Rockstar took to their official website and social network feeds a few moments ago to finally give us a release date for Grand Theft Auto 5.

Originally touted for a "Spring 2013" release, it appears that Rockstar have delayed the game by about four months without warning, as it now has a date of September 17th 2013.

Picture that appeared on Rockstar's website and social network feeds

No solid reason has been given for the delay, but Rockstar stated on their website:

"We know this is about four months later than originally planned and we know that this short delay will come as a disappointment for many of you. GTA V is a massively ambitious and complex game and it simply needs a little more polish to be the standard we, and more importantly, you require."

There is speculation around the internet that Rockstar have delayed the game so that it is closer to coinciding with the release of the next-gen consoles - rumoured to be released late this year - in order to ensure that the GTA V life-span carries over on to the new consoles. This is unconfirmed and unfounded, and it's more likely that it's just not ready yet as Rockstar have said.

It is disappointing but all gamers know that things like this can happen in the development of a game, and this is probably the exact reason Rockstar never gave an actual date in the first place, bringing us on to the good news that we now have a definitive release date!

Mark your calendars for September 17th!

If there's one sure-fire sign that a company is beginning to worry about its future, it's when they begin to rebrand and move away from everything they've done before.

To begin with, RIM CEO Thorsten Heins announced that from this day forth, the company shall simply be known as BlackBerry - presumably a move made for brand awareness purposes.

Moving swiftly on from that, Heins went on to announce the latest weapons in BlackBerry's phone arsenal - the BlackBerry Z10 and BlackBerry Q10, both powered by a brand new OS, creatively titled BlackBerry 10.

Heins hailed it as a new day in the history of Blackberry.

"Two years ago we had to make a serious decision, adopt someone else's platform or build a whole new one. We made the decision to go it alone."

The new BlackBerry Z10 comes in both black and white

The new OS definitely looks a huge improvement over the last, with a much simpler, smarter UI and proper multi-tasking to compete with iOS and Android devices. Social networks are integrated into something called the Hub, where many of the phones tasks and capabilities are found. It's an impressive step up, but time will tell if it is quite as slick as its competition.

As for the phones themselves, the Z10 boasts a 4.2 inch display with a resolution of 1280 x 768, 1.5GHz dual-core processor, 2GB of RAM and 16GB of internal storage. On the back, an 8MP camera with LED flash. Tech-wise, it's competing with the likes of the Nokia Lumia 920, but the Z10 costs at least £36 a month or £480 SIM-free, putting it in the same price range as the iPhone 5 and Samsung Galaxy S3 - both of which have much higher specs. Design-wise, BlackBerry have moved away from the bulky phones of old and instead opted for a thinner slate design, following the footsteps of most other smartphones. It has already been released in the UK, but Canadian users have to wait until February 5th and the USA until March.

The Q10 is considerably less impressive and will be the budget phone for BlackBerry fans. It has the familiar physical keyboard and only a 720 x 720 display, but prices and a release date are yet to be announced.

It's a definite attempt at trying to revive the BlackBerry craze from a few years ago, but the mid-range specifications coupled with the high price tag might just cause BlackBerry to regret that decision to "go it alone."

The first leaked pictures have surfaced on the internet of what is assumed to be the iPad 5, courtesy of 9to5Mac.

The pictures are from an unverified source at an iPad accessories store in China, and while they should of course be taken with a fistful of salt, 9to5Mac are generally reliable when it comes to such information. In fact, it was them who reported yesterday that a 128GB iPad was on the horizon, and low and behold, it was confirmed today.

Image shows black back plate - Credit to 9to5Mac

None of the images show the iPad screen, instead all focusing on the shell or back plate. If real, the design has taken a drastic change that is more in the vein of its iPhone cousin. Rather than the silver back and edges that has graced every iPad so far, it is now a black slate colour. According to 9to5Mac, the design in the picture shows that the iPad 5 will have the same 9.7 inch display - presumably with the same 2048 x 1536 resolution - and looks to be an LTE model if the antenna at the top is anything to go by.

