotate the camera is an extremely useful tool, meaning that you have a much larger peripheral vision.

Darkness is your best friend. You have a useful light meter on the side to tell you how visible you are, and believe me, you'll be watching this more intently than a computer geek staring at the cover of an Inside Sport magazine. It't pretty amusing when a baddie comes towards you and stands right infront of you but can't see you because it's dark. They must be wearing sunglasses because you have a radio on your back that has a bright green backlit LCD display.

AI is above average. If you make a sound or they see your shadow or movement, they'll come over and investigate. When they don't find anything, they'll go back to their regular patrol routes. If you keep getting detected, they'll raise the alert level, don protective gear and call for reinforcements. However, when it comes to actual combat, they're pretty dumb. They'll run right up to you and stand in front of you while firing. And they follow one after the other, exactly like sheep and lemmings.

Level design is generally pretty good but the mission structures are totally linear so there's no ability to wander off where you're not supposed to go. The locations all look nice, but most take place at night or in low light so that you can't actually take in much of the scenery.

The Xbox controller is suited quite well to the game, utilising every single button. The analogue sticks are extremely useful with movement and camera position controlled via these inputs. The difference between walking and running is determined by the pressure exerted on the stick, so creeping along in the dark takes an extremely delicate touch which adds to the overall atmosphere of the game.

Much has been said about the graphics of the Splinter Cell series. Viewing it myself, I'd have to agree. The dynamic lighting effects through real-time shadows and the physics model also seems realistic enough. Textures are smooth and believeable but things are sometimes hard to see since you're often using the black and white NVGs.

There are some great set plays in the game, from having to escort a CIA double agent through the enemy camp then finding out that the bad guys know she is CIA and having to defend her. Many of the missions will be trial and error and may take multiple efforts to pass.

Overall, Splinter Cell: Pandora Tomorrow is an extremely slick game. The dynamic lighting effects and physics are beautiful to behold. Gameplay is excellent and very challenging at it should take 12 hours or so to complete on normal difficulty, which is actually quite hard. Altogether, a highly polished game that is heaps of fun.

9/10

First Person Shooters - Part 1

2005-08-19T17:09:00.000-07:00

Welcome to part one of our trip back in time to the first person shooter world. While we try to always bring you reviews of the latest and the greatest stuff, in the spirit of writing something for the average Joe, heres some stuff you can get cheap and probably free.

Wolfenstein 3D - Who's Stoppin

Ah yes, the beginning of it all. Wolfenstein 3D was in a league of its own. It was the basis from which all other first person shooters are derived. Most of the main principles are there. Pick up a gun, shoot the enemy, find the exit to the next level. It was based on the storyline of trying to find and kill Hitler by going through a bunch of mazes guarded by swastickas and men in blue who shouted "Hoostoppin'" when they saw you blazing away with their flashy machine guns.

The problem with it was that even though it was called Wolfenstein 3D, it was actually only in 2 dimensions. Length and width. Nothing actually went up and down. However, since all it had to compete with at the time was "The Incredible Machine", "Scorched Earth", "The Simpsons" and "Solitaire", it did really well.

Doom 1 and 2 - RaRRrrrRrR

Who could forget the old school Doom series of games? ID software seem to have invented the FPS genre of games, and they've been continuing with the trend of leading the pack for many years up until recently. They never really tried with any storyline in their games. The Doom franchise always seems to have the player running around wildly shooting legions of demonic imps who've managed to escape from Hell and into this universe. Ultimately, the unnamed and faceless character goes through the portal to hell and takes out the big boss dude.

Weapons were a central feature of Doom 2. Weapons ranged from the standard gaunleted fist to the BFG. The BFG (da Big Fuckin' Gun), a classic weapon for widespread destruction. Clearly a neccecity when travelling to hell. Make sure you take one with you when you die, you'll need it. My personal favourite was the double barreled shotgun (a.k.a the elephant gun). Blowing away imps from close range was very satisfying for some reason.

Duke Nukem' 3D - Time to kick ass and chew bubblegum, but I'm all out of gum

Now heres a game that broke boundaries. For the first time in a commercial FPS, you could walk into a nudie bar and flash some cash for boobs. The sequel to the platform games Duke Nukem 1 and 2, the third version joined the FPS community with a bang. This time, the game was actually 3D. You could jump up and down, and even use a jetpack to get to those hard to reach places. I can't really remember the storyline, but somehow you ended up on a moon or space station against the big boss. The character also had some attitude. Those of us with 486s spent lots of time hacking up our config.sys and autoexec.bat files to try and get enough conventional memory to run the damn thing.

Duke Nukem along with Doom 2 were the first games to offer multiplayer support. Whether you wanted to use a superfast 28.8k modem to connect, or even unplug that mouse and connect up that serial port to a friend's computer (we were all l33t k3yb04rd3s then), you could play either co-op or head to head deathmatch.

Quake 1 - urgghhhhh

Quake changed the first person shooter genre forever. It managed to take advantage of the phenomenal growth of the internet to provide a multiplayer experience with options.

