Tom Clancy Presents Tom Clancy’s H.A.W.X. By Tom Clancy (Xbox 360)
It’s an arcade flight sim in a contemporary setting. And it wants to be Ace Combat 6 so badly it hurts, right down to the pre-mission target-percentage breakdown, the post-mission cinematic replay and the three camera view options, each practically identical to its equivalent in AC6.
Here are the things H.A.W.(ks – Ed) does better than Ace Combat 6: more planes (although they all feel pretty much exactly the same to fly), external fly-by “assistance off” view that looks hugely cool (but is completely unnecessary and massively difficult to control), your plane carries anti-missile flares (not that you’ll have any left when you need them because some idiot mapped “deploy flares” to a click of the control stick, something that’s incredibly easy to do accidentally when engaged in intense flight manoeuvres) no portentous and jarring cut-scenes about the hideousness of war (instead there’s a staggeringly nonsensical plot about a corporation as lacking in business-sense as they are in morals), moderately groovy R6: Vegas/CoD4 XP-O-Gain level system (which mostly only unlocks new planes which, as previously stated, aren’t much more than re-skins), looks hugely pretty in places (but extremely ropy in others – the Chicago level with the skyscrapers jarringly plonked down on what looks like a perfectly flat Google Earth map will take you back to the worst sins of mid-nineties flight-simmmery) and its whole campaign is playable in co-op (actually, that one’s pretty much an unreserved yay).
Here are the things it does worse than AC6: smaller maps with smaller, almost linear missions. One of my favourite levels in Ace Combat sees you asked to assist a massive amphibious assault on a coastal town. There are three different allied forces landing in three different places facing different compositions of enemy, and who you choose to primarily support in what way is up to you. Fly a mud-moving A-10 Warthog with iron bombs to easily take out enemy tank formations? Or air-to-ground missles for knocking out priority targets from a safe distance? Either way, you’ll be vulnerable to enemy interceptors and too slow to effectively support all three fronts. Go with a multi-role plane like the F-16 or the Mirage 2000 which’ll let you carve through enemy close air support bombers like a multimillion dollar supersonic knife through butter but is somewhat brittle in the face of ground fire? Should you take the risk of attacking the well-defended town in order to secure its airfield, giving you a base near the front-line where you can land to get repaired and re-armed?
All that light tactical layer is absent from H.A.W.(ks. – Ed). In your first playthough, you’ll have a lot of planes to choose from but generally only one weapons load and one approach to any given scenario. There’s no landing at carriers or airbases, no chance to change your payload mid-mission, no trading off effectiveness against X sort of target with effectiveness against Y. It’s pretty much just a shooting-gallery – hostile unit appears in front of you, press A to fire a missile, done, done and I’m onto the next one.
There are tons of smaller niggles. Hard mode is too easy (so I presume you could finish Normal mode without actually looking at the screen) while Elite mode doesn’t, y’know, make the enemy AI any more dangerous it just artificially and unfairly limits the number of weapons you can carry (which wouldn’t be as much of an issue except that, as previously mentioned, there’s no way of re-arming mid-mission). The targeting system is fiddly and thoughtless – if I’ve got AAMs armed, why on Earth does it let me lock onto ground targets that I can’t hit? And why oh why oh why is “change weapon” mapped to the D-pad? Did nobody twig that when you want to switch to, say, dogfighting missles you might possibly be in, f’rinstance, a dogfight and so not really be overly keen to LET GO OF THE HUGGING CONTROLS?
If the flight scenes in Top Gun mildly arouse you, you’ll have some fun with H.A.W.(ks – Ed). Me? They do and I did. It’s not a bad game by any means, it’s just shallow, workmanlike, a bit bland and lacking in charm. It’s like a tribute band – the songs are still good but the magic’s not quite there. H.A.W.(ks – Ed) is the Bootleg Ace. It’s the Counterfeit Combat. It’s the Tesco Value Ace Combat 6.
With an unnecessarily silly name.
