Police are not here to protect you (as an individual)

Police are not here to protect you (as an individual).

That's not any kind of knock on the police, or some kind of left-wing social comment. That is simply a legal fact established in Warren v. District of Colombia (444 A.2d 1).

The only additional duty undertaken by accepting employment as a police officer is the duty owed to the public at large... "`Because we owe a duty to everybody, we owe it to nobody.'" Riss v. City of New York, supra at 585, 293 N.Y.S.2d at 901, 240 N.E.2d at 862...

...

The absence of a duty specifically enforceable by individual members of the community is not peculiar to public police services. Our representative form of government is replete with duties owed to everyone in their capacity as citizens but not enforceable by anyone in his capacity as an individual. Through its representatives, the public creates community service; through its representatives, the public establishes the standards which it demands of its employees in carrying out those services and through its representatives, the public can most effectively enforce adherence to those standards of competence. As members of the general public, individuals forego any direct control over the conduct of public employees in the same manner that such individuals avoid any direct responsibility for compensating public employees.

...

Establishment by the Court of a new, privately enforceable duty to use reasonable diligence in the performance of public functions would not likely improve services rendered to the public. The creation of direct, personal accountability between each government employee and every member of the community would effectively bring the *9 business of government to a speedy halt, "would dampen the ardor of all but the most resolute, or the most irresponsible in the unflinching discharge of their duties,"[4] and dispatch a new generation of litigants to the courthouse over grievances real and imagined. An enormous amount of public time and money would be consumed in litigation of private claims rather than in bettering the inadequate service which draws the complaints. Unable to pass the risk of litigation costs on to their "clients," prudent public employees would choose to leave public service. There you have it. Judicial precedent has rule that police owe a duty to the public, not to the individual.

So what prompted this whole thing? Well based upon my observations in social media and what not. There seems to be a misconception (more prevalent with Democrat voters it appears) that the police is there to protect you. What prompted this writing was this statement in particular, seen on Facebook.

This person here refers to police as "our protectors", well they're not "our protectors", not in an individual sense,  the US Supreme Court said so. What actually disturbs me a bit about this is how casually many people just abdicate their responsibility of personal protection to the State. On a side not, the group Occupy Democrats is pro-2nd Amendment.

On the surface, it doesn't seem like a big deal, who cares if someone just wants to rely on the State to keep them safe. Well, here's the thing...

These people vote.

Not only are they ok with a policy of pushing the responsibility of personal safety to the State, but they want everyone else to do the same thing. If it's ok and seemingly works out for them, then it will work out for everyone else. But does it really work out for them? Or does it only appear that way because they have never been in a situation where they actually had to call on the State for rescue while counting down the minutes of the response time? That aside, some people out there are willing to accept the responsibility of personal safety, some people don't want to sit there, hiding and praying. Because there is no legal basis on assuming that the State has the responsibility of being "protectors", their argument is not based on any right, which leaves, feelings/emotions as the thing which this concept is based upon. Feelings should not ever trump individual rights, that is how theocratic totalitarian states like Saudi Arabia and North Korea (the extreme cult of personality there may as well be Kimianity, or Kimslam) get established.

So, if the State are "our protectors" then what does that make you? It lets them remove the onus of protecting themselves from themselves to the State or other actors. It's not your fault, X incident happened the way it did, it's the State's fault for not passing X law, or police not responding in X amount of time. It's everyone else's fault, not yours. It's the State's responsibility to take steps, not yours. As such, it allows someone to not just accept, but justify giving up more and more civil rights to the State with the promise that the State will be their protector. It makes you, whether you like it or not, a non-actor in your own personal protection. It's not your responsibility to keep a shotgun at home for defense, it's not your responsibility to carry a revolver when you leave the house for personal defense use.

Of course there are many in the State that are all to happy to oblige this mindset. It's job security for them.  

As mentioned before, because these people think it's good for them, they think it's good for everyone else, so they vote these policies in, in the form of ballot measures, or politicians who promise to implement them. This has the effect of them voting away YOUR rights along with theirs. This is also problematic in that these people don't take into consideration the living conditions of other people that they drag along with them. Not everyone lives in nice neighborhoods where crime is something that happens in a far away place, to other people, and yet they want to impose a policy that allegedly works for them, onto the rest of the state.

