At my work, our department is starting to do some iPad and iPhone/iPod Touch development. This week I had the opportunity to check-out a company iPad to bring home and play with. They want employees to get better aquainted with the device, and who was I to argue?
I brought home the device, hooked it to my computer, then installed pretty much everything that I normally have on my iPhone (my apps, music, and videos). I checked w/ my boss to get the "OK" before doing so, of course. Before I took it back I restored it to the factory settings, wiping out all my personal data.
The result: for about a day I had an iPad with the exact configuration as if I had purchased one myself.
Most of the iPhone apps were as I expected: exactly the same as on the iPhone, but with the option to double the size. Peggle and Sudoku were a little pixelated, but fun to play on a bigger screen.
The iPad-specific apps were very interesting to explore. The extra real estate provided by the larger screen makes a huge difference. There are a lot of improved user interface controls that just aren't feasible on the iPhone's small screen. Apps like Safari, Notes, Calendar, and Email are beautifully improved.
Let's take Safari as an example. The larger screen means that you can keep the controls (address bar, search, next, back, etc.) constantly on the screen instead of scrolling them off like the iPhone does. That alone is a huge improvement in convenience! The larger screen also means you can get more webpage in at a time (less scrolling required).
I've always been impressed with the way Apple works to refine the user experience. The iPhone felt like having The FutureTM in my hands, and the iPad just improves on it. It's the little things that make the difference. I find it amusing that one of the "little" changes is making the screen bigger.
Some people have complained that the iPad is just a big iPod Touch. While this is basically true, I think it really misses the mark. To draw an analogy, a Harley-Davidson motorcycle isn't just an oversized moped. The UI changes "under the hood" alone make the device more than what it appears at first glance.
Probably my favorite feature of the iPad (and my iPhone for that matter) is the "instant on": when you press the home button it's ready to go. No need to wait around for the OS to boot up like on my laptop. If I want some information, to play a quick game, or to check email, the device is ready immediately. And the battery supports this model of use.
If I owned one, I'd primarly keep it on the end tables next to the couch and next to the bed. I'd use it as a convenience device more than anything. But in the end, it unfortunately falls into the category of "luxury item". I want one in the same vein as wanting any other new toy.
My wife also played with the iPad and also liked it. She basically agreed that it is a neat device, but not something we need to rush out and buy.
I can easily see how the iPad could be a perfect fit for some people. For example, someone who just wants to get their email and do some light web surfing. Someone who doesn't need to do much content creation but is a content consumer. Because the interfaces are so good, I could see it being great for a parent or grandparent who isn't so hip to computers.
So in summary, the iPad is a wonderful device. I love it and totally want one, but I don't have a real need for one. Maybe someday I'll get one, but probably not in the near future (I'm focusing instead on getting a new iPhone to replace my 1st-gen one).
Friday, June 4, 2010
Friday, March 26, 2010
Arrogant Scientist
I was recently reminded of a pet peeve of mine which I like to call the "arrogant scientist". Basically the idea is that sometimes "scientists" let their ego get so big that they think they are unequivocally right. Unfortunately this happens all too often.
You'll note that when I say "scientists" with quotes, I'm implying that they have departed from being actual scientists. To me, one of the fundamental principles of a true scientist is that he should always say, "This is the best explanation I currently have. It fits with all my data from experiments and observations. I will put this theory to practical use, but concede that later information or discovery may render this obsolete."
Under my definition, a true scientist must always be willing to entertain the idea that everything he "knows" is wrong. He must never say that any particular theory is non-negotiable. He uses the scientific method to better understand the world around him and form theories which explain the things he observes.
Now, before I get too far into this, I want to reiterate that I love science. It's awesome. I consider myself a scientist. It is extremely useful. For example, using science we've been able to harness electricity and create computers. That's awesome! And if tomorrow we discover that we've really misunderstood electricity, that's okay. We can probably still blog about it.
If that seems impossible to you, I submit that it has happened many times before and will continue to happen. For example, take gravity. Before Issac Newton, "No one understood gravity." And yet mankind still figured out how to utilize arcing projectiles (like an arrow), water mills worked just fine, and things mostly stayed on the ground. Newton helped us learn more and we could use mathematical equations to accurately predict how things would fall due to gravity. But that wasn't the end. Some Einstein came along and gave us Special and General Relativity.
