Apple were in an incredibly difficult position with the iPad. Everyone knew they were making one and no one would be happy unless it was revolutionary. As someone unconvinced by the tablet offerings at CES earlier this month (they have clear application in industry and healthcare, but I can't yet see a consumer need), I was curious about what Apple was bringing to the table. What they have produced is a superb technology showcase, but it's also exactly the tablet everyone expected. First off, some people are griping about the name. Trade mark issues left them in an uncomfortable position since they don't actually own the letter "i" (whatever they may argue) so I'm okay with the iPad. Yes, it may sound a lot like Star Trek's PADD, but that's clearly the influence they were channeling with the whole device.

For the technophile there's a lot to love here: a great-looking 9.7" touchscreen that's fantastic for photos, a large and seemingly responsive onscreen keyboad, a decent 1GHz Apple processor (although bear in mind the latest Snapdragon smartphones have a 1GHz processor too). The impressive number, however, was 10 hours of battery life. That's big. Though I have to wonder just how far that falls in real-world use: wifi and 3G will both be a fair drain and there's clearly no way it plays 10 hours of video.

The "unbelievable price" seemed slightly misleading by splitting apart the cost. Hitting as low as $499 for the basic model was certainly a welcome surprise that no one expected. In practical terms the "real" version is the 3G-toting one, else it's not actually particularly portable (not to mention the fact 3G laptops are readily available). The US deal is $15 a month for a mere 250MB, which I would exceed with email and attached/linked video alone. So it's $30 a month for unlimited access which seems reasonable. That means the year one cost is actually $1,089 (for the middle 32GB model), then $360 for each subsequent year. It's not outrageous but it's not a low barrier to entry for what they are marketing as a third device.

It technically works with existing iPhone apps but I don't think people were particularly wowed. Even when expanded the interfaces looked clunky and odd. But new apps taking advantage of its size will certainly look great. I foresee a swift divergence in the app store between the iPhone and iPad and, with the install base of the former, I can see a lot of developers overlooking the latter as not cost effective. While Jobs nodded to the Amazon Kindle, I can't quite see the iPad succeeding as an e-book reader, since the very reason they took off is that e-ink avoids eye strain. However until colour versions emerge (likely later this year) it could be ideal for magazine-style articles and the New York Times demo with embedded video was particularly impressive (even if it was just a glorified website).

The glaring omission for me is one I had not expected to see: nearly 10 inches of screen real estate and a 1GHz processor, but no evidence of multitasking. Palm's webOS has a perfect implementation on a significantly smaller device, so how Apple didn't feel the need to address this is at best startling and at worst unforgivable. If they are trying to create a new product between phones and laptops, it needs at least to be able to match the functionality of top end phones. Also strangely missing are flash-support — for a device supposedly offering fully portable web browsing that's bizarre — and a camera, which is certainly non-essential but fullscreen Skyping while wandering/sitting around with one of these would be pretty damn cool. Again, features that top-end phones already have.

They will sell, of course. That hardcore Apple fans will be picking them up in 60-90 days isn't even a question. However this needs much broader consumer appeal to be the "magical and revolutionary device" (seriously, as an actual slogan?) Jobs suggests. I'm sure interest will be high in the short term, not least because Apple has cued mainstream journalists with appropriate adjectives, but it's going to take some serious marketing to build up momentum. Ultimately the first iPad is an interesting concept that flounders for the same reason as the netbooks it aims to replace: it tries its hand at a lot but, in attempting to fill a gap that doesn't yet exist, it isn't quite sure what role it serves. The result is that, like most notebooks, it's just okay.

When I first saw footage from Japanese action game Bayonetta, I wrote it off as selling itself solely as an overtly sexualised slice of Japanese insanity. Then the reviews hit in December praising the beauty and precision of its action gameplay and it garnered 9’s and even a perfect 10 from the typically critical Edge. It’s not that my first impression was wrong — it is both those things — it’s just that it might not be such a bad thing.

