Break time! A review of Star Ocean: The Last Hope for the Xbox 360

March 9th, 2009

[Break Time! is a series of posts about video games that Rick has spent entirely too much time with over the years.]

Introduction

The current generation of game consoles has not been very kind to gamers who enjoy Japanese-style role-playing games (JRPGs). If you like JRPGs, you’re better off having merely a Playstation 2 rather than the current offerings from Sony, Microsoft, or Nintendo.

Finally, some of the big names are coming to the current generation of consoles. Star Ocean: The Last Hope is here.

Star Ocean: The Last Hope

Star Ocean: The Last Hope

Star Ocean: The Last Hope is the fourth major Star Ocean game from Tri-Ace. (So, I’ll call it SO4 from now on.) Since the previous game (Star Ocean: Til the End of Time) ended rather strangely, Tri-Ace decided to make this game a prequel to the previous three games. The game is set shortly after the third world war has made Earth practically uninhabitable. Earthlings are using newly developed “warp” technology to find a new planet to live on. I should also mention that the Earthlings have made contact with an older spacefaring race who look like humans but wear things on their ears that give the earlobes a pointy appearance. If that last bit sounds somewhat familiar, that’s because the Star Ocean universe is what you would get if you took Star Trek and dressed it up with magic (“symbology” or “heraldry” in Star Ocean) and swords.

Read my spoiler-free review of the game below the jump.

Read the rest of this entry »

Chemists as creationists: A formula for disaster

February 20th, 2009

A colleague in the natural sciences department here at the college handed me a printed copy of an article recently, and asked me for my opinion “as a chemist” on it.  I took the article and, since it was about 2 minutes before my next class, said I’d look at it later.  Later came, and I was in for a bit of a shock.  The article in question was one from the “Institute for Creation Research”: Chemistry by Chance: A Formula for Non-Life by one Charles McCombs, Ph.D.

Dr. McCombs seems to be a retired organic chemist.  So, you would expect McCombs to have some chemical objections to evolution.  (As commenter wb points out below, he is really trying to critique abiogenesis – what happened before evolution started.)

Before we get started, I’d like to point out the format of the article.  It’s a list.  Like many creationists, McCombs spews out a bunch of soundbite-sized objections to the science in the hopes that something will stick.  Most of these objections are simply old creationist claims that have been debunked a hundred times over.  You can read about those – like [the stability of biomolecules] and [the “problem” of chirality] – over at the Index to Creationist Claims.  Let’s see what McCombs says that might be new.

In a watery environment, amino acids and nucleotides cannot combine to form the polymeric backbone required for proteins and DNA/RNA.

Never mind, of course, that living cells do this sort of thing, and they’re 70% water.

In the laboratory, the only way to cause a reaction to form a polymer is to have the chemical components activated and then placed in a reactive environment. The process must be completely water-free, since the activated compounds would react with water. How could proteins and DNA/RNA be formed in some primordial, watery soup if the natural components are unreactive and if the necessary activated components cannot exist in water?

The way we choose to make a chemical in a laboratory environment may be quite different from the way a chemical can be made in the natural environment. I may choose to make oxygen gas in my lab via decomposition of mercuric oxide, but that’s not how the algae in the pond across campus do it.

Since living cells can manage making peptides with water around, you might envision that there would be some mechanisms available for the formation of peptides in the presence of water.  One such mechanism is the salt-induced peptide formation (SIPF) reaction, which can link up amino acids in aqueous solution when sodium chloride, copper(II) ions, and sufficient heat are available.  It’s quite likely that these things were available before life came about.  Other possible pathways to peptide formation in aqueous solution involve sulfur, something else that was available on the ancient Earth.

McCombs later comes up with this argument, which I haven’t heard before.  I’ll quote it in full.

