Well, these technically aren't all that 'Christmassy' but it's Christmas day, and I've been too busy to blog for a while, so I've decided to lay down two or three of the things I've had on my mind.   
 
The first topic is an extension of something I wrote about a few posts ago - gaming as a chore.  I've managed to 'unborrow' the Saboteur by Pandemic from my cousin a couple of weeks ago.  Great game, really good fun.  I finished the main story some time ago and I'm ploughing through the Free Play targets.  The thing is, it's quite good fun doing this, but it quickly becomes quite samey and feels a bit like a grind.  I think the main game is too short, it's possible to skip some missions by finishing the main story line too soon.  It's a good game, and the main story is good content, but I find it hard to call the free play targets content, certainly not 'good' content.  Maybe it's just there are so many of them, or that there isn't a quick way of taking these out.  I want to keep liking it, controlling the dishevelled swearing Irishman while he bods about blowing up, murdering and assasinating Nazi's is enjoyable.  There are some achievements in this game though, that aren't tests of skill but more a test of patience, and somehow, for some reason I can't help but feel that's a little wrong... 
 
My wife got me Fifa 11 for Christmas as requested... The trouble is I absolutely suck eggs at it.  I used to be a fifa legend... Well, certainly better than my circle of mates and able to win the computer easily - however this was back when Fifa 2001 was the new thing... SO things have changed... The presentation is great though and it feels solid to play, different, but good... I thought it was interesting that EA appear to have made an astute observation about the state of the gaming industry - and that is the popularity of used games, several publishers/developers are clocking onto this - adding some sort of content that is free to the first time purchaser but has to be bought by used game buyers if they want to access eveything the game has to offer.  It seems like a good idea, more and more people are only buying used, and this is a way of getting some additional revenue back. 
 
Anyway - I would write more - but my wife is too tired and is lying down, and my 3.5 yr old is destroying things... :(

 Well, feeling like a taking a break from XBOX 360 and Gears of War related tomfoolery this weekend,  I decided to revisit a genre that I used to be very well acquainted with - namely RTS or real-time strategy games.  Now the term was first coined during the marketing campaign for Dune 2, an early version of what we now know as Command and Conquer.  Harvest the resource, build buildings, build units and attack.  You had to place concrete hard standings before you could build, and you only select one unit at a time, this made play somewhat click-fest and a little slow paced at the same time.  I suppose one thing you could say is this lessened the effectiveness of the build a massive group of powerful units and send them in with no discreet tactics or strategy - just swamp the enemy.
 
There were similar games before Dune 2, but Dune 2 popularised these games.  For me Dune 2 was awkward to play though, frantically darting around the map trying to pick up units, having to lay concrete first for all buildings – realistic – but not fun.

I actually booted up DOSBOX this weekend and played a bit of Warcraft 1 and 2 to re-evaluate them. Warcraft was a big step forwards from Dune 2.  First of all the variety of buildings was extended and a sensible system of how many units you could control.  Farms were needed to feed more troops.  You also had two resources to harvest now – gold and lumber, both of which could be depleted.  There are maps where you have to mine several mines completely dry.

Now Warcraft did allow you to select several units, but it feels clunky, you have to hold shift and click on the individual units, and I think you could only group maybe four units together?  A step forward, but still a far cry from todays RTS in terms of play flow.  Another irritation was the fact that you had to place paths or roads to build buildings, making your towns look a bit like Milton Keines and meaning you had to sometimes spend extra money to build to place a building because you ran out of road.  None the less, it was very playable at the time.

I didn’t spend too much time on WC1, it’s quite choresome to play in some respects, at least by todays standards – I do recall the endgame was very unbalanced with a huge emphasis on who could conjure Demons and Elementals first having a massive advantage.

WC1 came out in 1994.  The next big title came in 1995 with Command and Conquer, which went back to the military theme, with harvester and troops with rifles.  C & C really popularised competitive multi-player, particularly ‘Red Alert’.  Red Alert was more popular than C & C, many thought it was a better game, but it had major balance issues.  It was significantly easier to win as the Soviets, and stopping a Soviet Heavy Tank rush was a major challenge for an alliance player.