The biggest problem with this, is that it is based upon a blatant, and gross misunderstanding of the law. It is an idea, that is literally has no foundation, no basis in anything, not the Constitution, not in established judicial precedent.

In short...

Now you see how scary this actually is? A concept that is, at best based upon a misunderstanding and at worse on an out right lie, being voted into effect. Is that wise policy? Is that common sense? Hell no. It makes a series of wrong assumptions, and builds, not just policy, but law upon it. It's a house of cards. When the house of cards collapse, be it though some psycho or terrorist who goes on a rampage, and there some people that though no fault of their own, the police are unable to protect, the people of this, "the State is our protector" rather than looking at the full picture of what happened, they double down on this mindset. "We need more laws so the State can protect us!", "We need the State to put more restrictions on other people so they can't hurt me." Rather than thinking "What can I do to not be made a victim?" But no, they don't, because to do so would be doublethink. They have painted themselves into a thought corner where the onus of personal defense, is not on them, but on the State. They don't have to do anything because it's the State's responsibility, not theirs, it's the State that has to do something.

He might be watching you (I don't know, Alex Jones would tell you he is) but even if he is, even he can't instantaneously warp rescuers to your location if something bad happens to you. 

The fact of the matter is, this is impractical, the State might be huge, but even the State doesn't have the resource to have a personal bodyguard follow everyone around. When something happens, they're locked into a vicious cycle, of blaming the State for not doing enough, and though their vote, drag the rest of us along with them. Every time the house of cards collapses, they double down and demand the State build and even bigger house of cards. And if we're going to invoke capitalism or the concept of "Equivalent Exchange" then there must be some kind of capital used to fund the building of this house of cards. You can't get something for nothing right? So then, what is the capital that is spent to build these house of cards? Your individual rights. As stated by my law school torts professor, "The more laws you have, the less rights you have." These people with their vote, spend your individual rights, with or without your consent, on building public policy houses of cards.

Before anyone accuses me of victim shaming..,

...every adult's first responsibility is their own personal protection. If you willfully neglect to be aware of your surroundings, if you willfully decide not to carry any kind of self-defense tools, if you didn't do all you reasonably could to protect yourself, then yes if something happens to you as a direct result of neglecting to do those things, then yes the onus is part on you. In a sense, you kicked the bear. Now yes, you can take all the reasonable precautions and things can still happen, this isn't directed at you. Rather, this is directed at the people who seem to think that if something happens they can just call 9-11 as if it was some incantation and make the scary thing go away. This is directed at the people that think politicians and laws have the power to make the worst of human nature, disappear from existence.

Bad things can and will happen, when human nature is involved there is no such thing as a dike with no hole. The State, even if it did have the legal responsibility to be every individual's protector, cannot be everywhere all at once. So why would you willfully put yourself at a disadvantage? Rather than simply being a victim and letting bad things happen to you until the State arrives to save you, doesn't it make more sense to at least have the power to hold the threat at bay until rescue arrives, if not overcome the threat all together?

This concept of the State as "our protectors" contributes to today's victim mentality in that it again, removes agency from the individual. It renders the individual a non-actor. In a free society, every adult is an actor, meaning, every adult has agency. Hand-in-hand with agency is personal responsibility. We have responsibility because we are free.

The issue with Police, is an issue with Us.

So these days for one reason or another the cops are getting a very bad rap. Some stories are exagerations, other are legitimate gripes. I've always been the sort of person that though if you're going to bitch about something, then you better have an idea for a solution (which is why I don't support a lot of contemporary "social movements").

For one, I would make the training process longer. In California the Commission of Peace Officer Standards and Training has a minimum requirement of 664 hours for it's Regular Basic Course. With 9 hr of instruction per day, that's only about 74 day course, and there are a wide selection of courses. I don't see how it's possible to cover the relevant ground AND get in the necessary practical training all in 2 and a half to three month course. ESPECIALLY not the course related to law like Crimes Against the Person. In law school that by itself is the bulk of a full semester in a Criminal Law class. Evidence alone is a year long class. But you might say, they're not going to practice law, they're just going to enforce it. Well, to enforce the law, wouldn't you need to know what the law is?