Bayonetta is making people uncomfortable. There exists an age divide of sorts. Broadly speaking up to the age of around 22 guys find her sexy and (gaming) girls find her empowering. Above that both genders begin to view the game as awkwardly exploitative. The question is, in a medium where female portrayal is a major issue, is Bayonetta a step forward or backward?

Bayonetta’s appearance is clearly stylised, with impossibly long legs and the fashion sense of a latex-clad librarian. This is beyond mere Lara Croftian unrealistic body image and more in the sense of Gears of War’s steroid-fuelled juggernauts. But the entire game feels like an ode to this one character with sweeping camera angles sliding between her legs or focusing on her pursed lips as she gazes suggestively into the camera, sucking a lollipop. Meanwhile her clothing is formed from her hair meaning that when performing her powerful “hair attacks” she is left momentarily disrobed. The game’s insanity is infectious and soon you don’t even question the idea of strapping pistols to stiletto heels. I mean why wouldn’t you?

Yet while the development team was led by Hideki Kamiya (of Devil May Cry fame), the character designer was a woman, Mari Shimazaki. This means her provocative character is female-driven rather than being an expression of male fantasy (or at the very least represents female exploitation of male fantasy). She's certainly no damsel in distress — an intimidating, strong character (mentally and physically) who dispatches throngs of enemies with deadly feline grace. Stylised physical appearance is par for the course in videogames, with both overly muscular male and excessively lithe female characters. Videogames certainly revel in hyper-stylised men, be it their brutishness or androgynous allure. Why should they bar women from receiving the same treatment? Is the largely desexualised approach with characters like Half-Life's Alyx and Portal's Chell really the ideal, or is there room for something at the opposite end of the spectrum too? The bottom line is this: I fear I feel Bayonetta is exploitative because some part of me is trained to believe it must be, irrespective of whether or not it actually is.

This is still, of course, purely a male perspective. If you're interested a in a female one, Leigh Alexander and Tiff Chow would be happy to oblige.

At the end of last year Modern Warfare 2 landed with such explosive force that it not only breached its way into mainstream press headlines, but it also sent dozens of excellent games scurrying for cover in Q1 2010, which is now the most impressively packed first quarter I can recall. The hype was justified given Infinity Ward's past performance, the impressive in-game footage already shown off, and the fact pre-orders alone guaranteed profits dwarfing pretty much any other title this year. It is, for all intents and purposes, the public face of gaming for 2009. Which is hugely disappointing.

It is not, let me be clear, because it is a bad game. On the contrary, I've just finished playing it and am on the same high as with the climax of its predecessor. While it had a rocky start jumping erratically around the world with short missions that felt like a greatest hits of Bond locations, it gradually sucked me in so that I really did care by the final twists and turns of its tale. It is a stellar title at the peak of the shooter genre, but in some ways therein lies the problem. This is a genre that has existed in much the same form since the early 90s, though the graphical technology and AI has improved in leaps and bounds. It is still what springs to most non-gamers' minds when they think of videogames. I am not about to apologise for the genre — it can be vibrant, creative and in some cases is arguably a valid competitive sport. However given the wealth of varied experiences offered through videogaming in the past year, it's a shame the mainstream public will just think of another military shooter.

So what were the best games this year?

Batman: Arkham Asylum: A licensed game that did not poorly ape the recent film but instead struck out its own path, drawing on Batman's comicbook heritage. Mark Hamill's deliciously insane turn as the Joker rivals Heath Ledger's performance (in a different way). Combining intelligent investigatory and brawler elements with the back-catalogue of villains locked away in Arkham, it was a surprise debut hit from Rocksteady Studios this summer.

Braid: Independent developer Jonathan Blow lovingly crafted this beautiful, haunting, artistic and fiendish puzzle platformer in which you affect time to complete your goals. Its careful learning curve may sharply steepen but it does reward the patient. Its ingenuity on par with Valve's Portal (though Braid's indie development arguably compares more directly to its predecessor Narbacular Drop).