I actually re-visited Warcraft 2, which was a little late arriving, but was a real contender with C & C.  Warcraft 2 is far better to play than WC 1, you can select units by dragging a box around them, and you can use the right mouse button to make them move – you can even set partol’s up so they will walk between two points constantly .  The fog of war in 2 is more sophisticated in 2 as well.  In WC1 when you visited an area you could see what was happening there.  In 2, it starts black, then when you visit an area and leave – it stays how you last saw it, so if the enemy builds more buildings or masses troops – you can’t see it until you visit it again.  

We also had another resource to harvest – Oil, and more variation between the available factions.  Not so much in the basic troops, but once you were up to the level of having Death Knights and their equivalent, and Ogre Mages there becomes a real choice as to which side you want to play.  It’s subtle at the start – Troll Berserkers are very different from the Elve equivalent, but the differences grow as you progress.  

I think Warcraft 2 became a lot more tactically interesting, and it doesn’t tend to reward building a massive army and throwing it at the enemy like earlier games tended to do.  It’s actually very playable today – through DOSBOX, although you may find issues with the mouse scroll speed on a modern machine.  I had to down-tune to the DOSBOX CPU speed to 10% to and turn mouse scroll speed down to slowest to make the map navigable.

Warcraft 3 upped the ante even more.  But for me WC2 was really where the genre became fun, and interesting.  Some people think Star Craft was the big jump, with three playable races – each very different, with a stronger early, middle and late game – it was an interesting model and in some ways set the scene for later games, but meh!
So that’s where we got them from, but how are more recent attempts?  Well, I played a demo of C & C for the XBOX 360 recently, it just didn’t work for me, I can’t play an RTS game on the console.   I manage fine on Tropico 3, but you can easily slow down the game to complex things and the controls are VERY clever and intuitive.  I can’t imagine a system that would work for me to control classic style RTS with twin sticks and a pad.

The last game I played was Lord of the Rings, Battle for Middle Earth.  It uses the modern Command and Conquer Engine but with Tolkein derived fantasy units.  I have to say it played very well, I enjoyed the single player campaign, both evil and good – the good campaign follows the film very closely.  The Moria Mines section is particularly fun.

Multiplayer wise it works, but… Well, I don’t like the dynamics of it.  I chose to play Isengard usually, because they have less units to choose from implies they might be simpler to play.  Playing Isengard is funny though – basically, you have to rush out every upgrade for your troops – then only send troops into battle fully upgraded, otherwise they just die from being breathed on.

The thing is the same issues with RTS in LOTR B for ME have always existed, the rush game, ‘zergling rushes’ and their equivalent.  The lack of actual strategy other than harvest as fast as possible , build the cheapest, strongest units and send wave after wave in.  The old, hold back – build defence, then build up air-strike capability – and air-strike your opponent to death, Warcraft 2 – Dragons, C & C Soviet Migs – common tactic.

In the microcosm of an RTS map, these bizarre, but simplistic tactics have a relation to real warfare, but I tend to think it’s probably tenuous at best.  You have to stretch the imagination to see the correlation.  You have to treat certain aspects as allegory and hazy representation.  

Is this a problem?  Well no, it’s a game, these games are essentially all evolutions of Dune 2: Battle for Arakis or whatever it was called.  Each step along the way – irritations have been removed, new ideas have been tried and sometimes discarded.  The game concept is Dune 2 though still, and it’s not a bad concept for a game.  In some respects you could argue that modern RTS games are a clear example of the success of ‘player-centric’ design.  Cack ideas don’t get used again, and solutions to the irritations that work get used again and again.

