Finally, after months of aborted attempts, I have finished Halo 5: Guardians. to be honest, I perhaps could have finished this game earlier but it turned out to be a bit of a slog.
Firstly though, a bit of background...
I have been playing Halo games since the original Halo: Combat Evolved back on the original X-Box. Indeed, since then, the only titles of the series I have missed are the two Halo Wars titles (never in 20 years have I gotten used to playing a real time strategy game using a console controller) and the twin stick shooter Spartan Assault.
I shall be honest and admit that I have enjoyed the storyline of the first three games, even forgiving that ending in Halo 2 but, looking back, cracks started to show in thst title that grew progressively worse as the series continued.
Halo: Combat Evolved was a marvellous, self contained adventure which, leaving room for an obvious sequel, did a fine job lof having a beginning, middle and end. Halo 2 pushed that story further yet made a cardinal error that Guardians repeated: you kept being pulled away from the series main character, the Master Chief. Indeed, whilst Halo 2 added to the series mythos that paid off handsomely in Halo 3, the first sequel suffered from a rushed devlopment, off-kilter game design and a terrible, terrible ending.
Halo 3 stepped up the pace when it debuted on the X-Box 360 and gave the first game a close run for it's money quality wise. The extra development time allowed Bungie to properly flesh out the story and add a degree of polish that demonstrated what Microsoft's then new console could do. It's companion piece, Halo 3: ODST provided a nice little side story and offered a different way of playing in the Halo universe as you were no longer a super soldier, just a trained grunt. Having said that, they did feel a little soulless despite the promise that the story would be wrapped up in a proper conclusion. All told, though, the trilogy was complete.
Of course, the success of the trilogy meant that it was worth too much money to let things lie there. Enter stage right, Halo 4. This title introduced a new set of villains to take over from the Covenant and the Flood. This time, it was to be the Prometheans. As the first proper game created by 343 Industries after the handover from Bungie (whose final Halo game, Halo: Reach was perhaps their best after Halo: CE), it had a lot to live up and it tried really, really hard. But... (there is always s but)...
The Prometheans were boring, too much a bullet sponge and just plain annoying. The story piled complexity upon complexity in order to kick start another trilogy and felt undercooked. Halo 4 was both a technical wonder and a sign that the decline hinted at in 2 and 3 had been joined in the move to a new developer by something worse: Hubris.
You see, by this time, there were Halo books, comics, webisodes, limited TV series and the like that built upon and expanded the mythology. And yeah, these were designed to hoover up your money, never mind the quality. I did read a couple of the early novels but soon lost interest. There was a short series, "Forward Unto Dawn", followed by "Halo: Nightfall" that, given their budgets and background, were not too shabby at all. They provided background to the new series of games and, when Halo 5: Guardians was released, the story of that game required a hefty level of knowledge from these additional sources if you wanted to understand what the hell was going on. I didn't have that knowledge.
So, after piling through the missions, watching the cutscenes (and marvelling at gaining an achievement for one mission by walking and pressing X once to talk to a character), I finished the game feeling at best ambivalent and, at worst, like I had wasted my time. I cared not for the characters and the story made no sense, mostly because I lacked the background knowledge that spending a couple of hundred pounds would have fixed. The gane itself had a co-op mode that was of no use to mesonI had three AI colleagues who, no matter what happened to them, remained with me at the end of each level because the story demanded that. There was also the issue that you spent half the game not playing as the titular lead character. It may have helped the story but the whole point of playing Halo (certainly CE, 3 and 4) was that you are the Master Chief. Guardians took another step away from the clean design and style of CE (which itself stands up very well after 16 years or so) and brought in too many extra ingredients that spoiled the broth.
Looking back from every game in the series I have played, Halo CE remains, in my humble opinion, the best of the bunch. Halo's 3, 3 ODST and Reach all stack up pretty well, but 2, 4 and Guardians are poorer relations.
Where does this leave me? Well, I still have the Master Chief Collection so I can see a time where I will have another play through of CE again. Will I play Guardians again? Probably not. Will I buy the next Halo game when it is eventually released? Hmmm, maybe... Maybe not. I picked up Guardians for £15 and that, to be honest, was probably a tad pricey. If Halo 6 (or whatever it ends up being called) follows Guardians in style and gameplay, then I'm out. If they step back from the co-op play and set out a cleaner, more focussed story, then possibly, nay probably, I'll get a copy at somepoint. however, looking at the slaes figures and critical reaction for Guardians, I don't think i am the only one whobmay be leaving the series...
