First off, what prompted me to do is was a realization that a a lot of the younger generation getting into video games today weren't around for some of the real gems and not so gems of the 32-bit era. While I don't condone piracy (don't go illegally downloading stuff that you don't own) the prevalence of smart phone emulators means there is now a larger potential audience for these older games.
I'm going to try to break things down into segments and score things along a 5 pt scale then average it all at the end.
5 pts - A
4 pts - B
3 pts - C
2 pts - D
1 pts - F
0 pts - Epic Fail
That said let's get started.
Overall score: 3.5/5
C+
This is a game for the PS1 that was released only in Japan. A Western release was planned, but was ultimately cock-blocked by Harmony Gold due to licencing issues regarding Super Dimentional Fortress Macross, the universe in which the games takes place. But that's a rant for another day. Harmony Gold? More like Harmony Crap!
Gameplay: 3.5
You can see the HUD here is all in English, making the game very import friendly.
Lets start off with what matters most, the gameplay. This game has a little bit of a love it or hate it reputation. Given the restrictions that the developers were under, I think they managed to pull off a fun and unique 3D shooter. This game was developed in '99 for the PS1. What was going on with Sony at this time was that into the PS1's life span they introduced the original Dual Shock. The OG PS1 controller lacked the dual analogue sticks of the Dual Shock and was more like the SNES's controller (no surprise there given that the PS1 is something of the bastard child of the SNES that was later adopted by another family). The policy Sony had at the time was that developers HAD to have an OG compatible controller scheme. When you play SDF Macross for the PS2 (I'll review that as well at some point) or Robotech Battlecry you can see what kind of handicap the developers were working under for VFX2. Namely, the developers were boxed into having to use the D-pad for movement rather than options or other functions with the left stick controlling movement.
So lets get into the actual gameplay. The game consists of you flying around your transformable Variable Fighter and putting the hurt on anyone who gets in your way.
YF-19/VF-19A Excalibur
You can switch between modes at will and each mode has it's own handling characteristics. In fighter mode, the game plays as an arcade style flight game. In GERWALK Mode you're hovering in places, and pushing the throttle up or throttle down button will give you a boost forward or a boost backward. In Battroid you're either floating in mid-air/space where you have forward-back movement and left and right rotate you.
You can switch cameras where you can set the camera set to keep looking the direction your VF is facing. Or switch it to focus on your target (which makes it feel like you're watching the anime). Or switch it to focus on incoming missiles.
To dish out the pain you have your primary weapon, the machine gun, and your sub-weapon, typically your missiles. Holding down the sub-weapon button lets you target multiple enemies and releasing the button fires off a barrage of missiles. Along with standard missile each plane has it's own set of sub-weapons from micro missiles with faster lock on, High Maneuver Missiles, to high explosive grenades to nuclear missiles that if you're not careful will kill you too.
Your other attack consists of a machine gun. The machine gun functions differently in each mode.In Fighter Mode, the machine gun just fires straight. It's your straight line, spray in front of you weapon. In GERWALK Mode, holding down the machine gun button will lock you in the direction you were facing and allow you strafe left and right as opposed to rotating left of right. This comes in handy in shooting down incoming missiles in some instances. In the Gundam-like Battroid mode, the machine gun locks on to your target while you are shooting.
Notice how there is no actual lock-on button? That the machine gun largely doubles as the lock on? That is because the developers literally ran out of buttons on the OG PS1 controller. The Dual Shock and all subsequent PS controllers have 14 buttons including the D-pad. By contrast the OG controller only has 8 buttons, since the D-pad must be used for movement. The button functions are, which are fully customizeable are.
D-pad - movement
Thrust +
Thrust -
Main weapon
Sub-weapon
Sub-weapon selection
Mode up
Mode down
Change View
There's literally no button left to assign a target lock function. But given the limitations that were worked within, once you get used to the controls it does work pretty well controlling a complicated machine like a Variable Fighter. For better or for worse there is little variation in how each VF handles, though some seem faster and make tighter turns than others. While on one hand this seems kind of bland, on the other, if you're a VF-1 fanatic, you won't get toast taking the classic Valkyrie out on the last mission.
On an interesting note, this forced simplification of controls translates pretty well to a touch screen interfaced smart phone.
Graphics and visuals: 3.5
Crusin' for a brusin
For it's time period, the detail on the vehicles like VFs and ships is very good. While the animation could be smoother when running in Battroid mode it still remains detailed. Not only are the VFs detailed, but they're also accurate to their anime counterparts.