So science is good and useful. But science cannot necessarily prove anything to be an absolute truth. Science can only be used to prove things within the bounds of our current understanding and human limitations. Once we start extrapolating then we can't prove it to be true.
For example, I hate hearing people dismissively say that we know the earth is (roughly) 6 billion years old. No! We don't know it. We weren't there, we don't have a time machine to verify it. We think the earth is 6 billion years old because that age fits our current understanding of radiometric dating. I'm okay with people saying we know it, just not that we know it as an absolute truth. The problem comes in how they say it (just as any type of arrogance comes from an attitue, even if the person is correct). [Edit: paragraph updated.]
Suppose that in 50 years we find out new information about radiometric dating? Maybe half-lives aren't fixed. What if there is a hidden variable no one accounted for — perhaps it hasn't been observable for the short time we've been studying it? Then suddenly the earth has a new age, possibly drastically different than we thought before.
In thinking about this topic, I stumbled across a blog post that I really liked. It really resonated with my way of thinking. But a disclaimer: I've only read that one post on the blog; I can't vouch for everything on the site.
The media and politics are places where we find a lot of arrogant scientists. They take information and extrapolate it to meet their needs. Is global warming real? Will there be another ice age? We don't know for sure. I'm not saying ignore it. I believe it is wise to continue studying it and strive to make things better. I also believe that there are a lot of arrogant scientists involved.
So please, don't be an arrogant scientist. Don't tell me that you know something based on science. Don't tell me your phlogiston theory is not negotiable. Sit yourself down to some nice, home-made humble pie. Then once your ego is in check, I'll be glad to hear all about your theories and extrapolations with the caveat that it is based on our current scientific understanding.
Update:
I don't mean to imply in this post that scientists should constantly go around saying "think" instead of "know". I don't believe we need to be constantly wasting time couching all of our statements. I don't think that most scientists are arrogant.
When a scientist says that they know something, I understand that the implicit (but usually unvoiced) caveat that it is based on our current best understanding. I have no problem with that.
The issue comes up for me when the way in which something is said or written comes off as arrogant. When people talk about science in unequivocal absolutes. When what they say implies (at least to me) that they are no longer entertaining the possibility of being completely wrong. When they dismiss people's ideas for no other reason than it doesn't fit with their viewpoint (i.e. without considering it or comparing it to established science).
I've updated the above paragraph about the earth's age to try to clarify this.
You'll note that when I say "scientists" with quotes, I'm implying that they have departed from being actual scientists. To me, one of the fundamental principles of a true scientist is that he should always say, "This is the best explanation I currently have. It fits with all my data from experiments and observations. I will put this theory to practical use, but concede that later information or discovery may render this obsolete."
Under my definition, a true scientist must always be willing to entertain the idea that everything he "knows" is wrong. He must never say that any particular theory is non-negotiable. He uses the scientific method to better understand the world around him and form theories which explain the things he observes.
Now, before I get too far into this, I want to reiterate that I love science. It's awesome. I consider myself a scientist. It is extremely useful. For example, using science we've been able to harness electricity and create computers. That's awesome! And if tomorrow we discover that we've really misunderstood electricity, that's okay. We can probably still blog about it.
If that seems impossible to you, I submit that it has happened many times before and will continue to happen. For example, take gravity. Before Issac Newton, "No one understood gravity." And yet mankind still figured out how to utilize arcing projectiles (like an arrow), water mills worked just fine, and things mostly stayed on the ground. Newton helped us learn more and we could use mathematical equations to accurately predict how things would fall due to gravity. But that wasn't the end. Some Einstein came along and gave us Special and General Relativity.
So science is good and useful. But science cannot necessarily prove anything to be an absolute truth. Science can only be used to prove things within the bounds of our current understanding and human limitations. Once we start extrapolating then we can't prove it to be true.
For example, I hate hearing people dismissively say that we know the earth is (roughly) 6 billion years old. No! We don't know it. We weren't there, we don't have a time machine to verify it. We think the earth is 6 billion years old because that age fits our current understanding of radiometric dating. I'm okay with people saying we know it, just not that we know it as an absolute truth. The problem comes in how they say it (just as any type of arrogance comes from an attitue, even if the person is correct). [Edit: paragraph updated.]