I also revisited another little known classic – called KKND, which is a sort of Red Alert’ish humans vs mutants post apocalyptic game.  It works fantastically and is very playable today – despite not even requiring windows 95.  The unit grouping, the selection of units and variation between the factions makes for a great play experience.  Even better than WC 2.  One criticism of it is that of other games in that victory tends to be on a see-saw.  As soon as the balance tips – it tips hard.  It does play well.  I played another game, but haven’t revisited it yet – War Wind, this played similar to Starcraft, with four playable races, but I’m not sure it might pre-date Star Craft.  The problem with War Wind was the levels played rather like puzzles with there often being only one solution to a level and winning involved dying a lot while you tried different methods.

I like the classic RTS recipe, KKND, WC 2 and WC 3 are favourites, Red Alert was VERY good… I never got into Star Craft – but I hear it’s fantastic….  But I wonder how far the model can be taken, in some respects we are still playing a game that was brought out in 1992 – Dune 2.  There are alternatives, I spent a long time playing ‘Shadow of the Horned Rat’ a Warhammer game which focused on squads over individuals and involved things like routes and cavalry charges – which simulated real warfare – at least classical battlefield warfare better.  I played through a lengthy campaign of Rome: Total War and that is a serious strategy game.  Weight of numbers doesn’t influence a battle much at all there – choice of units and how you control them is far more important.

The trouble with Rome, is it’s a bit heavy – the realism is great, but it’s hard to sit down and play without four hours spare.  What I’d like to play is something new, a new twist on the RTS genre or I can see ideas for this – maybe an MMORPG where you play an avatar who has to recruit people to build his army then issues orders and participates themselves?  Technically challenging to develop sure – but it’s a new take.  

Don’t get me wrong I love the genre, I think these games are great fun, but I also think it’s time for someone to leap out of the box and try something different…
Or have they?  Has anyone recently brought out an innovative take on the strategy genre that is worth me having a pop at?

 Well, we've all played them - at least all of us who are as old and pickled as me.  There was a time in the 1980's when it was hard to grab a joystick without playing a side-scrolling beat em' up. 
 
It all started with the Irem classic 'Kung Fu Master' back in 1984 - sure this wasn't the first beat em' up, but I believe it was the first game to introduce the concept of a side-scrolling beat em' up.  The concept is simple, walk your man sideways through the level, press the jump and attack buttons and progress towards the end of the game - simple, but fun. 
 
In 1987 'Double Dragon' took things to a new level.  If wandering around beating people up was fun - how much fun would it be with a friend alongside you?  Well, everybody and their best mate started releasing scrolling beat em' ups at this point - some good, some bad.  Final Fight is often considered one of the best of this genre, which had features such as multiple characters to choose from and a screen clearing special move which sacrificed some health to add interest.  It also had some great bosses, even if it was perhaps a bit contraversial that the end boss was some dude in a wheel chair if memory serves, I suppose you could argue it's a statement for equal oppurtunity. 
 
While the beat em' up genre was exploding, the hack n' slash found it's way in - same mechanics, but now the sprites had weapons, Sega's Golden Axe was an early high quality game, also Capcoms 'King of the Dragons' and the very deep for the genre 'Dungeons & Dragons: Tower of Doom'. 
 
King of Dragons actually meant three players could join the fun, and that became a new staple, first two player, then three, then the massively popular four player games like 'Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles' and the comical 'Simpsons' 4 player beat em' up. 
 
What gets me, is that gamers born in the mid-nineties, probably missed this gaming experience.  The idea of producing a side-scrolling beat em' up in this modern age would probably amuse most publishers.  I suppose part of the reason is that Video Arcades have fallen out of favour - people play online at home rather than queing up a the chip shop for a game of Double Dragon.  The other problem is that ultimately - fun though these games could be - they tended to be quite short and irritating at times by design.  As an arcade game, the objective was to make you throw more coins in to continue and make it hard or VERY hard to complete the game.  There have been attempts to introduce depth into these games, Tower of Doom was very deep for this genre, with it's choice of route, choice of melee vs ranged and things like the optional super boss: Flame Wing the Red Dragon - lok it up on You Tube if you've never heard of it - it's hilarious!  Then Double Dragon 3 tried mixing an RPG element into it - it worked, sort of - but not enough to bring the genre to a new level. 
 