Who wants some?!
The ground textures are par for the course for the PS1, they don't really stand out as anything good or bad. Where the graphics do take a hit, is in the graphical pop ups. The game has a bad habit of displaying an enemy off in the distance, then as you get closer a wall suddenly pops up in front of him. Visually it's just bad to begin with, but where it becomes problematic is when you try to attack a ground target from the ground. You'll see a target in the distance, and engage him with your gun, only to start wondering if you're even hitting him, even though it certainly looks like you're hitting him. So you move closer only to have a wall pop up, and you have your answer of why you couldn't hit him. There was an invisible (from your distance) wall he was hiding from.
Gameplay stability: 2
Whee wacky shack!
For the most part the game runs pretty stable. By that I mean there are few crashes or freezes or anything that stops you from breaking the game, "show stoppers" as we called them when I used to work in the video game industry.
So why the score of 2?
This depends on different variables, and not one has really done a proper QA style bug test on this, but the game does have a tendency to freeze at the very end. This depends on if you're playing the game on an emulator, or a modded PS1, on a PSP or on a Japanese PS1. I have a copy running on the PSP that had this glitch until Sony released their 5.00 update some time ago. So post FW 5.00 it will work fine.
When the glitch happens, you can't see the ending and you can't same your "new game plus" with all your VFs unlocked from the start, plus several other units that are only unlocked after completing the game and saving at the end.
Fortunately, if you're savvy with several PlayStation related tools you can work your way around this, by downloading saved game data and inserting it into a memory card file.
Plot: 5
Meet the crew
Syun Tohma, Gilliam Angreat, Aegis Focker and Suzie Newlet
Granted if you don't speak Japanese you'll have to research the plot online, but that's beside the point. The plot is a bit of a deviation from the typical Macross formula in that there isn't any idol singers taking center stage. Instead the plot is more along the lines of MS Gundam: The 08th MS Team in that the plot centers around a group of grunts
The plot takes place in 2050AD, Five years after the events of Macross 7, thirty-eight years after SDF Macross and nine years before Macross Frontier. Robotech is not a part of the Macross timeline, so don't expect "Rick Hunter" to be mentioned.
The main protagonist is Captain Aegis Focker (Shoji Kawamori has yet to expound on any relation to Roy Focker.) a pilot in the United Nations Space Force, and new member of the special operations squadron VFX Ravens. Though the course of the story, Focker faces off against anti-government terrorists attacking UN colonies, shady corporations developing new technologies and corrupt government and military officials looking to mount a coup.
As part of a special operations squadron, Focker has access to a variety of fighters ranging from the modern update of the legendary VF-1 Valkyrie, to the VF-19A Excalibur to the massive VB-6 variable bomber.
In Macross Frontier the United Nations Government has been reorganized into the New United Nations Government. There has been some speculation that the reorganization was related to the events at the end of the good ending of VFX2.
The plot itself is pretty good, it's a shame it was never animated into an OAV.
Final Verdict: For fans of the franchise and fans of the genre.
All in all, the game is a fun 3D arcade shooter once you get used to the controls. The game isn't very long, and it allows you save in-between missions. Letting you play in small bursts if you like. If you're a fan of the series, or just a fan of arcade style shooters, this is worth checking out if it comes your way.
So I came across this video and found it rather interesting. Before anyone flips out at the title and think it's Trumpist alarmist propaganda, it's actually pretty rational analysis of the immigration issue facing a European country.
Now before I start getting called an anti-immigration redneck, lets get something out of the way first. My parents came to the United States in the '70s. They came here, they integrated into and contribute to American society. I was born here and raised as an Asian-American. Immigration can be great for a country. Thanks to all the immigrants that have come here, I can to some degree experience different cultures from different parts of the world. Generally I do this though food, living in a metropolitan area, I've had the opportunity to eat Iranian, Afghani, Pakistani, Indian, Russian, German, English, etc. I can get bbq baby back ribs one day, and get halal chicken the next. I can get Bangers and Mash with a hard cider one night, and a large bowl of mabo ramen the next.
People that come into the US with the goal of living that "American Dream", I by and large have no problem with. While I do not support illegal immigration, I can understand some of the sentiment behind why they come here. The ones that do come here illegally, but have spent their whole time getting an education, contributing to society, rather than just being a criminal leech, I fully support providing a path to a green card for those people. Now where I do have an issue with, are the ones that come into a country, with no intent of integrating in with the resident population, but rather insist that we adopt their customs and culture.