Taking the time to teach these law courses as full length law classes would give officers enough working knowledge to apply the law in their work. Theoretically this would lead to less bogus arrests (whether harassment or a genuine ignorance of the law) and on the same token, less criminals getting off on technicalities.

The other thing, is, being a cop and patrolling the community will inevitably lead you into contact with all stripes of people, from people in a blind rage, intoxicated people, people experiencing hallucinations, and mentally handicapped people. I'm skeptical that you could get enough practical training to handle these varied situations in just a 3 month course. I would extend the training to at least a year.

Now on the other hand if you're going to a loud mouthed jackass who can only scream "What do we want? Dead cops! When do we want them? Now!" then what did you accomplish? Gee whoopteedoo, all you did was further divide people and polarize the issue, you're not helping. You are NOT helping. That's not to say that I don't think the movement as a whole doesn't have legitimate concerns, but on the same token what is your solution? Killing cops? Defunding/Disbanding police departments? This last one in particular has me laughing my ass off. Here's the thing, police departments do FAR more than just street patrols. They carry out criminal investigations, and that is a complex multifacted area with multiple specialists working in their individual fields. You have the field investigator who gathers evidence, such as making castings of tire, shoe, and tool marks. You have the finger print examiner who uses various tools and techniques to ID patent and latent prints. You have the firearms expert who ID's the type of gun used, and matches the bullet to the gun that fired it. Then there's the death investigator who works to figure out the cause of and time of death when a body is found. Etc, etc. It's a science and I knows this because I hold a certificate in basic forensic science. I mean, ok say we do get rid of the Police, who's going to do all this investigation work? You? Your random Black Lives Matter protester? Sorry but in a field like investigations, I want to a professional doing the work, not a "community solution." Did they ever think about that aspect of police work? Probably not.

On the same token though, the police department admins and unions need to realize that actions of incompetent or otherwise bad cops, reflects on all of them as a whole. The "thin blue line" helps this situation about as much as chanting for dead cops does. All it accomplishes is making people lose faith in the justice system and a justice system without the faith of the people is about as useful as a philps head screwdriver on a flat head screw. That's when you get people taking matters into their own hands, or worse yet siding with the criminals. No more "thin blue line" someone screws up, then they need to suffer the consequences. They need to branded a pariah, and not just branded a pariah, but showed to the public. In the law field, there's a periodical publication that goes out. When ever someone gets disciplined it's mentioned there. There needs to be the same thing for police, maybe a section on their website, "wall of shame" or something where bad cops are put on blast.

For better or for worse, the municipal police department is part of the community. It's officer's live in the community, it works in and with the community. Both sides need to realize that. More things like this need to happen where a BLM protest became a bbq jointly hosted by the BLM chapter and the local police. Where all members of the community are able to sit down and break bread. This is part of how you break down the toxic "us against them" mentality that's been poisoning things lately.

Demand higher standards, high standards for the police and higher standards for yourselves. For any group, be it a social protest group, or a government institution, you're only as good as your dirtiest member. Demand higher standards and either kick out the dirty or pressure them to act right.

Social Media: End of Civilization? (Deutchlander Edition)

This might not be so much just on social media, but maybe rather on the media in general.

Very recently there was a rampage shooting that occurred in Germany. So what went down? I'll attempt to factually summarize this incident. Here's what we know (I will not be naming this bastard because he does not deserve to have his named remembered).

The shooting occurred in Munich, Germany, and carried out by a 19 year old. About 36 people have been shot, with 9 that have died at the time of writing. The shooter is currently dead of a self-inflicted gunshot wound. He was subsequently found with a backpack full of 300 rounds of ammo, and a handgun (said to be a 9mm Glock, probably a Glock 17). The incident took place at a shopping center.

The shooter did not have a criminal record, nor did he appear to have ties to ISIS. He was recently treated for depression and seemed to have an obsession with rampage shootings and their perpetrators. Additionally he was reported to have a collection of news articles on various shootings and had a photo of a Norweigian mass murder, responsible for 77 deaths, the day the shooting occurred was carried out on the anniversary of the mass murder.

It has also been reported that he had hacked someone's social media account to announce a fake advertisement for free food at the McDonald's where the shooting began. Likely to draw in more potential victims. 