Assassin's Creed 2: While it might seem there is only so creative a sequel can be, this was the consumate sequel, as if Ubisoft had listened to every single complaint about the first game and addressed it, particularly the repetitiveness. The action shifted to Renaissance Italy, once again recreated in stunning architectural detail (right to the peak of every church and tower since you can scale them all) but now feeling much more alive. Perhaps not wishing to waste all the historical data they gathered during development, the in-game database is fascinatingly educational as you explore Florence, Venice and more. Depending on your perspective it could be as much an art history project as a videogame.

Uncharted 2: There is a long-running debate as to whether games should become more cinematic and story-driven or strive to differentiate themselves. There are merits to both approaches, but none nailed the cinematic feel so much as Uncharted 2. Arguably the only reason people were not even more impressed by this game is that the first installment was already so good.

Dragon Age: Origins: this adult fantasy roleplaying game opens with a different Origins story depending on your chosen class, which then affects portions of the main story, may be something of a gimmick. Very real, however, are the characters Bioware has created, each with their own personalities and rich backstories that really drive the game forward moreso than the overt (and somewhat derivative) plot. Fully voice-acted, the biggest disappointment is that whenever selecting party members for a quest, you know will be missing great dialogue and banter from the others. And if they dislike you, they'll even leave. Meanwhile, ike 2007's The Witcher, its darker tone also allows it to deal with heavy themes like racial tensions.

My criteria for seeing Avatar were that it had to be on the largest screen possible and in 3D to get the fullest experience. And so I ended up at the BFI IMAX at midnight (on a side note, I really miss midnight screenings) with its bigger-than-a-house screen. My review is up, but in short this is something you really must experience. Unusually I say this without any real intellectual connection to the film or its characters, but rather from a purely emotional/entertainment perspective. The audacity of the project is incredible, as is the fact James Cameron was able to conceptualise it 15 years ago and finally realise and see it through to completion. It turns out "exploring another world" hyperbole was in fact entirely accurate.

Some critics are querying whether this is a game changer in terms of how we give awards for performances since Zoe Saldana's character is only ever seen in CGI, but it is undeniably her performance that comes through. Should the award go to her, the effects people or both? Of course this debate really dates back to Andy Serkis' Gollum which was very much his performance, since even the facial animation was based upon his acting. However the facial mapping in Avatar's new breed of performance capture is incredible.

This is also the new benchmark for 3D films, to the point where I hope other films won't bother unless they're going to do it properly. Up to this point, Coraline has been my touchstone for 3D since as a stop-motion film it was "real" 3D filmed with stereoscopic cameras. The subtler into-the-screen 3D is definitely the right way to do it (and the reason I was unimpressed by the 3D Alice in Wonderland trailer as, despite impressive detail, far too much was unnecessarily flying out of the screen), but these two films highlight two fundamentally different approaches. With Coraline you are offered a 3D window to observe, so the trick to avoiding a headache is to learn to look around as in the real world, focusing on individual parts rather than attempting to take in the entire screen at once as with traditional films. Avatar merges this with traditional narrow depth-of-field shots, meaning the viewer is not always free to look around as they wish. Instead the trick is to relax and allow your eyes to be guided to whatever is in focus. It is perhaps disconcerting, but it does provide a more cinematic effect.

Christmas is almost upon us, and I nearly forgot to mention this year's Child's Play drive. For those unfamiliar, it is the gamers' charity, started by Penny Arcade, which you can support by purchasing toys and videogames requested by participating children's hospitals. Sadly the remaining items on the list for the UK's Alder Hey Hospital are now unavailable, but might I suggest New Orleans as an alternative target for your generosity? Contributions so far have demolished the $1 million target, but that's no reason to slow down.