King of Dragons tried too - a real choice of ranged vs melee, and RP elements - some great bosses.  Then Capcoms 'Kinights of the Round' tried taking the Golden Axe theme of mounted combat along which was sort of fun.  The swan song of the genre was probably Dynasty Wars, which was a great game, but again - lacked the depth to bring the genre into the modern era. 
 
What I'd love is for some innovative developer to look at this classic genre and re-invent it for the modern era with depth, interest and replayability.  However that would be a challenge indeed.  I believe the 'Splatterhouse' devs gave it a half hearted go recently, with it's faux side scroller sections in the middle of the normal game... But come on, surely someone can do better than that! 
 
How could the classic 'side scroller beat em' up/hack n' slash' genre be reinvented for the modern age?   
 
======================== 
I made this post on the General Discussion forum recently.  I was quite surprised at some of the negative an hostile response I got to it.  To the point of being called an 'elitist prick' which personally I find not just offensive and uncalled for - but childish and rude.  I was trying here to discuss a genre that isn't as popular is it was before and relate it to changing gaming habits between now and the late eighties.  I'm not going to start hurling insults around or engaging in a flame-war.  I'm too mature and sensible for that, I'll just flag stuff and get on with it. 
 
What I would suggest is if someone has a criticism of my writing, they convey it constructively, without resorting to childish insults - then it wouldn't get flagged and I'd respond to it. 
 
I'm not responding to being called an 'elitist prick' though, from some probably 15 year old who wouldn't dare say it to my face - unless he was standing on the street corner with his 42 ASBO labelled mates drinking Super Strength Cider and smoking illegal drugs when they're not playing games.  I guess in that situation, my response to the said teenager would be the same as it usually is, "Haven't you got anything better to do?  Why don't you got and buy an XBOX or something?!" 
 
Rant over, I'll perhaps quit posting my random thoughts on the forum for a bit,  realiy, I only tend to get negative responses anyway so what's the point?   

 Not a question, a discussion.  Having studied some aspects of media psychology and the design and influence of computer games, I'm now studying a more traditional computing course one of the questions addressed at the start is, 'What is a computer program?'  Now this sounds very simple, but the answer is not as straight-forward as you might thing, it is a representation, that takes an input, processes it and then generates an output.
 
So how does that translate to a computer game?  Well, clearly the users actions within the game are the input, the visuals and audio are the output.    You could argue the story of the game, if it has one is part of the output too - particularly if it is in some way interactive, in that there are multiple paths through the game with different endings.
 
I suppose within this frame-work a computer game is a real-time, interactive puzzle which might have a story.  Or it is a 'game' in the logical sense which allows players to compete against each other in real-time with an agreed set of rules.  I'm talking about the 'Magic Circle' here - not the magicians organisation, but the magic circle of the game world, where otherwise insignificant actions become important because they are agreed to be important by the players of the game.  Kicking a ball between two posts means nothing - if it's in the middle of  a football by a player and it's the correct posts - then the player is deemed to have score a goal.
 
The original computer game was a bizarre tennis simulator played on an oscilloscpe - called tennis for two.  The representation was really very poor - only the motion of the blip on the screen actually resembled tennis, even then - only very vaguely.  Space War was a big step forwards, it basically involved two ships circling a black hole, shooting missiles at each other - but people at universities were spending time and valuable network bandwidth to play against each other.  The next milestone was probably Space Invaders, it certainly went a good way to popularising games.  Originally Space Invaders was monochrome with coloured strips layered over the screen to give the illusion of colour.  Things have come on a long way since then obsviously.
 
But in some respects they haven't, the games that we play today are still a large number of 1's and 0's switching from 1 to 0 abnd back in sequence to read input and control output.  All we've done is raised the scope of our imagination by creating the capacity for more 1's and more 0's when people started having computers at home we might have had a ZX 81, with it's 1k of memory and nothing like a hard drive.  One character is a bit (Binary Digit) eight of them makes a byte (Binary word) and if you have 1024 bytes you have a kilobyte of memory.  That is 8192 characters flipping from one to zero that effectively is the memory of that early computer.  
 