But before we go further let's define culture first.
- the beliefs, customs, arts, etc., of a particular society, group, place, or time
- a particular society that has it's own beliefs, ways of life, art, etc.
- a way of thinking, behaving, or working that exists in a place or organization
Basically, the character of a particular population. In otherwords, it's the thing that makes a particular set of people, that particular set of people. This can be a collection of positive or negative characteristics. And there are positive and negative characteristics, I'll get into that later.
This sentiment goes triple for those who come from a heritage that is radically different from the Western civilization heritage. You don't go to a foreign country and insist that they be like you. To put it bluntly, given the current world situation (I'm not picking on Muslims, just using Middle Eastern immigrants as the example since they are the focus of attention, in a different time period it would be a different group of people), and the constitution that I live in, you can adhere to Sharia as devoutly as you want. But I'll be damned if I drop my own values as a born and raised American in order to soothe your sensibilities. Sames goes if you try to impose those foreign (yes foreign, the heritage of the United States is western European, not Middle Eastern) values on other Americans around you. Don't ever let me catch you pulling the same crap as radicals in Britain that like to carry out "Sharia patrols" and harassing random people, who while are breaking no British laws or ordinances, are not carrying themselves in accordance to Sharia.Now if you want to preach about your religion and spread your particular message of salvation to anyone who'll listen, you certainly have that right.
Now there's a BIG difference between coming to another country and bringing you cultural heritage with you. It's another when you come to another country and expect people to follow your cultural heritage. There's a big difference between coming to another country and opening an ethic restaurant (on that note, Afghani and Pakistani food is really good, especially if you like a lot of spices in your food), preparing dishes in accordance to your cultural customs. But it's another thing to go and harass people over the fact they eat things that are forbidden in your native culture. Same goes for harassing people that don't dress in accordance to their cultural norms. If we can break bread without you having to impose your customs on me, beyond your house rules within your dwelling, then we have no issue. On the same token if you come in and bring your culture and values to add to, as opposed to dominate, the resident culture, there is certainly nothing wrong with that.
By contrast, there are those who simply come in to take advantage of the State programs and opportunities with no intent of integrating into the larger resident culture. These are economic migrants and they are very different from the actual refugees from the fighting in Syria. These people have no intent of integrating and being part of the resident culture, as such, nothing is owed to them. As such, if you come into my country, with no intention of being a part of my country, and only want to supplement it with yours, don't expect me to be sympathetic to you, and don't expect me to just go along with it. In contrast if you come to my country, fleeing death, and you accept the culture and realities of this country, and accept it as your new home, then fine, great, welcome aboard.
Here's the other thing, I can't speak for other countries, but the 1st Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, forbids the establishment of religion. That also means that the government can't adopt religiously based laws. That's goes for everyone, be it Christianity, Islam, etc. So you coming in here and imposing your medieval religious beliefs as law, yeah that shit don't fly here in the US. Personally, I don't like anyone telling me how to live, that's one reason I love this country, a founding principal is that people can live their lives as they see fit, and unique to the United States, is also the founding principal is a reaffirmation that I, as a US citizen, have the right to the tools needed to ensure that I can live my live at my discretion. You want to impose your values onto my personal life... we're going to have problems. You want to share your values in the thought that I might want to integrate them into my personal life, then we can sit and talk over a drink. I'll give you the opportunity to make your case to me, be you a Scientologist, a Jehovah's Witness, or a Muslim.
The other point made by the video, that is a very valid is that immigration should be limited as not to overwhelm the resident culture's ability to absorb and integrate them into the larger society. Multiculturalism is as much a dead end as Voodoo Economics is. European multiculturalism stands in stark contrast with the American melting pot. Where as multiculturalism is more of a compartmentalization of different communities, the US is more like a metallic alloy with different cultures as different metals mixing with the others. But when you put too much one one kind of metal into the alloy, then the balance is thrown off. Too much iron and the steel is no longer steel.
Is multiculturalism irrational? Lets shrink it down to a more local level. Lets imagine a city-state, a city-state founded on liberal democratic values. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association, etc. the usual things we'll find in the Bill of Rights.
The city-state of Jowston.
(now watch me get smacked by Konami for some copyright related shit...)
Lets call this city-state "Jowston".
So we have this city-state that's doing well. People have civil liberties and are free to do what they wish, the government ensures the market is free and fair with no monopolies, etc. So life is good, and people want to come in.