John Woo Presents John Woo’s Stranglehold By John Woo (Xbox 360)
The graphics are ropy, the controls are slightly worse, its difficulty is up and down more than a manically depressed junkie kangaroo on a space hopper and it’s a pony that barely manages one trick. And that’s the exact same trick as Max Payne’s, only – and I appreciate this will be hard to believe – with a worse story. If I’d paid full price at release I’d have been a) insane and b) furious. But as a cheap, throwaway b-movie title it hits the spot. Stranglehold is the first game in history where the stuff you can do in-game is cooler than the stuff you’re shown doing in cut-scenes. The first time I slid down a banister, shot a sign that fell on a mook’s head, blew up a second mook by taking out the barrel of propane he was slightly foolishly hiding behind, then dove onto a wheelie-trolley and rolled across a courtyard shooting two more mooks in the face I’d pretty much had enough fun for the fiver the game set me back. And the massively over-the-top spinny-around-with-doves-flying-up-everywhere special move made me laugh every single time I did it. For that, I’m willing to forgive semi-frequent moments of frustration brought on by the lack of a Left 4 Dead-style “Spin 180 Degrees” button and insufficient information as to the location of the THOUSANDS OF ENEMIES currently shooting your wanger off.
Stranglehold is rubbish. But it’s extravagant, operatic, cheerfully stupid, generally good fun rubbish. It’s rubbish with the courage to be rubbish as loudly and forcefully as it can. Much like Face/Off, actually.
Russell T. Davis Presents Russell T. Davis’ Doctor Who Easter Special By Russell T. Davis (Alright, you can stop now – Ed) (Telly)
It was alright, wasn’t it? The Lara Croft wannabe pseudo-assistant was good fun, the visual of a London bus crashed in the middle of a desert wilderness was cool to the point that you strongly suspect that RTD started with that image and worked back to find a story that semi-justified it, I liked that the ugly menacing-looking aliens actually turned out to be innocent bystanders and the story rollocked along at a decent old pace even if it didn’t make a lot of sense and fell apart a bit in the final third. No change there, then. So not a boundary, but a controlled single that keeps the scoreboard ticking over. Still looking forward to seeing what Who will turn into in fresh hands, mind.
Nobody Presents Nobody’s Empire: Total War By Nobody (You’re fired – Ed) (PC)
Medieval: Total War is one of my favourite games ever, I’ve read every Sharpe book ever written (they are, after all, Mills And Boon for boys), and there’s nothing I like more in movies than some buckles being suitably swashed. So why oh why oh why hasn’t this game clicked with me? Am I just a bit Total Warred out? The real-time battles have a very different feel to Rome or either of the Medievals. Those games depended on you winning the scissors-paper-stone-lizard-Spock matchups (archers beat everything at range, everything beats archers up close, spears beat cavalry, cavalry beats swords, swords beat spears) and making practical use of flank and rear attacks on already-engaged units. Outflanking remains important in Empire, but its battles seem to primarily hinge on your ability to concentrate fire. Almost everyone’s got guns, so all things being equal what you’re trying to do is get two of your units shooting at one of the enemy’s. If you can do that, the opposition will rout before you and your freed-up soldiers can then start shooting at the next enemy unit, continuing a virtuous circle that will eventually see you “rolling up” the other fellow’s battle-line. It’s a different tactical challenge, and an interesting one, but for some reason the whole package isn’t quite grabbing me.
There are lots of little problems with it, but nothing I can see as being The Sticking Point. The naval battles are fiddly but easily-skipped. The battlefields seem a lot more varied than they used to be, with buildings that you can garrison, but occupied buildings are such easy prey for enemy artillery that they’re not remotely worth the bother 90% of the time. In the strategic layer, I don’t feel like I’m getting enough feedback on the socio-economic situation in my territories making it hard to determine which cities are performing well and which are on the brink of anarchy, although this may simply be down to not yet having spent enough time learning the nuances of the game.
Can’t put my finger on it. All I know is that this weekend I spent nine hours fiddling with a game I’ve had for six months and three quid’s worth of tower defence shenanigans rather than bestriding the nations of the Earth like a colossus. That can’t be right, can it?