Suppose that in 50 years we find out new information about radiometric dating? Maybe half-lives aren't fixed. What if there is a hidden variable no one accounted for — perhaps it hasn't been observable for the short time we've been studying it? Then suddenly the earth has a new age, possibly drastically different than we thought before.
In thinking about this topic, I stumbled across a blog post that I really liked. It really resonated with my way of thinking. But a disclaimer: I've only read that one post on the blog; I can't vouch for everything on the site.
The media and politics are places where we find a lot of arrogant scientists. They take information and extrapolate it to meet their needs. Is global warming real? Will there be another ice age? We don't know for sure. I'm not saying ignore it. I believe it is wise to continue studying it and strive to make things better. I also believe that there are a lot of arrogant scientists involved.
So please, don't be an arrogant scientist. Don't tell me that you know something based on science. Don't tell me your phlogiston theory is not negotiable. Sit yourself down to some nice, home-made humble pie. Then once your ego is in check, I'll be glad to hear all about your theories and extrapolations with the caveat that it is based on our current scientific understanding.
Update:
I don't mean to imply in this post that scientists should constantly go around saying "think" instead of "know". I don't believe we need to be constantly wasting time couching all of our statements. I don't think that most scientists are arrogant.
When a scientist says that they know something, I understand that the implicit (but usually unvoiced) caveat that it is based on our current best understanding. I have no problem with that.
The issue comes up for me when the way in which something is said or written comes off as arrogant. When people talk about science in unequivocal absolutes. When what they say implies (at least to me) that they are no longer entertaining the possibility of being completely wrong. When they dismiss people's ideas for no other reason than it doesn't fit with their viewpoint (i.e. without considering it or comparing it to established science).
I've updated the above paragraph about the earth's age to try to clarify this.
Sunday, January 10, 2010
Musings on the English Language
I've long been a fan of the proper use of the English language. I'm not sure if that comes from the love of good literature which my mother fostered in me, or perhaps as a reaction to the appalling misuse (or even slaughter) of the language on the Internet.
I should hasten to add a disclaimer: I am definitely not an expert of the English language. I don't claim to have perfect grammar, spelling, or punctuation. Instead I prefer to think of myself as a student of language. The most important aspect of this, to me, is that I try to be cognizant of my usage. I try to think about what I speak and write.
To that end, I try to increase my vocabulary by adding new and interesting words. One excellent word that I've recently learned is recalcitrant. Isn't that a great word? A few days ago I encountered the Daily Writing Tips site. Already I've learned many interesting little tidbits.
It irks me to see misuse of language. One of the amazing things the Internet has provided is a lowered barrier to entry for people to publish their writing. But unfortunately, this has also allowed people to publish without going through a formal editing process. Sadly, most Internet denizens seem oblivious to the fact that they are communicating at a rudimentary level. With some, it is hard to tell if they are, in fact, actually communicating anything other than their own illiteracy.
There are also minor quips I have. For example, I feel like people often misuse the related words yay, yea, and yeah in writing. Phrases are shortened so repeatedly that I fear the origins will be lost, as in the phrase "speak of the devil." How long until no one remembers "and he shall appear?"
I recently listened to an interesting TED talk by Erin McKean. She talked about the tendency people have to use the dictionary to judge whether or not any particular word is "real". Her argument was basically that all words are "real" inasmuch as people use them to communicate. Also, today I learned that Erin McKean has gone on to create an interesting site called Wordnik.
I mostly agree with the points that she makes in her talk. I think it is important to capture the evolution of our language, because like it or not, it's not set in stone. No living language is -- even French isn't, despite their best attempts. But on the other hand, I worry that many wonderful existing words with rich heritage are being left by the wayside as popular culture and the Internet spawn gaudy new ones.
I really like a quote from the interview I linked above. In it Erin says:
I agree with this quote. But I fear that like with so many other things, society is trending away from what's appropriate. There is a growing sentiment that "it doesn't matter" and that "nothing is true, all is permitted." Refined English is becoming a thing of the past. And that doesn't even address grammar or punctuation!
