Grand Theft Auto 4: Key Facts Review

GTA4 is a Modern Classic; still as playable and fun as when it was first released.

Gameplay: This is one of the few games that is easy to pick up and play at any time, whether you want to be drawn into storyline and missions/side missions or whether you want to just fire it up and go on a murdering spree. The controls are responsive, with an innovative aiming system (where auto-aim locks onto the middle of an enemy's body, leaving it to you to aim for their head, legs, groin etc) and fun driving. The cars handle more realistically than the arcade controls of the previous games, which initially leaves you feeling like you're driving a bus. Stick with it though and you'll very quickly be able to weave flawlessly in and out of traffic.

Graphics: For a game towards the end of the honeymoon period of the PS3, this is absolutely gorgeous. The amount of detail in the environment, cars and inhabitants is pretty amazing. Unlike previous games, your vehicle now reacts directly to collisions, rather than showing the same damage model regardless of where the car was hit. Graphical glitches are very, very few and far between, and don't detract from the overall feel of the game.

Sound: Although the GTA series has many strongpoints, by far its strongest ally has always been the sound and music. Real DJs offer up music you would most likely have listened to in 2008, on a variety of different radio stations. The scripts of the call-in and debate shows are truly hilarious, poking fun at just about every section of American Culture, from liberal to conservative and everything in between. This is particularly ironic considering this is a game developed by Rockstar North in Scotland!

Multiplayer: For the first time in a Rockstar North-developed GTA, online multiplayer is available. This covers all the basics with deathmatch and team deathmatch, along with fantastic themed games such as "Cops and Robbers", where Robbers need to escape the city whilst cops need to kill the criminals. Another interesting mode is free mode, where you and a bunch of people can just go around the city causing havoc or generally doing what you want. It is often fun to enter this mode when you're just messing about in the game, as it gives that social element to digital anarchy.

Overall: If you don't own this game, then where on the planet have you been hiding? This is exceptionally well made and one of the first truly "blockbuster" games. For many hours of fun for the rest of your life, this is an amazing investment.

Get it now!

Welfare Cuts? Do We Need Cuts?

Fitting poster. Though I'm not advocating a Labour Vote.

Warning: Before you excommunicate me, I'm playing Devil's Advocate here. An interesting game; but no Playstation Network trophies.

"No to all cuts!" many protestors say. It's an argument that irritates me a little. If we were to trust the government's figures (OK, that's stretching it a bit), and we really have run out of money, then for me it is an argument that doesn't really work.

If I borrowed £5000 from a reputable credit card company (or Cash Convertors at least), and after the first year of payments stated quite clearly to them that I didn't want to pay my debt anymore because I didn't accept the lifestyle change, I'd probably get laughed at and a hefty court bill. I don't see why national budgets or borrowing should be any different. Even if the danger of our deficit is constantly being over-inflated by the coalition.

It is where these cuts lie, however. For me to agree to any budget that includes cuts, the cuts need to fall equally on the entire population. If my income and benefits are going to be reduced because of a cap on benefits, or an increase in tax, then I would expect that the same burden be applied to everyone on every income. I would fully expect taxes or other burdens to increase so that, as a population, it would result in us all across the income spectrum (as far as possible) gaining an increased income of no more than, for example, 2%. If I knew the head of Barclays Bank was having the same proportion of income reduced as me, I'd sleep much better at night.

What we see, however, is tax on the highest incomes reduced while these tax increases and benefit caps are inflicted on the poorest. We are quite blatantly not in it all together. And this is further compounded by the wealthiest, such as the owners of these international banks, are the ones that caused this financial mess all those years ago.

Add onto this the fact there are many areas this government could be cutting or raising money from, and this obsession with "scroungers" and "benefit cheats" makes you wonder if there is more at work here. Although to be honest I don't think our leaders are that intelligent; they just want to look hard on fraud so Daily Mail readers are more likely to vote for them. To be fair, about 2 million people read the Daily Fail, so I suppose you can't blame them.

Disclaimer: I do not actually get in the habit of taking loans out from Cash Convertors.

Welfare Cuts? Do We Need Cuts?

Fitting poster. Though I'm not advocating a Labour Vote.

Warning: Before you excommunicate me, I'm playing Devil's Advocate here. An interesting game; but no Playstation Network trophies.

"No to all cuts!" many protestors say. It's an argument that irritates me a little. If we were to trust the government's figures (OK, that's stretching it a bit), and we really have run out of money, then for me it is an argument that doesn't really work.

If I borrowed £5000 from a reputable credit card company (or Cash Convertors at least), and after the first year of payments stated quite clearly to them that I didn't want to pay my debt anymore because I didn't accept the lifestyle change, I'd probably get laughed at and a hefty court bill. I don't see why national budgets or borrowing should be any different. Even if the danger of our deficit is constantly being over-inflated by the coalition.

It is where these cuts lie, however. For me to agree to any budget that includes cuts, the cuts need to fall equally on the entire population. If my income and benefits are going to be reduced because of a cap on benefits, or an increase in tax, then I would expect that the same burden be applied to everyone on every income. I would fully expect taxes or other burdens to increase so that, as a population, it would result in us all across the income spectrum (as far as possible) gaining an increased income of no more than, for example, 2%. If I knew the head of Barclays Bank was having the same proportion of income reduced as me, I'd sleep much better at night.

What we see, however, is tax on the highest incomes reduced while these tax increases and benefit caps are inflicted on the poorest. We are quite blatantly not in it all together. And this is further compounded by the wealthiest, such as the owners of these international banks, are the ones that caused this financial mess all those years ago.

Add onto this the fact there are many areas this government could be cutting or raising money from, and this obsession with "scroungers" and "benefit cheats" makes you wonder if there is more at work here. Although to be honest I don't think our leaders are that intelligent; they just want to look hard on fraud so Daily Mail readers are more likely to vote for them. To be fair, about 2 million people read the Daily Fail, so I suppose you can't blame them.

Disclaimer: I do not actually get in the habit of taking loans out from Cash Convertors.