Blogdom

iPad

Wed, 27 Jan 2010 22:28:12 +0000

Yes after years of speculation, rumours and guesswork the iPad is here! And many are thinking “Yawn, it is just a big iPhone”. It sure looks like one, it is even used like one, but there are two key differences in software and hardware that make the iPad a device to watch.

Number one on the hardware side is the screen. 1024x768 is netbook resolution.
Number two for hardware is the ‘A4’ chip and the architecture, somehow the iPad gets 10 hours video playback on a single charge, or one month on standby.
Those to combined should make for some really dazzling apps, especialy games, but Apple has two showstoppers already in the app department.

iBooks makes other ereaders look rather anaemic with a full colour display, open source format (ePub) and the rather nifty flicking over the page touch.
iWork makes the iPad able to do anything I use my MacBook for, apart from playing Victoria: Revolutions.

And finally the big one - price. Here is the full chart:

Wi-Fi only (a/b/g/n)
$499 - 16GB, $599 - 32GB, $699 - 64GB
Wi-Fi, 3G & GPS
$629 - 16GB, $729 - 32GB, $829 - 64GB

For comparison a Dell Inspiron Mini 10 is RRP $799.99 it has the same size screen, does much of the same thing, has no GPS or 3G (though you could get a USB dongle), and runs XP (meaning it is woefully underpowered), is less portable and has no cool touch screen spiffyness.

So who will buy an iPad? Why would you want to if you already have an iPhone/iPod Touch and a laptop? Well currently netbooks have the highest volume sales in the PC market at the moment. Acer and others have been selling boatloads of them. That is who Apple are going after, their real competition, other computer manufactures. By going for the biggest market possible in which Apple has (or rather had) no product. The fact the iPad makes the Kindle, Nook etc. look rather redundant is just icing.

Star Trek Online

Tue, 26 Jan 2010 12:57:37 +0000

Herein lie my thoughts on Crypic’s upcoming Star Trek MMORPG, based on my experiences with the Open Beta (I have only gotten to Lt Cmdr in that time). In Star Trek Online you play a Starfleet (or Klingon) Captain, with your own ship and leading your own away teams. I am highly aware that my thoughts are coloured by the type of gamer I am (non-MMO, trad RPG, RTS, TBS, old school-FPS) many MMO players in the Beta hate on Star Trek Online.

The Good
✓ Character customisation is as rich and varied for both your Captain and your bridge officers, just as fully featured as the best RPG character creators. Even better you can access the same powerful tools any time you want from merchants.
✓ There a wide range of Federation and other races to choose from. There is even a ‘create your own’ tool for both sides allowing you to play who or whatever you want.
✓ Ships are highly customisable too, you can mix and match old and new style components, swap colours and add patterns.
✓ ‘Episode’ missions are just that; your own episode of Star Trek. Most are pretty good episodes to boot!
✓ The game feels like a RPG, yes there are other captains about, but there is very little of the MMO ‘grind for x number of y useless items’ or ‘everyone has done this already’. Indeed many Episodes are done solo.
✓ That said there is plenty of MMO style content as well, such a s PvP, PvE Fleet Battles, repeatable patrol missions etc.
✓ Teaming up is very easy, and most players act like a fleet on instinct, plus they feel like fellow Captains.
✓ Despite their unpleasable fanbase Cryptic have (I think) struck a happy middle ground in terms of balance and difficulty.
✓ There is a wide selection of ships available to you, unlockable as you are promoted, in three ‘classes’: Escorts, Cruisers and Science Vessels. There is nothing to stop you from owning a mix of vessels as changing ship is simple and (hopefully Crypic will honour the promise that) there is no skill cap, allowing you to Catain any type of ship equally well.
✓ Space Combat is a lot of fun, and very pretty.

The Bad
• Ground Combat is (for me) not fun. I am not a fan of ‘spam number buttons continuously’ style combat. Cryptic could have made ground combat (which is mostly done solo as far as I’ve seen) like Mass Effect (or Star Trek Elite Force), a strong over the shoulder shooter (albeit still with hotbar powers) with a cover system (that isn’t ‘hide behind the redshirt!’) Still I’d settle for an autofire option.
• Space Combat has an autofire function - but only for one forward and one rear weapon system. Why? At least make it one forward/rear weapon group.
• Some things are hard to find, you can scan around with your tricorder, but there doesn’t seem to be good integration of journal, map, minimap and what you see.
• Star Trek Online suffers from ‘You are not a high enough level to eat this cheese’ disease. Why can’t I use Mk V+ or higher weapons if I can afford (and bought) them?