The singleplayer experience was quite ordinary. All you did what try and get to the end of the level without dying. In fact, it didn't even bother trying to make a storyline. All you did was go through a level and kill everything until you got to the end. However, Quake redefined how first person shooters physics engines were to be. Hits from weapons forced people away, rockets blasted players up into the air. In fact, this feature was exploited to allow 'rocket jumps', where players could shoot a rocket at their own feet and launch themselves into the air to reach otherwise unreachable places. Rocket jumping also led to things such as rocket jumping maps where players could hone these skills in a multitude of environments.

Multiplayer Quake, however, brought a whole new world to gaming. This was when the Internet was becoming mainstream. Even before that, several Bulltein Board Services offered gaming services to users. While the community was limited, it was a good place to start.

One of the best things about Quake was that it allowed modifications to the original game. In the beginning, there was only multiplayer deathmatch. This quickly became rather boring, and developers started to make use of the abiltiy to 'mod' the game. Mods such as 'Requiem' added things such as grappling hooks and different weapons. Others added team based components such as the first 'Capture the Flag' mod, or even spiced up some of the deathmatch with'Rocket Arena'. One of the most popular mods was Team Fortress, which in many ways has set the standard for many of the team based multiplayer FPS.

Tribes - Paint that target!

Starseige Tribes was like a combination of Quake Team Fortress and Duke Nukem' put together. Two teams battling it out in a capture the flag scenario with jetpacks, different weapons, and even some flying vehichles on some maps. Players could customise their suits and weapons as long as their team had the resources to purchase them. In addition, players could also take out things such as the other team's energy generators and they could be repaired by a ray gun akin to a fuzzy laser wrench.

What was really cool was that one of the weapons was a mortar. However it required someone else on the team to actually use a laser to shoot the target accurately, otherwise the mortar could go anywhere. This didn't really work very well since the player with the laser didn't actually get any benefits. Oh well.

Tribes didn't last long, and its successor didn't really make it onto the radar, but it was ultimately a very good game. It just didn't reach critical mass. After a while, the publishers and developers just decided to release it freeware!

Thats it for today, look out for part 2 of the flashbacks!

Coming up in this Month's MS-CG

2005-08-17T04:26:00.000-07:00

* Markie test drives the new Ferrari F430 and decides he's going to sell his house and family to buy one.

* Ali goes back in time and reviews some of the best First-Person-Shooters of all time and decides which FPS character he would ultimately want to be.

* Paulo compares the Alfa 147 GTA against the new Golf GTI.

* Markie and Paulo discuss the most exciting The Ashes ever and chat about the lead up to the AFL finals.

Ford Mondeo Vs Mazda 6

2005-08-16T06:00:00.000-07:00

Firstly, you'd be thinking what on earth happened here. Well, the executives at MS-CG decided that we reviewers are having too much fun testing expensive, exotic sports cars and that it was our responsibility to review cars the average, everyday John Smith would drive. What a kick in the nuts!

The positive though is that I was sent up to New Zealand to carry out my findings with two of the most common everyday cars you would encounter. I was to thoroughly test these two cars through the lands of Middle Earth over thousands of kilometres, analysing every detail, every kudos and every flaw of the cars and decide which one should be handed the olive reef of victory. So lets start with the Mondeo.

The Mondeo's exterior styling is nothing that would make you look twice. Actually, it wouldn't even make you look once. Despite the obvious European styling efforts, the Mondeo still isn't a car you would use as your 'Draw 4' card to impress the girl on your first date. Actually, to be honest, this whole ‘European styling’ is sorta like this new fashion trend where you see someone’s ass crack when ever you walk in a populated, metropolitan area. You see a lot of it and most of the time, you’d wish you didn’t see it at all because some fat, wobbly pork chop thinks she looks sexy if she has half her larded ass hanging out of her pants. I think non-European brands should just stick with their own styling. Anyway, back to the car, the Mondeo looks exactly like the car you used to draw when you were in Grade 1, just a podium shaped box with wheels. Ummmm….that's all I have to say about the appearance of the car because there's just nothing else to say. It just looks like...a car.

So not so flash on the outside, but maybe the Ford can redeem itself on the interior. Well, not exactly. The Ford is equipped with modern interior designing with big fat buttons everywhere replacing traditional knobs for climate control, fancy hidden cup holders, and a digital display that tells you the temperature outside. Yee Hee! What's disturbing however is how much black Ford have used in the interior. Everything is black. The dash is black, the controls a black, the radio is black, the steering wheel is black, the gear knob is black, the seats are black, the seat belts are black, the door handles are black. It is so black inside, it makes Darth Vader look like one of Donald Trump’s ties. And then comes the quality of the interior fittings and oh dear! It's just not impressive at all. Everything inside is made out of cheap plastics and vinyl, it just makes you regret you didn't catch the bus. The last time I saw plastics like this I shoved it in an ATM.

Finally, it's the pure stupidity that makes you wonder what the hell Ford were thinking. For example, the positioning of the brake pedal is placed about three inches higher than the accelerator. So rather than just pivoting your right foot from the accelerator to the brake on your heel, you have to lift your entire foot away from the accelerator, bring it back towards you and then press the brake. So what? You might say, but I can assure you that this design is seriously flawed in the need of sudden braking.