What you got on the screen was entirely generated by these.  Drawing a mono image?  A bitmap?  A bit map is literally a grid reference of pixels and in mono a 1 makes it black a 0 makes it white.  Want colours?  If you use the RGB system and you want 16 million colours, then each pixel has three bytes, one for red, one for green and one for blue, each byte is binary value up to 1111 1111 or FF in Hexidecimal - or 255 (Remember this number - this is why Pac Man goes split screen after level 255!) those three bytes each indicate how much red, green and blue to put into that pixel.  So a 16 million colour bitmap of 640 x 480 pixels has 3 bytes per pixel right?  640 x 480 gives an area of 307200 so x 3 for the bytes per pixel gives us 921600 or 900 kB (Divide it by 1024(one kilobyte)) you can test this - make a 640 x 480 image, colour it a bit, save it - check the properties - it will be 900KB.  So that little image, is actually 7,372,800 little ones and zero's - that's all it is.
 
Of course when we talk about game installs we are talking gigabytes now, look at Forza 3 - what is that - a 2GB install?  1024 bytes = 1 KB 1024 of them (1,048,576 bytes) is a megabyte, 1024 of them (1,073,741,824 bytes) is a gigabyte, 2 of them for Forza 3's two gig = 2,147,483,648 bytes times 8 for bytes to bits = 17,179,869,184 little ones and zero's...  Over 17 billion....
 
Now that's pretty mind boggling thing to imagine... 
 
That's a hell of a lot of 1's and 0's, but then Forza 3 is a pretty complex representation.  If you had to describe in written English every aspects of Forza 3 from the game mechanics, the physics engine, the exact makup in 3 dimensions of the car models and the tracks, the textures, the sounds... It'd be an incredibly long document...
 
In some respects computer games are now, more than ever proving to be an icon of cutting edge technology, the complexity and difficulty of developing a modern epic sized game is far more formiddable than making a functional business application.  That could be made in VB - but games have to be fast so C++  or C# are the only realistiic languages to choose.  The production quality of modern games and the man hours and various professions that work on them is quite incredbile. Over a thousand people contributed to Red Dead Redemption, and it took 5 years to develop from concept.
 
When you think just 20 years ago, a blockbuster game was a few kilobytes of code, written in a bedroom of one spotty nerdy teenager - Remember Matthew Smith and Manic Miner anyone?   It's amazing that computer games aren't an even more respected media than they are.  It's easy to take for granted, games can seem quite simple when you see it from the player point of view, but even an awful debacle of bad game... Is actually probably quite an incredibly complex piece of software.
 
So to sum up, computer games are:-

• A massive number of 1's and 0's.
• Complex represetations presented (usually) as real-time simulations.
• Games in the tradional sense, that create a magic circle and a means of competing with and against other humans.
• Interactive puzzles, set by the developers.
• Interesting for considerations in terms of their impact on culture and psychology.
  
• Fun!
  

 've been having a lot of stress lately, all sorts of RL problems to sort out.  The thing that's keeping me sane at the moment is my hour of Gears of War 1and late night real ale.  It's funny, but I think there are two kinds of escapism available in games, or two types  of flow if you like the term.  Twitch and story I guess I could call them.  Gears isn't actually an amazing game - it was good for the time, and very high quality but not actually amazingly innovative.  The story is interesting and the environments are enjoyable to explore, but it's getting absorbed in the game that is enjoyable.  
 
I get a different kind of 'flow experience' when playing something like Guitar Hero, trying to play a difficult song on Expert - requires such concentration, there is no space left for the troubles of real life.
 
In some respects this desire to forget about real life for a bit, is something akin to drugs.  I think gaming is potentially quite addictive, not chemically - but psychologically, like exercise.  I find it hard to go a day without playing something, as I find it hard to go a day without a pint of beer.  I know some people who have quit their jobs to play World of Warcraft 100% of the time.
 