The Ugly
Server issues have plagued the Beta, and I hope Cryptic fixes it for release, but you have been warned. This is the one thing that ruins the immersion and really reminds you that it is an MMO.

Oh also, there are a bewildering number and array of different versions and pre-order bonuses, subscription plans (and their bonus content), a Cryptic in game store (to buy cosmetic stuff with real money) all of which cost money. Why not have One version (with a collectors edition with some physical loot) and have all the bonus content in the Cryptic Store?

Conclusion
A fantastic Star Trek RPG that happens to be online, not with out its flaws, but fun nonetheless. Except ground combat.

Twilight Book Three: Eclipse (Part 0)

Sun, 17 Jan 2010 11:25:53 +0000

Today I went into Waterstone’s and bought the third book of the Twilight series, Eclipse.
Okay, this is going to need context.
It has been established in the past, both on my Twitter feed and a now-infamous YouTube video that I am… critical of the Twilight series. It has become something of a hobbyhorse, in fact, and I’m sure a lot of people are sick of it, though I fear they will get no solace here. Its faults are well established: it is considered to be poorly written, the characters are unlikeable and it is painfully pretentious and slow moving. It uses vampirism as an allegory for sex, which is portrayed more in keeping with Mormon values than as a useful lesson for teenagers. Above all the central relationship that is set up and described as most perfect and idealised form of love imaginable comes across as portrayed as dysfunctional, abusive and manipulative to many, including myself.
And lest we forget, this is series made vampires sparkle; thereby surgically removing all the coolness points they had accrued since Spike first crashed into the Sunnydale sign.
I suppose my original criticism was part of the whole trend of “Twilight-baiting” that goes on around the Internet. Partly it was because it seemed so reminiscent of my beloved Buffy, and I was puzzled why the Twilight fans did not simply watch Buffy. It was after watching the first Twilight film that the basis for my criticism changed from simply lamenting the series for making vampires rubbish to truly despising it for the maladaptive life-lessons it seeks to impart.
Certain individuals- good friends, who I’ve known since school and whose opinion I value highly- have called me out on this by suggesting that they way that the Twilight fanbase is attacked so mercilessly is unfair, and a tad hypocritical. It is after all a series that brings a lot of joy to a lot of young (and not-so young) people at a difficult time of their lives and in a state of emotional unease. I will not pretend that this argument did not strike a nerve, since (as these individuals well know) my own clunky adolescence was spent largely at the mercy of ignorant fools who taunted me because I liked Star Trek, Pokémon, in one particularly bizarre instance, Zelda. Not because these works were flawed- though at least two of them certainly are- but because I was seen to be part of a marginalised group, social lepers who gathered together to enjoy their deviant entertainments whilst the master race discussed the relative merits of Newcastle and Sunderland’s football squadrons.
I do not want to be the person who picks on a social group simply because they are different. Nor do I seek to be and- Hojo willing- I never will be. So I wish to make it clear that my criticism of the Twilight series is centred solely on the works themselves, and to an extent the warped mind of its creator, Stephanie “Insert Fic” Meyer. I offer no commentary on the Twilight fanbase. Some of them are, I think it is safe to say, unmitigated fruitcakes, but they are hardly the only fanbase with a lunatic fringe. Charles Manson believed that Paul McCartney was exhorting him to begin a race war, and some truly disturbed individuals perpetuated horrific crimes under the names Reno and Sephiroth.
But most Twilight fans are, I suspect, sane and well-adjusted individuals who happen to find escape in the love of Edward and Bella (or amusement in the awful writing), and know that their work is a fantasy, an idealised relationship they will (hopefully) never know. They don’t need defending from the big, bad internet bloggers, they are perfectly capable of ignoring us, countering us or calling us homos who will never know true love. More to the point, I don’t think that many of them are among the 64 people who at the time of writing subscribe to my Twitter feed. At any rate they are mature enough to distinguish literary criticism from personal attack. For those unfortunate few who genuinely believe Twilight presents a model for imitation, a critical perspective is even more important. They need to be made aware that real relationships, to quote Morbo, DO NOT WORK THAT WAY!
So I will continue to pay attention to Twilight, for the same reason I have Batman and Robin and Super Mario Bros and Fist of the North Star on DVD. For the same reason that the old serials of Doctor Who are worth watching. For the same reason I have seen Battlefield Earth no less than three times. Because they are entertaining. Because they are hilarious. Because they are so bad they’re good. Because to not make fun of them would constitute a missed opportunity.
But I will not open myself to accusations that I am criticising Twilight unfairly. If I am to continue making fun of it- and I dearly want to- I have to earn it. I must go into the desert of purple prose and underhanded sexism and hope to return a wiser and sadder man. I had hoped that watching both the Twilight films and reading the opening chapters of the books was sufficient, but apparently the God Hand require a greater sacrifice. That may well be my sanity- and Lords of Kobol protect us if I actually start to like the thing- but I shall pay it nonetheless.
I shall read Eclipse, the third book in the series, because I have seen the films and want to approach the story with no idea of where it is going. I shall meticulously record every specific instance where I fling the book at a wall. I hope to blog about it with my thoughts every few chapters, maybe every hundred words are so, as I go. And I have challenged my critics to do the same, for I am interested to see if we can accomplish a synthesis from the experience.
Any other soul brave or foolish enough to do the same is welcome to join me and provide their own commentary. The first chapter can be found on the she-devil Meyer’s website, but beyond that I cannot help you. Every man (and woman) must make this journey alone, though I hope we can meet along the way to provide solace and succour where it is needed.
If it is Jenova’s will I shall see you on the other side, my friends.