Not looking so good for the Ford then. So far not exactly the car for the individual that's concerned about styling and quality. Well that's ok because remember that this review is targeted at average Joe that just wants a car that gets them from A to B, so he won’t care about the flimsily interior and the dreary styling. So this leads on to the final criteria. How it drives. In contrast to the Porsche 911 we tested earlier, starting up the Ford Mondeo makes you want to go straight back to bed. To give you an almost accurate illustration of the acoustics of starting the Mondeo 1.8, simply recall what it sounds like to start up your family lawn mower and you've just about heard a Ford Mondeo start. And you'd be correct on concluding that an engine that sounds like a John Deere mower will be as weak as it sounds. The version we tested was the base 1.8 litre LX, with 92 KW and 170 Nm of torque, which is quite adequate for town driving, however on the sort of driving I was performing in NZ with overtaking and very long straights, I found that the Mondeo lacked the grunt needed to comfortably overtake dawdling hippies in their graffiti camper vans and big, alcoholic truckies in their huge semi trailers. The only positive element of the Mondeo I can mention is the handling, which is quite good. The Mondeo was grippy and gave me confidence during the windy coastal drives.

The Mazda 6 on the other hand was fantastic in nearly every part. It just looks so much better than the Mondeo with its silky lines and sporty features. It’s a car you’d be proud to drive around, show it to your friends and kindly offer them a lift so you can show off the stunning interior design and quality and then bathe in the abundance of jealousy that will pour out of them. Unlike the Mondeo, the Mazda 6 use different shades to colour the interior. It’s a much more comfortable place to be in compared to the Ford. This is also aided by the contemporary silver decked out dash and control unit, which, although was confusing to use, was much better to look at.

Driving the Mazda 6 is very pleasurable, an all round achievement. The 2.3 litre sounds great with such a meaty, quarter pounder, double whopper engine note. To complement this fabulous engine, the Mazda 6 comes standard with a tiptronic gearbox which actually works. The box changes cogs when you decide and doesn’t resist anything that may strain the engine. This was very handy dandy when overtaking along long New Zealand straights.

I’m not going to bore you explaining how good the Mazda 6 drives because quite frankly it’s just that good. The only downside to the Mazda is the 2.3 litre engine gets a little thirsty but then I’d be happy to concede there because the engine performance makes up for it

Well, you can probably already predict my verdict at this point. Buy the Mazda.

Ford Mondeo

Styling: *
Interior: *
Engine: *
Handling: ***
Overall: **

Mazda 6

Styling: ****
Interior: *****
Engine: ****
Handling:****
Overall: ****

Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas

2005-08-08T22:31:00.000-07:00

Controversy over this game in Australia has delayed this review. I extend our apologies to our loyal readers, I assure you that our legal team is on the case. When the game got its classification revoked, and even an old granny sued the company, we exersised caution, but since the granny wasn't even suing for the right reason, and she probably doesn't even know the different between a computer and a gaming console, we've decided to publish this review anyway. The public deserves to know.

The latest and some may argue, the greatest addition to the GTA franchise delivers all that you'd expect. The game contains all the perks and things that made GTA 3 and its successor, GTA: Vice City great games. In addition to this, San Andreas adds a number of new perks to help improve the variety in the game. This ranges from building your muscle at the local gym, picking out your new wardrobe at the local clothing store and eating (and maybe getting a little overweight) at your local food joint. Its nice to get a set of clothes that help you fit in with 'da boys in da hood. In addition to these, there are also bouncing competitions where you can have it out with the local car modders DDR style. If you're daring enough, you can even go on night raids into houses and steal belongings for some extra cash.

This time you play the role of CJ, who has come back to the small city of Los Santos from GTA 3's Vice City. The death of yo momma at the hands of some mysterious foe drags you back to the place of your childhood, and you start by linking up with da rest of da boys in da hood. You discover that da hood just aint what it used to be, and get to work rebuilding it dodging bullets, crooked cops and rival gangs. I'll try not to spoil much of the plot, but you end up making your way to places which resemble Las Vegas and San Fransisco, rolling past huge casinos and taking the trams and driving the hills of the imitation cities. You'll even go through relatively long trips to get to different places. Outside the imitation Las Vegas, you'll have to go through the deserts of what I imagine Texas would look like. Hopefully you don't run into George Bush along the way. Wait... I hope you do run into him.

Gameplay is similar to previous titles in the series. Notable improvements come in things such as the ability to swim and the ability to aim with a relatively good degree of accuracy. Some missions even let do a driveby into enemy territory while your homies in the back of the car fire their Mac-10s out the window. These are just some of the things they've come up with, but you can see from the outset that its going to be great fun to play. The need to have some food on occasion and exersise don't seem too inconviniencing, and help to break up the monotony of doing the game's missions, even if they are extremely varied themselves.