Werner Herzog Presents Werner He… (*gunshot*) Grizzly Man (DVD)
Grizzly Man is a documentary about Timothy Treadwell, a failed actor who spent 13 summers living among bears in Alaska before he and his girlfriend were killed by a bear.
(Much as with Steve “Man Who Teases Dangerous Animals For A Living Killed By Dangerous Animal He Was Teasing” Irwin it’s such a horribly predictable fate I’m not even sure that it counts as ironic.)
It’s fascinating stuff with some beautiful footage of the Alaskan wilderness in general and bears in particular. The opening scene, with Treadwell talking the camera, describing himself as a “gentle warrior” who’s “earned the trust” of the bears and will never be hurt by them leads you to think that he’s going to be portrayed as an absolutely colossal tool. In fact the film gives a much more nuanced, interesting picture of a divisive, remarkable, quixotic and thoroughly tragic figure.
A few of the interviews seem weirdly forced, even staged – every time the guy who did the autopsy on what was left of Timothy Treadwell’s body is on camera for instance, or the scene where Herzog listens to the audio recording of Treadwell’s last moments. But that aside, it’s a terrific film that I’d thoroughly recommend.

I try really hard to like Doctor Who, basically because the eldest is a huge fan. But I just can’t bring myself to thinking that it’s anything other than poor.It looks pretty, there’s some good acting, but some of the storylines are just a mess. I just hope that the new guy talks a little bit slower when the “we’re two thirds of the way through this episode so I need to explain what has happened, why and how we’re going to sort it out now just to show you how clever I am” bit happens. It’s almost as predictable as the Eastern Bloc(k) voting in the Eurovision. Are you having a party for that again this year? Last year’s was soooo much fun!
You know I can’t resist a piece that features Doctor Who. Totally agree with your comments about the Easter special although the lingering disappointment that Michelle Ryan isn’t going to be the new companion is what sticks most in the mind as I thought she was great & at times looked like she might steal the show. To hell with the stupid flying bus though! RTD has come in for a lot of criticism over the last four years; some of it fair but at the end of the day, we probably wouldn’t have had any 21st Century Who without his energy & enthusiasm so all power to him! Have to say that I’m quite optimistic at the prospect of Steven Moffat taking over the reins though; some of the best New Who stories IMO have been penned by him (Empty Child/The Doctor Dances, Girl in the Fireplace, Blink, Silence in the Library/Forest of the Dead) & he may also be able to rope in a lot more of the Classic Who fans who criticised RTD so much for not making New Who darker & scarier; many Classic Who fans (self include) feel that the Tom Baker “dark & gothic” period of the late 70’s was arguably the peak of the original series stuff. Of course, all this musing about the writing may lose some of its relevance if Matt Smith isn’t up to the job as the new Doctor. The jury is out currently on that one…
Oooh Rob… I’m walking on thin ice here, but I did (on a whim) rent out “Genisis of the Daleks” last week (n.b. side thought – Genesis and Daleks together at last – wouldn’t that be cool! They can only do a better job of singing than Phil Collins… but I digress), since I was too young to remember much of it at the time. In summary, it was a lot shitter verses most of the new stuff. It’s 70’s Tom Baker, but a lot of it was truely awful! It’s often voted (so it said on the packed) the best Tom Baker era story too! Not being funny, but the Dr gets rendered unconcious by a sharp blow to the head about 10 times throughout (surely a drinking game in the making) – at one point twice in the space of 5 minutes!
Maybe it’s not the period of the 1970’s you mean, but even before you take into account the special effects (which were, no doubt, amazing at the time…), it really suffered from being about 3 hours too long. It had way too many “WTF” moments – spoiler alert: Davros (half man, half dustbin) somehow manages to convince an entire species that he is their best shot of supremecy, despite looking and sounding absoulutely nuts! He apparently creates the Daleks on the basis that everyone is resigned to the fact that they are going to be mutated and need a way of getting around when the inevitable happens, without anyone saying “hang on, you look really shit in your weird granny-wagon. Why should we be looking to you to for advice on futuristic travel plans?”. It just didn’t make sense.