So that is what is known so far. Now what does this all have to do with social and the media in general? Well it's been reported that he had an obsession with rampage shootings. Now how could he have developed that? Well to have developed an obsession about them, he would have had to have access to information about them. That's where the media comes in. Bad news is what sells, and the the attention the media grants to these losers, the news coverage exalting them from unknown loser to infamy.

Now why would this make someone, specifically this guy, go off the rails and want to murder people? The lyrics of Judas Priest's "Breaking the Law".

There I was completely wasting, out of work and down
all inside it's so frustrating as I drift from town to town
feel as though nobody cares if I live or die
so I might as well begin to put some action in my life

Lets look at this guy again. He was treated for depression and described as a loner. Now I'm not saying that all depressed loners will go out and do shit like this. So, what I suspect, is we have a guy who feels his life is for nothing. He sees all the attention that mass murders are given by the media. Everyone knows their names, politicians don't shut the hell up about what they did, and with the internet, as the saying goes "everything on the internet is forever." In short, by committing the mass murder and attracting the media by your horrific actions to yourself, like vultures to carrion, you leave your mark on the world. 

So what does the media have to do with all of this? Well here's this guy, who likely doesn't feel like he's going anywhere, given that he was in treatment for depression. Probably feeling like he was completely wasting, and felt as though no one cared if he lived or died. As such, he figures he might as well begin to put some action in his life. So he looks to see how he might do that. He then sees ALL the coverage that shooters get. There's the media that covers every single thing about their lives. There's the politicians that cry about something needing to be done about what THEY did. There are victims' families that come on the camera and talk about how the murder affected them. All of this happens in front of a media outlet's camera. 

It might not be intentional, but in a sense the media literally eggs these disturbed individuals on. But how come it's always these events that get 24/7 coverage for like 2 weeks straight? Because it's bad news that sells. It's bad news that gets the stronger emotional responses. And by egging on these would be mass murders, the media is literally getting people killed and ending civilization's status quo.

Ride of the Valkyria: Review of Valkyria Chronicles Remastered

Overall score: 10/10

OK so I never actually did a review of the original PS3 Valkyria Chronicles so I'm just going to do one big overall review. Since there's so much to talk about on this game, I'll break it up into several segments. The game's been out awhile, but since there's a bit of a drought in game releases that generally happen during the summer, this is as good as time as any to get this game if you haven't already.

First off, what is Valkyria Chronicles? It's a squad turn-based tactics/3rd person shooter, set in a world roughly equivalent to late 1930's Earth made by Sega for the PS3 and 4. Wait what? Turn-based 3rd person shooter? How does that work? Well I'll get to that in this first section.


Gameplay:
The game uses Sega's Blitz engine. The game is generally broken up into two sections not too unlike Rome: Total War. One section is where you handle all your squad management, and move the plot along. The second section is for actual battles.

So the first section, the first section's UI is modeled on a large book, with various tabs. I'll just call it Book mode. Here you can move along the story which is viewed though chapters, you can access the Headquarters which is where you do all the management work. Here you can research new infantry weapons, new tank equipment, learn new orders for battle, and train your infantry. Other tabs include a Skirmish tab where you can re-fight several previous battles for more experience and money. There are the Glossary tab where you can learn about the world of Valkyria Chronicles, and the Personnel tab where you can learn about the game's characters.

The second section of the game, is the combat section where the meat of the game is. So the game is kind of broken up in two ways. First, there is the overview map where you see all of your units and all of the enemy units that you have visual on, there is a fog of war of sorts. Here you can individually select units to control. Now where VC differs from something like Final Fantasy Tactics or Vandal Hearts, you don't just select a unit, tell them to go to Point B/Attack Target A/Cast Spell D, you take full control over them, 3rd person shooter style. You have an action meter at the bottom, which decrease with each step you take (naturally, the length depends on the infantry class, a light Scout will have a longer meter than your heavy anti-tank rocket Lancers), and each unit can take one action. Attacking is done in a similar manner though Resident Evil 5, you enter into an over the shoulder aim, where you see your gun crosshair and can aim for a target's body or their head, or you can equip grenades and see the arc path the grenade will travel. Snipers, naturally, have a scope view that you can zoom in. While you're in this aim mode, the action kind of stops, allowing you to take your time without getting killed while being unable to move. Your tanks work in the same manner.

