Review: Lenovo IdeaPad(130422U)

I've been on the market for a tablet for quite sometime now, but what I've encountered has either been overpriced (iPad), under-powered (Cruz T301), and in one bizarre case, overpowered (Asus eee Slate). That came to a screeching halt yesterday when I ran across a new product being offered by Lenovo, the IdeaPad.

If you're not familiar with Lenovo suffuce to say, they're a Chinese hardware firm who bought the ThinkPad name from IBM a few years back and has been doing an excellent job with it; to be honest I think they dropped the ball a bit with their newest model, the W520, but that doesn't change the years of solid work they've put on the market (and don't get me wrong, the W520 is a powerhouse, it just needs a little more TLC than most Think products due to some driver issues).

The IdeaPad is a bit of a divergence for Lenovo, a consumer product built for home use, but they did a great job. Running Android 3.1 (Honeycomb) with a 10 inch screen and weighing at a little over a quarter of a kilogram it's a great fit for your hand and comfortable to hold on to; the screen is bright and crisp and every bit as responsive as any iPad I've worked with; front and back facing cameras, 5MB back 2 front, it takes decent pictures and has the screen to display them. The standard model is a 32GB wifi (no 3G) and an expansion slot for another 64GB of Micro SD storage. Lenovo also made the decision to minimally tweak Android, it's essentially a stock build of 3.1, and gives you immediate access to the complete Android Marketplace. Best of all, the price, coming in at 349.99 (Canadian) at Best Buy and Future Shop (compare that to the iPad2).

I only played with it a few hours before boxing it up (it's destined as a gift), but before boxing it, I placed an order for a second one for myself. I literally cannot say anything bad about this machine, if you're at all interested in a tablet, do yourself a favor and check the IdeaPad out; I'd could say it's a great product considering it's price, but I won't because it's a great product with an amazing price, this could be an iPad killer if it was marketed right.

The Walking Dead Season 2 Review

In a word: AWESOME!

Only one episode in, but it's safe to say I''ll be watching for the next couple episodes at the very least; there was some solid stuff going on last night that I want more of. The absence of Frank Darabont, whose work I largely enjoy, doesn't seem to have been problematic, in fact I would say the first episode was stronger than anything we saw in the entire first season. My only real complaint, the zombies look more like living people pretending to be zombies, but there's only so much you can do with that aspect.

In my opinion, the entire first season was looking for it's place; the show was a little too gory to appeal to the people who want drama and stories, and the the drama was a little to over the top for the people looking for gore and horror. I think there will be some negative reviews about this episode, but this will be based on a model that doesn't apply to the walking dead. The Walking Dead is something of a misunderstood show. Most people see it as a horror show, but that's not really where it's head is at, or, more importantly, it's heart.

The number one and most important thing you have to understand about The Walking Dead is this: the show is about survivors not zombies. The zombies are a plot device to move the story along, the show is about the people; in fact, the title is talking about the survivors, not the undead (I implore you to read the comic book, it's all explained there). Watch some of the show, I mean really watch it, and you'll understand.

There it is, watch the show, it's good, real good, I think the best thing you'll see this year.

Being Frugal with My iPad

I've been debating about a tablet device ever since the first iPad was announced. After buying the Pocket PC and Palm devices the moment they we're released only to realize I had no use for them in my life, I try to hold off on buying tech toys because they seem cool. Consequently, I debated iPad vs netbook then held off too debate iPad vs Android vs Playbook vs all the other tablets coming out. A couple days ago I bit the bullet and bought an iPad 2. The anti-conformist in me tries to avoid Apple products but after playing with the alternatives and looking at available apps the iPad was the superior device for my intended use. Note for those of you happy with the other devices I'm not slamming them, they just didn't fit my requirements.

I decided that I donate enough money to Rogers monthly and also wanted to save a little over a hundred bucks on the initial purchase so went with the wifi only model. The idea here was that I always have my Sony Xperia X10 phone with me so I would just tether the wireless off my phone when no other wifi was available. I have a friend who does this with Blue Tooth and a iPhone 3GS. Well turns out that you can't do that easily via Blue Tooth with the X10. You can pair to the iPad but can not connect. "No Worries", I thought, I half expected that. I would have been shocked if Apple and Android 2.1 played together. So I went with Plan B which was to use the Android app "Barnacle Wifi Tether" to make my phone a portable wifi hotspot.

To do this you need to suck up some courage, if your not a tech guy, and make some adjustments to your phone as Barnacle requires root access. To clarify at a high level, Root Access, means superuser access.