Tuesday, 22 August 2017
Monday, 14 August 2017
2020 World at War - a book review
This book neatly and succinctly sets its aims out at the very beginning. What if there were a modern day take on the seminal work "The Third World War" by General Sir John Hackett? Bookending the contributor scenarios, the editor does a good job of highlighting not only the dangers of predicting the future but also the timey, wimey, wibbly, wobbly nature of such works. Sadly, it falls foul of the very goal it aims for.
Each of the sections takes a slightly different take on world geopolitics between 2017 and 2020. Needless to say, Brexit, Islamic terrorism and China feature heavily. To be fair, some aren't bad, though real life events have already taken over several of these scenarios (the 2017 General Election being just one example). As such, it falters in its, admittedly "we are not worthy" comparision to Hackett's work.
The key problem is that Hackett and his contributors had time on their side. Their book was published in 1978 (and the follow up in 1982) and this gave them plenty of time between publication and their speculative future 1985. With 2020, there isn't that gap. already dated in some aspects, it becomes far less interesting when the speculation it provides has already been removed from the bounds of probability by actual events. A similar fate has befallen 2017: War with Russia, although that tome did smack of being an opportunist rather than a more considered approach like 2020.
Still, some of the scenarios are interesting and there are one or two that could have been expanded, rather than just being left as more of a teaser.
Overall, it's not a bad book by any means and if you have any interest in speculative fiction, I advise you to give it a go. Just try not to hold them to their Hackett comparisons.
Thursday, 18 May 2017
Cough up, TB is here...
Travel Battle has arrived on the wargaming scene and has garnered mixed views, namely here and here. The first link is a review, the second an opinion piece and, to be honest, I fall firmly in the latter camp.
As I have stated before, I am an historical wargamer. To those of you who don't understand that, it means that my preference in the hobby is in the order of History, then Toys, then (in the far distance) Games. So, when I first found out about TB, I was unimpressed. Having read the above posts, and a few others, I am still unimpressed.
Perhaps it's the facade that it's vaguely Napoleonic, the only link to which I can see is the box art. Pretty as it is, it adds nothing to the game. Identikit plastic soldiers, cavalry, artillery and houses (all in equal number - since when did that ever happen in the real world???), unpainted because, well, it's just a travel game, isn't it(?) and thin of rule book, it comes across as an attempt to sell to wargamers who maybe should know better, £50 for the box set, though judging by some posts and comments here, there are some who have bought multiple copies and are planning mini campaigns! Forgive me, but why the hell would you want to create a mini-campaign for a travel game? You'd need several boards, so at least three copies of the game (unless you can buy them separately). More figures, buildings, everything. Not exactly fitting in with the travel ethos. If you wanted to go bigger, why not a room, tables, terrain cloths or boards and scenics??? Hell, why not get a few friends, some painted armies, a vaguely historical ruleset and a pub. Oh wait. That's what we already do. I am sure you can find several vendors who'll sort out a 6mm or 10mm set up for £50 or so. Just takes a tad more effort on your part though if you've ever painted 6mm, not that much effort.
Maybe it's the gaming side of it I don't get. Now don't get me wrong, I like a good wargame. But take, for example, a weekend show. I go with the rest of the crew, we do our show thing and then, on an evening, I whip out my TB extravaganza. Erm, no! Apart from the fact that one would laugh himself into a coma and the other practice aggressive insertion techniques with said pretty box art (though with that cavalry, my condition would be anything but stable afterwards!), there is only so much wargaming I can take.
Where is the challenge? Everything is determined by dice rolls. By that, I mean, it uses dice rolls to try to hide the fact that it is so limited. Where is the room for tactics, manoeuvre, sneakiness? I can't see it with those rules. For the cost of TB, I could buy a travel chess set (which has a greater variety of units, strategies and no dice) and with the change, pay for a decent meal and a few drinks.
Maybe it's me. I am not a fan of dice heavy games as it is. If you want to dice away for anything, as some gamers seem to want to do, try a Live Action Role Playing game where you have to dice for how your food is cooked. You want to boil an egg? Roll a six, it's solid, roll a one, prepare for food poisoning. Roll low on prawns and I'll send flowers and condolences). TB seems just like that because it is so limited.There is only so much you can do with what the box offers. It is designed to be limited but, and this is how I roll(!), that would just bore me.