Is Bayonetta Sexist? Does it matter?

Sat, 16 Jan 2010 19:06:58 +0000

Is Bayonetta sexist? Does it matter?
I have not played Bayonetta for myself due to a combination of post-Yuletide pecuniary embarrassment and the ensuing mountain of games I need to play anyway. I fully intend to, but I am not entirely sure why. All reports suggest that it’s basically Devil May Cry with oestrogen added, and I gave up with DMC around the same time my chapel became invested with giant lava spiders.
I could make excuses that my interest in Bayonetta stems from its hype and its rave reviews, or that I’m intrigued by its bizarre cosmology, but in truth what makes Bayonetta more appealing than Devils of War is its central character. This need not be as seedy as it sounds, since I have a long standing, if psychologically revealing, practice of playing games as female characters when given the option. Partly it’s the feminist perspective that drives this article: as anyone who has seen Buffy (or any Joss Whedon property) it’s awesome watching girls kick arse. And there is possibly an element of the old joke that if one must stare at a polygonal posterior for ten or more hours, it might as well be worth staring at.
Which brings us back to Bayonetta. I don’t want to find such an obviously calculated avatar of male desires to be attractive, but I do. And I’m sorry. Maybe the guilt is part of it, but I do find Bayonetta attractive. I downloaded at least two wallpapers of her, and I am worried that there will be someone else in the room when they come up. Well down Platinum, Mission accomplished. I’d like to think I’m in a minority, but it seems unlikely. Damn Platinum for trying something so exploitative, and damn me for going along with it! Because I know I am being taken advantage of, and I should know better.
The reason for my discomfort is an underlying feeling that Bayonetta does not present women well but instead focuses on her sexuality. This is hardly unique to Bayonetta, of course, since I have also had to wrestle my perverse desire for say, Seras Victoria or Revy despite knowing full well I shouldn’t. Because they all presented largely for the titillation of the male audience. They can be- and are- developed, interesting and, yes, attractive characters in their own right, but their status as male fantasy figures undercuts the respect the audience should bestow upon them. Put simply, a female character does not need to be sexualised to be attractive, but if she can be, she probably will be, because sex sells.
Sex in games doesn’t bother me- if anything it is to be readily encouraged, both because as a legitimate art form it should have the right to the same tools as any other medium, and to undermine the lingering but misleading idea that games are for children and that it is inappropriate for them to deal with adult issues. The rather puerile way it is usually portrayed in practice- the threesomes of God of War spring to mind, no pun intended- is more alarming, but hopefully the subject matter will be treated more maturely in future. What concerns me more is the way that games like Bayonetta present women largely as sex objects. Admittedly Platinum do seem to have carried the sexualisation of Bayonetta to the point of parody, and in their defence it does seem to serve an artistic vision, even if that vision is “how over-the-top can we get away with”? That does not change the fact that it is a deliberate design choice or that Bayonetta’s sexuality has been exploited in marketing.
There have been several discussions on the example of Bayonetta that seem to crystallise into three opposing arguments:
i. Bayonetta is empowering.
ii. Bayonetta is demeaning and exploitative.
iii. It doesn’t matter; it’s just a game.
The first two arguments need not be discussed here, since an interested reader can follow them at their leisure. My own feelings currently towards the second view that, but I am probably being oversensitive. It is a little patronising of me to claim to act offended on behalf of all women everywhere ever, and even more patronising to suggest that players (children, manchildren, whomever) cannot tell the difference between the hyper-stylised fantasy of Bayonetta and a real woman. That would be he argument of a Jack Thompson or a Mary Whitehouse, and I would credit people with greater judgement than that.