I worry that the English language is becoming too casual. It is becoming too simplistic. Instead of choosing just the right word that carries nuanced meaning, people are using too many basic words or are creating shallow words. For example, awesomepants is a funny word. I imagine that most people get the gist and emotion of the word right away. In that regard, it's great because it allows you to quickly communicate that feeling. But it doesn't communicate a depth of meaning. Essentially, it is just a variant of awesome, but ostensibly more awesome than just the "vanilla" awesome.
But notice the subtle shift of meaning if you instead say that something is exceptional, extraordinary, magnificent, marvelous, outstanding, remarkable, or singular (to choose just a few synonyms of awesome). It's amazing that there are so many different words to choose from. In my opinion, the only reason to use awesomepants would be for the contemporary humor.
My second language is Khmer (a.k.a. Cambodian). I learned it while living in Cambodia for two years as a missionary. (I've also taken some Japanese classes. That's a language I'd love to be fluent in. Sadly my k12-schooled Spanish is all but gone.) It's a simple language in many ways, and this came in handy since I was trying to learn it. But once I was fluent, I found it sometimes difficult to really express myself. I know that much of this came from me not being a native speaker. My vocabulary wasn't vast (though I wonder how large some of the word sets really are in that language -- especially those commonly used), and my accent made it hard to be understood sometimes. I'm sure there were other factors as well, but the simplicity of the language was a setback in that area.
I just hope that the English norm doesn't become one that is too simple. I'd miss the fabulous variety of words. I'd miss the intellectual process required to write and speak "correctly". Thus I will continue my quest to improve my language. And I'll try to assist others as well, even if they don't always like it.
I should hasten to add a disclaimer: I am definitely not an expert of the English language. I don't claim to have perfect grammar, spelling, or punctuation. Instead I prefer to think of myself as a student of language. The most important aspect of this, to me, is that I try to be cognizant of my usage. I try to think about what I speak and write.
To that end, I try to increase my vocabulary by adding new and interesting words. One excellent word that I've recently learned is recalcitrant. Isn't that a great word? A few days ago I encountered the Daily Writing Tips site. Already I've learned many interesting little tidbits.
It irks me to see misuse of language. One of the amazing things the Internet has provided is a lowered barrier to entry for people to publish their writing. But unfortunately, this has also allowed people to publish without going through a formal editing process. Sadly, most Internet denizens seem oblivious to the fact that they are communicating at a rudimentary level. With some, it is hard to tell if they are, in fact, actually communicating anything other than their own illiteracy.
There are also minor quips I have. For example, I feel like people often misuse the related words yay, yea, and yeah in writing. Phrases are shortened so repeatedly that I fear the origins will be lost, as in the phrase "speak of the devil." How long until no one remembers "and he shall appear?"
I recently listened to an interesting TED talk by Erin McKean. She talked about the tendency people have to use the dictionary to judge whether or not any particular word is "real". Her argument was basically that all words are "real" inasmuch as people use them to communicate. Also, today I learned that Erin McKean has gone on to create an interesting site called Wordnik.
I mostly agree with the points that she makes in her talk. I think it is important to capture the evolution of our language, because like it or not, it's not set in stone. No living language is -- even French isn't, despite their best attempts. But on the other hand, I worry that many wonderful existing words with rich heritage are being left by the wayside as popular culture and the Internet spawn gaudy new ones.
I really like a quote from the interview I linked above. In it Erin says:
Also, whether words are right or wrong can vary according to use. I might say to a friend , “That movie was awesomepants!” But I would not lead into a movie review in The New York Times with the word awesomepants. That would be inappropriate. People expect that one size fits all with words, when that doesn’t work in any other area of their lives. I hope that we can change that view.
I agree with this quote. But I fear that like with so many other things, society is trending away from what's appropriate. There is a growing sentiment that "it doesn't matter" and that "nothing is true, all is permitted." Refined English is becoming a thing of the past. And that doesn't even address grammar or punctuation!
I worry that the English language is becoming too casual. It is becoming too simplistic. Instead of choosing just the right word that carries nuanced meaning, people are using too many basic words or are creating shallow words. For example, awesomepants is a funny word. I imagine that most people get the gist and emotion of the word right away. In that regard, it's great because it allows you to quickly communicate that feeling. But it doesn't communicate a depth of meaning. Essentially, it is just a variant of awesome, but ostensibly more awesome than just the "vanilla" awesome.