Every time one component reacts with a second component forming the polymer, the chemical reaction also forms water as a byproduct of the reaction. There is a rule of chemical reactions (based on Le Chatelier’s Principle) called the Law of Mass Action that says all reactions proceed in a direction from highest to lowest concentration. This means that any reaction that produces water cannot be performed in the presence of water. This Law of Mass Action provides a total hindrance to protein, DNA/RNA, and polysaccharide formation because even if the condensation took place, the water from a supposed primordial soup would immediately hydrolyze them. Thus, if they are formed according to evolutionary theory, the water would have to be removed from the products, which is impossible in a “watery” soup.

Never mind, for the moment, that reactions that can link up amino acids in water under conditions that may have been available on the ancient Earth have been demonstrated and studied.   Let’s look at his argument.

Perhaps McCombs means to confuse us by throwing around terms like “Le Chateleir’s Principle” and “The Law of Mass Action”.  Perhaps he merely condused himself, but did McCombs really say that “any reaction that produces water cannot be performed in the presence of water“?  That’ll be news to any freshman chemistry student who has ever titrated an aqueous solution of an acid with aqueous sodium hydroxide – a reaction that produces water in an aqueous solution.

HC2H3O2(aq) + OH(aq) –> H2O(l) + C2H3O2(aq)

The titration of vinegar with aqueous sodium hydroxide is a staple of introductory chemistry labs.

Maybe that quote of his is not what he really meant to say, but nowhere does Le Chateleir’s Principle say that it’s impossible to do a chemical reaction if one of the products is already present.

After recycling more discredited creationist claims (see the links at the beginning of this post for more on those), McCombs ends his screed by saying that

The synthesis of proteins and DNA/RNA in the laboratory requires the chemist to control the reaction conditions, to thoroughly understand the reactivity and selectivity of each component, and to carefully control the order of addition of the components as the chain is building in size.  The successful formation of proteins and DNA/RNA in some imaginary primordial soup would require the same level of control as in the laboratory, but that level of control is not possible without a specific chemical controller.

The problem with this argument is that it assumes that since humans might make a specific biomolecule in the lab with the purpose of making it quickly and at a high purity, that nature has to be doing the same thing.    McCombs has provided no evidence whatsoever that this assumption is valid.  If anything, the fossil record of organisms that no longer roam the Earth says the exact opposite!


I also recommend taking a look at this article: “A model for the role of short self-assembled peptides in the very early stages of the origin of life” by Ohad Carny and Ehud Gazit. Very interesting stuff.  As always, actual science is far more interesting than creationist screeching about what can’t be done because it violates cretionist (mis)understanding of science.

The expectations gap

February 18th, 2009

Here’s an interesting little NYT article on the gulf between the grades students expect to receive in their college classes versus the grades they actually earn:

A recent study by researchers at the University of California, Irvine, found that a third of students surveyed said that they expected B’s just for attending lectures, and 40 percent said they deserved a B for completing the required reading.

Some college educators refer to this as the “I paid my fee, gimme my B” phenomenon.  The only thing about this study’s results that surprises me is that only a third of the surveyed students expected to get an above-average grade just for showing up.

This leads into a more revealing quote from an interviewed student:

“I think putting in a lot of effort should merit a high grade,” Mr. Greenwood [the interviewed student] said. “What else is there really than the effort that you put in?”

How about demonstrating mastery of the course competencies?  A course grade that’s higher than average should denote that a student has a higher-than-average proficiency with the material covered in the course.  That’s it.

The student continues:

“If you put in all the effort you have and get a C, what is the point?” […] “If someone goes to every class and reads every chapter in the book and does everything the teacher asks of them and more, then they should be getting an A like their effort deserves. If your maximum effort can only be average in a teacher’s mind, then something is wrong.”

Except that the grade reflects mastery of material rather than how much time a student spent sitting at his desk with his textbook and his iPhone.