Though without seeming too rude or disparaging the intelligence of others, those who argue that it doesn’t matter should- at the least- die in a fire. At most their ISP should cut them off, but such a punishment might seem extreme, and I do try to temper intellectual snobbery with mercy. Because it does matter. Not just to onanistic navel-gazers like myself, but because games are the fastest growing, most dynamic and possibly the most important medium of the twenty-first century. Moreover, they probably are more “harmful” than pornography- they damn well should be! They are more than just shallow aids for masturbation to be discarded after use like tissues or stiffened socks. They can move their audience to the same heights or depths of any art, and for good or for ill they can and should impart lessons on their audience that sticks with them their entire lives. And even games as mindless as Bayonetta are important because they will dispel the myth that games are for kids.
The problem is they won’t convince the world they are for adults. If games are to be taken seriously then it needs to be shown that they can create female characters that are characters, not cup-sizes and waist measurements. They need to show they have moved beyond adolescent preoccupations with mammaries and can sell product based on artistic merit, story and characterisation and not just because a digital Megan Fox is on the front cover in a bikini.
It might be suggested that other media is just as exploitative of the female form- god knows the real Megan Fox has been pimped out enough this past year despite having little discernible talent. The difference is that video games are still “on trial” by society at large. Film as a whole has passed the test, and because enough Citizen Kane’s exist people can overlook the endless avalanche of American Pie films. On the other hand some media have not passed, and are for now doomed to an immaturity ghetto, where fans of comics and anime are perceived as dateless freaks, in which women are “of course” treated like sex objects, because “those comic dorks and weeaboos could never get real women!”1 Games still face the danger of being characterised the same way as the last refuge of the terminally sad. Until the trial is over, they will have to be on their best behaviour, and Bayonetta is not helping the cause.
Yet it also isn’t harming it, and that is due to its obscurity. Which raises a final issue for concern: why is no one yelling at the top of their voice to get Bayonetta banned? I checked feminist blogs (yes, I read feminist blogs) who have plenty to say about Judy Nails’ boob-job in Guitar Hero III and conservative sites who daily call for the blood of Infinity Ward to be spilt on a black altar to resurrect Enoch Powell but are silent about Bayonetta, a buxom witch who kills angels by getting naked. And the conversation within the gaming community is surprisingly muted- a few blog posts and some expressions of discomfort on podcasts, but nothing major. No flame wars on NeoGAF led by ne-suffragettes and Spice Girl fans, as far as I am aware. The whole issue certainly pales compared to, say, the racism debate about Resident Evil 5. Maybe it should.
I should reiterate that I-of course- do not want Bayonetta banned. Censorship is never justifiable in my opinion, and I wouldn’t want to presume that I should tell anyone what they can and can’t play. Besides, I want to play it myself when I have the cash. But if there were calls to boycott it, it would produce a debate that would at least demonstrate that the gaming community takes sexism seriously, and that it wants to be taken seriously itself.
Then at least I could feel less guilty about putting “witches in underwear” into Google.2
1. I should probably note that I hope that comics and anime will also escape the stereotypes associated with them, but I am not hopeful.
2. Though the fact that I have fallen in love with Morrigan from Dragon Age makes that unlikely.

Dragon Age

Thu, 19 Nov 2009 15:56:44 +0000

Herein lies a review of Dragon Age: Origins, for reference I have competed the game (with a Dwarf Noble of course) and explored a few of the origin stories

The Good
• The Story - Although the basic plot, save the world from evil, is a familiar one Dragon Age crafts its plot beautifully well. It is very hard not to get drawn in
• The Characters - Dragon Age also presents a wide array of NPC’s for you to like, love and hate all of whom are interesting in their own right. You will also grow very attached to your own character!
• The World - Ferelden is rich in lore, you could spend hours exploring its backstory in the Codex
• The Pacing - With very few exceptions you always feel there is a sense of urgency and purpose to your adventuring, grinding is blessedly absent
• The Style - The graphics and designs work well together to make a pretty game, despite a few awful looking armours. It is very statisfying to kill big enemies...

