Trials HD – XBLA Review

Trials HD is the kind of game that'll hand your arse back to you say "try harder!"

What is it?

Trials HD is a motocross game which, though rendered in 3D, is essentially a 2D game. You accelerate and brake using the trigger buttons, using the analogue stick to lean your rider forward and backward to navigate the various and imaginative obstacles. There are 50 courses ranging from fairly easy to stupendously difficult. There’s also a selection of mini-games (called Skill Games) and a track editor to occupy you.

How much is it?

1,200 MS Points, which I’m understand to be around £10 – let’s not get started on this silly points system!

How long will it last?

5 to 10 hours depending on how you play and how “into it” you become.

What’s good about it?

In a word: lots. While one never expects graphical wonders from an XBLA game, it looks pretty good and the framerate is silky smooth –  just as well given the frenetic action on offer. In the beginning it is mostly about the speed and sheer thrill seeking of navigating courses, flipping your bike in the air and generally having loads of fun. However, come around halfway through the game, it quickly begins to become more intense and complicated. Fast ramps and jumps are replaced with intricate obstacles, awkward falls and all sorts of dangerous pitfalls, such as explosives and falling platforms. It’s an interesting progression, since until the difficulty ramps up (and it really does), it’s easy to dismiss Trials HD as a fun and inconsequential arcade title.

It’s a lot more than that. For starters it’s one of the hardest games you’re likely to encounter. For me this is a great thing. In fact, I’d sooner describe Trials HD as challenging rather than hard given the negative connotations the latter implies. And with that challenge you get great reward. This might not be a long game – though for the price it offers plenty to get on with – but as you progress in the later stages, every completed stage, every gold or silver medal attained brings with it a great sense of satisfaction. It makes a nice change given modern games, in my opinion, generally sacrifice genuine challenge for spectacle.

What’s bad about it?

Well, if you’re not up for having your arse handed to you frequently, Trials HD probably isn’t for you. As I say above I’d sooner describe it as challenging, but this game can be brutal and will have even the most able gamers tearing their hair out. If you permit an analogy, Trials HD is the kind of game that would happily shoot you in the back and then T-bag your corpse.

My only other complaint concerns the track editor and the ability to share tracks. This particular feature should give Trials HD a Trackmania-esque edge to it, but at the moment you can only share tracks among friends, which makes a feature bursting with potential somewhat limited – unless you have a large circle of friends all keen to make their own tracks, the opportunities for sharing will be limited. Opening this up, allowing a community to build around the game, would elevate it to another level.

The Bottom Line

If you fancy an old-school challenge with some next-generation thrills, Trials HD is well worth the download. It delivers plenty of value and provided you have the necessary cojones, will keep you coming back for more punishment.

My Score: 4/5

The Ashes 2009: The Story So Far

It’s been a very long time since my last blog post. What can I say? It’s not for a want of desire, but when you spend all day writing, conjuring up the energy (not to mention the inspiration) to do more is pretty difficult, especially if you lack the prerequisite narcissism to write endlessly about one’s own activities.

Anyway, I’m writing this now for two reasons:

1. I’m testing out Office 2010, so decided firing up the new Word was a good idea.
2. England won the second Ashes test at Lords today, so I’m in the mood to write about cricket.

After just two tests this series looks set to emulate the 2005 series in many respects. I dare say the cricket isn’t as high quality as then – there’s no Warne, no McGrath, no Harmison (yet), no Lee (yet, again) and most disappointingly (from an England perspective at least) no Trescothick or Jones. And, as the first two tests have shown, much of the excitement has been generated by the frailties of both sides as much as their excellence.

In the first test England failed to turn up. Picking two spinners turned out to be a mistake. Panesar’s form has been poor and both he and Swann struggled on a pitch lacking pace and bounce, which is far more important to spinners than many appreciate. Likewise, the lack of a fourth seamer put too much pressure on the remaining quicks. Thus, when it didn’t swing for Anderson, didn’t bounce for Flintoff and just didn’t happen at all for Broad, the attack lacked penetration. Australia cashed in and England batted poorly, but so flat was the pitch and determined the batting that England escaped.

Australia’s demeanour post-Cardiff belied their understanding of how big an opportunity they’d missed. As a unit they’re unlikely to bat as well again in the series, while England are unlikely to play as badly. England escaped, Australia missed out and if England do go on to win the series, Anderson and Panesar’s defiance will be remembered ruefully – by Australians at least. Though it hasn’t been mentioned in the mainstream as yet (to my knowledge), it still surprises me that Australia don’t play five bowlers. When they had McGrath and Warne a four man attack worked, but this attack isn’t special enough to do it like they did. Had they played a fifth seamer at Cardiff, the outlook of the series might be quite different now.

At Lords it was a complete role reversal. Australia didn’t turn up, allowing England a buccaneering start. As it turned out England didn’t capitalise fully. No matter the result, after the start England had they should have scored 500+ easily. Onions’ introduction provided more balance to England’s attack, relieving the pressure on Anderson and Flintoff as the primary wicket takers. Onions can blow hot and cold, as evidenced by this second innings performance, but he’s slightly Jones-esque in his direct style and has a happy knack for bowling wicket taking deliveries.

Vitally, England got much the better of the conditions – winning the toss in sunny, fresh conditions and bowling with cloud cover on a pitch that’s known to quicken on the second day. This time Australia batted poorly and England bowled very well, putting the Aussies under pressure for the first time in the series.

Then there’s Flintoff. Watching his spell from the morning, I can’t remember seeing batsmen looking as genuinely scared as the Aussie tailenders. Even Clarke, who played magnificently, looked visibly shaken by Flintoff. He ducked into what was really a short of a length ball, not a bouncer, and afterwards he was lucky not to edge a full ball he went back to. Meanwhile, the tailenders were busy fending the ball as best they could. I’ve never seen a batsman move so quickly as when Siddle knocked the ball wide of mid-on, scampering a single to get away from Freddie. Much credit must go to Swann too, who bowled a brilliant ball to Clarke (not a full toss) to dismiss him and generally bowled aggressively – in so much as one can as a spinner.

Credit too to Strauss, who played to his side’s strength (the bowling ) in not enforcing the follow-on – England would likely have won either way, but given England hasn’t delivered too convincingly with bat so far, chasing 200 or so could have been tricky.

England definitely deserved to win the second test, just as Australia deserved the win the first. One way or another, though, it’s England who have the psychological and literal edge now. What guarantees it’ll go right to the end, though, is that both sides have problems. Australia’s opening partnerships, specifically Hughes with the bat and Johnson with ball, look over-hyped and over pressurised. England meanwhile, have Pietersen and Flintoff’s injuries to concern them, as well as the dilemma of Bopara batting at three and Broad, who to my mind looks mentally tired after his exertions in the Caribbean and perhaps unsure of his role in the team.

I’ve managed to ramble on long enough (I should clearly start a cricket blog), so will leave it at that for now. Depending on how the mood takes me, more Ashes related musings may appear soon.

Hoggard on being dropped by England

Matthew Hoggard has just started a new column on Cricinfo. It’s a refreshing change from the usual ghost written tripe that generally comes out of the England camp, probably because Hoggard has long since ceased to be in it. I think this particular passage sums up the man pretty well:

Which is a bit of a bummer, because apparently my name was left out of some 25-man preliminary whatsit squad the other day – now there’s a shock! – but to be honest I didn’t even know anything like that had been named. My contact with the ECB has been zero, and so I’m completely and utterly not even thinking about a recall. I’m just concentrating on taking wickets for Yorkshire, and pushing for trophies.

A good read for any cricket fan. I for one would be happy to see him back in the side for The Ashes.