One of the best aspects of the game is the sound. Rockstar has put a lot of effort in this, hiring voice actors to play the roles of characters in the game. One of these you could probably pick right off the bat: Samuel L. Jackson, the actor from such movies as "Basic" and "Shaft" takes the role of Officer Tenpenny, one of the crooked cops you'll meet early in the game. Characters take the comical names and stereotypical appearances of their roles, but this only adds to the laughs and enjoyment you'll get out of the game.

Go get it.

9/10

Lego Star Wars

2005-08-01T07:06:00.000-07:00

Mix two of the most popular things generation X has grown up with, and then roll it into a video game. What do you get? Something that sells well. In fact, it Lego Star Wars sold so well we had to go to a few different stores before we could finally get our hands on a copy.

Lego Star Wars pits you in the star wars universe and lets you play scenes from episodes 1, 2 and 3. Basically what you do is take control of characters from the movies and play their part in all the action scenes. It starts from the infiltration of the droid armies invading Naboo till the end of episode 3, with the finale ending between the duel between Obi Wan and Anakin. Most of this is in a third person platform kind of view. However, there are exceptions such as the pod race from episode 1, and the starfighter scene from episode 3. Been there, done that you say? No way. This is the new star wars universe, this is the universe of lego. Cutting Count Dooku's head off? Off goes a cylindrical piece. Need a bridge to get across the chasam? Combine the force with some lego pieces and you can build one youself. Creating a clone army? Just put some lego pieces together!

There are a variety of characters to play as in the game. Each have their own special abilities and must be used to solve puzzles to continue with the game. For example, jedi can use their force ability to create bridges (as mentioned before), R2D2 can open computerised doors, and other characters such as Captain Cody or the wookies can shoot targets to open doors, and so on.

Lego Star Wars adds a humourous spin to the whole story that only Lego could do. Its the kind of humour which would appeal to the people who've grown up playing with lego for endless hours when they were kids. I know it definately appealed to me. Its hard to describe it without giving examples, and even harder to do it without spoiling some of the best parts of the game. So we'll just leave it to you to discover the magic of lego and the force in one complete package.

The only gripe I have about the game is that it was too short. After grabbing a copy in the afternoon, we managed to finish it in about 4 hours. However, there is a certain level of replayability as you can unlock character and then play the game with those characters. In some levels, only some characters can unlock certain areas to collect special items and open extra levels. Also, if you collect certain canisters from each level, you can put these towards building a lego ship. At this moment, we're not too sure what its for (we haven't got all the pieces yet).

Great concept, great game, great implementation, a little too short.

8/10

Battlefield 2

2005-07-03T00:26:00.000-07:00

For those of you who haven't been eagerly anticipating this game's release for the last two years, where have you been?!

Battlefield 2 takes place in the near future with a fictional (or is it?) war between the US, China, and a newly formed Middle East Coalition. It pitches players between each other in a huge battlefield, complete with a large variety of vehichles including jeeps, tanks, helicopters, jets and boats.

The game focuses more on an arcade style of play rather than simulate any sense of realism. However some aspects do have nice effects. For example, when an explosion goes off next to you, or you're standing next to a tank which is firing, your screen will go blurry, simulating some sort of concussion. This will gradually ease over a few seconds.

Players can choose from a variety of classes. For those of you who've played other similar games such as Teamfortress or earlier versions of battlefield will recognise them. They include classes such as engineers who can lay mines and repair vehichles, medics which can heal and revive teammates, and anti-tank personell who carry rocket launchers which pack a punch. Each class has their own special abilities.

Basically what you do is you walk, run, drive, fly or take a boat around to the opposing side's base, capture it, and kill the enemy. Its simple, yet classy. I think I've been playing it too much I haven't had the time to write this review.

Verdict: 8/10

Back seat driver: Mercedes Benz C class

2005-06-27T18:42:00.000-07:00

Welcome to a new column for MSCG. This column explores what its like to sit in the back seat of cars from a completely novice perspective. No in depth detail will be used, and articles are likely to be very short.

Today we'll be taking a ride to work in the Mercedes Benz C 240. The car provided was with all the extras, and in a sleek black colour.

To start with, the car from the outside looks like the batmobile on steroids. Large, unblinking headlights stare down on you from the front, and the tinted windows give it a mysteriousness hard to achieve normally. The rounded edges give it an elegant yet sophisticated texture, but this, including the large dimensions of the car make it viable to actually become something like the bat mobile, and the black coloured car we had helped the situation a little more.

The interior is nice. Smooth leather covers just about everything, and everything else appears to be some sort of wooded substance. However, unlike the bat mobile, it doesn't seem to have a jet engine attached to the back nor any wings with which to look like a bat.

Petrol consumption is also a factor. Such a large car requires a lot of oomph to move it, and thus the amount of petrol required is astronomical, somewhat similar to a tank. For your average mercedes driver, this probably won't be a problem since they'll have wads of cash or an unlimited credit card with which to pay.

The car also seems to handle like a tank, attached to the road by weight. You'll be sure you won't flip in this monster.

Overall, a very nice car if you want to plough through traffic in style.

8/10.