TB is yet another step removed from historical gaming that I see at shows these days. I can't see the point of it. Not when, with a bit of a thinking brain, there are far better options for people who WARgame rather than warGAME. It's probably not overpriced for the kit you get, buy in my eyes, £50 could be spent on more productive choices. Or should I say £45. Yep, already discounted by 10% at Carronade. I wonder what they'll be going for at 1st Partizan on Sunday...?
As I have stated before, I am an historical wargamer. To those of you who don't understand that, it means that my preference in the hobby is in the order of History, then Toys, then (in the far distance) Games. So, when I first found out about TB, I was unimpressed. Having read the above posts, and a few others, I am still unimpressed.
Perhaps it's the facade that it's vaguely Napoleonic, the only link to which I can see is the box art. Pretty as it is, it adds nothing to the game. Identikit plastic soldiers, cavalry, artillery and houses (all in equal number - since when did that ever happen in the real world???), unpainted because, well, it's just a travel game, isn't it(?) and thin of rule book, it comes across as an attempt to sell to wargamers who maybe should know better, £50 for the box set, though judging by some posts and comments here, there are some who have bought multiple copies and are planning mini campaigns! Forgive me, but why the hell would you want to create a mini-campaign for a travel game? You'd need several boards, so at least three copies of the game (unless you can buy them separately). More figures, buildings, everything. Not exactly fitting in with the travel ethos. If you wanted to go bigger, why not a room, tables, terrain cloths or boards and scenics??? Hell, why not get a few friends, some painted armies, a vaguely historical ruleset and a pub. Oh wait. That's what we already do. I am sure you can find several vendors who'll sort out a 6mm or 10mm set up for £50 or so. Just takes a tad more effort on your part though if you've ever painted 6mm, not that much effort.
Maybe it's the gaming side of it I don't get. Now don't get me wrong, I like a good wargame. But take, for example, a weekend show. I go with the rest of the crew, we do our show thing and then, on an evening, I whip out my TB extravaganza. Erm, no! Apart from the fact that one would laugh himself into a coma and the other practice aggressive insertion techniques with said pretty box art (though with that cavalry, my condition would be anything but stable afterwards!), there is only so much wargaming I can take.
Where is the challenge? Everything is determined by dice rolls. By that, I mean, it uses dice rolls to try to hide the fact that it is so limited. Where is the room for tactics, manoeuvre, sneakiness? I can't see it with those rules. For the cost of TB, I could buy a travel chess set (which has a greater variety of units, strategies and no dice) and with the change, pay for a decent meal and a few drinks.
Maybe it's me. I am not a fan of dice heavy games as it is. If you want to dice away for anything, as some gamers seem to want to do, try a Live Action Role Playing game where you have to dice for how your food is cooked. You want to boil an egg? Roll a six, it's solid, roll a one, prepare for food poisoning. Roll low on prawns and I'll send flowers and condolences). TB seems just like that because it is so limited.There is only so much you can do with what the box offers. It is designed to be limited but, and this is how I roll(!), that would just bore me.
TB is yet another step removed from historical gaming that I see at shows these days. I can't see the point of it. Not when, with a bit of a thinking brain, there are far better options for people who WARgame rather than warGAME. It's probably not overpriced for the kit you get, buy in my eyes, £50 could be spent on more productive choices. Or should I say £45. Yep, already discounted by 10% at Carronade. I wonder what they'll be going for at 1st Partizan on Sunday...?
Wednesday, 10 May 2017
Battle! Practical Wargaming by Charles Grant - Review
So, hot off the press (in 1970 for the princely sum on 21 shillings (£1.05) for those already in with the decimalisation crows), is a handy pocket introduction to the art of Wargaming as described by Charles Grant in a series of articles first published in Meccano Magazine.
I was loaned this copy as Andy thought I would find it interesting, and it turned out I did. Not to say the tone of delivery and the content aren't a tad dated - it is nigh on fifty years since original publication - but as someone who wargames out of an interest in history, rather than gaming itself, it is a very useful tome and one that I recommend anyone with even the most basic interest in the hobby to pick up.