You can see how it all works here:

While generally it all runs smoothly, things can get a little bit wonky here and there. The biggest annoyance being occasionally getting stuck on a sandbag barrier because the game can't tell if you're just running along or want to vault over because of the camera angle. You also lose the ability to look up and down when you're in the grenade target mode, making grenading enemies on a lower plain as you, a bit of blind guess work. The original PS3 version which runs at a lower frame rate, tends to get a little bit choppy during large explosions or when a character is crawling around in tall grass in certain places, though fortunately those place are rare and far between.

As mentioned you have several infantry classes, and they are:

Scout:
This is your typical light infantry/rifleman class. They are fast, got long range and have a long field of vision. But this comes at the expense of low Hit Points. Scouts also have intercept fire, where they'll automatically attack enemy units that come within gun range during the Enemy Turn, they won't use grenades.


Shocktrooper:
They're your machine gun armed heavy infantry class. They're moderately fast, moderately armored, have moderate range, but pack heavy firepower and high HP. They will also intercept fire like the Scouts.

Lancers:
Lancers are your anti-tank rocket troops. Big, slow, short ranged and durable is the way to describe them. They can be armed with anti-tank rockets (largely ineffective against infantry, expect to miss a lot if you attack infantry with them) or anti-infantry mortars, essentially making them human tanks. Being armed with explosives, they do not have intercept fire, and they only carry 3 rockets/mortar shells and no grenades.


Snipers:
Fast, but with low movement range. Heavy firepower, but fragile. Snipers are your long range support, they can one hit kill an infantry target from across the map, but this comes at the expenses of low movement range and low durability. Being armed with bolt-action rifles, they do not have intercept fire. Like the Lancers they carry only 3 rounds, and no grenades.

Engineers:
This class serves a multipurpose role of combat engineer, resupply unit, and field medic. They're about as durable as the Scouts, but has slightly shorter range, and move slightly slower, but they are armed with the same rifles. They can repair tanks and things such as towers and sandbag bunkers. They carry more potent medkits than the other units, and they can reload your Sniper's and Lancer's ammo, and your Scout's and Shocktrooper's grenades. They carry no grenades of their own, but being armed with the Scout's rifles they do have intercept fire.

Tanks.
Then you have your tanks. You start off with one medium main battle tank, then later on you have a light tank added to the squad. The tanks operate much the same way as infantry, but they are generally armed with an anti-tank gun, an anti-infantry mortar, and an anti-infantry machine gun this is capable of intercept fire. The light tank can have the main gun replaced with a large caliber gatling gun, or a flamethrower.

Also individual parts of the tank can be targeted to some extent. The tracks can be destroyed to keep it from moving. The main body can be hit for damage, or the weak point in the back can be hit for critical damage or a one hit kill, if the tank gets flanked by a Lancer or another tank. That's why it's important to keep infantry around the tank. 

Leveling up:
This works much differently from FF Tactics. Since you have such a huge roster to chose from, leveling up is done though class training. Combat earns you experience points, that you can then spend on leveling up your different classes. So you can freely change out characters without worrying about losing experience.

While tanks don't level up, you also get money from combat and can spend that on upgrading your tank with various pieces of equipment, from more powerful or accurate guns, heavier armor, or better range.


The maps:
Now the combat maps. The maps are fully three dimensional, by that I mean you can move you infantry to elevated positions like towers, hills or ridge lines. You're not confined to just a flat horizontal plain of movement. Sending scouts up to hills and towers will increase their view and you can see more of the enemy. Or putting a Sniper up on one will let you potentially dominate a field. There are also patches of tall grass where you can crawl down in and hide your infantry in, but on the same token the enemy does the same to you. There are also hazards in the form of anti-infantry and anti-tank mines as well as cannon and machine gun emplacements.

Maps vary from urban combat, to desert terrain with sand storms, to open fields, to to rocky claustrophobic spaces to trench warfare.
 
The design and art style:
That's about it for the gameplay, now on to the design and art style. The designs in the game draw quite a bit from real world military technology. I had once read that originally this was going to be a WWII game, but got changed somewhere along the way. I don't know if that's true, but it would make sense in regards to the designs.