Another picture shows a thinner design and a flat back - Credit to 9to5Mac

Another of the pictures show the shells from a side-view, revealing that it's also a thinner design and that Apple have scrapped the curvature on the back that was introduced with the iPad 2.

Again, these pictures are far from confirmed and should be treated the same as any other rumour. The device has previously been thought to have a March 2013 release, but recent news would have us believe that it will in fact be closer to October 2013.

Whether you're an Apple geek, iPad fan or just someone who needs 128GB of space in a tablet (we're surprised you exist), February 5th is a day you might want to mark in your calendar.

Rumours swirled the web yesterday that tech kings Apple would be releasing a 128GB iPad, and today those rumours are fact, confirmed by Apple themselves earlier today. It will be the first time Apple has increased the storage capacity in their iPad line since 2010, and it doubles the current highest spec iPad's 64GB. Aside from the storage upgrade, all other specifications remain the same as the current 4th gen model. Prices are £639 ($799) for Wi-Fi only and £739 ($929) for 4G.

In their press release, Apple stated:

"With twice the storage capacity and an unparalleled selection of over 300,000 native iPad apps, enterprises, educators and artists have even more reasons to use iPad for all their business and personal needs."

It's a confusing move by Apple, who have been heavily promoting their cloud storage service, iCloud for the past year.

Most data, such as music, videos and photos can be accessed through iCloud or other cloud services like Dropbox or Google Drive, so it's difficult to imagine that very many iPad users have used up 64GB of data - particularly if they're using Wi-Fi only.

So, are Apple cooking up another money making scheme? Innocently offering more options for consumers? Or perhaps simply anticipating a massive increase in app size over the next year as tablet gaming takes off?

One thing is definite, we won't be too surprised when these things fly out of Apple stores come next Tuesday.

Having been invited to the closed beta of SimCity this weekend, I thought I'd take to my keyboard and get some of my early thoughts out there.

Be aware though that the game is still in beta and over a month away, so any criticism here can be taken with a pinch of salt until the full game is out. You also only get one single hour, and any SimCity fan knows that it takes days or weeks of gameplay to get a decent city built.

As much as I'd love to post some videos or screenshots I took, I'm not 100% on how strict the NDA is for this beta.

So, without further ado, these are a few of the main additions, improvements and problems I found in one hour of the game.

Space

The real major complaint stemming from the beta is the issue of how much space you are given to build your city. I have to agree that upon being given my chunk of land, the first thing I noticed was that it was considerably smaller than past games. As the beta is only an hour, I didn't get the time to decide whether it was actually enough or not. What I can say, is that in one hour I had filled approximately half of the land. Part of this is due to the amount of road that is required for zoning (see below), and another part is due to the fact I was rushing, but even so it felt like it could easily be filled in a day of play.

It is a genuine worry, and in a recent Reddit Q+A, it was confirmed that the largest spaces available in SimCity are around the size of a medium landscape in Sim City 4. It's difficult to understand why this is, given that with the resources available today, you'd expect a bigger city if anything. If this game receives any negative reviews or comments, it's highly likely that the small spaces will be at the root of the complaints. It also leaves me wondering exactly what use an airport or rail system might be, unless of course they are linked to other cities.

Other cities are available to play in the same region, so if you find yourself out of room it is possible to make a new city and have it cooperate with the old one. The two will function and work together like neighbours if you allow it. However, I get the feeling that those empty spaces are really meant for playing with friends.

Zoning and Building Modules

After the atrocity that was Sim City Societies, it's good to see area zoning back. It's not SimCity without residential, commercial and industrial zoning, and it's all back with all the proper indicators and meters that you need. It has been simplified though, which I still can't decide is for the better or worse. The good thing is that it's no longer possible to control the zoning of different land values yourself. Where before you could zone residential areas for the poor, middle class and rich separately, the game now does that for you. You'll simply zone the area, and as land values rise (through low pollution, good transport, low crime etc.) the sims will simply upgrade the buildings themselves. It works, because it means you really have to work to keep land values up if you want big skyscrapers and large hotels.