Why? Well, it's a combination of a couple of things. Firstly, there is the style of writing, very polite, at times grandfatherly, wordy compared to modern day writers (although that is no bad thing), a nice line in self deprecating humour (such as he forgets to add the Sherman to an armour values column then re-introduces it in the following chapter or headings on a map change between chapters which he puts down to new intelligence gained from the local peasants!) and a seriously fine number of typo's. That last comment aside, I found this quite an easy read although I can see how younger readers might struggle due to the change of style over the years. Me, I was brought up with that so it's a comfortable blanket of written nostalgia. Another nice touch was a comment regarding the initial scenario detailed in the book where Grant asks the reader to let him know how they solved that particular problem. In an age where reader feedback via social media is practically demanded, the request seems almost quaint from an age where communication could longer than a few seconds (as did the thinking process behind said communication).
Next up, the setting and rules. Grant picks WW2 as his period and does a really good job of introducing a fairly simplistic but effective rules over the course of the book. The aim, as he keeps reminding the reader, is to keep things simple so you actually get to play a game. Again, that is no bad thing. This is an introduction after all, but what sells it for me is that he keeps reminding the reader that they can change things round if they want. They can alter, ditch or complicate the game as much as they want as it is up to them how they approach wargaming. Compared to the almost dictatorial rules sets these days, it's refreshing and very much follows how the games we TWATS play. We use a set of rules, see how they fly, then have at them with pen and paper to fit how we play. Which, to those who don't already know, is with an historical bent.
A good example of this, and neatly tying in with Battle, is the currently popular modern wargaming rule set, Team Yankee. Now I like these and, with certain amendments here and there, will happily continue to use them. Movement, shooting and effect are very, very similar between TY and Battle. Not that it should be considered a bad thing, but the similarities are glaring and, given the difference in publishing dates, shows how much does and does not change over time. Presentation is something else, but since you have to read this book rather than just look at pretty pictures, it definitely works for Battle.
Another positive is the attitude of make do and mend. Don't have the correct figures or equipment? Get that modelling knife out and make it yourself. It's meant to be a representation so let's not get too bogged down here. Similarly, measuring devices, artillery plots and firing cones? Acetate. It is the future! Even to the point where he asks metaphorically, what should we do without it? Compare that to the frankly eye gougingly expensive add-ons for Team Yankee and again, we see how things have changed. There is something to be said of Games Designers/Rule Writing companies trying to extract every penny they can out of you.
Negatives - well, as Grant admits, the rules are basic and a tad generic, but since that is the point, I am not counting that as a negative although some might disagree. The lack of LMG's (Bren, MG42, BAR) is a bit more of an issue but, taking a leaf out of the gentleman's book, this can be easily rectified with an additional firing cone, possibly based on rifle range but a wider spread? After all, he's just giving you the ball, how you run with it is your concern.
Air support is not mentioned, although you could use amend the artillery rules for that, and there is an overall lack of polish (the typo's, although amusing at times, do spoil the flow a tad, especially in the later chapters).
Overall though, I liked this book. Yes, it has dated in style, but certainly not in content. The photographs vary from merely ok to almost impossible to make out (but that is down to the technology of the time, so it would be churlish to hark on about it too much). It is by no means perfect and does not set out to be. It leans towards historical accuracy whilst ensuring a game can be played out of it. The overall message of the book - it is your game, your hobby, you need to think how you wish to approach it. Do with it what you will. That is something that I believe has been lost to a degree with quite a few modern day rule sets.
Many thanks to Andy Copestake for lending the book to me, you shall get it back(!).
And speaking of wargaming, I shall be at the Carronade show in Falkirk this Saturday. It's a cracking show and I recommend that if you can, get yourselves there. Now, I just need to finish that play list for Monday's radio show...
 |
| Straight forward and to the point. |
I was loaned this copy as Andy thought I would find it interesting, and it turned out I did. Not to say the tone of delivery and the content aren't a tad dated - it is nigh on fifty years since original publication - but as someone who wargames out of an interest in history, rather than gaming itself, it is a very useful tome and one that I recommend anyone with even the most basic interest in the hobby to pick up.
