The premise is simple: you play a spiky yellow blob who, after a life of being prodded and poked and experimented on, escapes his scientist captors and takes his revenge upon the world. As the blob, your goal is to jump about each stage consuming everything you can in order to grow large enough to eat the obstacle blocking your way from the next level. Oh – and there are some blobby friends to rescue along the way.

Comparisons to the Katamari Damacy series are valid; however, Blobs manages to differentiate itself by implementing some different gameplay mechanics. Firstly, it’s a straightforward 2D platformer as opposed to a 3D “roll-’em-up” – you simply jump from platform to platform “absorbing” items you touch. Secondly, you aren’t inundated with objects that you can digest – each level contains just enough to get you to the size you need to be.

There isn’t really much more to the game, to be honest. Later on you can use a magnetism skill to attract or repel yourself from purple-glowing metal objects, and there are some objects that need to be manipulated by use of the touchscreen, but at its most basic, this is a simple platformer – and a well-made one at that.

Controls are spot-on, and the physics of the blob itself have been tweaked to make the game feel just that little bit more FRUSTRATING – it has a tendency to bounce when it comes into contact with an object and roll slightly when you land. While these may seem like criticisms, they are really what makes the game so damned fun – a great platformer SHOULD be slighty frustrating.

Levels are short and not overly taxing, but for the most part, they are extremely satisfying. Within every environment (there are six overall, including the “College” and “Town”), there are about 5 levels – one of which is a top-down labyrinth-style game, which is controlled using the Vita’s gyroscope. They do break up the monotony somewhat, but tend to be less enjoyable than the platform levels.

From a design perspective, the game is just gorgeous. It feels like a tacky 50’s sci-fi, and it has the same kind of humour to go along with it – and the last level is just a scream. Further, it’s one of those titles that doesn’t shy away from the fact that it is just a game – the edges of the screen fade away to resemble an old-fashioned CRT TV, and there’s even one level that’s made to look like it’s being played out on a Game Boy… or something similar.

But all of that said, it’s not perfect. Levels feel sparse – as I mentioned earlier, levels don’t contain much more than what you need to get by, and most of it is within reach. In some ways you just feel like you’re just doing the motions in order to get to the next level. However, it still manages to be fun, and is a great example of excellent game mechanics. Further, there are times when you need to go from button presses to touch screen controls in quick succession, and this causes a great deal of unnecessary frustration – it’s only rare (two or three times in the whole game), but it’s noticeably annoying. And as a final complaint – it’s short. It’ll take only 3 or 4 hours to get through all of the levels, and I have to admit I was a little surprised that there was nothing to unlock… It’s just the main game, and that’s it.

But you know what? That’s all it needs. Simply based on how much I enjoyed those four hours, Blobs was well worth the $12 asking price. In fact, I would have paid more, it was THAT fun to play. Beyond that – it looks great, and it’s the first game in a long while that I really want to complete in its entirety (this means getting a gold star on every level and collecting all of my little friends). Considering I’m a compulsive non-completionist, that’s saying a lot. Best launch game? Perhaps not – but it’s pretty close.

And this? This was one of them. Released only on arcade and Dreamcast originally, Capcom vs SNK: Millenium Fight 2000 (developed by Capcom) – to my knowledge, at least – came and went somewhat quietly.Then again, I wasn’t an avid fan of either Capcom or SNK at the time, so perhaps I just missed it.

With characters from Capcom titles (Street Fighter) battling characters from SNK (King of Fighters), players could select a team of one to four characters from multiple streams (weighted depending on overall strength), and could select fighting rules according to “grooves” (either an SNK groove based on KoF ’94 – ’98 or a Capcom groove based on SF Alpha). Yes – it was overcomplicated, and I’m sure my lazy explanation above did  nothing to help you, but it doesn’t matter. None of the finer details meant anything to me, at least.  I simply choose a couple of characters, and fought valiantly (I like the odd fighting game, but I’m no pro).

The main game utilises an isometric view, and you can direct your team either individually, or as a whole, depending on how you think the mission is best tackled. The game plays itself out in real-time as you navigate your team around the city streets looking for your target.