One of the downsides of the new system though, is that zones now have to be placed directly onto a road. Previously, you'd zone a large square area and the game would add some roads in for you, leaving you to upgrade them at a later date. Now, you can only zone the edges of existing roads. It makes sense, but I found that space was very quickly becoming less as I had to constantly lay new roads to zone new areas. It means you have to have a line of road on either side of every row of buildings, or try to make the gap between two roads big enough to fit two streets of buildings without wasting precious space - which can be difficult to tell at first. It led to me often zoning an area and sims not having enough room to build on it, rendering it wasted space. I'm not saying it's a bad system, but it takes a little getting used to and could possibly result in a city with a LOT of road when given more than an hours playtime. This adds to the feeling of larger canvases being needed.

Gameplay footage showing zoning

Aside from zoning, you can still put buildings down ('plop', as the game puts it) singly in the form of fire/police stations, hospitals, schools and many more. A new feature to this however, is modules. They are extensions and add-ons to buildings you've already placed that enhance both its properties and design. It can include adding extra classrooms for a school rather than forking out for an entire new building, or simply adding some extra squad cars to a police station. The beta locked out most of the upgrades, but it's easy to see how adding modules to existing buildings will be essential later on.

City Specialisation

One of the major new additions to SimCity is what Maxis have called City Specialisation. It's pretty self-explanatory and can be seen in most of the videos that Maxis have put out. The beta only shows seven specialisations to choose from, but I'd say more are likely to be added post-release. Only Gambling was available this time, and then only a single casino. On my second run through, I flew through the things I'd normally plan carefully - zoning, road placement, pollution worries - and got right into placing my casino to see the difference it makes.

I was pleasantly surprised.

The casino brought in some criminals, crime went up dramatically and I hadn't yet placed a police station, causing chaos. Many of the buildings already built were torn down and new hotels put up to accommodate the tourist influx. Land values rose around the casino, and so did my funds. I placed a few modules - a comedy club and a room for reasonably rich folk. That brought more business. Coffee shops and hardware stores disappeared, restaurants and posh banks put in their place. The city suddenly felt more alive, like it had a reason for being there. Night fell and the casino glowed in the centre of my town as people continued to flock to it. It became instantly obvious that in order to get a bustling, vibrant metropolis like was shown in the trailers, you have to take up a specialisation. That's really the idea of the game.

Official Maxis Screenshot of a Casino City

Unfortunately, the other, larger casinos were blocked for the beta, but I'm incredibly intrigued to see what happens when the larger ones are laid down. I would assume that as you upgrade and build better things from the specialisation menu, sims will upgrade the rest of the city themselves providing the land value is kept high. Specialisations are what are likely to form the backbone of your town, and as a result the towns around you.

Verdict

It's far too early to say whether or not SimCity will be a huge success, and the beta didn't allow for enough access to different parts of the game to really give a definitive review.

The game does feel like it's been dumbed down slightly, perhaps for the benefit of younger players. Statistics about your city now appear less detailed than before, and while this could be seen as a negative, it does actually allow for smoother, more relaxed gameplay. I'll stress again though, it's entirely possible that some options were simply locked out for the beta.

Still, it takes a good hour of careful city building to be ready for a specialisation, meaning that most beta players won't get chance to really tinker with it unless they rush like I did. I firmly believe that the specialisations will transform your city in more ways than I mentioned above. Mining cities will cause pollution in the way that casinos cause crime, and it's sure to bring a new dynamic to the gameplay.

What I can definitively say is that I thoroughly enjoyed what I played and I now have no doubts about keeping my pre-order. I played through my hour about 5 times, experimenting with different methods, and each one provided a different experience. It's incredible zooming down to street level and just watching your city come to life.

With the only major worry at this point being the small city size, SimCity is shaping up to be an incredible game and one that should be enjoyed by most.