Why? Well, it's a combination of a couple of things. Firstly, there is the style of writing, very polite, at times grandfatherly, wordy compared to modern day writers (although that is no bad thing), a nice line in self deprecating humour (such as he forgets to add the Sherman to an armour values column then re-introduces it in the following chapter or headings on a map change between chapters which he puts down to new intelligence gained from the local peasants!) and a seriously fine number of typo's. That last comment aside, I found this quite an easy read although I can see how younger readers might struggle due to the change of style over the years. Me, I was brought up with that so it's a comfortable blanket of written nostalgia. Another nice touch was a comment regarding the initial scenario detailed in the book where Grant asks the reader to let him know how they solved that particular problem. In an age where reader feedback via social media is practically demanded, the request seems almost quaint from an age where communication could longer than a few seconds (as did the thinking process behind said communication).
Next up, the setting and rules. Grant picks WW2 as his period and does a really good job of introducing a fairly simplistic but effective rules over the course of the book. The aim, as he keeps reminding the reader, is to keep things simple so you actually get to play a game. Again, that is no bad thing. This is an introduction after all, but what sells it for me is that he keeps reminding the reader that they can change things round if they want. They can alter, ditch or complicate the game as much as they want as it is up to them how they approach wargaming. Compared to the almost dictatorial rules sets these days, it's refreshing and very much follows how the games we TWATS play. We use a set of rules, see how they fly, then have at them with pen and paper to fit how we play. Which, to those who don't already know, is with an historical bent.
A good example of this, and neatly tying in with Battle, is the currently popular modern wargaming rule set, Team Yankee. Now I like these and, with certain amendments here and there, will happily continue to use them. Movement, shooting and effect are very, very similar between TY and Battle. Not that it should be considered a bad thing, but the similarities are glaring and, given the difference in publishing dates, shows how much does and does not change over time. Presentation is something else, but since you have to read this book rather than just look at pretty pictures, it definitely works for Battle.
Another positive is the attitude of make do and mend. Don't have the correct figures or equipment? Get that modelling knife out and make it yourself. It's meant to be a representation so let's not get too bogged down here. Similarly, measuring devices, artillery plots and firing cones? Acetate. It is the future! Even to the point where he asks metaphorically, what should we do without it? Compare that to the frankly eye gougingly expensive add-ons for Team Yankee and again, we see how things have changed. There is something to be said of Games Designers/Rule Writing companies trying to extract every penny they can out of you.
Negatives - well, as Grant admits, the rules are basic and a tad generic, but since that is the point, I am not counting that as a negative although some might disagree. The lack of LMG's (Bren, MG42, BAR) is a bit more of an issue but, taking a leaf out of the gentleman's book, this can be easily rectified with an additional firing cone, possibly based on rifle range but a wider spread? After all, he's just giving you the ball, how you run with it is your concern.
Air support is not mentioned, although you could use amend the artillery rules for that, and there is an overall lack of polish (the typo's, although amusing at times, do spoil the flow a tad, especially in the later chapters).
Overall though, I liked this book. Yes, it has dated in style, but certainly not in content. The photographs vary from merely ok to almost impossible to make out (but that is down to the technology of the time, so it would be churlish to hark on about it too much). It is by no means perfect and does not set out to be. It leans towards historical accuracy whilst ensuring a game can be played out of it. The overall message of the book - it is your game, your hobby, you need to think how you wish to approach it. Do with it what you will. That is something that I believe has been lost to a degree with quite a few modern day rule sets.
Many thanks to Andy Copestake for lending the book to me, you shall get it back(!).
And speaking of wargaming, I shall be at the Carronade show in Falkirk this Saturday. It's a cracking show and I recommend that if you can, get yourselves there. Now, I just need to finish that play list for Monday's radio show...
Sunday, 7 May 2017
A Return to Calm
Phew, that was a bit mental!
Tax Year End is usually fun for most people (and I don't mean fun in the traditional sense), and so it is with me due to my job. The last few weeks have been passed in a blur but the majority of the work is done (and I even managed to fit a game in too) and so I have time to think and type.
One thing I have managed to do is catch up with is my YouTube viewing. YouTube is pretty much a microcosm of the Internet, 99% rubbish but with the odd gem here and there. Over the years, I have found a few channels that are entertaining, informative and even a bit of both. As it's been a while since my last post, I thought I would kick off again with a list of the YouTube channels I like.
I'll start off with WatchMojo and WhatCulture. These two channels do pretty much similar things in general - they provide lists based on various topics. Watchmojo is American and played pretty straight. Primarily lists, they also produce new features as well. WhatCulture is UK based (just down the road in Gateshead) and is more anarchic, sarcastic and downright funnier. There are two channels for WhatCulture I follow, the main one as named and WhatCulture Gaming. They also post more than lists, with opinion pieces, reviews and the like and you could do far worse than have a scan through their content.