Brothers in Arms: The Road to Hill 30

2005-06-27T06:39:00.000-07:00

World war two shooters have been done over and over and over again. Think Medal of Honor, Wolfenstein, Battlefield 1942, I could probably go on, but I've run out. Brothers in Arms takes a slightly different track to previous shooters however.

When I say its a squad based shooter, I mean its a squad based shooter. Whereas other games will say a squad based shooter is one where the player starts the first level with his squad, jumps onto the beach landing, parachutes out of a plane or crash lands in a glider, and watches the rest of his squad get massacred while the player manages to miraculously make it out alive. Brothers in Arms actually lets you command squad elements. So you have a fireteam armed with M1 rifles and BARs which are designed to fire on and suppress the enemy, and another assault element who are arms with Thompson sub machine gunss which are designed to take the fight to the enemy at close range. You're meant to use fire and manouver tactics. That is, fire and supress the enemy, and then flank and kill the enemy. Works out rather well if you're not surrounded.

Apart from having just the traditional first person view, the game also includes a situational awareness view which allows you to view the battlefield from a more or less top down perspective. So you can plan your assault better and take advantage of things you probably can't see for yourself. Its a rather unfair advantage probably.

The game creates a good atmosphere previously unseen in world war two shooters. Each of your squad memebers stays with you stays with you throughout the game (except for the ones who die of course - woops), and each has a unique personality. Fighting with them and hearing their calls for help while a German MG42 is blaring away really puts you in the action. The musical score is somewhat limited, but helps to introduce each new part of the mission.

However, this is not to say that the game is all good. It gets somewhat repeitive doing the whole suppress and flanking manuver. Its also quite frustrating when you keep have to keep playing a section from the last checkpoint as the game seems to have a set procedure as to how to complete each level. This is especially true on the difficult and authentic modes, where assaulting positions is almost impossible. Towards the end of the game, a checkpoint is so far away from the next that you'll almost give up as you're by yourself and have to make it past 3 tanks and about a platoon of infantrymen before the next one.

Graphics in the game are impressive. Character's faces move realisticaly when they talk, and apart from the somewhat unimpressive grass and sometimes repetitive field features, the scenery is nice.

In all, an impressive game, and entertaining, for a while.

8/10

The Porsche 911 (997)

2005-06-27T06:21:00.000-07:00

The Porsche 911 has always been and always will be an iconic symbol of automotive history, which has stood out like a Caucasian person in Box Hill. That frog-like shaped body has remained with the 911 since the beginning of time and thus has created a legend in itself. The downside however is that the 911 has never been a radical car that boils your blood whenever you look at it, something like a Lamborghini or a Ferrari will do. I remember when a woman pointed out to a 911 and said “Oh that’s a nice VW Beetle”. But if you’re like me, and consider other features of the car besides its looks, then you’ll find that the new Porsche 911 is more than meets the eye.

Gladly, our generous friends at Porsche lent us the Carrera S model. At first glance, the new 997 model comes in looking…well…basically like every other Porsche 911. Styling by de ja vu. Put it next to a 996 and you’ll admit it’s like looking at the Olsen twins. The only noticeable difference is the new oval headlights, which I must say are far more attractive than the headlights with overgrowth the 996 had. The interior is typical Porsche with an abundance of leather and aluminium; it’s stylish but nothing over the top and flash. The new 997 also comes with new gadgetry such as satellite navigation and commlink, whatever that is. But my favourite part of the interior is the steering wheel. It’s fat and chunky, the way a proper sports steering wheel should feel, it’s almost has thick as Mark Chong’s hair.

Firing up the 3.8 litre flat six is a reason to wake up every morning. The sound is purely mesmerising, and it gets even better as you work up the gears during acceleration. And speaking of acceleration, by God does this thing GO! Let me just give you the figures to illustrate it. 0-100 in 4.5 seconds. You couldn’t even say the type of train ticket you want in 4.5 seconds. Ummm, zone 1 and 2, errrrrrr, 2 hour, ahhhhhhh, full fare.

The ride of the Porsche is rough to say the least. Driving this car over everyday potholes and tramlines, you’ll soon start to know what it feels like wrestle with Zangief and E Honda. It’s as uncomfortable as wearing a pair of red Speedos at a crowded beach at Lorne. This car just wasn’t made for everyday commuting; you’d be better off with a BMW 330ci and pocket the change if you’re looking for a car to simply pose around in.

But, once you find the roads of Dandenong and start driving it like a racecar, it all starts to make sense. The amount of grip this thing has is astonishing! You’ll swear that it’s driving on Tarzan’s grip. It goes wherever you want it to go with no under or oversteer and it just feels planted to the road like our fat man at a Hungry Jacks booth. Driving this car hard and fast is so easy, even your mum could drive this around the Nurburgring in less than 9 minutes.

Overall I think the new 911 is a magnificent car, it has everything that you would expect from a Porsche and much much more. $200K isn’t just buying you a fast car that looks like a frog, it’s buying you a piece of history, a legend of motoring history.

8/10

-PWL

Epiphone Les Paul Studio Limited Edition

2005-06-27T01:58:00.000-07:00

What's going on?

What type of car is that? Or computer game? It's certainly not a sport. Never heard of it before!