It’s not quoted in the article, but from my own experiences there’s another underlying issue with student expectations.  Students think that they’re working a lot harder at a course than they really are.  I’ve had students who sincerely believe they’re putting in lots of effort towards a course when I talk to them about what went horribly wrong on their tests.  Here’s how the discussions typically run.

Student:  “I don’t understand why I did so badly on the test.  I studied really hard.”

Me: “Okay.  Well let’s see if we can work out how to get you to do better on the next test.  Let’s take a look at some of the study guide problems you worked out while you were getting ready for the test.  Maybe we can find out what was giving you trouble”   (I teach chemistry, which is very much a problem-solving course.  I give my students study guides complete with practice problems for every unit of material we cover, as well as additional practice sets with solutions on my course web site.)

Student: “Umm…”

Me:  “I think I see the problem.  How did you prepare for this test?”

The student usually says something at this point about “rereading the notes” or “looking at the book”.  While these things might be a small part of preparing for a problem-solving text, most of the actual preparation should be, well, practicing how to solve problems.

Even though glancing at the course notes and skimming over the textbook really isn’t putting real effort towards a class, most of these students I talk to about their study habits seem to think it is.  And that’s what’s really wrong with the student quote above.

With help like this …

February 18th, 2009

There’s an odd headline in The State today:
Bill would help SC schools amid budget cuts
Sounds good, right?  Then you read the article.

South Carolina lawmakers gave key approval Wednesday to a bill allowing school districts to increase class sizes and furlough teachers to absorb budget cuts

That’s “help”?  If cramming more and more students into a classroom and cutting teacher pay (which really isn’t that great to begin with) is meant to help our schools, I shudder to think what a bill hurting our schools would look like.

Disappearing hard drives

February 13th, 2009

So I’m checking e-mail last night, and something strange happened inside my laptop.  The hard drive disappeared.  No smoke, no odd noises.  Just … no hard drive.

As far as the laptop was concerned, the hard drive had simply been teleported from inside the laptop to inside of Bertrand Russell’s celestial teapot.  Poof!  Gone.

So today’s lessons are:

  1. Always keep backups.
  2. Always keep a spare hard drive around for your primary laptop.

An outrage!

February 12th, 2009

Here’s a letter to the editor from a Pee Dee media outlet:

Now, I’m really sorry to say this, but the Koran really needs to be taught in our Pee Dee schools.

Our grades are starting to be lower and lower every grading period, especially in Hemingway, where three-quarters of the student body are failing.

So with Allah’s help, our students’ grades will rocket up to A’s and B’s.

Outrageous, right?  We should never allow this sort of thing to be crammed down our children’s throats in the public schools.  Our public schools are meant to educate kids, not indoctrinate them.

Okay, I admit it – I changed the text of the letter above just a little.  But how is the outrageous letter above any different from the actual letter that was published – the one that said:

Now, I’m really sorry to say this, but the Bible really needs to be taught in our Pee Dee schools.

Our grades are starting to be lower and lower every grading period, especially in Hemingway, where three-quarters of the student body are failing.

So with God’s help, our students’ grades will rocket up to A’s and B’s.

Anyone?

Stop: Rant time!

February 11th, 2009

It’s the day of the first chemistry test.  Since this is a low-level introductory class, we’ve spent much of the last few weeks learning how to do math for lab work rather than actual chemistry – because when students say they have problems with chemistry, they’re really saying that they have problems with math.

We’ve had extensive demonstrations of how to properly use scientific calculators for routine laboratory calculations.

Calculator

Calculator

In short, the students very well know that they’re going to be using their calculators for much of this test.

So … why do students still come to the test without their calculator?  It’s not like there’s a very long checklist of things to bring to the test:

  1. The student’s brain
  2. A pencil or two
  3. A calculator

The next thing you know, some students will be leaving their brains at home on the kitchen table.

Here endeth today’s rant.

Where did THIS come from?

February 4th, 2009

So, where did this come from?

Snow!  AGAIN!

Snow! AGAIN!