After searching the Internet on how to root your phone I finally found a method that worked on my phone which was using a tool on xda-devlelopers called "SuperOneClick". The latest version worked, phone is now rooted, I'm writing this using Barnacle to access the Internet, and my dislike for my Android phone has softened as a result ;).

http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=803682

Note I'll have to Unroot when Sony officially releases Gingerbread for the Xperia X10 so I can upgrade but that looks to be pretty easy using "SuperOneClick". I also hear that with Gingerbread Barnacle may not be necessary anymore so we shall wait and see.

Used Games

It's been a while since we've heard much about used games in the media, but every now and then I still find a tidbit online that alludes to it. Since I haven't written anything in a while I figured this was as good a thing as any to do. Before I get started, let me also just say I have no sympathy for people complaining about what used games stores (EBGames, GameStop, etc.) pay for old games; they have a business to run and they are trying to maximize their profits, if you don't like what is being offered, keep the game, it's that simple, if they really want them, they'll offer more.

First, let me say the whole used game thing essentially bugs me, no one else gets second value from their product, used cars, movies, or my old camping equipment, the only time a manufacturer sees value from me is during the initial purchase. Having said that, in this day and age there is a lot of after market support put into games, patching, DLC, and so forth, however this is not the consumers problem; perhaps proper QA should be conducted before releasing, and the bulk of DLC is purchase anyway.

I think the problem we are really facing is an adherence to an outdated model; games are still manufactured and distributed under much the same premise as they were in the Atari days, however technology has outpaced dramatically, the proof being the ease in which games are patched. Digital downloads will eventually solve this altogether, but it will be a while before that is a proven fact.

If you want to see what I believe represents the true wave of the future look no further than Blizzard. They aren't doing things perfect, but they are well on their way to it, they only problem they have is charging so much for their initial product, especially considering the monthly fee you also take on. Consider, however, how much free content goes in with every patch and you have a sustainable business model. IN Blizzards case I believe they should be offering their base software free, or, at most, charging 25% of what they currently do.

Here's how you fix it, sell your initial product for a much smaller fee, something in the XBox live marketplace fee, under 20 dollars, then offer patches and/or DLC (your choice of terminology) at a nominal fee. I would envision the bulk of the DLC to be created during the development cycle so all you're doing is recouping your costs, and ensuring that anyone who purchases the game secondhand has to pony up for it. Legitimate patching, such as bug fixes, would obviously be free. If people are willing, I could even see a small subscription fee, especially considering the way multiplayer content has taken over the market.

Is it perfect? No, but what is? Some publishers have already started doing this anyway, and like it or not, if you want to continue playing video games (which I know I do) you're going to have to pay for them somehow. If nothing else this would force more accountability into the system and give publishers a true measure of what people are looking for.

A Word or Two on Cut Scenes

Where would video games be without cutscene's? Not nearly as far as we are now that's for sure, they build tension, tell a story, give invaluable information for proceeding through the remainder of the game, and they're just plain entertaining. In short, the video game as we know it today would be nothing without the cutscene. Having said that however, cutscenes are a delicate scalpel that too often get treated like a broadsword, hacking and slashing legitimate gameplay to make room for their own purposes. Cutscenes are meant to by symbiotic, benefiting both game and gamer, yet all too often they become parasitic, killing both.

An example would be in order, and, right off the top of the list, I would have to say the best use I've seen in recent gaming would be in Red Dead Redemption. It actually makes sparing use of cutscenes, choosing instead to use travel time to relay information and what scenes there are end up being more memorable and interesting. This is contrast to COD: Black Ops which chose to use almost no cutscenes and attempted to deliver all its information through the course of events, it just doesn't give the player enough engagement to get involved. Mafia II struggled a bit with this balance, the scenes were a bit long at times, even though they told a great story, and they might have killed the game if it hadn't been for the fact they were skippable (I found this particularly true with the expansions).

This is the cardinal rule that gets broken all too often, and one you'll hear players complain about above all others, when cutscenes cannot be skipped over. Put as little or as much s you want in there and let the player choose how they want to treat it, especially if you're trying to sell replay value.

A bad example? The worst I've ever seen is in a game called Bonetown, an X-rated game about sex and drug use, nothing innovative or compelling (beyond the nudity), but largely playable; that is to say largely playable other than the frequent, unskippable, and boring custcenes. They're meant to be funny and entertaining, but the game is just difficult enough that you often end up sitting through the pedantic dialog over and over again, waiting to see if you'll get it this time. I guess people who write porn aren't really cut out for interactive creativity, who'd have thought?

Pay attention to the next game you play and judge for yourself, if you don't enjoy it due to boredom or difficulty, there's at least an even money chance this is due to the data being relayed to you as a player, a well made cutscene might engage you more or help you out of a bad spot. If you are enjoying it, it's very likely due to well placed cutscenes, providing engagement and information that makes you want to stick around.