WWE '13 Review
FINALLY... Attitude HAS COME BACK, to a WWE game!




Platform: Xbox 360, PlayStation 3, Wii
Developer: Yukes
Players: 1-4 offline, 2-6 online
Genre: Professional Wrestling, Fighting
Buy if you liked: Previous WWE games, MMA

---

Things have been pretty crazy in the 'WWE Universe' in the past year or so.

Brock Lesnar returned suddenly, but then seemed to disappear just as quickly. The Rock returned, won a match and then disappeared, only to return later and make claim to the WWE Championship. Paul Heyman returned and started to manage an increasingly pipe-bombing CM Punk.

Perhaps the most shocking, though, is the return of a WWE video game that is actually good. To keep up with latest review protocol, I'm going to break it down.

---

Gameplay
The gameplay really remains very similar to the last few WWE games, considering there's not much that's really changeable when it comes to this type of game. The controls have been slightly tweaked, but not overhauled. One minor gripe that I found myself facing repeatedly was the counter system. The RT button (or R2) is used to counter both grapples and strikes, but it seemed to be hit and miss (pun intended). Often, I was 100% certain I'd hit it at the right time, only for my wrestler to not perform the counter, and likewise, there were times when I felt I'd been way off the mark but still countered successfully.

Graphically the game is mostly unchanged and the physics also feel very slick like the last game. As for commentary, it's as bad and repetitive as ever.

The mid-match cinematic cuts annoyingly return, too, but fortunately they can be turned off. I'd recommend this if you don't want to see four or five instant replays of every signature or finishing move that you pull off. All the usual match types have made their return, too, as expected.

Perhaps one of the best things about WWE '13 is its emphasis on creation. While WWE games have always had excellent create modes, '13 adds create-an-arena mode, meaning you can now create your own entire show or PPV, using your own created logos and arenas, and slot them into your own created stories or into WWE Universe mode. It's not for the casual player, but the hardcore fans are sure to get stuck in.

---

Attitude Era Mode
Strictly speaking, WWE '13 games never have fantastic stories. The last few have been re-hashes of the god-awful Road to WrestleMania mode, where approximately six different short stories are available that allow you to follow a particular wrestler's journey from the Royal Rumble to WrestleMania.

You can now breathe a sigh of relief as I tell you that Road to WrestleMania is no more! Hoo-ray! That brings us on to the best thing about WWE '13, and arguably the aspect that will be the main cause of purchase for most. Attitude Era mode. Rather than being forced to play through six agonisingly boring and cringe-worthy storylines with equally dull and skippable cutscenes, you're now given the opportunity to relive six of the greatest storylines and moments throughout WWE's most popular period. Beginning from 1997, you will play through and witness the rise of WWE Raw and the fall of WCW Nitro. Coupled with actual video footage to push the story along, you'll play as legends like Mankind/Cactus Jack, Stone Cold Steve Austin, Bret Hart, Shawn Michaels and a very young The Rock. Even the CG cutscenes feature real commentary and voiceover from the actual TV event, giving it that extra authenticity and freeing us of those unexciting dialogue sequences in previous games that made the wrestler's sound like they were telling a bedtime story to a baby.

You'll play through six scenarios that take you from the beginning of the Attitude Era right up to WCW's demise, and recreate incredible matches like The Rock and Mankind's legendary I Quit match at Royal Rumble 1999, and moments like Undertaker throwing Mankind off the top of a Hell in the Cell. It's a genius move by THQ to play on everybody's nostalgia rather than create six more bland, pointless stories, and this alone is sure to bring back some old WWE fans to the series. Depending on difficulty settings, completing Attitude Era should take around 10 hours or so. The only real negative here is that some Attitude Era legends aren't included - no Hardys or Dudleys, no Rob Van Dam or Kurt Angle. Though this couldn't be helped, given that they now work for a rival company.