It’s the second snowfall here in my part of South Carolina this year.  (It’s also the second snowfall we’ve had in the last five years.)

This time, though, the college (and most local schools and businesses) didn’t issue a delay or cancellation.  That was unfortunate, since driving conditions during this snowfall were much worse than during the last one.

Let’s just say I’m thankful my car’s got traction and stability control …

Break Time! Persona 4 for the Playstation 2

January 30th, 2009

[Break Time! is a series of posts about video games that Rick has spent entirely too much time with over the years.]

Introduction

The Playstation 3 and Xbox 360 have both been out for some time now, but did you know there was still good gaming to be had on the relatively ancient Playstation 2?  Just this past December, the Playstation 2 got what might be its last great game: Shin Megami Tensei: Persona 4.

Persona 4, for the Playstation 2

Persona 4, for the Playstation 2

The Shin Megami Tensei (“MegaTen”) games, brought to us by Atlus, are for the most part turn-based role-playing games that feature themes that are darker and more adult-oriented than the typical Japanese role-playing game that’s brought over to the USA.  The Persona series is something of a spinoff series, featuring some of the same gameplay elements as the main line of games, but with more emphasis on character interaction than the others.

Like its predecessor, Persona 4 takes place in a Japanese high school (a somewhat ironic setting given that in the USA the game is rated “M”).  You take on the role of “the protagonist” – a character who you name and control throughout the game.  You start off your new life as a big-city boy who goes to live for a year with his uncle in the quiet town of Inaba.  Quiet, that is, until two things happen:

  1. Dead bodies start turning up hanging upside down from TV antennas, and …
  2. You discover that you’re able to jump into television screens.

Inside the television, you discover you have a power to summon and breed your own monsters (the “persona”s in the game’s title).  Using these monsters, you do battle with other monsters inside the television, hoping to both prevent more people from showing up dead and discover just what the heck is going on with this weird world inside the television.

Graphics and sound

For a Playstation 2 game, the graphics are done quite well.  Environments look like what they’re supposed to represent, and dungeons are sufficiently colorful and weird.  Some of the models for the Personas are qutie bland, but since they are not onscreen very often, it’s not a big deal.

If you’re a veteran to the Persona series, you will also notice that quite a few of the monsters and personas were simply lifted from Persona 3.

The game’s sound effects are servicable.  Things sound, more or less, like they’re supposed to.  The background music is primarily Japanese pop songs with English (or should I say “Engrish”) lyrics.  A typical example of the Engrish lyrics, from the song that plays when you’re inside your uncle’s house: “Signs of love overshadowed by dreams / baby, don’t worry ’cause you ain’t alone / only time running days without nights / tears pass through“. Say what?

The music is appropriate for a game set at a high school, and (either fortunately or unfortunately) some of the songs will get stuck in your head.   In case you don’t get enough of the music in the game itself, the game comes with a soundtrack CD which contains some of the game’s tracks.

Gameplay

Persona 4 is, like its predecessor, heavily focused on time.  You are only in Inaba for a year, so you know the game will end at about a certain time.  As each day progresses, you’re able to perform actions that take up your time.  At the end of the day, you go to bed and the next day starts.  So what do you do all day?

You spend part of your time in the real world, going to school, taking tests (yes, taking tests), studying, doing part-time work, and making friends.  Many of these activities make you money, and develop things that the game calls “Social Links” – essentially friendships between your character and other game characters.  These social links will allow you to breed more powerful monsters.  They also serve to develop the personalities of characters in the game.  For characters that eventually join your party, enhancing their social links also gives those characters more abilities in battles.

You can also spend time in the television world, where you’ll be battling monsters and trying to save the latest victim of Inaba’s serial killer.  Each potential victim has their own 10-or-so level dungeon to explore, but don’t take too much time exploring.  If you fail to rescue a victim before the required day, it’s “game over”.