Ultimately the problem is this, if you are a games developer you want to make a game which is good - which is better than other people's games.  The measure of how good is how much people want to play it.  Then sure if the desire is higher they will spend more hours playing it?  And sacrifice other activities to play.  As games get better and better - this is potentially a social problem that will affect a lot of people.  Particularly those people with a personality that makes them susceptible to sacrificing too much to play games, the same sort of people who can't qut smoking and drinking probably.
 
I suppose too much of a good thing is bad for you - more or less whatever it is.  Even exercise - running, do it too much and you wear your knees out...
 
I'll still be playing when I'm old and grey, my thumbs will be worn out - but I hope it never gets to the stage where I'm so desperate to play, I leave my wife and qut my job for it. 

 Well i fancied a bt of a quck race last night on Forza 3.  Racing in my nice shiny Mazda Furai.  All in all I put in some nice lap times, and pulled off some decent over-taking, but overall I tended to come last every race, at least after the people behind me logged out.  
 
This prompted me to look at the cars people are driving, interestingly - everybody except me drove the same vehicle - the Peugeot 908, tuned up to PI 999 class X.  Now I had a test-drive in one, nice and fast, sure but... Well, in reality - I can't see any valid arguement for racing anythng other than a maxed out Peugeot 908 - which is a bit silly, and a bit boring?  What's the point of havng a hundred cars to pick from if everyone has to pick the same one to compete?
 
I don't know what the solution here is, it isn't a 2D fighting game which requires 'balanced' characters, but it is an interesting issue with Forza 3 - I suspect this issue isn't replicated in Drift, where there s probably more flexibility and car and setup to suit drivng style and what not - but even so!
 
I think there are some poor decisions in Forza 3, the fact that some cars are rendered pointless by the PI class.  Take my Mazda Furai - I bought it cuz I love the car - it starts out pretty in the middle of R2 at about 850, now turbo it and it becomes 915, 916 if you fit lighter, bigger alloys... So you probably can't compete in R2, not with a good driver in an 899 car, and you can't compete in R1 probably not anyway... Which is annoying.
 
Whether these issues in GT5 exist I don't know, I suppose they are the sort of problems you get when tryng to make a fun, balanced game and realistic simulation. 

I've just finished watching the Giant Bomb quick view of GT5.  First of all despite being more of a 360 man at the moment, I've always been a fan of GT games, I had 1 nd 2 on PS1 and 3 on PS2.  Forza 3 is what filled that gap and filled it very nicely I might add.  I never liked the lack of visual damage in GT games.  I watched the whole video, am I going to rush out and buy a PS3 just so I can play it?  In short - no, there was a time when I thought I might, and you could argue GT5 is a more complete game than Forza 3 - you'd probably be right. 
 
What I get from the video though, certainly in comparison to Forza, is that the visuals aren't actually all that amazing, as I understand it a lot of the car list is actually multiple models - as you got with earlier GT games... And the driving dynamics are fine - but nowadays they are fine in many, many games.  So what does GT5 have going for it?  It wants you to think it's the best game since sliced bread and opens up a new era in driving games.  Personally I don't think it will do that.  It seems fine, like an competant driving game, what it does seem to have is a great deal of choice, and in that some things you might argue Forza is missing.  Driving dirt, snow, ice, night time, weather - these are all something it has over Forza.  If both games were on the 360 I guess I'd be tempted - but I wouldn't buy the console for it. 
 
How about the Dunsfold aerodrome Top Gear test track?  Well, that would be nice - I'd love to compare times with the Stig, but I can see a major issue with this.  This will be a very clear indicator of how realistic the claimed 'realistic' driving simulator is.  Let's say we've got half a million people playing GT5 in the Uk, racing against the Stig, you should find that the lap records for different cars match the power laps board.  If it ends up grossly out - then that will indicate that actually the driving dynamics of the cars probably aren't accurate.... 
 
Of course it will be interesting to see how this pans out - maybe I'll be proven wrong and GT5 will be proven beyond a doubt to be the ultimate realistic Driving simulator?  We'll have to wait and see.  