---

WWE Universe Mode
Universe Mode makes its return as expected and has received some tune-ups. By-and-large though, it remains the same. Universe mode is excellent for when you've finished Attitude Era and want to keep playing some semblance of a story. While it doesn't have anywhere near the same depth, it can be best be explained as a 'live' exhibition mode. You choose a match to play from a pre-arranged card (or all of them, if you like), and play through an entire calendar year of WWE programming. Rivalries and teams form on their own, titles are won and lost, and both Money in the Bank and Royal Rumble winners will cash in as they please. You can take a more creative role if you wish, adding your own shows and creating your own matches, or just sit back and play as the computer does all the arranging for you.

Unfortunately, it's not quite perfect. After adding my created superstar to a roster, I soon won the WWE Championship, only to find myself regularly being put into matches with the likes of Primo and Brodus Clay. It's also common to find top stars like The Rock and HHH in RAW main events with Zack Ryder or Jack Swagger for four weeks, but then put their belts on the line against Undertaker or CM Punk out-of-the-blue. The alternative is to simply change the participants yourself, but that feels a little like cheating. There's a wealth of achievements/trophies to be earned in Universe Mode though, so if anything, it's worth playing just for that.

---

Replay Value and Online Mode
As with all games in this genre, the replay value is entirely up to you. If you're someone who can easily do the same thing over and over again and still get enjoyment from it, then the replay value here is endless. However, if you're one of those who feels like they've finished a game once the main story is over, then this is one you'll want to trade in after Attitude Era. The online mode is still here and has a ranking system, so you could try your luck at getting to the top rank, but that's really more trouble than it's worth for just a couple of small achievements/trophies. The create modes could also potentially grip you for quite some time, but again, it's only likely to be the hardcore WWE fans who take advantage.

---

Should You Buy It?
If you've never been a WWE fan, no. There's very little here for you. If you're currently a WWE fan, chances are you've had this on your list since WWE '12 anyway. The only person who may need this question answered is the casual/older WWE fan, and if that's you then yes, definitely buy it. There's plenty of fun to be had in the different modes, and Attitude Era mode will send you into  nostalgia-induced excitement.

This is without a doubt the best WWE game since the 'Smackdown vs RAW' series was dropped. And that's the bottom line, 'cause Rob said so.

IF YA SMEEELLL... ahem.

Far Cry 3 Review
The most fun had on an island since they played golf on LOST



Platforms: Xbox 360, PlayStation 3, Microsoft Windows
Developer: Ubisoft
Players: Offline: 1-2, Online Co-op: 2-4
Genre: First-person shooter, Action/adventure, Sandbox
Buy if you liked: Assassin's Creed, Uncharted, Battlefield

---

Gameplay
In a word: fun. The world is massive and there's always something to do if you fancy a break from story missions. You can roam anywhere you like right from the get-go too, so at first it's a little overwhelming - but in a good way. Guns and movement feel nice, but slightly heavy like Battlefield, rather than the gliding feel of Call of Duty. The game quietly promotes stealth, giving you ways to distract enemies, a knife to silence them with and suppressors for guns. It's not a requirement though, and it's way more fun to just charge in and start flame-throwing things. Kills give XP - more for stealth kills - which you spend on new skills to build up your tribal tattoo. You'll find yourself wanting to vary up your activities quite regularly though, otherwise it does get repetitive.

---

Story

As stories go, Far Cry 3's feels a bit flat. The cutscenes are good but not regular enough to really create an engaging story. The opening scene leads you to believe the story will be gripping, but it kind of falls a little flat. It's definitely not the worst story in a video game, nor is it the worst example of trying to deliver one, but it does feel like the story is secondary to the gameplay and scenery. The many collectables around Rook Island do add some backstory though, and it's worth collecting them just to read a little bit of the setting's history. Don't worry if you haven't played the first two games, it doesn't matter. It's a new start, so you won't be out of the loop at all.

---

Length
Altogether, you can easily sink 30+ hours into the game. There's stuff to collect, animals to hunt, items to craft, forts to liberate and timed challenges. Think Assassin's Creed, but with less jumping rooftops and more being chased through the jungle by tigers. The story on its own isn't incredibly long, but you'll want to take on most of the side missions to unlock better weapons and skills. There's also co-op missions if that's your thing, so you can pair up with friends or strangers and tackle those. There's 6 achievements for online/co-op mode so it's worth doing them if you like them.