The beauty, though, lay in the detail – not only could you choose which operatives to send out (from a list), but you could also choose what equipment each individual took on the mission, or even what cybernetic enhancements each individual had applied (to make them faster, more accurate, etc.). On top of this, you could invest some of your earnings into researching various technologies (primarily weapons and cybernetic enhancements), which injects a kind of RPG quality into the title.

Essentially an on-rails shooter, you control a computer avatar in cyberspace, shooting down foes to eventually take down the enemy AI. It’s a beautiful-looking game, everything is “drawn” in polygons, giving the title a very retro, kind of Tron-style feel. The interesting gameplay element that has been included here is a method by which you “tag” enemies before you take them down (so shooting is somewhat more detached or passive).

The music that accompanies the game involves some sublime electronic beats, which are supplemented by your actions within the game. Everything you do, every foe you tag, every bullet you fire and target you hit will cause the game to produce a sound – which ingeniously synchronises with the in-game music. In this way, Mizuguchi somewhat achieves his goal for synaesthesia. In fact, he also created a … ahem … vibrating peripheral to go along with the title. Essentially just a vibrating box that players could put in their pocket or… wherever… so they could feel the game as much as they heard and saw it.

OK – it only works to a degree, and it can be argued that it’s more synchronicity than synaesthesia, but still, it can be fairly mind-blowing when it all comes together…

Even given its short lifespan, the Dreamcast still enjoys a cult following – games such as Crazy Taxi, Jet Grind Radio, and Shenmue are considered some of the best titles ever released on a retro console (I said SOME OF, not THE best, so keep your opinion to yourself, people!)… Soul Calibur is such a good conversion it’s considered by many to be the best game released on the Dreamcast. It was really that good, and the quality of the titles is evident from the second you run up the machine.

Beyond that? It was the first machine to have an inbuilt modem, and the first to connect to an online network for gaming (and as such, a precursor to services such as Xbox Live). It had a fairly revolutionary controller for the time, with a very interesting memory card – it was itself a kind of game controller. And if that’s not enough to convince you of how awesome it was, there are STILL some independent developers making games for it (not so many these days, but it is a much-loved machine). I simply HAD to get one.

Why did I buy this?

One of Brian Crecente’s last posts at Kotaku was regarding whether or not the PS Vita was outdated or not. It’s a good read, so I encourage you to give it a look over, but the general consensus is that… it’s probably not outdated, but it might not be different ENOUGH to compete in this modern society – particularly given the success of mobile platforms such as Android and iOS. That got me thinking – what DOES a new generation actually need, if not better-looking graphics and revamped controls (this is over-generalising the Vita’s specs, I know, but I’m working from a “topical intro” perspective here)?

What about the current generation?

Let’s take a quick look at the relative ages of the current-gen systems. Microsoft’s Xbox 360 was released at the start of 2006 (end 2005 to be very specific, but what’s the difference?), with Sony’s Playstation 3 and Nintendo’s Wii releasing a year later, making them 5-6 years “old” at time of writing this post. On release, both Sony and Microsoft agreed (for the purposes of this post, at least) that this gen was intended to last around 10 years.. If we take them at their word, we should expect a good 3-4 years before any new announcements are made. Of course, 10 years is a long time, and given the fact that console life cycles can overlap, that timeframe could be considerably shorter…

Then again, who’s to say they have any intention to stick to this timeline, particularly if market share is involved?

What drove the change at last generation?

Well, to be honest, it really looks like the change at last gen was really an upgrade in processing capabilities. The original Xbox and Playstation 2, while awesome for their time, were quite limited in terms of graphical competence, and were still using soon-to-be outdated CD/DVD technology. PS3 and X360, therefore, had far improved graphical and processing capabilities, and each company had taken a bet on a new format (Sony winning out with Blu-Ray in the end, while MS had luckily made the safe bet to provide HD-DVD only as an add-on). Of course, there were further additions – both were intended to be far more connected (in fact, both were intended to be “always connected”), both came with on-board storage, and both pioneered a new online marketplace/persistence – a place for “you” on their network, where you could interact with others, or just… spend money (yes, these did exist in some form in previous models, the new generation placed the focus directly on this aspect of the software). On top of all that, both came with wireless controllers as standard (although Xbox 360 did have a cheaper, wired model). So, in reality, while it could be said that many of the changes were not groundbreaking (in that you could already get wireless adapters for internet and controllers for last-gen consoles), overall, the changes were quite major.