The Infantry weapons:
Many of the rifles designs, both the semi-auto infantry rifles and the bolt-action sniper rifles take inspiration from real world rifles, like the British Lee Enfield Mk.III, the American M-1 Garand, the Russian Mosin-Nagant/Finnish M39, SVT-40 and SKS, and the German Karabiner 98, Gewehr 43 and even the VG-2 in Imperial designs.

The Gallian-4 semi-automatic standard infantry rifle. You can see the influences from the M-1 Garand in the barrel and gas-tube. The SVT-40 or SKS-45 in the action and sights. The Gewehr 43 in the magazine, and the M39 in the stock.

The Imperial ZM SG 2 bolt action sniper rifles. This rifle takes cues from the Karabiner 98 in the action. The Gewehr 43 in the magazine. The M39 and Mosin-Nagant in the stock.

The machine guns used by the Shocktroopers also take cues from many real world designs. The Gallian designs have influence from the barrels of water and air cooled American Browning M-1917, the German STG-44 and Russian AK-47. While the Imperial designs take cues from the German MP-40 and G-3 and to some extent the American M-16.

The Gallian T-Mag 10 clearly has design influences from the AK-47. The over the barrel gas-tube protruding from the two-piece handguard is clearly from the AK-47. The flat sided receiver also appears to be influenced from the AK-47.

Appropriately enough, the Imperial ZM MP 5 takes it's cues from the AK-47's "nemesis" the M-16. The general silhoutette of the stock and reciver are similar to the M-16, and the barrel shroud is similar to the M-16A2's.

Lastly the Imperial Ruhm is heavily based on the German MG-34.

The only infantry weapons that have no real world parallel in terms of design are the anti-tank rocket lancers. However in terms of function they serve the same role as the American Bazooka and the German Panzerfaust and Panzershrek.

The Gallian Theimer M10 rocket lance.

The tanks:
The Gallian tanks especially take influence from designs used by the Wehrmacht where as the Imperial designs take some cues from American, French, British and Russian designs.

The main tank of the series, the Edelweiss. While it can be upgraded to near beyond recognition, the base model of the tank bears a strong resemblance to the German Panzer V "Panther". Upgrades include a new gun and schurtzen armor.

The second tank the player gets to command is the Shamrock, as slightly modified standard issue Gallian tank. The Shamrock bears a very strong resemblance to the Czech LT vz. 38, better known as the Panzer 38(t). The differences being additional armor plates mounted to the sides of the hull and turret and a larger caliber gun.

The first tank you encounter is the Imperial Light Tank. The Light, takes many cues from the American M3 Lee, with a larger cannon mounted in a side sponson. The wheels are also based on those on the M3.

 

The most common enemy tank, the Imperial Medium Tank, bears a strong resemblance to the British Medium Mk.III with it's mult-turret design. The turret seems to take some cues from the Russian T-34 with is more rounded look. Like the Light, the Medium takes cues from American tanks, with the wheels looking similar to those of the M4 Sherman.

 

More common in the later missions, the Imperial Heavy Tank takes some cues the French Char B1. Like the Char B1, the tank features a turret mounted gun, and a larger hull mounted gun. Though the Heavy is much larger than the Char B1. 

The Infantry:
Gallian infantry uniforms use a horizon blue camo pattern with a few armor plates on the uniform. The uniforms are based on WWII era uniforms with variations between classes. Core member characters have more stylized uniforms.

Standard male Gallian Scout infantry, Noce Wordsworth

Standard male Gallian Shocktrooper infantry, Vyse Ingelbard

Standard female Gallian Scout infantry, Freesia York

Standard female Gallian Shocktrooper infantry, Nina Streiss

Core member Shocktrooper, Bridgette "Rosie" Stark

Core member Scout, Alicia Melchiott

Imperial uniforms on the other hand, have a more medieval look to them. Though this count be a case of the Empire being slow in modernizing their infantry combat gear, or them modernizing their gear and keeping a sort of armored knight styling with them. Various Imperial Army classes, sans the Imperial Army Lancer. While at first glance the Imperial Army officer's uniform looks to be based on the Nazi SS uniform, it actually looks to draw influence from Imperial German Army and WWI era British Army uniforms.