You will by now have heard that Rage Against The Machine successfully won the close-fought chart battle to take the Christmas #1 spot. While it's festive nature may be questionable, I must admit the news has left me feeling significantly more Christmassy than the alternative regurgitated ballad that I fear risks inducing narcolepsy and suicidal tendencies in equal measures (note: this is not an attack on Joe, who seems like a perfectly good singer and took defeat rather graciously in the end; it's just an attack on the insipid song forced upon him). The real victory behind this is that it exposed many consumers to the wealth of legal music download services available beyond iTunes. Particularly since price comparisons were shown, it will have given many their first exposure to the great 7digital amongst others. Hopefully this will not only push people towards these services in general, but also make them savvy to shopping around rather than just lazily buying through iTunes.

And finally a few links gathering dust over the past couple of weeks:

• "Torrents and the TARDIS": an article on BBC America closing the gap between UK and US airings of Doctor Who, and the resulting effect on viewership and illegal downloads.
• 61 Free Apps We're Most Thankful For: Lifehacker compiles a grammatically questionable list from reader suggestions on the current best free software.
• Beat The Reaper is the debut novel from Josh Bazell,  a thriller told by an ER doctor/hitman, which I picked up in a Borders book store, heaving with vulture-like people tearing the remaining carrion from its carcass. I quite like (and agree) with the Amazon reviewer who described it as a cross between The Sopranos, Scrubs and Quentin Tarantino. Meanwhile I stalled reading Chuck Klosterman's collection of pop culture essays in Sex, Drugs and Cocoa Puffs because we fell out when he attempted to write a piece on Vanilla Sky without even mentioning Open Your Eyes.
• Rainmeter v1.1 is now available, a more user-friendly release of the great tool for desktop customisation with various meters and widgets. I'm currently running a modified version of the Enigma desktop. Sleek but certainly less minimalist than my desktop has been in the past, it offers a wealth of information as soon as I boot up including email, calendar notifications and the latest news.

And, of course, have a Merry Christmas. I'll be working up until Christmas Eve so the holiday will likely take me by surprise. Hopefully not so much of a surprise that the snow prevents me from getting back to Croydon though.

Awards season has snuck up on me this year, so I suddenly find myself adrift with a deluge of big film releases. This post is really a map through the next two months for myself, but  since it'll probably be of use to others, I figured I'd share. The release dates are all for UK general releases, so expect to see some earlier preview screenings and for them generally to arrive sooner in the USA.

Avatar - 17 December 2009
James Cameron's return after a decade is a massively hyped sci-fi spectacle that promises a journey to another world. As a result I intentionally quashed my expectations but rave reviews suggest this is easily the event movie of the year, not least for its groundbreaking 3D visual effects. Whether it will have a lasting impact only time will tell, but for this year it's certainly marked its territory.

Nine – 18 December 2009
I'm not exactly known as a musical lover, but Nine will be the first to draw me in for a while. Though I tend to dislike the approach of a plot that merely aims to tie loosely together a series of musical numbers, the strength of the cast alone — with Daniel Day Lewis and Marion Cotillard at its core — has won me over (though some fantastic burlesque choreography may have helped).

Sherlock Holmes – 26 December 2009
While not gunning for Oscar glory like the others here, Guy Ritchie's brawling take on the world's greatest detective, starring a strangely cast Robert Downey, Jr., finally started to make sense once the trailers emerged. A fun romp through Victorian Britain, and hopefully a return to form for Ritchie (I know some some fans have enjoyed his work in the interim) it is also perhaps more faithful than some realise.

The Road – 4 January 2010
A harrowing post-apocalyptic tale that portrays a broken civilisation in which humanity is left fractured and without morality. Against this backdrop a father travels with his son and tries to instill the strength of self-preservation and the value of humanity in him.