---

Graphics and Sound
Rook Island looks incredible. The game world is the real winner in Far Cry 3, and exploring it makes up for the lacklustre story. It doesn't exactly push the boundaries of this generation's potential, but it looks a lot better than most games. Cutscenes in particular are amazing and realistic, and the opening cutscenes is one of coolest ones I've seen in a game. Explosions are impressive, but not on the level of games like GTA IV. Not only does the island look vibrant and alive though, but the behaviours of NPCs and wild animals is also spot on. A tiger will stalk you through the grass, but a shark will blast towards you on first sight. It's surprising how creepy it is walking into a new area and hearing the faint growl of an animal waiting to pounce. Play with some decent headphones and you'll definitely feel the benefit. Unfortunately, the game does have a few draw distance problems, but it's nothing major. A tree popping up from nowhere here, a rock disappearing there. All things considered, it's easily forgiven. But if this kind of thing really bothers you, best to search YouTube and have a quick look for yourself.

---

Should you buy it?
Probably. It doesn't come without its imperfections, but it's a lot of fun. Much of the enjoyment comes from collectables and exploration, so if you're someone who generally prefers to charge through the story and then be done with it, you might want to consider buying pre-owned or renting. The story is also the worst thing about the game and does bring it down a little, so if you put more stock in a decent storyline than anything else, you'll be slightly disappointed. If you're someone who leaves no stone unturned and loves exploring and finding collectables, it's worth your money.

Overall: 8/10

In the wake of yet another tragic gun massacre in America, articles are flying around all over the web - as we all probably suspected - trying to pin some of the blame on video games. We see it every time.

"Mad man played Call of Duty!" or "Gun rampage psycho played video games!" headlines are a common occurrence after tragedies, as though that information is supposed to explain the motive.

But there's a noticeable trend in that most of these articles and opinions come from people who, quite clearly, aren't very well versed in the world of gaming. People who appear as though they haven't sat down and enjoyed a video game since the 1980s, if at all.

Below is a video from UK chat show, The Alan Titchmarsh Show, where two 'experts' and the host gang up on someone from Computer and Video Games (CVG) over his thoughts on violent games. It says it all that the host can't even get the name of a game right, referring to it as 'Call of Duty 2: Modern Warfare'. Best to pop a prozac before you watch it and move any breakable objects out of sight.

The woman makes a point that violent games are more responsible for crime than other entertainment mediums because they're interactive. The player is actively choosing to be violent, rather than passively watching it. Fair point, except it's irrelevant. It's still pretend violence. If anything, a game should satisfy a psycho's needs more than a movie does, since it would likely help fulfil their sick fantasies of causing violence. Now for the best part, a quick google search reveals that the woman is Julia Peasgood, and some of her previous work includes doing a voiceover for Playboy TV and voiceover work on a horror survival video game called Martian Gothic: Unification. So apparently, she's "categorically against violence for entertainment" unless it means she's getting paid. Brilliant hypocrisy.

Then there's the other guest, Kelvin MacKenzie. A British 'journalist', famous in the UK for producing some of the most inaccurate stories and outright lies that Britain has seen in the last 25 years. Nothing that comes from him should ever be trusted. He's like a worse Piers Morgan.

It's plain to see that they have no idea what they're talking about, and the poor guy from CVG gets lynched - in spite of being absolutely correct - simply because they refuse to acknowledge or respect his point. Their minds were made up before the guy started speaking, and the studio audience completely eat it up.

Here's some things to consider for these 'experts' or parents that campaign to have violent games completely banned:

1. Do some research. There is nothing to show that people who play violent games are more likely to commit crimes than those who don't or those who watch violent movies. Unless the person is mentally ill, in which case anything could set them off.