The art style:
Setting the game apart from other war games, rather than using realistic looking graphics, the game went more of a look like it was a water color painting in motion, making use of cell shading to achive this look. Along with the water color style the game also uses a pastel color pallet, with everything having a kind of soft look. Though instead of clashing with a war setting it instead gives it meshes well with it and gives it a unique look.

Adding to the colors, the game also has little bit of a comic book influence, you'll see sound effects "written" out, like "FOOM" will flash in stylized characters when a tank mortar is fired, or "ratatatata" when a Shocktrooper fires their machine gun.

The art style certainly sets Valkyria Chronicles apart from most other games. It stands out from other war games and makes the game instantly recognizable, even with tanks and weapons looking like real world vehicles.


 

The Music:
The game uses an orchestrated style of music. Tracks range from the military styled, slow tempo, Main Theme with Brass wind and drums taking the lead, giving way to strings, the more rousing, fast tempo Street Fighting, used as background music to urban combat levels. The music isn't just there as a sort of fill-in background noise as it is in some games. Rather it adds to the atmosphere. Some of the more difficult levels, such as the trench warfare mission, where the battle takes places in muddy WWI style trenches under dark, heavy overcast weather are accompanied by more slower subdued tracks.

The game's sound track has 54 tracks, so there is a wide variety of music in the game. While there are certain tracks serving as themes, you won't often hear the music constantly repeated, even during battles, as there are 9 tracks used for combat missions, not including the final battle, and the game does a good job of cycling them. In short, the music doesn't get old, repetitive or annoying.


The Plot:
The plot is a major part of the game, it centers around Squad 7 of the Gallian Militia's Third Regiment, and their efforts to liberate their homeland from foreign invasion. Their homeland, the Principality of Gallia is a small coastal nation that finds itself smack in the middle of two continental super-powers who as expected, do not like each other. On one side, to the Southwest is the NATO like economic superstate, the Atlantic Federation (the Federation). To the east is the East Europan Imperial Alliance (the Empire), a military super power that shares characteristics with Nazi German, the Soviet Union and Imperial Russia. It is an invasion by one of the Imperial princes into Gallia that draws the Principality into the larger continental war. At the time of the game's start the war between the Federation and the Empire is at a stalemate with the Federation's superior economy standing toe to toe with the Empire's superior military.

Squad 7 is made up of 57 members, both active and in reserve, and each of these characters has their own story that can be read in the Book's Personnel tab. Each character has their own personalities and their own individual voices. There aren't really any "generic" characters on your side, everyone has a face. And that's only counter Squad 7 itself, not including the supporting characters on your side and the villains. The villains also have their own personalities and motivations and they aren't cut and dry villains. In fact, a few of them would likely have been friends with the protagonists under different circumstances.

With such efforts going into making the characters, the story placed a lot of focus on them and how they develop from just an motley group of volunteers and conscripts into a veteran unit. One example is one member overcoming their racial prejudices though the course of the game.

The plot itself though is pretty straightforward, there aren't really any big plot twists that throw a wrench into the works. It's about what you would expect from a WWII themed game. There are a few pretty emotional moments in the plot, that I won't get into, since I can't without spoiling parts of the plot.


Final Verdict: 10/10

I have to give this one a perfect score. I literally never get tired of this game, and I've frequently popped it in and played it from start to finish during gaming dry spells. While it lacks multiplayer, the single player provides and exceptional experience. The game is available on PS3, PS4, and PC, if you own either of those platforms, there's no reason to not have this game. 

Social Media: End of Civilization?

I don't think too many people would argue with me that things in society, both home and abroad are starting to get out of hand. I'm part of that last generation that grew up before things like Myspace, let alone Facebook and YouTube. Hell I still remember when 56K was considered fast. Things back then were a lot more calm compared to today.

Before I start sounding like some cranky old guy shaking my fist saying "back in my day!" and pointing an M-1 Garand at people and telling them to get off my lawn, I do have an actual point. So why do I pose the question of whether social media is the end of civilization?

Well before the internet was what it as, unhinged crazy people had pretty limited reach, even on the internet. You would have to seek out their pages, and that's if they even had one. Well now with the reach of social media, every two bit crank, psycho, and aspiring cult leader, have a voice. No matter how deranged, off the rails, sexist or racist their message is, now has reach. But wait, don't people have freedom of speech? Isn't that good thing? Slow down a second...