That's because it's none of those. It's a guitar.

WTF?!?

Yup. Here at MSCG, we've decided to give a special review to this beautiful guitar, which, I might add, I am the proud new owner of.

So what type of guitar is it? Ok, if you're a guitar player, in particular an electric guitar player, and you haven't heard of a Les Paul you shouldn't be playing guitar...simple as that. Les Paul electric guitars define rock music. First seen in 1950, the Gibson Les Paul has become synonymous with rock music.

"Didn't you say Gibson though?" I hear you say. Yes, I did say that. Epiphone is the cheaper version of Gibson. Cheaper, not cheap. Epiphone is licensed by Gibson and still go through the same quality control. However, they do cater for the lower end of the market but their guitars still can get up to $3000 or so.

Enough about the history and company. Retailing at $950, the Epiphone Les Paul Studio is the entry level set neck electric guitar in the Epiphone range, sitting above the LP-100 and just below the Les Paul Standard. To be honest, it's actually a lot closer to the Standard than the LP-100, the LP-100 is rubbish compared to the Studio.

Featurewise, the Studio has a set neck for truer tone and sustain, mahogany/alder body with a rosewood fingerboard. It comes with two humbuckers and four controls, two tone and two volume for each pickup. It also features a 3 way selector switch to change between pickups. Now, that's the basic Studio. The one I have is the Limited Edition. How is it different? Let me explain...

The basic Studio has two open-coil humbucker pickups. The Limited also has two humbucker pickups but they're covered to give it a classier look. I've also heard that they're the Gibson '57 Classic pickups. The basic Studio only has a dot inlay on its fretboard. The Limited has the nicer trapezoid pearl inlay like the more expensive models. The basic Studio has ordinary tuners. The Limited has Grover machine heads which work a treat. Oh, and the colour. The Limited is pewter which you can't get normally. Looks great with the chrome hardware.

So it looks great. How does it sound? Two words. Bloody brilliant.
Plugged into a Line 6 Spider 2 30 watt amp, it was amazing. Beautiful creamy clean sounds, crunchy overdrive on channel 2, crazy thrash metal on 3 and totally nuts on 4. And that's just on a 30 watt digitally emulated amp. Try it on a hybrid tube amp like an AVT100 and it blows everything away. It has a beautiful warm sound that goes so well with all rock music. I had no problem getting a Greenday or Foo Fighters sound out of it. The humbuckers are incredibly versatile. Flick the selector to treble and turn up the gain on the clean channel and you can produce a bright funk type sound. Flick it to rhythm and turn up the drive and you can get a really grunty and chunky powerful sound. I love it.

All these beautiful sounds. And what makes it even better is that it plays like a dream. The acton was set up perfectly and it was extremely easy to play. The Studio is also thinner and lighter than the Standard, which makes it easier on the shoulder when playing with a strap.

Dislikes? There was a little bit of fret-buzz further down the neck. And the paintjob, while nice to look at new, is just begging to be scratched.

Other than that? It's a dream guitar if you're on a tight budget. The basic Studio is already a great guitar, but the Limited makes it just that much better, adding small touches that make it look, feel and sound much more expensive. An absolutely perfect guitar for me.

19/20

- MTC

FIFA 2004 (Xbox)

2005-06-26T05:53:00.000-07:00

The Beautiful Game.

Yup, that's what they call it. The skill of playing a game without your hands, the precision of the passing and the thrill of the shot, all can be seen on SBS Sunday afternoons. But seeing Manchester United lose on penalties after totally DOMINATING Arsenal in the FA Cup final made me angry, and determined to seek truth and justice, I turned to EA Sports' venerable FIFA series.

I started being a fan of the series back in 1996 when EA launched FIFA 97. Back then, my trusty Super Nintendo got a huge workout in my spare time when I tackled the rigours of the World Game.

Almost 10 years on, technology and EA have advanced to produce a gem of a soccer game: FIFA 2004.

It's a good game. Some have compared it to Konami's Winning Eleven series. To me, they're both very different games. Being brought up with the FIFA series, I have to say I felt more comfortable with it.

AI is decent. I'm fine up to Professional level, easily beating quality opposition by 3 or 4 goals. Move up to World Class and it's men against the boys; I've only ever beaten the computer once in 6 attempts and that win was only by 1 goal: 1 - 0

Commentary by Andy Gray and John Motson is spot on. It's actually quite a feat when they can get the commentators to actually say stuff on what's going on the pitch instead of just generalising and calling out the names of the players. The commentators will actually get all excited when the ball gets shot on goal or when there's a tackle in a dangerous area. However, after you've played it enough it does get repetitive.

There are some niggles though. Sometimes it's impossible to change to the closer player when there's a loose ball. No matter how hard I try, I can't seem to do it and it frustrates me like crazy. And every single lob seems to go to a player no matter how hard you try to get it in space.

Overall, a competent game. I hammered Arsenal by 8 goals in the FA Cup final with Man U. Justice has been served.

