Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

4,411 profile views
  1. When you're playing Gran Turismo or Forza, with the photo modes, garages, customization and endless car-porn loading screens, sure, the makes and models of cars might matter if you're into that sort of thing. When you're playing Outrun, you get about a second to think about it before you're hurtling down the road. It's a sporty-looking box with wheels after that. Somebody please make Outrun 3.
  2. Fairly interesting BBC article today that covers some of this topic ... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-51502519
  3. I try not to be a grumpy old man about this sort of thing, but yeah, I remember the pop charts of my teenage years containing a decent mix of pop, rock, soul, hip-hop, singer-songwriter stuff, and sometimes even a bit of country or metal. And I could happily listen to almost all of it. Seems bizarre now.
  4. No, I'm not "worried" about it, it was just something that I had noticed, and couldn't really put my finger on why it was. I know that bands are alive and well in clubs and venues up and down the land, but the once steady stream of bands that "make it" has dried up. I think route 1 for fame these days is YouTube, which is a lot easier to do solo. Yeah, I was kinda using the word "pop" in it's original sense of "popular", rather than the "modern, lightweight and disposable" sense. Even when they were emulating Chuck Berry, they were still popular.
  5. Yeah, I guess when the artist's cut of the already-meagre profits is so low, who wants to split it 4+ ways? This is presumably why you're lucky to get change out of £100 if you want to see any current superstars "live", as this is now their primary income. I agree with all that, but what else exists as a barometer of popularity apart from the pop charts? My main query was why popular music has very noticeably become the domain of the individual rather than the group/band ... but then I had a thought and looked further back, and the very first pop charts (1950-1960ish) are once again stuffed with individuals, backed by anonymous session musicians, much like today. The dominance of bands seems to have been a ~30 year spell that started around the time of the Beatles (understandable, everyone jumping on a bandwagon). I guess that should be viewed as a phenomenon rather than a baseline that we've deviated from.
  6. I suppose the sharp decline of bands in the pop charts DOES seem to start around the turn of millennium, when the Pop Idol stuff started taking over telly. Can't really think of why though. Video now has a more intrinsic link with modern pop music: it's probably a sad fact that most people's primary listening device has a screen. The charts have historically always contained a songs from a few so-so male singers that have coaxed the cash out of young lady's purses with their good looks, so these days, when window shopping counts as a sale, who's looking at musicians? And is the increasing acceptability threshold of the amount of tits 'n' ass that you can put in a pop video contributing to that? I expect all these things play a part, but mainly, it's probably just like @davidcotton there says: the types of music that it takes a band or group to produce are generally not that popular with today's generations ... but again, I can't really think why that is. The last time I can remember that bands were a really dominant force in the world of pop music was about a quarter of a century ago with mid-90s Britpop, and even that didn't last long, coming after several years of DJ/dance/techno dominance. Maybe it's just a technology thing: it used to take a band to sound good, now it takes an iPad.
  7. Popular music today seems crammed with individuals. I just skimmed through the top 40 and I was lucky if I saw ten entries that weren't just the name of a person, maybe featuring some other person. For all I know, the other ten might've been individuals using pseudonyms, but I couldn't be bothered checking. Going back ten years at a time from today, I counted 11 (2010), 19 (2000), 22 (1990), 28 (1980) and 25 (1970). I know that there are still loads of bands out there, but they don't seem to be as popular with the public as they used to be, or maybe the labels aren't interested in signing and promoting bands any more? Why is it? Presumably it's a money thing? I imagine it's cheaper for a label to put together some simple track on a DAW for a carefully selected sexy young singer to warble over than to get four or five musicians into a studio with their equipment and interpersonal issues. So rllmuk ... whatever happened to the pop band?
  8. I had this discussion with a friend the other day, talking about Celeste. I enjoyed Celeste for a while, but it quickly became a test of how well you could input the correct precise sequence of movements of button presses to navigate each screen, like Guitar Hero on platforms. My main complaint was that, with other platform games, if you make a mistake, there is often some scope for recovery or improvisation, but Celeste very quickly surrounds you with instadeath thorns/ectoplasm/lava/whatever, so it's a one shot deal each time. I didn't really feel like there was a lot of that in Ori, certainly not enough to piss me off.
  9. I played "Pneuma: Breath Of Life" a couple of months ago. Decent puzzles, but my character kept wittering on like an idiot, so I turned him off in the audio options. There may have been some deep meaning to the game that I missed out on, but I was happy to take that risk.
  10. The ratio of actual gameplay to downtime (waiting for lobbies to fill, waiting to respawn, post-game report screens, etc) in multiplayer games annoys the hell out of me. Also, as mentioned above, I always feel that it doesn't really matter how good I get, I'm inevitably going to be fodder for the top ranked players who are there 12 hours a day, with their mouse and keyboard and sci-fi-speed internet connection. With single player games, there is a static challenge laid down, and I can either get good enough to overcome the odds, or lose. I like that.
  11. Like a few others earlier in this thread, I gave up on this game after a couple of hours of headscratching. I solved a few of the early cases but then just couldn't get enough concrete info to progress. But then, I found myself thinking about it all through the night. There MUST be something I was missing. Went back the next day, made a few connections, and bam, I was hooked. I think gaming the "match three" system is a perfectly valid way to play. You'd need to have some Columbo-level eye for detail to pick up everything. For example, in one scene, a character shouts at another character by name, but there is only a vague hint as to which of the nearby characters he is shouting at. I tried following the logical "chain of events" for several of them to narrow down which one it could possibly be. The Eurogamer review describes it as "murder mystery Suduko", and that totally nails it. Some of the things I missed were: There were also a couple of things that threw me (I'll spoiler these, but I don't think they are actual "solution" spoilers):
  12. Series 9 was a very good series ... but series 10 might not be on Dave ...
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.