But notice the subtle shift of meaning if you instead say that something is exceptional, extraordinary, magnificent, marvelous, outstanding, remarkable, or singular (to choose just a few synonyms of awesome). It's amazing that there are so many different words to choose from. In my opinion, the only reason to use awesomepants would be for the contemporary humor.
My second language is Khmer (a.k.a. Cambodian). I learned it while living in Cambodia for two years as a missionary. (I've also taken some Japanese classes. That's a language I'd love to be fluent in. Sadly my k12-schooled Spanish is all but gone.) It's a simple language in many ways, and this came in handy since I was trying to learn it. But once I was fluent, I found it sometimes difficult to really express myself. I know that much of this came from me not being a native speaker. My vocabulary wasn't vast (though I wonder how large some of the word sets really are in that language -- especially those commonly used), and my accent made it hard to be understood sometimes. I'm sure there were other factors as well, but the simplicity of the language was a setback in that area.
I just hope that the English norm doesn't become one that is too simple. I'd miss the fabulous variety of words. I'd miss the intellectual process required to write and speak "correctly". Thus I will continue my quest to improve my language. And I'll try to assist others as well, even if they don't always like it.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Auditory Sophistication
Two weeks ago, we added a large new item to our home: a piano. It is a beautiful black upright piano. My wife and I have always wanted to buy one, and we determined that we could afford one this fall. So when pianos went on sell last month, we dove in.
Since then I've been enjoying my wife's playing. I wish I could play something that resembled music. But I'm content to just listen. Our home has some interesting acoustic properties which sends all the sound from downstairs to the upper floor. That has been annoying at times, but it means I can hear the piano from pretty much anywhere in the house.
I look forward to having music in our home. I feel that it brings a certain level of refinement, especially as classical pieces are played. Although they probably won't like it at times, I intend to insure that our children learn to play.
It is a very welcome addition to our home.
Since then I've been enjoying my wife's playing. I wish I could play something that resembled music. But I'm content to just listen. Our home has some interesting acoustic properties which sends all the sound from downstairs to the upper floor. That has been annoying at times, but it means I can hear the piano from pretty much anywhere in the house.
I look forward to having music in our home. I feel that it brings a certain level of refinement, especially as classical pieces are played. Although they probably won't like it at times, I intend to insure that our children learn to play.
It is a very welcome addition to our home.
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Castles Uncrashed
After the recent debacle of my XBox 360's hard drive failure, I had resigned myself that my saved data was gone. So you can imagine my surprise when I fired up Castle Crashers the other day and found that my saved data was there!
Apparently the data for Castle Crashers is not saved on your hard drive or memory unit. Instead it is saved somewhere in the cloud of XBox Live. And I am certainly glad it is, because that was the most annoying save to lose.
Apparently the data for Castle Crashers is not saved on your hard drive or memory unit. Instead it is saved somewhere in the cloud of XBox Live. And I am certainly glad it is, because that was the most annoying save to lose.
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Death of a Hard Drive
Two weeks ago, my XBox 360 HDD decided to fail. I was playing ODST and got a "disk read error". I reset and played some more, only to have it freeze again.
Needless to say, this upset me quite a bit. I had heard about ODST disk read errors, but had not been bitten by one until then. I thought that's all it was -- an annoying pain for that game. So I tired off the console and didn't think much on it.
It wasn't until that night that I discovered how deep the trouble ran. My brother was coming over to play some ODST with me, so I fired up the XBox. A single red light appeared on the lower right of the ring.
"E68," said the XBox.
"Oh no. That can't be good," I said.
The next 30-60 minutes found me searching for solutions online and repeatedly trying to resuscitate the dying HDD. But it was to no avail. It was dead, Jim.
My brother and I still had fun playing ODST Firefight, but we couldn't play with friends online and none of the medals went to my Bungie.net profile.
The unexpected loss of the hard drive left me grieving. Some research revealed that recovering my saved games would not be very likely. The most painful losses would be my Castle Crashers save and my RockBand 2 save.
I considered my options, all of them stupidly expensive.
Before making a decision, one of my best friends helped me test and then disassemble the old hard drive in the hopes of recovering some data. No dice. The failure was complete -- the drive is just a brick now. I very much appreciate my friend's help though.