First off, freedom of speech, is freedom of speech without interference from the government. Freedom of speech is not every potential Jim Jones having an audience. Second, the other issue is the the general population doesn't know how to think. Children are raised up these days being taught that their feelings matter and people care about their feelings, but on the same token you generally won't see Critical Thinking or Logic till college, and even then in college, they're elective classes.

So where does that leave us, well now we have everything from religious fundamentalists to SJWs with a silver tongue, and an audience. You can guess what could come out of that. We start to see extremist views resonating with people and being disseminated. We get well meaning, yet naive millennials getting ideas like a racist White, Christian, Patriarchy dominate the Western World, stuffed into their heads. Going back to what I said earlier about people not knowing how to think, you have these same millennials (but it's not just them) unable to deconstruct the barrage of rhetoric shouted at that, actually buying into, what would have just been considered the ridiculous rantings of a nut.

Now why do I single out social media on what is a multifaceted problem? Because social media is what created the environment for this issue to grow exponentially out of hand. All the special snowflake, easily "triggered", safe-space needing SJWs at places like Mizzou and Yale, where did they come from? I mean something had to have made them right? They didn't just come out of the ground. In some sense they came from the internet. The ideas stuffed into their head was more than likely conveyed to them though the internet. The constant exposure to a specific rhetoric to a person who is unable to deconstruct the rhetoric will more than likely lead to the person becoming radicalized, regardless of the rhetoric, be it radical religious doctrine or radical social doctrine. The best example of this radicalism that I can think of is the return of segregation. Yes, segregation is making a come back, only today they're called "safe-spaces".

We wouldn't be at this point, if the deranged elements in society did not have such a loud voice. The other issue with social media, is that when one deranged radical gets their voice out and people listen, those people begin spreading the original message to others, and so forth and so fourth, like dominoes falling or a more appropriately a cancer spreading. But it doesn't stop there. While you have people spreading the toxic message, those same people will also work to silence dissenting and debunking messages.

The one particular result of these kind of radical rhetoric receiving a wide audience is the recent prevalence of the "crybully". The crybully is that little turd that starts shit with people, then cries to the nearest authority figure/anyone who'll listen and claims victimhood, when the actual victim calls them out on their shit. Why has this become a thing? Well hand in hand with an amplified voice in social media, is the emotionally driven mentality of guilty until proven innocent. People don't want to look like a racist/sexist/asshole so they listen to the alleged victim and believe at face value. The end result of that is this professional victim mentality, because social practice has given the words of a victim greater validity. All you need to do is hop on any Youtube video or other social media outlet on a hot button issue (like a rape, or a police beating) and watch the reaction that people who don't rush to judgement and say we need to wait till all the facts are and the matter has worked though they system. They'll get called racists, called rape-apologists or some other socially oriented derogatory term.

So how does this all come together to "end civilization"? All of this comes down together to shut down discourse and replace it with orthodox group-think. To replace intellectual discourse with emotional screaming. More and more it is no longer about who has the strongest argument, but rather who has the loudest voice. Who ever can shout louder is right. We take a look at the Renaissance and the Enlightenment and the corner stone characteristic of these eras was the expansion of science, of reason, of discourse. These, as I have pointed out are the very things that are being eroded all for the sake of the egos of a select few.

Are there legitimate gripes? Sure. Has social media been used to positive ends? Absolutely. But for every good that it does, it gives a voice to a random deranged psycho, sexist, and racist. It's giving Jim Jones a world audience.

But in a sense, social media only exasperates and existing problem. The problem being an inability to critically think, and instead the prevalence of an emotionally driven herd mentality. If there was an equal emphasis on critical thinking in education as there was on feelings, then we wouldn't be where we are. We wouldn't be looking at an utterly repugnant human being and a WWE Attitude Era heel caricature as the presidential front runners from two political cartels. We wouldn't be looking at college students whining about every little thing as "micro-aggression" when ever they don't get their way. We wouldn't be looking at everyone trying to claim victim status for attention. Like any piece of technology, social media is neutral, what kind of effect it has is wholly determined by the user.