The Bad
• The Combat System - I’ve never been a fan of the click for power, wait to recharge, click again style of gameplay & I just don’t have the will to fiddle with the combat tactics system. Being a fellow of simple tastes I like smashing things and much prefer a less detached combat system. That said I’m sure veteran tacticians will love it.
• The Glitches - Dragon Age is a big game, so glitches are inevitable, however one or two are glaring, such as my game refusing to let me talk to a party member. Hopefully these will all be fixed soon!

The Ugly
• Shameless pushing of DLC - As Penny Arcade observed there is an NPC who is essentially an advert for the Warden’s Keep. Who follows you, throughout the game, sitting in your camp with a big “I HAVE A QUEST” exclamation mark over his head. One of the dialogue options is ‘Go to Bioware Storefront’.

Conclusion - Go buy this game! At 50 odd hours a playthrough, with 6 origin stories you are looking at £30 ish for at least 100 hours of gameplay.

Kill! Maim! Burn!

Sat, 12 Sep 2009 18:39:00 +0100

When browsing GAME today I saw something that has sent me into a killfrenzy of possibly apocalyptic preportions: A Wii boxset of Rock Band: Beatles.

Quite apart from the inane drivel that is the Beatles and the shocking travesty that is their right to recieve an entire freaking game rather than just DLC and guitars, what really really annoys me is whichever looma brained frelnick in Nintendo/EA/Apple Corps got this piece of dren released in Europe, on the Wii, before Rock Band 2. You sir/madam suck. I hope Daemons eat your face off and snort your very soul.

Snow Leopard

Wed, 2 Sep 2009 13:20:46 +0100

Since starting to use Twitter I’ve been somewhat remis putting things up on here. However I now have something to review! Huzzah! Unfortunately thanks to idiotic postal services I only recieved my Snow Leopard disk yesterday. Now that it is running on my MacBook & iMac though I can get down to business. Incidentally if you want a proper review read Ars Technica’s 35,000 word tome (linky).

The Good
✓ Snow Leopard is cheap, especially compared to Windows 7 prices
✓ You get more hard drive space (Snow Leopard is about half the size of Leopard)
✓ When you buy a 100GB drive you actually get one, as Snow Leopard now counts in base 10, like a person, rather than a computer (which thinks a GB is 230B).
✓ Snow Leopard is fast. My iMac feels faster at the moment, despite indexing my hard drive, doing a time machine backup, converting video, downloading torrents & running about 8 apps.
✓ There are lots of little refinements, you are bound to find one that is a great selling point for you.

The isn’t really any bad (well, I suppose you could wish it was free) and certainly no ugly. If you are on an Intel machine running Tiger this should be a no-brainer upgrade. Leopard users will certainly appreciate the speed boost & it is possible that one of the many little tweaks is a feature you really want. Still Snow Leopard is a very forward looking release, uts real benefit will be felt next year when OpenCL and Grand Central Dispatch are more widely utilised. Oh, just occurred to me, there is an ugly aspect. PowerPC users? Apple hates you.

Planetstrike Preview

Mon, 29 Jun 2009 13:26:56 +0100

On Saturday (the 4th of July) GW will release the third rules supplement for Warhammer 40,000 - Planetstrike.

I’ve had a chance to browse the rulebook and play a couple of games (as attacker and defender) so I’ll try and cover all the important changes, and give a few insights into how this new game plays.

The standard Planetstike scenario is the bread and butter of this expansion. One layer is designated the attacker and the other the defender (a throwback to 3rd Edition missions). The attacker must take an HQ choice, and can choose from 6 Elites and 6 Fast Attack choices, even better any and all Infantry units can deep strike. Units that can already deep strike can assault on the turn they land. The attacker’s mission is to take and hold a majority of the bastions placed by the defender (more on those later) which they can do merely by having a single infantry model in base contact. Before the battle begins the attacker also gets to bombard the defender from orbit before the battle begins. Any units not deep striking have to move in from a board edge of the attacker’s choice.