Finally last night I made a decision and bought a new hard drive. Unfortunately, Best Buy doesn't do their replacement plan on just the hard drives. Oh well.
So now I'm starting over. One nice thing about XBox Live is that it tracks what you've downloaded and let's you re-download those items anytime. Thus I'm back in business. I'm sure I'll miss my save data, but them's the breaks.
And so goes the tale of woe which is the Death of a Hard Drive.
Needless to say, this upset me quite a bit. I had heard about ODST disk read errors, but had not been bitten by one until then. I thought that's all it was -- an annoying pain for that game. So I tired off the console and didn't think much on it.
It wasn't until that night that I discovered how deep the trouble ran. My brother was coming over to play some ODST with me, so I fired up the XBox. A single red light appeared on the lower right of the ring.
"E68," said the XBox.
"Oh no. That can't be good," I said.
The next 30-60 minutes found me searching for solutions online and repeatedly trying to resuscitate the dying HDD. But it was to no avail. It was dead, Jim.
My brother and I still had fun playing ODST Firefight, but we couldn't play with friends online and none of the medals went to my Bungie.net profile.
The unexpected loss of the hard drive left me grieving. Some research revealed that recovering my saved games would not be very likely. The most painful losses would be my Castle Crashers save and my RockBand 2 save.
I considered my options, all of them stupidly expensive.
- I could forget about hard drives and get a memory card instead. Then I could play online, but wouldn't have all my RockBand downloads. The memory cards are cheaper than a new hard drive, but still cost way more than they should.
- I could shell out the coin for a new HDD. This seemed like the best solution, but I was daunted by the expense.
- I could splurge to get a new XBox Elite from Best Buy. I could then get their awesome replacement plan in case things went South. But then I'd have an extra console and a hole in my wallet.
Before making a decision, one of my best friends helped me test and then disassemble the old hard drive in the hopes of recovering some data. No dice. The failure was complete -- the drive is just a brick now. I very much appreciate my friend's help though.
Finally last night I made a decision and bought a new hard drive. Unfortunately, Best Buy doesn't do their replacement plan on just the hard drives. Oh well.
So now I'm starting over. One nice thing about XBox Live is that it tracks what you've downloaded and let's you re-download those items anytime. Thus I'm back in business. I'm sure I'll miss my save data, but them's the breaks.
And so goes the tale of woe which is the Death of a Hard Drive.
Monday, September 28, 2009
ODST Review
Last week I dropped into Halo 3: ODST and I've really been enjoying it. (My wife would probably say I've been enjoying it too much and shouldn't stay up past midnight playing games, even if it is a Friday night). I've been sad to see it receive mediocre-to-bad reviews in the media, so I figured I'd put my opinion out there. I hope this review will tip the scales for some of my friends who haven't picked up the game--I need more friends to play Firefight with.
I've broken down my review around key points and provide counter arguments to many of the negative reviews.
Price
Most reviews need to get over themselves on this point, especially regarding the "Wasn't this a Halo 3 expansion?" crap. Both Microsoft and Bungie have been pretty clear that they decided to go beyond the scope of just an expansion.
Personally, I feel the price is just fine. It is right in line with all major polished games. Some people seem to think that Bungie "owes" them something -- as though because Bungie had previously built the Halo 3 engine they don't deserve as much money for a new game using it. As a software developer, I am more than happy to pay for good software and I'm keenly aware of the predicaments surrounding software often being under-valued.
But in any case, Bungie did update their engine for ODST, they added a new campaign, and they added a new multiplayer mode. And the stats available on Bungie.net go above and beyond what most games provide.
To me, getting the Halo 3 multiplayer maps is also a nice bonus. I hadn't bought any of them, so I feel like I got a good deal. But even without that, I'd still say ODST is worth the price (I still haven't put in the 2nd disc).
Campaign
I very much enjoyed the campaign. It reminded me of the original Halo: Combat Evolved -- I felt like I was exploring a new world again. Some people have brought up the "Halo 1" comparison as if it were a bad thing or that Bungie had somehow regressed. I disagree, feeling that they've taken the best of both worlds.