ScreenJunkies is all about film, though I tend to stay away from their usual stuff and concentrate on Honest Trailers. Words cannot convey how funny these can be. If you want the gaming equivalent, head to Smosh Games with their Honest Game Trailers. They even use the same "Awesome Voice Guy" to narrate them. Absolutely superb.
Moving on, there are a number of military/firearms channels that I follow. This started out with watching the goofiness of FPS Russia, a channel that seems to have stopped posting in recent years but gad amassed a good range of content prior to that. Following the suggested videos led to pretty much all of the rest of these channels.
FPS Russia uses a fake Russian, lots of explosives and a nice line in sarcasm to demonstrate the kind of high jinks you can get up to if you put your mind to it. I particularly recommend the SA80 demo and his comments on the SUSAT!
Next up, Iraqveteran8888. These guys own a gun store in the states and mix up opinion pieces (very pro 2nd amendment by the way), reviews and just plain fun. There is, in particular, a nice subset of Martini Henry videos that are extremely informative from an actual shooting point of view. Whether you follow their politics or not, the team know how to demo a firearm.
TFB TV (short for The Firearms Blog TV) is a genuinely professional channel, aimed not only at the US market but also internationally (they have a mix of presenters from all around the globe) and they are in essence trying to be the one stop shop for firearms related information. Recent posts from the UK have been very good and again, I would recommend these guys if you have any interest in firearms.
Then there is Forgotten Weapons. This is probably my favourite weapons channel. The presenter, Ian McCollum ( I think that's how you spell it), is knowledgeable, personable and plain good at his job. The focus is on firearms that maybe you might not have heard of, a good example of this would be the recent video from the National Firearms Centre in Leeds about the initial studies of what would form the SA80 program. This guy does this channel out of love of the topic and is the most informative of the weapons channels I have seen to date. He does run a Patreon in order to funds his visits so if you like what you see, please pop that dollar in there.
Finally, for the technical people out there, is Digital Foundry. Focussed on the technical side of computing and gaming, if you have any interest in how games perform, how the tech behind them works or the latest in computer graphics, this is the channel for you. There is also a Digital Foundry Retro channel that does pretty much the same thing but for retro games and is truly a labour of love that is definitely worth a visit.
That's it for now, please do visit any of the channels above if they take your fancy. As for me, I have to sort out a playlist for the 15th as I am guesting on Attention Please on NE1fm (102.5) (as well as streaming). I am looking forward to it as it's been over a year since my last visit.
Tax Year End is usually fun for most people (and I don't mean fun in the traditional sense), and so it is with me due to my job. The last few weeks have been passed in a blur but the majority of the work is done (and I even managed to fit a game in too) and so I have time to think and type.
One thing I have managed to do is catch up with is my YouTube viewing. YouTube is pretty much a microcosm of the Internet, 99% rubbish but with the odd gem here and there. Over the years, I have found a few channels that are entertaining, informative and even a bit of both. As it's been a while since my last post, I thought I would kick off again with a list of the YouTube channels I like.
I'll start off with WatchMojo and WhatCulture. These two channels do pretty much similar things in general - they provide lists based on various topics. Watchmojo is American and played pretty straight. Primarily lists, they also produce new features as well. WhatCulture is UK based (just down the road in Gateshead) and is more anarchic, sarcastic and downright funnier. There are two channels for WhatCulture I follow, the main one as named and WhatCulture Gaming. They also post more than lists, with opinion pieces, reviews and the like and you could do far worse than have a scan through their content.
ScreenJunkies is all about film, though I tend to stay away from their usual stuff and concentrate on Honest Trailers. Words cannot convey how funny these can be. If you want the gaming equivalent, head to Smosh Games with their Honest Game Trailers. They even use the same "Awesome Voice Guy" to narrate them. Absolutely superb.
Moving on, there are a number of military/firearms channels that I follow. This started out with watching the goofiness of FPS Russia, a channel that seems to have stopped posting in recent years but gad amassed a good range of content prior to that. Following the suggested videos led to pretty much all of the rest of these channels.
FPS Russia uses a fake Russian, lots of explosives and a nice line in sarcasm to demonstrate the kind of high jinks you can get up to if you put your mind to it. I particularly recommend the SA80 demo and his comments on the SUSAT!