Then there was Nintendo’s Wii. Seemingly always wanting to shake things up, Nintendo chose not to follow the status quo – for better or worse. They released a system with much lower technical capabilities, a clunky (by comparison) network/social platform, and a very, very different approach to control. In fact, Nintendo banked all their money on motion-controlled gaming. Unexpectedly, this really worked in their favour – the Wii dominated most markets for several years, before finally dropping off in 2010, and the reason for their phenomenal sales was based mainly on the fact that Nintendo targeted kids, families, and social gamers – an area their competition ‘neglected’, focusing mainly on hardcore gamers.

Not long after, both Microsoft and Sony released their visions for motion gaming – Sony’s Move controller was quite similar to the Wii Remote, but somewhat more accurate, while Microsoft’s Kinect was something new again – a camera that brought motion control into a controller-free environment, bringing voice control along for the ride.

So a lot has happened in the last 5 or 6 years, to be honest, and as a result, the playing field has really changed. Microsoft has evolved their system to something far different from what it was originally, Sony bolstered their already powerful system with more social features such as Playstation Home and Free Realms, and Nintendo? Well, they’ve announced the Wii U.

Wii U – heralding the next generation?

With Wii U, Nintendo appears to finally be joining the HD revolution, and are apparently targeting the hardcore gamer – at least moreso than the Wii was – and again, they are attempting to revolutionise the control form factor… by releasing a tablet controller with touch and camera capabilities, as well as the standard button layout. A bold move – and an interesting one. But a good idea? That’s yet to be determined. Apparently, they plan to renew their connectivity, but again, that remains to be seen (and given what they’ve done with 3DS, I’m not harbouring any high hopes).

Clearly, control and adding additional dimension to gaming is Nintendo’s vision of the future – but is it aligned to their competition?

Guided by technology… and voices. I guess.

I would argue that, yes, Microsoft and Sony will both revamp their controllers with the next generation, and it is likely they will come with some form of touch control, cameras, and microphones, but exactly how they go about it will be interesting to see (perhaps Sony’s angle is the PS Vita?). It would be folly to ignore Nintendo as they have in the past, but beyond that, it’s likely MORE important for them to continue focusing on their competitive strengths.

And what are their strengths? Well, both Sony and Microsoft are technology companies, with Microsoft being more software-oriented, and Sony more hardware-oriented – and it shows. Compare the navigation and social software of the Xbox to that of the Playstation. While the Playstation is fairly easy to use, and pretty (for the most part), I would argue that Microsoft’s software blows it away in terms of ease of use and GUI. But consider how well integrated Sony’s machine is – to DLNA-certified media servers, USB devices, TVs, you name it. In reality, I truly believe that each company will put more effort into their weaknesses here – the next Xbox will have strong software simply as a result of who Microsoft is, and for the same reason, the next Playstation will be technologically sound; however, Sony knows they need to improve certain aspects of their software (at least, that’s my assumption), and with Kinect, Microsoft has already made it clear as to where their focus lies.

Beyond that – what do we (as gamers) really need from a new generation of consoles? Arguably, the capabilities of both X360 and PS3 will compete favourably against Wii U, so why would we need a new generation? I like to think of this from a technological perspective.

Since the year 2000, think about how much the world has changed. The maturity of the Internet and the development of Web 2.0 has led to a more integrated, educated, and connected society. The iPod revitalised the music industry. The iPhone completely changed the way we see mobile phones (whether you like it or not, this is plain to see). The iPad has created a whole new genre of product – a luxury item focused on media consumption (this is not a bad thing, believe me). Amazon’s Kindle (as well as the iPad) has changed the print industry. And all of this leads in one direction – digital distribution. “Cloud” provisioning. The interconnectivity of devices. Portability of functionality. All of this is where the world is heading – and it is entirely my belief that this is where the next generation of video game consoles ALSO needs to head.