Up In The Air – 15 January 2010
Based upon their follow-up offerings, it seems director Jason Reitman was the more talented one behind Juno as his latest with George Clooney has caused a fair stir, not least for its timely story of a constantly travelling corporate downsizer. Meanwhile writer Diablo Cody penned the universally panned Jennifer's Body, which failed abysmally despite having Megan Fox's body in the titular role.

Brothers – 22 January 2010
Jake Gyllenhaal and Tobey Maguire may not sound like obvious names for this emotionally raw story of a soldier's return and inability to reconnect with his family, but the performances look incredibly powerful with Natalie Portman rounding out the cast. With her husband presumed dead, she turns to his brother for help.

The Lovely Bones – 29 January 2010
Peter Jackson's latest film will seem more familiar to those who knew him before The Lord of the Rings. The film is based on the novel about a teenage girl who was brutally murdered and now watches her family cope in the aftermath, while also coming to terms with her own death.

Precious – 29 January 2010
This is an unrelentingly bleak tale of an obese, illiterate and abused teenage black girl in 1980's Harlem. It is the only film in this list I am not certain I will attempt to see, depending on my mood at the time, since this is clearly not entertaining viewing. Mo'Nique's highly praised performance certainly has my interest. It's based on the novel Push, the name allegedly being changed due to concerns over confusion with the action-thriller of the same name last year (which now seems a non-issue since no one remembers it anyway).

Edge of Darkness – 29 January 2010
For those not yet entirely alienated by Mel Gibson's public behaviour, he plays a homicide detective seeking answers and revenge after the death of his activist daughter. More importantly, it's directed by Martin Campbell, the best Bond director of recent years who helmed both Casino Royale and GoldenEye.

Crazy Heart – 19 February 2010
Those that have seen The Wrestler will feel a certain sense of déjà vu in watching the trailer for this film, which follows a similar story of a washed up professional, in this case a country singer instead of a wrestler, and with Jeff Bridges in the lead instead of Mickey Rourke. Once again, a powerhouse character study from the lead is what carries and dominates the film.

When I first came across the facebook group trying to subvert the pre-determined X Factor Christmas #1, I will openly admit I thought they had no chance of even making a dent, let alone headlines.  It turns out that I was wrong. Their push for Rage Against the Machine's Killing In The Name hit BBC News after pulling ahead of this Joe chap from the show in digital downloads. I still suspect their efforts may be in vain as the physical version of Joe's single is only released today and will undoubtedly cause a spike in sales.

Simon Cowell's (unsurprisingly) massively egotistical response labelled it "cynical" and "stupid" and he then proceeded to explain it was all about him. Sorry Simon, it's not. It's a retaliation against the whole commercialised package that uses an entire TV show as a glorified advertising campaign to buy/"fix" the Christmas #1 in much the same way as these chaps are attempting. Whatever Simon may argue, both are equally "cynical" and "stupid" if it's supposed to be about music. People are welcome to buy the X Factor single and if another bunch wish to express their views with their wallets in an alternative direction, surely that's exactly the sort of audience participation Simon usually endorses…

The great irony is, of course, that Sony BMG wins doubly out of any competition since both songs are released under their label. The strongest argument against the campaign is that they've rallied around an old song (albeit one I rather like) rather than something new which they feel isn't being given a fair chance against the X Factor machine. But what better than Rage in an attempt to take on the system? It's no wonder Tom Morello approves. All I can say is I certainly know which song I'd prefer you buy. Call it my Christmas present. It would certainly be a moment to be remembered in music chart history.

The site has been somewhat neglected in the last couple of months largely because work has been rather hectic in the buzzing litigation dispute resolution department. It's been fun, but exhausting enough that I've been doing little else of particular note (and confidentiality means I can't write about the work here either). I did recently end up taking a last minute day's holiday for sanity maintenance, after realising I hadn't had a day off since June. Hopefully now, with an additional trainee back from secondment, things will settle down slightly going into the new year.