Next up, Iraqveteran8888. These guys own a gun store in the states and mix up opinion pieces (very pro 2nd amendment by the way), reviews and just plain fun. There is, in particular, a nice subset of Martini Henry videos that are extremely informative from an actual shooting point of view. Whether you follow their politics or not, the team know how to demo a firearm.
TFB TV (short for The Firearms Blog TV) is a genuinely professional channel, aimed not only at the US market but also internationally (they have a mix of presenters from all around the globe) and they are in essence trying to be the one stop shop for firearms related information. Recent posts from the UK have been very good and again, I would recommend these guys if you have any interest in firearms.
Then there is Forgotten Weapons. This is probably my favourite weapons channel. The presenter, Ian McCollum ( I think that's how you spell it), is knowledgeable, personable and plain good at his job. The focus is on firearms that maybe you might not have heard of, a good example of this would be the recent video from the National Firearms Centre in Leeds about the initial studies of what would form the SA80 program. This guy does this channel out of love of the topic and is the most informative of the weapons channels I have seen to date. He does run a Patreon in order to funds his visits so if you like what you see, please pop that dollar in there.
Finally, for the technical people out there, is Digital Foundry. Focussed on the technical side of computing and gaming, if you have any interest in how games perform, how the tech behind them works or the latest in computer graphics, this is the channel for you. There is also a Digital Foundry Retro channel that does pretty much the same thing but for retro games and is truly a labour of love that is definitely worth a visit.
That's it for now, please do visit any of the channels above if they take your fancy. As for me, I have to sort out a playlist for the 15th as I am guesting on Attention Please on NE1fm (102.5) (as well as streaming). I am looking forward to it as it's been over a year since my last visit.
Saturday, 4 March 2017
A blast from the past
My grandmother is having a clear out of the spare room and happened to find some magazine binders from the 1970's. Whilst I have not yet plunged into the seven years worth of Airfix magazines my late grandfather had purchased, I have been given three binders of Military Modelling (one issue from '73, one from '76 and the remainder from '77 to '79) as well as a half dozen issues of Battle magazine from 1977.
I remember reading these in my early teens, and they were of an age back then, but having a quick perusal brought back some very fond memories and also got me thinking (yep, thinking!).
 |
| 35p! Ah, those must have been the days... |
There have been a fair few articles in various blogs about the current state of the wargaming magazine market and more than a few posts on TMP, yet looking through the admittedly small number of issues of Battle, I feel that the more things have changed, the more they have stayed the same.
By that, I mean that whilst today's publications are certainly less wordy and more picturesque, the topics haven't changed much. Indeed, the letters page of one issue is filled with the discussion (conducted by post, no less - POST, having to write or type a letter and have the Royal Mail deliver it. If you don't know what that is, Google it...) of the merits of rulesets and their accuracy towards the reality of battles, and whether "Britain's most popular indoor activity" (honestly, that's what two of the participants called wargaming!), can be classed as gaming first or historical re-enactment.
The letters page from November 1977 has a corker of a topic: Fantasy gaming.
 |
| The debate, it seems, continues... |
Apologies for the poor photography, the paper is rather shiny and artificial light is a necessity this time of year, but anyway, there is a divide here that still exists to this day. This is helped along by an introduction to fantasy by a little known gentleman, Mr S Jackson:
 |
| Whatever happened to him or GW??? |
I know that comparing these issues to modern day publications is like comparing apples to oranges, with an added difference of forty years, but I was struck with how much content you got in these. These are not the biggest publications and most of the pictures are black and white (with colour seemingly reserved for the cover pages and the odd plate), yet as you can see, they pack the writing in. Compare that to a modern mag where there a swathes of white space on most article pages and, depending on the magazine, a disturbing low word to picture ratio. No, these are not clean, glossy magazines as most youngsters would recognise but, by gad, they aren't half useful. And not just for the contemporary news (the Briefing section for military enthusiasts is a goldmine of late '70's news, projects and skullduggery!), but also for the adverts. There are loads of them, from Hinchcliffe to Skytrex to Heroics and Ros, all a little time capsule to an age long gone.
I shall be keeping these in a safe place and will be having a read through the MilMod binders in due course.