I saw a post recently outlining a potential Microsoft patent for a game console that includes a PVR, and this makes perfect sense. Future consoles, in my opinion, need to provide the same kinds of services that Apple’s iProducts already provide (and Google’s Android products are starting to provide). And more beyond that. Why do we need yet another console, when we could have a system that does SO MUCH MORE. Something that not only records Satellite TV, but can also access TV via subscription or purchase, and in the same way, movies, music, and the Internet. Nintendo takes the position that they are making a games machine and that’s all it needs to be, but the lack of DVD playback capabilities on the Wii at launch was considered an oversight by critics. Of course, there are those that would argue that we don’t NEED all this additional functionality for the next generation, but I beg to differ – how many people out there would REALLY fork out another $500-$1000 for simply an upgraded Xbox? I think even I would find it a difficult purchase to justify, and I tend to snap things up on release.

It wouldn’t be the first time such additional functionality has been attempted, though. Sony’s attempt, the PSX – released in Japan at the same time as the Playstation 2 – was essentially a PS2 with a DVR, but its high price meant it sold very poorly. I would also argue that it was released at a time when DVR’s weren’t really appreciated by society at large, and for this reason, I think it was probably before its time.

And that time is now. So in some ways I WOULD suggest that we are ready for a new generation, provided it allowed us access to the digital world at large, and provided it could integrate with our PCs and mobile devices (yes, these systems SHOULD integrate with iPhones and iPads – at least via AirPlay). And also provided the method of navigation is simplified – something I think Microsoft has been planning for sometime, and something I assume the next iteration of Kinect will provide, with improved motion and voice detection. However, there is something underlying all of this, something very important, and something that drives my argument that no, we are not quite ready for a new generation.

And perhaps it’s not what you think. I can read your mind, I can hear you voice in my head. You’re thinking, “Greg, that’s all fine and good, but can’t the current gen do all of that already?” – and you’d be right. To some extent, it can, and yes, that’s one impediment, but the reality is – all of this has simply been provided by software improvements, and if Apple has taught me anything, it’s that REAL improvement in technology requires the integration of hardware and software, and in this case, the hardware was not intended to support these features, so I do believe the next iteration will provide a vast improvement.

So what is this impediment that I have alluded to? It’s actually quite separate to the consoles themselves, and is likely an impediment to technology as a whole, and not just video games – and that’s the existing network infrastructure. At least in Australia, many individuals just don’t have the speed or bandwidth required to support this kind of reliance on streaming, downloading, and provisioning. It just wouldn’t work. That’s not to say that it couldn’t be released now, but the reality is, if many of your users can’t access the functionality, it’s hard to sell.

This is a long post.

I guess in summary, given that the next generation is quite likely to live on until 2020, a little forward thinking is required. Considering we are currently on the cusp of what I believe to be a technological revolution (of sorts), I don’t think it should be taken lightly. In fact, the wheels of change have been turning for a few years now – it just takes time for people to sign up. But bearing in mind that sales of digital music finally overtook the sales of physical albums in 2011, it would appear that the general public is starting to get it. And just look at the sales of digital downloads of video games – I would assume that many gamers ALREADY get it.

The next generation can’t just be an improvement in processing power; it can’t just include deeper Facebook and Twitter integration (well, by this I really mean that it needs advanced social networking and sharing features); it can’t just have improved integration with other technologies; it can’t (potentially) provide the capacity to provide mobile gaming; it can’t just have an improved camera and microphone; it can’t just have a funky new controller; it can’t just have a new marketplace – it has to have ALL of these things. And more besides.

Updated: Five minutes after I publish this post, I come across this one… Sigh. Let the speculation begin! (That said, I do stand by my contention that the next gen does require the above to last until 2020 – if these rumours are true, I’ll be hoping with every fibre of my being that the gaming gods are listening, and everything I’ve listed above is presented at the keynotes.)

Anyway, this is one that has come up fairly often recently – which was a surprise to me, as I thought it was a fairly straightforward concept. Turns out I’m just a nerd who spends too much time on the Internet. As a result, I decided it might be a good topic to take a brief and general look over, in the hope that the average Joe might better understand how these services will make life easier. Click through if the terms iCloud and iTunes Match mean nothing to you.

iCloud

Let’s start with the parent product – iTunes Match is really a function of iCloud after all (however, I don’t want to confuse things, so don’t spend too much time on that statement)…

Essentially, iCloud is a new way that Apple provides the same services they provided in the past – and this is intended to make your life easier. Where in the past you would maintain your contacts (and emails and calendar and apps and documents) on your device, and backup to your PC whenever you remembered to, iCloud saves everything to a little corner of the Internet. It’s (supposedly) a secure corner that’s set aside just for your information. This way, you can point your iPhone, or iPad, or iPod, or PC/Mac to this corner of the Internet, and ALWAYS be up-to-date, regardless of what device you are using (changes on one device are immediately reflected on another).