I'm a huge fan of the story in the original Halo. But somehow Halo 2 and 3 left me feeling quite unsatisfied. The overarching story was compelling, but it was ruined for me in the little details, contrivances, and the occasional terrible lines.
The ODST storyline really strikes a chord with me. You are dropped into a new setting very unlike the other Halo games (and no rehashed Forerunner levels -- seeya library!). You are given somewhat more leeway in how you go about completing your objectives. There is great voice acting and dialog. But the piece de la resistance is the atmosphere they create: the lost rookie in an occupied city; a fragmented squad trying to do the best they can.
Speaking of the squad, the Firefly casting is superb. They pay some excellent homage to the series, yet also manage to bring a very Halo feel to the characters. I agree with some reviews that they could have done more to develop the characters so you care more about the squad. But compared to the very two-dimensional Master Chief, the ODSTs have a lot going for them.
The combat dialog provided by the cast is fun to listen to, and also gives Firefight some nice flavor. Additionally I found that their dialog can also be very helpful, saying things such as, "Down to my last mag!" when you're running low on ammo. Sometimes I lose track of my ammo while in the middle of a fight, and that little audio clip really helps me out.
The Hub
The tasteless critics seem to think that the open-world hub area was just a play on Bungie's part to extend the duration of the campaign without adding any real substance. I can't understand this opinion. There is a great atmosphere and sense of exploration. It's the perfect setting for the story they are telling. It's true that the hub is somewhat light on combat, and I have no problem with that for the sake of the story!
Discovering the clues to what happened to the squad was compelling to me. I liked the idea that the city's AI, the Superintendent, had been recording events happening all over the city.
I also liked the optional "Sadie's Story". As a gamer who leans toward completionist, I found the search for these story bytes to be a very enjoyable treasure hunt. Unlike Assassin's Creed there are a reasonable number of items to find, and the Superintendent will assist the observant seeker.
ODSTs vs. Master Chief
Too many reviews are getting hung up over the differences between the ODSTs and the Master Chief. I can agree with some of these points. For example, why can't the ODSTs use equipment (e.g. bubble shield) but they can tote around a turret without breaking a sweat? It's pretty arbitrary.
But having said that, I enjoy the differences. I must vehemently disagree with the distinguished senator Justin McElroy of the site of Joystiq. He asked, in essence, "Who looked at the awesomeness of the Master Chief and asked for less?" Well, sir, I did.
I tire of the Master Chief. He's too powerful, and that cheapens the character. He's a one man army. From Halo 2 and 3, it would seem that he (almost) single-handedly saved Earth and defeated the Covenant and Flood. He's the superman of Halo, sans kryptonite.
I like that the ODSTs are capable, elite units, but not invincible. I like the challenge it brings, especially in Firefight.
Firefight
I love Firefight. I love cooperative gameplay, and this provides me some nice Halo multiplayer where I don't have to go up against 12-year-olds who are better than I. Having missed out on the Left 4 Dead and Gears 2 scenes, I'm ecstatic about the mode.
I was sad to see that only two of my friends have picked up ODST. I played Firefight by myself until I finally got a 2-player game going on Saturday. That game was awesome. Working together we were able to survive for quite a while -- and got the associated Firefight achievement to boot.
Conclusion
If you like Halo, you'll probably like ODST. If the original Halo was compelling enough to get you out to buy an XBox just to play it (as several guys I know did), then why are you quibbling over $60? Get it. It's worth it.
The campaign story is excellent. Put away your expectations of what a Halo story is "supposed" to be. Enjoy the audio magic of Nathan Fillion, Adam Baldwin, and Alan Tudyk. And most of all, play Firefight with me!
I've broken down my review around key points and provide counter arguments to many of the negative reviews.
Price
Most reviews need to get over themselves on this point, especially regarding the "Wasn't this a Halo 3 expansion?" crap. Both Microsoft and Bungie have been pretty clear that they decided to go beyond the scope of just an expansion.
Personally, I feel the price is just fine. It is right in line with all major polished games. Some people seem to think that Bungie "owes" them something -- as though because Bungie had previously built the Halo 3 engine they don't deserve as much money for a new game using it. As a software developer, I am more than happy to pay for good software and I'm keenly aware of the predicaments surrounding software often being under-valued.
But in any case, Bungie did update their engine for ODST, they added a new campaign, and they added a new multiplayer mode. And the stats available on Bungie.net go above and beyond what most games provide.