Well, after my irritations with my xbox - I picked it up today from the repair shop.  I only had time to try one DVD in it so far - but I tried the most temperamental one - Gears of War 1 and it worked fine, first time.  It cost £60 inc Vat for parts and labour, it's a BenQ drive, I didn't want to flash it in my PC and whenever I've tried to solder electronics it hasn't turned out to be my 'finest hour' so I reckon £30 for the drive including some markup for the dude supplying it, and £30 labour - it would take me at least 2 hours and he'd got to have his markup - so it's fair enough. 
 
I just hope all the games work okay, and continue to work okay- hopefully for longer than the 2 years the last DVD Drive lasted.  I'm supposed to be getting a 250GB for Xmas, so once I've got that I might install everything to reduce the workload of the drive - see if it extends the life. 
 
If anyone is interested - the company is whitedog games, I think their site is www.whitedog.co.uk based in Stoke-on-Trent, just off the A500.

I've more or less settled on NFS: Hot Pursuit for Nephew.  I think it ticks the right boxes and I can always lend him Forza 3 when I've finished it.  The next question is whether to get my fickle niece a game also.  Apparently she mght like a DS game, she is only 6 or 7, and apparently likes playing on her DS - but I really have no idea what sort of games 6/7 year old girls are even remotely likely to like...
 
Grrrr!
 
At least I had an idea with the nephew!  Has anyone got any suggestions or am I just best sticking a £20 not in her card?

Well, after several failed attempts with disc based lens cleaners, stripping the unit apart and cleaning my lens, tweaking the potentiometer on the DVD drive...
 
I've given up the ghost.  I think doing this stuff has bought me a few months, it's been actng up for nearly 6 months now - but last time I tried to boot it, it was totally foo-bar, wouldn't even read a CD... Given that apparently Microsoft is quoting a 3 month lead time for repairs at the moment, and I'd like to actually be able to play my Christmas presents... That isn't an option.
 
I could have bought a drive myself and replaced it - but in reality, my wife is getting fed up of me spending time on it.  Plus I have the BenQ drive, which requires soldering to swap the circuit board out... And I don't feel like fitting them in my PC and flashing them - I've decided to cough up and get it fixed.
 
I found a local boy called www.whitedog.co.uk I think, White Dog Games, specialists in modding and repairing consoles of every brand. The charge? £60 inc VAT for parts and labour.  A lot cheaper than the £145 new price for an XBOX 360 and I should have it back at the end of the week.  The drive would cost me £25 to buy anyway, and stripping the XBOX, de-soldering and re-soldering the chips and putting it all back together would probably take me 3 hours at least, plus be a bit risky - I'm not exactly a legend with a soldering iron - most of my soldering has been on big industrial stuff, when I have wrecked circuit boards with soldering irons it hasn't exactly been my 'finest hour' so I think the charge is fair.
 
The frustrating thing is that Microsoft seems so unapologetic about flogging something with such cheap, nasty flawed components that break so commonly.  I have PC DVD Drives that are 5 or six years old - fine.  My PS2 DVD Drive - fine, despite hours of use and being modded slightly so I could create custom Guitar Hero songs... What is it with Microsoft?  Is it the promise of out of warranty repairs at £80 a time, which they take as long as they like over because they charge extra for 'opened' XBOX's?
 
I Find it really annoying, and I mustn't be the only one.  The guy at White Dog says he gets more 360's in than any other console.  I asked him if the new slim model was any better - his response, "I don't think so... I've had a few in already." So I say, "Already? But they are only just out?  They should all still be in warranty?!" He shrugs, "Well, people are saying they've rang in to get them fixed on warranty and are being quoted 3 months repair time and they don't want to wait..."
 
Basically, Microsoft have buit a great console - the 360, in so many ways sooooo good.  It's great, it's a pity it's built by Sum Yun Gai out of the cheapest flimsiest components available and is therefore in some respects - a piece of cack.
 
Grrrrrrrrrrr!