What this means is that you will never have to sync to a PC to ensure your contacts are identical on both your iPad and iPhone. Your calendar is always accurate, and so on. Beyond this, iCloud can also backup your device to this corner of the ‘net, which means that if you LOSE your iPhone, you can immediately restore this backup to a new phone, and lose virtually nothing.

On top of this, if you are using your iProduct for documents, they can also be saved to the ‘net and available at any time – of course, this requires additional applications, but the fact you can edit a document on your iPad, and then pick up where you left off on your PC without the need to plug anything in and copy across would be valuable to a lot of people, I’d wager.

Further, there is Photo Stream. All photos taken on your device are saved to your internal storage (as per usual), but the most recent 1000 photos are also saved to your corner of the ‘net. This makes your photos available to all of your iDevices regardless of where the photo was taken (take a photo on your iPhone, look at it instantly on your iPad or PC/Mac). This is very useful for people such as myself, who NEVER took photos on my phone simply because I just couldn’t be bothered transferring them to my PC – now it happens automatically.

In essence, iCloud automates all those little tasks that are central to mobile devices, and in many ways, it’s fairly imperceptible. I guess some users will take iCloud for granted – particularly as they likely never synced, backed up, or really used these functions in the past. Which is sad, because smart phones are SO much better when used the way they were intended (be they iPhone or Android).

What if I only have one device?

Well… I guess it depends. iCloud is free, after all – you aren’t paying for the service. The fact your device can be backed up automatically should be the driving factor behind your decision to use iCloud – at the very least it will be easy to replace a lost or stolen phone. On top of that, I personally place a lot of value on Photo Stream, as I can now take as many photos as I like, and know they will all be saved to the HDD on my PC without me having to do a single thing – and I can also show them all on my iPad, if need be, without any trouble. For me, I find all of iCloud a lifesaver, and paticularly because I’ve tried to do all of it manually in the past. For others, it may not really make much of an impact on their everyday life, but it WILL simplify things, regardless of whether you actually notice it or not…

What about the fact Apple has control of my data?

Sure, this is a valid question, and I guess you need to think about what that means to you. The reality is, Apple does not OWN your data, nor can it actually ACT on your data, but in the same way, they are not responsible if someone manages to hack your data (the choice to use iCloud is yours and yours alone – it is not forced on you).

Personally, I trust that Apple has done everything that is required of them to maintain security of their data centre, but I agree that it is likely only a mater of time. Then again, it’s more than likely that all of the same kind of information is already all over the Internet, so what are you really afraid of? My contacts and emails are already handled by Google. My conversations are handled by multiple parties. My photos and personal information are kept with facebook and Picasa. My credit card details are … in many various places across the ‘net. I just feel that using this as an argument not to use iCloud is a bit pointless and defeatist, but there are many people out there that find this a great concern. My feeling is that it’s not Apple I need to worry about, but hackers – and hackers aren’t targeting me directly. But I’m pretty vigilant in regards to my bank accounts, so I guess I keep one eye open…

The reality is – the second you do anything on the Internet… The second you connect to the Internet – you’re screwed. Your files may be safe on your little HDD on your PC, but a hacker can get in there and liberate them quite easily. Oh, you use the latest Trend Micro or Norton Antivirus/IPS? Guess what – Sony was using the latest ENTERPRISE version of McAfee when they were hacked last year – EVERY business that gets hacked is using the latest “insert product name here” – and super expensive hardware to boot. You are not safe unless you disconnect. So I say… screw it. Jump aboard and see what happens. I truly believe you’ll be fine as long as you know what information you’re sharing, and where – that way you know what to pull the plug on. Then again, there are a lot of people out there that just don’t get that…

Anyway, end rant.

iTunes Match

OK, iTunes Match – essentially, this is iCloud for your music. With the release of the iPod in the early 2000’s, Apple has taken the music world by storm, and in reality, provided a great deal of value to the music industry (feel free to agree or disagree – but the fact is, iTunes gave digital distribution the kick-start that it needed). But regardless of the success of iTunes, it still did not compare with the apparent success of P2P sharing and piracy. Now, in the onset of a new digital age, what can the industry do with all of that?