To me, getting the Halo 3 multiplayer maps is also a nice bonus. I hadn't bought any of them, so I feel like I got a good deal. But even without that, I'd still say ODST is worth the price (I still haven't put in the 2nd disc).
Campaign
I very much enjoyed the campaign. It reminded me of the original Halo: Combat Evolved -- I felt like I was exploring a new world again. Some people have brought up the "Halo 1" comparison as if it were a bad thing or that Bungie had somehow regressed. I disagree, feeling that they've taken the best of both worlds.
I'm a huge fan of the story in the original Halo. But somehow Halo 2 and 3 left me feeling quite unsatisfied. The overarching story was compelling, but it was ruined for me in the little details, contrivances, and the occasional terrible lines.
The ODST storyline really strikes a chord with me. You are dropped into a new setting very unlike the other Halo games (and no rehashed Forerunner levels -- seeya library!). You are given somewhat more leeway in how you go about completing your objectives. There is great voice acting and dialog. But the piece de la resistance is the atmosphere they create: the lost rookie in an occupied city; a fragmented squad trying to do the best they can.
Speaking of the squad, the Firefly casting is superb. They pay some excellent homage to the series, yet also manage to bring a very Halo feel to the characters. I agree with some reviews that they could have done more to develop the characters so you care more about the squad. But compared to the very two-dimensional Master Chief, the ODSTs have a lot going for them.
The combat dialog provided by the cast is fun to listen to, and also gives Firefight some nice flavor. Additionally I found that their dialog can also be very helpful, saying things such as, "Down to my last mag!" when you're running low on ammo. Sometimes I lose track of my ammo while in the middle of a fight, and that little audio clip really helps me out.
The Hub
The tasteless critics seem to think that the open-world hub area was just a play on Bungie's part to extend the duration of the campaign without adding any real substance. I can't understand this opinion. There is a great atmosphere and sense of exploration. It's the perfect setting for the story they are telling. It's true that the hub is somewhat light on combat, and I have no problem with that for the sake of the story!
Discovering the clues to what happened to the squad was compelling to me. I liked the idea that the city's AI, the Superintendent, had been recording events happening all over the city.
I also liked the optional "Sadie's Story". As a gamer who leans toward completionist, I found the search for these story bytes to be a very enjoyable treasure hunt. Unlike Assassin's Creed there are a reasonable number of items to find, and the Superintendent will assist the observant seeker.
ODSTs vs. Master Chief
Too many reviews are getting hung up over the differences between the ODSTs and the Master Chief. I can agree with some of these points. For example, why can't the ODSTs use equipment (e.g. bubble shield) but they can tote around a turret without breaking a sweat? It's pretty arbitrary.
But having said that, I enjoy the differences. I must vehemently disagree with the distinguished senator Justin McElroy of the site of Joystiq. He asked, in essence, "Who looked at the awesomeness of the Master Chief and asked for less?" Well, sir, I did.
I tire of the Master Chief. He's too powerful, and that cheapens the character. He's a one man army. From Halo 2 and 3, it would seem that he (almost) single-handedly saved Earth and defeated the Covenant and Flood. He's the superman of Halo, sans kryptonite.
I like that the ODSTs are capable, elite units, but not invincible. I like the challenge it brings, especially in Firefight.
Firefight
I love Firefight. I love cooperative gameplay, and this provides me some nice Halo multiplayer where I don't have to go up against 12-year-olds who are better than I. Having missed out on the Left 4 Dead and Gears 2 scenes, I'm ecstatic about the mode.
I was sad to see that only two of my friends have picked up ODST. I played Firefight by myself until I finally got a 2-player game going on Saturday. That game was awesome. Working together we were able to survive for quite a while -- and got the associated Firefight achievement to boot.
Conclusion
If you like Halo, you'll probably like ODST. If the original Halo was compelling enough to get you out to buy an XBox just to play it (as several guys I know did), then why are you quibbling over $60? Get it. It's worth it.
The campaign story is excellent. Put away your expectations of what a Halo story is "supposed" to be. Enjoy the audio magic of Nathan Fillion, Adam Baldwin, and Alan Tudyk. And most of all, play Firefight with me!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)