2. What about music? Mainstream rap music often refers to guns, violence, gangs and crime, yet anyone has access to this by simply going on YouTube or turning their TV on. There's no age restriction on TV music channels, and it's easy to bypass it on YouTube.

3. On the topic of age restriction, games do have them. If you don't want your child playing violent games, it's your responsibility as a parent not to buy them. But then you may as well stop them watching most movies too, just incase they start wanting to blow stuff up or something.

4. Consider the ratio between gamers who don't commit crimes and those that do. Probably similar to that of movie watchers or rap listeners. Because it makes no difference.

5. This graph:

People need to remember that it's 2013 and gaming is an art form now. It's growing at exponential rates, and it's just as much of an entertainment form as films, TV and books. It is not just mindless shooting, violence and swearing. It is not only teenagers or thugs that enjoy it. Games are story-driven and immersive, and some even impart knowledge.


I've played games since I was 6-years-old (1996), and my parents were always incredibly lenient in letting me play violent games. I first played Grand Theft Auto when I was 9, I've always loved first-person shooters, and I love gory games like Gears of War. Yet here I am, a university student without a violent bone in his body who doesn't even swear in front of most people. I'm yet to mow anyone down in a tank or beat someone to death with a bat.

Why? Because I'm not evil. I'm not an idiot, which is what you need to be to commit evil crimes or believe idiotic theories that games can somehow be the root cause of violence. It's naïve, and a claim seemingly only made by 'experts' or so-called psychologists.

It is possible, admittedly, that a violent game could potentially tip someone who is already insane over the edge. But the same can be said for violent movies, TV shows, even books. Any medium has potential to implant sick ideas into a mentally insane mind. Why is it gaming that always has to take the flack? The massacre in Aurora occurred during a midnight premier of The Dark Knight Rises by a man who was a huge superhero fan and reportedly thought he was The Joker. Yet, I don't recall seeing any 'experts' claiming that we need to stick the boot into violent movies.

Accidental murders also occur all over the world every single day, whereby the killer is simply someone who is easily angered and strikes out. Not because they've watched a violent movie or played violent games, but because they have issues.


While I cannot say that games don't have potential to send someone over the edge, I am saying that anything can, and it's unfair and inaccurate to blame every tragedy on video games simply because it's the newest form of entertainment and thus easily targeted. It's time that we started raising awareness and finding help for those who are mentally ill, rather than laying the blame at a completely innocent door.

In case my review of The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey was too long or you couldn't be bothered to read it, this is a slightly more personal and unprofessional view. Read this if you haven't seen it yet and want some honest views on why you should. If you're interested, my longer review can be found by clicking here.

Generally, I thought it was a really great film. I'd go so far as to say it's my best of 2012, just edging out The Dark Knight Rises.

That being said, I understand most of the complaints, but I just think it's all been blown out of proportion. The use of 48 frames-per-second is an unnecessary change, but honestly I think some people are just using that as ammo to complain with. It works fine and it looks fine. I doubt it'll become a new industry standard anytime soon, but it doesn't ruin the movie.

It is a long movie. So are the Lord of the Rings and lots of other great films. Even Chris Nolan's Batman movies are probably too long. If you went to see An Unexpected Journey and seriously expected it to be short and sweet or for it to not contain some filler then you were really just deluding yourself. Some footage could have been cut, but films like this are all about being immersive and spending as much time in the world as possible. I didn't find myself getting bored at all, which can't be said for Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring or The Dark Knight Rises.

Going into the film, I found it hard to imagine how three films were being made from the book. That's now a lot clearer. Smaug, the main antagonist of the book, is only very briefly seen in An Unexpected Journey. This movie puts more focus into the journey to the Lonely Mountain and features its own antagonists in the form of trolls and orcs. It doesn't seem like Peter Jackson is going to have to do too much stretching, but at the same time, two films would've probably been a more realistic plan.

If you're on the fence about seeing this, or if you've been put off by all the negative reviews, don't be. See it for yourself. I had a few doubts too, but it was obvious after the first 10 minutes that it was harsh criticism that I had wrongly believed.