While it was only a matter of time before Apple released their cloud music platform, it was unclear as to what shape it would take. The fear was that Apple would only honour music purchased legitimately on their platform. However, in order to compete with Amazon and Google – who both had music storage/streaming options, as well as the subscription models (Rhapsody/Pandora/Spotify), Apple really couldn’t afford to do so – and to be honest, I don’t think it was ever on the cards.

So what iTunes Match does is scan your iTunes library, and matches all of your songs against the ever-growing list of available songs on iTunes. In essence, everything you have in your library that exists in iTunes will be made available to all of your devices for the cost of a yearly subscription. All of your music that does not exist in iTunes? Well, that needs to be uploaded, but once that has been done, these songs will ALSO be available to all of your devices (for me, it was about a third of my music collection, and yes, it has taken a while to upload, but I’m on a slooooow connection).

It’s essentially music storage for up to 25000 songs, and all of these songs are almost instantly available on any iDevice. For me, I now have access to all of my music on my iPhone. Music that is not stored on your iDevice is promptly downloaded to it, and the song begins to play while downloading – it’s actually quite seamless.

But what if I don’t want that song on my iPhone after I download it?

Yep – the reality is, this isn’t a streaming service, it’s a hosted storage subscription, and I’m OK with that. There’s some manual maintenance required – getting close to filling up your device? Well, you’ll need to delete… song by song (as yet, there appears to be no batch delete for music). I don’t think it’ll be a huge issue, for me at least – I will still work by playlist (yes, I’ve learned to love playlists), and I’ll only download the odd song that catches my interest. I will just need to keep an eye on my capacity and clear my music from time to time. A pain in the ass, for sure, but just knowing that all of my music is now safely backed up off site is peace of mind enough – and compared to how it was previously? It’s barely a pain in the ass at all.

Isn’t this using up my data plan?

Yes, silly! If you aren’t connected to WiFi, ANYTHING you do over the ‘net is using up your data plan! So while it may seem really useful to download music on an ad hoc basis, it may not be the best idea long-term… Keep an eye on your 3G data usage…

Some users may not see the value in iTunes Match as a product, but I know I do, and Apple certainly does – which is why they charge for iTunes Match and not for the rest of iCloud (US$25/yr AUS$35/yr – rest of world, google). Personally, it’s a no brainer – my music is backed up, and it’s now ALL available to me at any time I should desire. Do I feel like listening to Sir Mixalot now? Why OK, that’s up there in iCloud. What about Eddie Murphy “Party All the Time”? That’s there too, but no thanks, that song sucks. And for me, $35 per year is a bargain… but I have a lot of music, so it makes sense to me.

Summary of ramblings

So… What does this all mean for the user? Well, it depends on whether you actually use your smartphone as a smartphone, or just as a phone. If you just use it to send messages, make calls, send the odd email and play a game from time to time… well… Perhaps you won’t notice iCloud. Truth is, to some degree, it might even confuse you and get in your way (you damned simpleton – how do you even navigate the Internet? jks ;))

However, if you actually rely on your smartphone as your personal organiser, where you keep a lot of the info you need from day-to-day, as well as keep track of where you need to be, well, you should probably look into what you need to do to set up and (importantly) maintain iCloud.

And lastly, if you use the music function on your iProduct at all, and the majority of your music collection at home is digital (mine is ENTIRELY digital, but I know many MANY people who are yet to let go of their precious CDs), then iTunes Match is a must. Bite the bullet and spend the dollars – it’s really not that much if you can afford an iPhone… *cough*

Essentially, the game is what has been referred to as a tube shooter, whereby a player, controlling a spaceship, sits at the edge of a set (totally) tubular environment, and tries to stay alive as long as possible while fending off the invading hordes of invading invaders (yeah, I kind of gave up there – see the video below for an example of gameplay).

Why did I get this anyway?