Saturday, 11 February 2017
York - and a question
Last Sunday saw an early start for a trip to York and the Vapnartak show. It has been held at the racecourse for several years now and it's one of my favourite venues. Access is good and the catering is above average. Never underestimate the need for semi-decent scran after a half past bed-time wake up call and a couple of hours on the A1(M).
The show itself pretty much followed previous years, and it must be said that it seemed to be the same old faces in the same old places. That should be expected, after all, the hobby isn't that big, but the biggest concern I felt was that the demo/participation games seemed to be the same as last year. Deja vu indeed. There were one or two new games that did catch my attention, and not necessarily for the right reason - the Airfix battles game on set on terrain in the form of a printed sheet being one. It was one step removed from a board game and having read a few pieces on the gaming system, watching that play out didn't improve my opinion of it one bit.
Other than that, the show did see me drop a few quid at Caliver (the Team Yankee expansions for the British and East Germans - I quite like Team Yankee, even if it is very much a "Bang! You're dead!" type of game but with a few amendments and an umpire guided set up, they are actually quite fun) and Dave Lanchester Books (a lovely volume on air operations at Suez, a conflict that holds my interest but tends to be forgotten amongst the rest of the Cold War shenanigans).
The show was busy (until the usual 1.30 exodus as the hordes depart for Sunday lunch and a snooze), and there were more than a few familiar faces, especially from my neck of the woods. It was nice to see, to be honest, and made me think that if the two larger north-east shows (Border Reiver and Battleground) could attract the same crowd, it would be of benefit to both shows.
Border Reiver has had a drop in attendance since the move to Gateshead International Stadium a few years back (it has certainly felt less busy as the years have gone by), and the organiser of Battleground (Leon), has been more than open on the Pendraken forums about the drops in attendance for that show. So on the whole, fewer people are going to those shows, yet it will cost the same, maybe a little more each year, for the venue. Fewer people means less door money, It also means either the per person spend has to go up or the traders are taking less money. If it's the latter, how long do they keep up their attendance before it becomes financially pointless to go?
As regions go, the North-East is pretty large, and the two shows don't compete for the same venue or date. If you were to compare these shows to, say, Falkirk, they are pretty similar in economic location and catchment area. Yet for all appearances, the two north-east shows (as far as public visibility goes), don't hold a candle to the Scottish show.
So I leave with a question: Is there a point to either North-East show?
The show itself pretty much followed previous years, and it must be said that it seemed to be the same old faces in the same old places. That should be expected, after all, the hobby isn't that big, but the biggest concern I felt was that the demo/participation games seemed to be the same as last year. Deja vu indeed. There were one or two new games that did catch my attention, and not necessarily for the right reason - the Airfix battles game on set on terrain in the form of a printed sheet being one. It was one step removed from a board game and having read a few pieces on the gaming system, watching that play out didn't improve my opinion of it one bit.
Other than that, the show did see me drop a few quid at Caliver (the Team Yankee expansions for the British and East Germans - I quite like Team Yankee, even if it is very much a "Bang! You're dead!" type of game but with a few amendments and an umpire guided set up, they are actually quite fun) and Dave Lanchester Books (a lovely volume on air operations at Suez, a conflict that holds my interest but tends to be forgotten amongst the rest of the Cold War shenanigans).
The show was busy (until the usual 1.30 exodus as the hordes depart for Sunday lunch and a snooze), and there were more than a few familiar faces, especially from my neck of the woods. It was nice to see, to be honest, and made me think that if the two larger north-east shows (Border Reiver and Battleground) could attract the same crowd, it would be of benefit to both shows.
Border Reiver has had a drop in attendance since the move to Gateshead International Stadium a few years back (it has certainly felt less busy as the years have gone by), and the organiser of Battleground (Leon), has been more than open on the Pendraken forums about the drops in attendance for that show. So on the whole, fewer people are going to those shows, yet it will cost the same, maybe a little more each year, for the venue. Fewer people means less door money, It also means either the per person spend has to go up or the traders are taking less money. If it's the latter, how long do they keep up their attendance before it becomes financially pointless to go?
As regions go, the North-East is pretty large, and the two shows don't compete for the same venue or date. If you were to compare these shows to, say, Falkirk, they are pretty similar in economic location and catchment area. Yet for all appearances, the two north-east shows (as far as public visibility goes), don't hold a candle to the Scottish show.
So I leave with a question: Is there a point to either North-East show?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)