Lastly, I hope to be doing a lot more reviews and blog entries on movies, games and sport. If you have blogger, follow me if you're interested. Alternatively, follow me on Twitter by clicking here, or leave a comment under this post. Thanks!

Note: If this is too long, read my slightly less professional view by clicking here.

Overall, it's fairly safe to say that this cinematic year has been filled with more duds than a World War 2 museum. Some of them were even the ones that we considered to be the big players of the year, the summer blockbusters. The nuclear weapons of 2012's cinema. But even they, in some cases, failed to detonate and instead released a faint, anti-climatic puff of smoke. Prometheus, American Reunion and The Amazing Spider-Man immediately come to mind, and while they were all good, none really lived up to the hype.

If the nuclear weapon analogy were literal, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey would have just caused World War 3.

Not only does the first in Peter Jackson's new trilogy live up to its hype, it surpasses it, and shoots straight into contention for film of the year, only really facing competition from a certain Chris Nolan movie.

As with the first Lord of the Rings film, we are first treated to a bit of backstory, this time featuring some blazing (literally) action sequences that not only show us a glimpse of what might be to come over the trilogy, but also outlines the plot that will deliver it.

A secondary prologue follows, set directly before the events that unfold in Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring. A 111-year-old Bilbo Baggins (Ian Holm) has decided to write a book for his nephew, Frodo (Elijah Wood) that recounts an adventure he went on 60-years prior. An Unexpected Journey.

As the first prologue shows us, the dwarves of Erebor have long been evicted from their home and robbed of their treasures by the dragon, Smaug. Led by Thorin (Richard Armitage), aided by Gandalf the Grey (Ian McKellen) and hindered by a reluctant Bilbo (Martin Freeman), the Company of Dwarves set out on the Quest of Erebor. Freeman does a fantastic job of playing the grumpy, fearful hobbit, and it's immediately clear why Jackson chose to work production of the film around Freeman's schedule rather than finding someone else.

It's a quest that isn't necessarily as daunting or desperate as that of Lord of the Rings, but the sense of urgency is still there. It's easier to feel compassion and sorrow for the Company of Dwarves than for the Fellowship. The Dwarves ooze personality, humour, brawn and bravery, yet they find themselves staring down the barrel of two dragon nostrils just to reclaim their home. There will never be a Middle-Earth quite so vulnerable as in Lord of the Rings, but Jackson has once again managed to perfectly capture that sense of immediacy and genuine threat that the characters are facing.

It's a good job, too, because it's a conflict that, despite being raised and settled in its entirety in just one relatively small book, will be stretched across three very long films. Admittedly, it's difficult to see how Jackson's going to make that work, but the fact that the main antagonist of the trilogy hasn't even been given any screen time in this instalment does wonders for reaffirming the faith.

One of the major controversies surrounding The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, both pre and post-release is the decision made by Peter Jackson to film in 48 frames-per-second, twice the normal rate. It's jarring at first, but after a few minutes it's easy to forget about. There's no doubt it's helped create a beautiful and vibrant Middle-Earth, but using 24fps would have still been completely fine and it seems to have caused a lot of commotion for nothing.

Another common complaint is the length and pacing of the movie, which is also a non-issue. It's a long one, for sure, but a trip to Middle-Earth is never a flying visit. As for the pacing, think of An Unexpected Journey as this trilogy's equivalent of The Fellowship of the Ring. It has its own sub-plot that it follows from start to finish, but ultimately it's about setting up the over-arching story that is to come in the next two films.

Despite the fact that Jackson took a fair few risks when putting this trilogy into production, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey was definitely an unexpected total success. Look past the slightly odd higher frame-rate, the astonishing length of the movie and the fact that three instalments are being made from one book. Go in with an open mind, sit back and soak in the beauty and terror of Middle-Earth, and by the time the credits roll, you'll be more than ready for the Desolation of Smaug.

Overall: 4.5/5