Did you know that BAFTA has its own private cinema hidden away in the heart of Piccadilly? It lies behind a relatively inconspicuous door with BAFTA written above. The inside is decorated with giant sculptures of the organisation's distinctive gold face, and features a bar and restaurant as well as the excellent cinema which is a good size and has one of the nicest screens I've seen in London.

Sarah and I found ourselves there last night at a preview screening of Where The Wild Things Are, courtesy of LOVEFILM. Spike Jonze has achieved something remarkable in his pitch perfect recreation of the tone of Maurice Sendak's beloved children's book. The book itself is something of an enigma, in this country at least, being either adored or entirely unknown depending on to whom you speak.

The Wild Things are a perfect way to explore different parts of Max's psyche and the loving attention to detail is evident from their furry costuming to their humanised expressions. Casting voice talent must have been a strange process, but they all blend in well. Being a Sopranos fan I did find James Gandolfini's distinctive voice as Carol slightly distracting, though he was great choice for the role. The mood is greatly enhanced by the low key but subtly infectious score by Karen O of the Yeah Yeah Yeahs, which I heard several people humming or whistling as we left. The film necessarily expands significantly upon the book but in returning to a childhood classic it's the tone and the sense of wonder that really count, and Jonze nails both. I previously Jonze's mentioned his documentary on the author, and I'm now even more curious to see it.

It's particularly nice to have a children's film designed simply to allow them to explore psychological ideas rather than feeling the need to signpost and spell out every message explicitly. Also, child actor Max Records has one of the coolest names ever.

It was, he explained, the biggest night of his life. Looking around the heaving arena, it wasn't hard to believe. For any stand-up comedian that was a serious crowd. I've previously made my feelings about The O2, at least as a music venue, very clear. However as Rav and I had booked these tickets back in January (fortunately he reminded me yesterday since I had entirely forgotten) I found myself there tonight for the biggest gig of Michael McIntyre's life.

I'm a big fan and rather in awe of his sudden rise to such stratospheric fame. As you might expect, he was hilarious, though somewhat unusually the second half of his set felt significantly stronger than the first. The material felt fresh (by which I mean I hadn't seen it all on TV before) but some of the observational humour seemed to miss its mark – I'm not certain of the intelligence required to point out the unnaturalness of plants inside houses when I've been railing against it for the past decade.

The chief problem was still the venue itself. Its size is a massive disadvantage particular with a comedian like McIntyre because (as his fans will know) half of his humour is derived from his facial expressions and/or hair. This means for the full effect one cannot look directly at him, but rather must focus on one of the screens, with the result that one often feels they may as well be watching at home. To his credit he played up to it, actively engaging the distant rear seats, and it's certainly an impressive sight to see a single man keeping an crowd that size in constant laughter. He wasn't aided by a triple echo that reverberated around the arena, though it was amusing to experience the laughter/applause that seemed to roll around the audience in waves rather than the usual ripples. Perhaps most worrying of all, however, was a long segment in which he discussed the removal of pants in a gym. It's a sign of just how long I've been spending in the States of late that it took nearly five minutes to realise he was talking about underwear and not trousers.

Penny Arcade's review of Windows 7 is decidedly succint, if not entirely inaccurate. Having had an experience with the Release Candidate so good that I installed it on my primary computer, I am pleased to say my experience with the final product has been (aside from a brief issue with Belkin's wireless drivers) even smoother. Wandering home through Waterloo station I was impressed by Microsoft's launch advertising which appears to be their most accurate campaign yet, highlighting how the changes in Windows 7 are simply what users have been asking for. It's nothing massively innovative or original, it's just what people want. In some ways that is what separates it from Apple (though I am not about to suggest this is what has characterised Microsoft over the years; if anything the opposite is true), which feels the need to tell people what they need from and how to use their technology. For the last generation perhaps it is true that users could not be trusted with such decisions and needed to be told. Now, as we all become increasingly familiar with technology, that approach seems just a little bit backward.