The defender meanwhile gets his own advantages. His force organisation chart is much more similar to the standard one, except he can take double the usual number of heavy support choices. The defender also gets to set up all of the terrain before the battle. This includes the aforementioned bastions, which are essentially an immobile Land Raider. They also have automated guns which can fire at approaching troops. The defender also has access to interceptor guns which give him a free shot at attacking forces arriving from reserve. The defender has to hold his bastions against the foe, which means letting no attackers get close enough to touch the objective.

Both sides have access to stratagems, which will be familiar to anyone who has played Apocalypse or Cities of Death, to assist in their pursuit of victory. More bastions = more stratagems.

After playing a few games of Planetstrike I have a few pearls of hard earned wisdom:

• He who dares, wins. Be aggressive in placing your deep striking troops!
• You need to crack open bastions before you can kill the troops inside, so make sure you have lots of anti-vehicle weaponry
• Expect to roll on the deep strike mishap table
• Planetstrike is brutal, your models will die, don’t get too attached
• Mobility is more important than you might think
• Remember that the game is about the objectives, don’t get carried away trying to kill your enemy rather than defeat them, a single grot can take an objective!
• Don’t count on a turn 6 or 7, make sure you are in a winning position on turn 5
• Planetstrike games are very fast paced and can turn very quickly.
• Take your time placing the terrain, it is the biggest advantage you get as a defender.
• As defender, make sure you have something that can counter attack a lost bastion.
• Have fun! This is a very enjoyable type of game!
• Don’t be afraid to make interesting lists, all Terminator armies work pretty well!
• Try combining Planetstrike with Apocalypse and/or Cities of Death for truly epic games

Sims 3

Wed, 10 Jun 2009 12:44:19 +0100

Well officially the Sims 3 is one of (if not the) best selling games of all time, having shifted over 1.4 million copies in just over a week. At £35 a go that’s a whopping £49 million for EA. Why has the Sims 3 done so well (apart from it being a Sims game, and thus having a rabid horde of fan(girl)s), and what can EA & Maxis do to make it even better?

The Good

There is now a little palette tool that allows you to adjust the textures on any object in game (apart from stairs). This is a very powerful tool that lets you customise every aspect of your home and Sim’s clothing.

‘Seemless’ town(s). Instead of having to load each lot seperately you can zoom in and out and interact with other places as easily as you can with your Sim’s home. This means that you actually use other lots, unlike previous games where it was so much hassle as to be almost worthless. Even if it is odd to see a feature from Supreme Commander in the Sims it is a welcome addition.

Improved ‘Simology’. You now pick up to 6 traits rather than the Zodiac signs of Sims 3. Favourites still remain, but the trait system allows you to create far more interesting Sims. You can also discover these traits in others by chatting with them. Some traits are highly beneficial, others carry drawbacks but all help make each Sim unique.

You can now interact with your Sims while they work, telling them to work hard or slack off. A nice change as now you aren’t just fast-forwarding this (sizeable) portion of the game.

Variable life spans. Including turning ageing off.

The game is both Windows and OS X compatible, on the same disk no less!

No abusive DRM.

More customisation. Now (for example) when your Sim writes a book you can name it. Thus it is possible to write the best-selling Drama novel In Valen’s Name.

The Bad

The Mac version seems a little sluggish compared to the Sims 2 on the same machine. Possibly this is a convoluted problem caused on my specific machine, but I have heard complaints that other Ciderised games are not as fast as the Windows native version.

The graphics are not a massive leap over the Sims 2, but are entirely presentable and it does mean this game will run on older hardware.

The Ugly

The vast majority of content from the Sims 2 expansion packs is of course gone. This is so you can buy all new expansions for the Sims 3 naturally. That said I think the Sims 3 is far more of a ‘complete’ game than the Sims 2.

Eh?

Sun, 7 Jun 2009 11:40:13 +0100

For some reason Google AdSense thinks I like golf a lot. Why? When most of the entries are about video games or Macs? I’ve never even made an entry about golf! Until now I suppose... Damn! Oh well while I’m here I suppose...

Despite my fairly abysmal performance on a golf course I have finally worked out that becoming so engorged with rage as to wish the accursed ball some form of horrifying death is not an optimal method to do well. I’m even starting to hit a nice iron shot 50% of the time. I now rarely loose balls on the lovely 9 hole course at Edzell Golf Club. Putting is frankly dreadful most of the time and I can’t use a wood to save my life, but I still enjoy it. Dad wants to make a round of golf a weekly event, which sounds good, especially as he buys lunch.

There: Golf has been discussed, it will not be discussed again!