3.5/5

-MTC

BMW E46 M3

2005-06-26T04:44:00.000-07:00

To kick off our car reviews, BMW Doncaster graciously granted MSCG the use of a brand new BMW M3. Although this is the outgoing model with the new E90 3 Series just having been launched, our hands were itching to drive any form of M3.

Firing the Beemer's 3.2 litre inline 6, I had the sensation of smooth and refined power flowing through from just under the power bulge on the bonnet straight through to the two twin exhausts sticking out if it's stubby arse. Nudging the car gently on to Doncaster Road was no mean feat as there was a deep crevice where driveway met road.

Step on the throttle and the next thing I know is I'm pulling 3 G's and 140km/h in a 70 zone uphill. Might as well be in a vertical climb at 10,000 feet in a F/A-18 Hornet for all I care. The silky smooth Bavarian powerplant generates 252kw at 7900 rpm and 365 Nm of torque which can take the M3 from go to woah in 5.2 seconds, easily in Porsche territory. And it's remarkably frugal on fuel, only 11.9 L/100km on the combined highway/city cycle. Amazing.

The first thing that grabbed me was its grip. This chunky Beemer holds on the road like a fat man holding his hamburger. The huge 18 inch multispoke rims (225/45 ZR rear, 255/40 ZR front) give the M3 phenomenal grip on the coarse bitumen of Warrandytes backroads. The more I pushed it, the more it hung on. Nothing, bar an even fatter man with no hamburger, could cause it to feel even a little bit uneasy. The combination of these huge wheels and firm suspension results in minimal body roll when turning. I found myself leaning into turns a lot less than I did with other cars.

Handling is sharp. Razor sharp. So sharp that if it was any sharper the steering wheel would cut your hands and you'd have to drive with your knees. And soon after that your knees would be cut off. Quick, simple and easy. Simply turn the wheel to face the car where you want it to go and it goes there. No fuss whatsoever. Road feedback is perfect through the chunky steering wheel. It never feels jittery or unsettled.

Which brings me to the transmission. Our M3 was fitted with one of the newer SMG II sequential boxes. The direct opposite of a Tiptronic or Autotronic or Megatronic boxes that are increasingly being found in pretty much all cars, the SMG is a clutchless manual transmission with the option of having it self shift if you find yourself busy like eating while driving. Laid out in a literal "h"gate, it feels like a classy and working version of the Daytona box that every Viet on Russell Street has played on. Simply pull back to go up a gear, push forward to go down. Reverse is across and up. The SMG is so advanced that it has different modes. For example, enable Sports mode and all your gear changes will be superfast, somewhere in the vicinity of 80 milliseconds, which is faster than an F1 car. Perfect shifts 100% of the time. A beautiful feature is the "Acceleration Assist" as the folks at BMW call it. It's more commonly known as "Launch Control". In a nutshell, this setting allows the M3 to fly off at the traffic lights against a riceboy in a Supra and kick it's arse so hard that the Hello Kitty's sitting on his dashboard will cry. You pull the gear selector back, mash the throttle and when you're happy, release the gear lever. The result? Minimised wheel spin, 4 G's pushing you back into your leather seat and a very sad riceboy.

Lookswise? Solid. A normal mother on her trip to Safeway in her Mitsubishi Pajero wouldn't be able to distinguish it from a 325Ci or even 330Ci. To be honest, they do look very similar. However, the discerning eye should be able to spot the ominous power bulge on the bonnet, the flared wheel arches, the massive 18inch M3 rims and the quad exhausts. Overall, the M3 sits much lower and wider than the standard 3 coupe.

The interior is beautiful as always, top quality BMW. Nice light leather (although I would've liked a darker colour, easier to clean), supportive seats and clear instrumentation. The only thing that I can pick on is the SMG shifter is really short and stubby...like a potato. Still, it looks very very cool with the chrome surrounds and blue lights.

My dream car?? If I had $140k to spend, this would be the FIRST thing I'd buy. No hesitation at all. If you have the cash to spare, buy one now. Stop reading and BUY ONE. NOW.

20/20

- MTC

Judd V Hodge

2005-06-23T03:58:00.000-07:00

After our weekly game of indoor cricket, a bit of an argument developed. You see, Mark believes that Luke Hodge is better than Chris Judd, which is why he was the number one draft pick in 2001 and Judd was number three. BAH!!! I obviously had to show him the errors of his way.

Now to be honest I haven't seen Luke Hodge play much, in fact I've probably only seen him once when Hawtorn played the Eagles this year, and I noticed him as much as I would notice a Nissan Micra on the road. But obviously he must be of some quality since experts have rated him. But I'm still not convinced he is superior to Judd.

I can predict old Marky firing his arguments that in this year's WCE Vs Hawthorn game, Hodge racked up 30 odd possessions whereas Judd only had something in the 20s. However, may I say that alot of those possessions of Hodge were deemed ineffective, and 30 possessesions didn't win Hawthorn the match now did it?

I'll tell you what's more telling than 30 touches, and that's 30 votes which Juddy scored to win the Brownlow medal last year. And should I mention that Judd scored more votes than the whole Hawtorn team combined?

