Chris Nixon Mini Blog

I have spent some time over the past month playing with location check-in games Foursquare and Gowalla. They are pretty similar, but have some vital differences that make choosing pretty easy.

The first comparison is the interface. Foursquare doesn't do well here. While not ugly as such, the UI gives the impression is has been designed by an engineer. It's perfectly navigable, but isn't pleasing on the eye. Gowalla on the other hand looks very pretty. Both are fast and intuitive enough, but I would much rather be looking at Gowalla each day.

Gowalla also wins on creating check-in points. It's very easy to do on both, but when your GPS signal info isn't quite up to scratch, Gowalla makes it very easy to update in their web interface. When you add further details to Foursquare check-in points, it can make them vastly more inaccurate. The only way to sort this is to contact Foursquare themselves to make the change. Very Web 1.0! My only minor gripe with Gowalla is that their categorisation system doesn't seem to have enough options.

As for the game itself, Foursquare seems very competitive. It's about making your way up a league table agains your friends, while Gowalla is about collecting and sharing. It's a matter of personal taste, but I much prefer the later.

With Gowalla winning on all three of these tests you would think it would make my decision for me. unfortunately for Gowalla there is one more test. How many of my friends are on it. Foursquare wins hands down on this test and until that changes, I'll have to put up with the shortcomings of an otherwise inferior experience.

Winner: Foursquare

OK. The headline is a bit misleading. Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is a disappointment.

The reason everyone is wrong is why it doesn't match our expectations. I went in the theatre with fairly low expectations, but I was definitely there to enjoy myself. I still felt let-down.

Everybody places the blame squarely on George Lucas's script. Everybody is wrong. The dialogue is cheesy, and the plot is implausible. The same, however, could be said for all Indy movies (and most other action movies). In the past it didn't matter because because Indy was cool. So while this is a fault, this isn't the reason why the movie was a let-down.

The reason why this movie hasn't matched our expectations is that it was rushed and cheap. Every dialogue scene looks like they've settled for the first take. The actors haven't been given a chance to get into character for the part. It's as if the directorial instructions were, "Get you lines said, and move on!"

From the very first scene where Cate Blanchette is speaking to Harrison Ford. I couldn't have been less convinced. Speilberg would have seen this on set, but time restrictions meant he had no choice but to move to the next bit. Despite the extensive use of CGI, the movie looked very cheap. Indeed these things often go together. The sets looked unconvincing. Everything looked like it was filmed on a badly lit stage on the Paramount lot. I think the university car/motorbike chase was the only set I was convinced by.

It all smacks of a rush-job. Getting these titanic figures of the movie industry together at the same time was it's downfall. Maybe Lucas or Speilberg (or both) didn't need to be so involved after all. Perhaps if they were less involved, there would have been enough time to make this a great movie.