OK, so it’s one isolated example, but it did jog a few memories – I think a lot of Dr Who in the 1970’s was like that – made no sense, was too long, and had awful expositions. As for “Dark”… well, some points of the easter special were dark, and in fact darker than GotD.
In fact, the easter special suffered from the very opposite to all this – the story as it turned out made as much sense as it could, timewise was pretty sharp on the mark, and exposition was swift and relatively painless, but it was all just a bit bland. Maybe I’ve been spoiled by some fairly nifty Who of late, but this was dull. In summary – Bus breaks down, gets fixed, all home in time for tea (except the poor sap who got killed, in fine Who style, to demonstrate how much peril everyone was in and a couple of fly-men who were just asking to get swatted at some stage). I also disliked the whole “they’ve ripped off Pitch Black” feeling I got from watching it. You could never accuse GotD of ripping off anything other than, say, Naziism (even Herr Gruber from Allo Allo was there in uniform – albeit 10 years too early).
The saving grace wasn’t Michelle Ryan in a catsuit (p.s. Rob, a catsuit does NOT make an attractive, mid 20’s, big busted lass a good actress – although she still outscores Billy Piper on all fronts. Yes those as well…), it was the nice link right at the end into the next twist. The occasional big jaw dropping revelation is part and parcel of Dr Who nowadays, and what makes it fun is seeing how it pans out!
I’m sure Steven Moffat will be able to do a fine job, but Matt Smith is going to have to be nothing short of a revelation to out-Who David Tennant (who is definitely in my top 3 and a firm contender for Best Dr Who Ever).
Mind you… Men In Black 2 vs Men in Black 1.
A side note on Ace Combat 5… who are they aiming the dready cutscenes at? Under 20’s will just skip through them, since they slow down the wanton distruction. Over 20’s will skip through them since they will bring the bleak tang of real life into their hard-fought-for escapism. Girls wouldn’t be seen dead playing a air combat sim so would never see them and, er, that’s it isn’t it?
They should have just put up a quick note saying “was is bad” and a few cutscenes of arial awesomeness. Like CoD 4 did, actually…
Oh, and did you see that Top Gun is proven even MORE homo-eroctic now: Kelly Mcgillis has come out as a lesbian.
Ace Combat 6 not 5.
DAMN YOU MONKEY HANDS.
Where’s the “reject comments that are longer than the actual post” button on this thing?
Also: the Easter Special was darker than Genesis Of The Daleks? The Doctor almost commits sodding GENOCIDE in GotD, for flip’s sake!
Also also: I warned you about those cutscenes. I prefer them to the mission briefings in H.A.W.(ks – Ed), though, which has an insultingly stupid storyline. And no giant flying aircraft-carriers.
Re Long Post: Oh crap… sorry forgot where I was for a minute.
Re Darkness… SOME POINTS of the easter special were darker than SOME POINTS of GotD. Genocide is, admittedly, a bit dark. But so is Planet turned to dustbowl in a short time… in apparently less time, in fact, than it would take to sit through GotD.
Re Cutscenes… you did warn me, but seriously, you could watch Top Gun… TWICE… in the time it takes to get through them. And I’m only up to level 4.
Hello Dave, re the special effects “which were, no doubt, amazing at the time”, Classic Who throughout its entire history suffered from very tight budgets as the BBC at various points couldn’t make up their collective minds as to what they actually wanted from the show or indeed if they even wanted it at all. This undoubtedly did often affect the overall quality of the finished product with hardly ever enough time or money to achieve decent production values, sort out scripting (rather than writing) issues satisfactorily, achieve half way decent effects; even studio time was budgeted tightly with many scenes having to be acted out in one or two takes max! Having said all of that, ‘Genesis’ IMO is proof that despite all of these issues, some great work could still be achieved, largely because this particular story successfully introduces an interesting & credible (as far as these things go!) back story for the Daleks which has often been referenced down the years. By the way, the saving grace of the Easter special WAS Michelle Ryan in a catsuit & nothing you can say will convince me otherwise…