I could go on and on about how Judd is better than Hodge, but I'll leave it at that for now. Oh, by the way, did I mention that Michael Jordan was the number three draft pick and Hakeem Olajuwon was the number one pick. Who became good and who became the superstar?

Rome: Total War

2005-06-20T01:45:00.000-07:00

To start with, the rise and fall of the Roman empire has always been one of my favourite periods of history. The total war franchise does a nice job of recreating the battles of this time. However, there are some things which don't really quite add up.

One of the major problems with this game is the AI. Its both predictable and stupid. It is almost impossible to lose a battle if you have reasonably the same number of troops and sit still. The enemy will march on a broad front and literally run into your army head on, even if theres just a bunch of spearmen just waiting to poke the eyes out of every single last one of them. Cavalry will do the same, but with almost suicidal passion. The AI has almost no comprehension of the concept of manuvering.

When under siege from the computer, they'll also behave extremely ridiculously. Troops will sit right under your arrow towers for the whole siege. If you destroy some siege equipment such as siege towers or battering rams, troops will not move to another piece of equipment, but will just sit there under fire. If they do manage to get a gate open, they'll all storm through one enterance. Sieges are almost impossible to lose unless ur seriously outnumbered. (They'd need to have at least 10x as many troops as you do.)

The same occurs when defending bridges. The enemy will form up, fire arrows, then charge. Two or three units of spearmen stationed at the end of the bridge will hold off an army of 3000 with ease.

Apart from the AI, things are generally fantastic. Graphics are impressive. The engine does wonders with rendering the large numbers of troops. Sound and music are appropriate, and the gameplay is addicting.

There is also a problem with stability. It seems to crash a lot, which definately sucks when you haven't saved in a while and the auto save gets corrupted.

Final Verdict: 9/10

Here I am

2005-06-19T07:53:00.000-07:00

Alright I'm in....

Stay tuned for some news and reviews from your favourite home of motoring, sports and computer games.

Now don't even get me started about those damn Hawks....

AFL Live 2004

2005-06-19T06:31:00.000-07:00

I have been very engaged with the 2005 AFL season as it has been a season of surprises and more balance between the clubs. Last year, teams that were looking up the ass of a dead dog with fleas are now in the top eight, and the dominant super powers such as Brisbane, Port Adelaide, Essendon and St Kilda are fighting to even make the top half of the ladder. But more importantly, I've been so enthusiastic with AFL this year because to my delight, after 13 rounds, the West Coast Eagles sit comfortably on top of the ladder with 12-1.

Anyway, back to the point. All of this enthusiasm for the sport makes me wanna actually play the sport, but being asian with asian friends, its kinda hard to get a bit of kick-to-kick happening in the old backyard where the majority of votes head towards table tennis or badminton anyway. Furthermore, it's so damn cold outside that by the time you step outside and see the wet, dewy grass, you begin to have second thoughts. So the next best thing I discovered was to play the game virtually as I landed my hands on a copy of AFL Live 2004.

On first impressions, the game is interesting and exciting first up. The last AFL game I played on computer was AFL '97 and that was complete, utter rubbish. AFL live 2005 on the other hand provies realistic abilities, movement and game play. There are huge improvements compared to previous AFL games. For example, when you tackle another player you actually pulverize them to the ground whereas in AFL '97, all you see are two players engage in a standing homosexual position. Other improvements are things like the 'snap' kick, so you can do Chris Judd like goals, 1-2 handpassing, screaming marks and torpedo kicks. Other positive things are the commentary (Dennis Commetti is simply the best), and a Brownlow and Coleman medal vote count.

Now if I were to nit-pick, and I always do, I would start with the finer details. For example, the graphics of the players. It's something that I really don't understand. What they give you is that some players look like their actual self, but then everyone else are given generic models. So for example, Ben Cousins looks like himself in the game, so does Michael Voss and Shaun McManus. But then everyone else looks exactly the same. It's like the developers started making custom models for players but then after a few, decided that they couldn't be stuffed and just gave everyone else the same look, just so they could head down to the pub early. Another thing that pissed me off is the fact that the computer can do certain things which aren't avaliable to the player such as banana kicks and proper set shots. When the computer takes a set shot, you see him linining up for goal, and then the whole slow walk, then run-in and huge drop punt. But the set shot for the human player is what looks to be a little chip kick off one step that apprarently goes for 50 metres, and that looks shite-house on the replay.

Another thing is that it's almost impossible to miss a set shot for goal as well. All you do is face the player towards the goal and make him kick with maximum power. I would have liked to see a bit more skill invovled in taking the set shot, such as one of those thingys in the NBA live series where you have to get the ball in the middle of the cross to get the free throw in.

All up, the game is good, just good. It's a good way to get the footy fever out of the system, but it's not a game that I would be playing for hours on. I find myself playing just one game with five minute quarters and then quitting because I've had enough. The new features and improvements are promising, but there are still things such as the graphics and game play which makes the game monotonous. Overall I give it a 6/10.

-PWL

We're up!

2005-06-13T19:04:00.000-07:00

This is it guys! Your new regular source, where you can read about what’s going on in the world of sport, motoring and computer games. Stay tuned for our first columns.