Rescuing a victim, of course, means more than just walking in and grabbing them.  It means battles.  Persona 4 uses a turn-based system where you (and the monsters) take turns executing either normal or special attacks on one another.  To liven things up, the game includes elemental weaknesses.  If you hit the weakness of an enemy, you get an extra turn and the enemy gets knocked down.  If you knock all the enemies down, you can execute an “all-out attack”, where all your party menbers attack at once for big damage.  To further spice up combat, there are two types of instant-kill attacks (light and dark) which can eliminate monsters immediately if they’re vulnerable.  There are also the usual status effects like poisoning, silence, etc.

Sound good?  Feeling godly?  With the exception of the “all-out attack”, your enemies have access to all of this stuff, too.  Expect them to exploit your party’s weaknesses almost as ruthlessly as you exploit theirs.  It is not unheard of in Persona games for you to be wiped out before you get to take a turn at all, if you’re either unlucky or unprepared for a battle.  Expect, by the eay, to see the “game over” screen a lot.  A typical strategy for bosses, by the way,  is to fight them once just to find the boss’s strengths and weaknesses are, die, then come back the next day to actually beat it.

There’s one other thing I should mention about battles.  The game has resurrection spells and items, and if one of your party members dies during combat, you can revive them.  Or, you can simply leave them dead on the floor until the end of the battle, where they’ll automatically get up (but with only minimal health).  This does not apply to your main character.  If he dies, it’s an instant “game over” – no matter what the status of your other party members is.  Apparently, your other party members are too stupid to use their powerful revive skills/items on your character, while they use them with wild abandon on each other.  (Or perhaps they simply hate your character’s guts?)  It’s an odd quirk of the battle system that adds an extra strategic element to battles, but makes absolutely no sense otherwise.

While the gameplay is, on the whole, entertaining, Persona 4 suffers to some extent from the same disease that plagues all the MegaTen games:  tedium.  While figuring out how to attack new monsters with new weaknesses/strengths is interesting, you will quite frequently be fighting the same groups of monsters over, and over, and over again.  This can get old fast – especially when you find that you need an extra level or three to beat the next boss.  Breeding new personas is also entertaining, except when you have to try over, and over, and over to get one with a usable set of skills and special attacks.  (This happens because there is some randomness in the skills you get when combining old personas to make new ones.)  There are also periods of time in the game’s “real world” where nothing interesting is happening.

Overall, the gameplay is good, but it is definitely tarnished by too much repetition.

Story / Plot

Role-playing games aren’t just about battles.  They’re also about story.  Without getting into any big spoilers, the plot in this game revolves around the serial killer in Inaba.  You try to prevent more killings while uncovering the identity of the killer.  Interesting, but like the game’s battles, it gets repetitive after a while.

The game has several endings, and what ending you get depends on some key choices you make late in the game.  (Tip:  Save at the first opportunity you get in December, and don’t overwrite that save.)  There are a few variants of the (depressing) “bad” ending.  The game also has a “normal” ending, and a “true” ending (which is similar to the normal ending but with an extra dungeon and more cutscenes).  The game seems to go out of its way to prevent you from having any sense of closure with all these different endings – none of which are entirely satisfactory.  But, that’s a minor flaw in an otherwise good game.

Overall

Like I said before, this is perhaps the last great Playstation 2 game we’ll ever see.  So, if you still have a Playstation 2 or are lucky enough to have a Playstation 3 which features backwards compatibility and you’re even a casual fan of Japanese role-playing games, you should pick this one up.  Plus, it’s cheaper than buying a new game for either the Playstation 3 or the Xbox 360!

Friday Cat: Nyah Nyah!

January 30th, 2009

Patty caught Tom displaying some attitude!

Nyah nyah!  Tom displays some attitude!  1024x768 JPEG

Nyah nyah! Tom displays some attitude! 1024x768 JPEG


For more animal friends, visit The Friday Ark!