Not only is Tempest 2000 on Jaguar considered the best version of Tempest 2000 available, it is also considered the best Jaguar game – I’ve been advised on several occasions that I could not buy a Jaguar without getting Tempest 2000. Thus, I simply had to get it. I had no choice… no choice at all.

Likely impact (on release)

Again, it was extremely well received – the Wikipedia page notes that it was EGM’s Game of the Month on release, and was also voted best Jaguar game in the same year (by the same publication). It’s fairly sharp looking, not to mention colourful, and the inclusion of the “Traditional” mode demonstrates the simplicity of the original as opposed to the updated version. Above all, though, it’s fun, and is considered by many to be ‘classic Minter’.

Current impact: Has it aged well?

Oh yes. Classic arcade titles generally always play well, and this 20-year-old update of a classic is a classic in itself, so it plays doubly well (if you get my drift). Both Traditional mode and Tempest 2000 modes are extremely fun to play, and it just seems like they got the pacing and difficulty oh-so-perfectly right. Classic title, classic fun, and it still looks and sounds great (the tune is still fairly pumping, although techno beats have evolved somewhat in recent years).

Overall – is it worth collecting?

If you grab a Jaguar, you would be remiss to miss out on this one. It’s a classic, it’s fun, and it’s certainly one of the best Jaguar games I’ve played. A must buy.

It’s also worth noting that fans have created guides to building your own ‘spinner’ controller, so as to more closely appropriate the original arcade control. It can be said that D-pads are not the most satisfying method of controlling a Tempest title, but it still works well enough for my liking. Plus, I’m too lazy to even give the spinner a go.

Well… What can you say about Nintendo’s Game Boy that people don’t already know? Nothing, I guess… Released in 1989 (yeah, I know), Game Boy was extremely well recieved. Even though, by today’s standards, it’s big, has a small monochrome LCD screen (which is not backlit, so it was impossible to play unless in perfect lighting conditions), kinda heavy, and took batteries, back then it was the right product at the right price, and it was released at the right time.

Intended to take the wind out of Atari’s sails (Atari also released the Lynx in 1989), Game Boy came with a copy of Tetris, and to this day this version would most likely top most people’s “best version of tetris” lists (generalising, I know). Game Boy became so damned popular that everyone seemed to have one, and this is where Nintendo started their now very common practice of simply updating handhelds from year-to-year as opposed to releasing a completely new system every other year (if you get my drift – and drift I did). It worked in their favour, and while there were no real standout classics on the original system (this is my opinion – I just can’t think of a single game I simply MUST have… suggestions welcome), it sold bucketloads, had a million titles released for it (not quite literally, but close), and the name “Game Boy” even replaced the common vernacular for ‘handheld gaming system’ for many years to come…

Why did I buy this?
Well… I never had one. I had an Atari Lynx (I’ll write something up on the Lynx one day, but only after I get another one), and I had plenty of mates with Game Boys, but I never had one myself, so I simply HAD to get one.

Truth is, I didn’t even buy this one, it was a birthday gift from an extremely thoughtful mate. Thanks!

Opinion
Uhhh… It’s a Game Boy. That in itself makes it awesome.

Actually – let me tell you a story. One of the reasons I got this little fella was to show my nephews what old-school gaming was like. You know, to let them know their roots. On one of my nephews’ 9th birthday, I took it over to his house to show him. The fact I couldn’t get it to run was bad enough, but his immediate response was “What the hell is that?” He showed a minor interest at first, but after a couple of seconds of fumbling about he said, “Actually, thanks Uncle Greg, but that looks boring. I’m gonna go play Wii.” Kids these days…

Recommendations for collectors
They are old, and they were well-loved. This means you can find them fairly easily and fairly cheaply, but BEWARE. Mine has very loose contacts, which makes for a bit of fun just getting the damned thing going. Keep in mind the screen may not be the same quality that it was originally, and it’s very likely the plastic has yellowed, and is likely scratched. You can, of course, track down reconditioned Game Boys – might be worth some extra dollars if you are actually keen to get your retro on with one of these bad boys.

What am I looking forward to?
I don’t know, really. Listening to that Tetris song again, that’ll be a blast… Maybe tracking down a few games I wanted as a kid (and for some reason Navy S.E.A.L.S keeps popping up in my memory), but all I really wanted was an original Game Boy on my shelf.