In a melting pot, these people come in and want to become a part of the city-state's culture. They want to be part of the Dream. They become a part of the culture and bring with them values that integrate into the native value system the values that are compatible. Jowston's culture becomes richer. There is one inclusive Jowstonian culture that people join. But those that do not become part of the culture are left out in the fringes. Their views being taken as backwards or barbaric, and in some cases, rightfully so. You come here, you change for us, we do not change for you. So then, lets say we have a group of people from a completely alien cultural heritage, a heritage where sexism and theocratic oppression are the norm, lets call them Nagareans. They come in, they learn the language, learn the customs, respect the existing laws and themselves eventually become a part of the city-state. They understand that here in Jowston things are different, women have the same legal rights as men, the church has no legal power role in government and their holy book is not law. Grievances they have against other citizens are taken up in Jowstonian courts and settled according to Jowston civil and criminal laws. They're considered Nagarean-Jowstonians.
Here, the law is the law, if you break the law you are prosecuted by the state, regardless of what your holy book has to say about it. Conversely if another Jowstonian does something in violation of Nagarean holy text, that is not a violation of Jowstonian law, it's the individual Nagrean's problem. Nagarean cultural hertiage is not on the same standing as Jowston cultural heritage within the Jowston city-state. It is subject to laws that came about though Jowston's native cultural heritage. Say we have another group, lets call then Aronians. Same thing that happens as with the Nagareans, they assimilate and become Jowstonians. The government allows more immigration into Jowston and the city-state and the single Jowston culture grows. Even if the immigrant population of Nagareans and Aronians surpasses the native Jowston population, there is a shared pool of values and there is an idea, maybe vague and amorphous, but an idea of what it is to be Jowstonian. The character, and culture of Jowstonian society will continue on.
Jowston endures, Jowston prevails!
By contrast in multiculturalism, lets say we have the same situation in Jowston. Life is good, and people want to come in. Again we have the Nagareans, with their alien culture, who wants to come in, as well as the Aronians. Only instead of the Nagareans and the Aronians assimilation into the resident Jowston culture, they exist distinct and separate, side by side with the resident Jowstonians. Instead of becoming Nagarean-Jowstonians, they're instead Nagreans who just happen to live in Jowston. They do not treat women equally, Nagarean women are required to wear special clothing, and are beaten by Nagarean men when they go to vote under Jowston law, because in Nagarea women do not participate in government. Rather than conducting themselves according to the laws of Jowston, they only conduct themselves according to the laws of their holy book, so they commit acts that are crimes under Jowstonian law, but are permissible in their holy book. When acts are committed by Jowstonians that are legal under Jowston law but forbidden by their holy book, they punish the actor, not based on Jowstonian law, but on their holy book. This is tolerated, because Jowston culture is no better than Nagarea's barbaric theocratic culture. That Nagarea's barbarism has every right to exist as much as Jowston's enlightened culture.
Between the Nagreans and the Aronians, as populations flux, and surpass the native Jowstonians, the identity of what it is to be Jowstonian becomes fuzzier and fuzzier, ultimately losing the defining characteristics of it's culture. The government allows more immigration from Nagarea into Jowston, eventually the large influx combined with a higher birth rate compared to the native Jowstons and the Aronians, and though violent cultural intimidation as well as use of Jowston's democratic process, elect Nagreans to office who then pass laws based upon Nagarean cultural traditions, and ultimately by extension laws based upon Nagarean holy text. Eventually the Nagareans in office pass laws requiring women to wear their special clothing, they revoke the rights enjoyed by women, they vote preferential treatment to people who follow the Nagarean religion. Jowston is now another brutal Nagarean theocracy.
The Theocratic State of Jowston
Is multiculturalism irrational? Yes, because it's ultimately an unsustainable cultural system. Fact of the matter is, not all cultures are equal. Some are truly backwards and barbaric. A culture where "honor killings" are accepted is barbaric. A culture where female genital mutilation is permissive is barbaric. A culture where children are married off, is backwards. A culture where men and women do not enjoy the same rights under the law is backwards. Backwards and barbaric cultures do not stand equal with a developed culture, to think that is is, is highly naive if not out right stupid. Right and wrong do exist. Harming another person not in an act of defense, is wrong, regardless of what your holy books says.
And yes, there are cultures that ARE barbaric, that ARE backwards. When you look at western cultures and cultures that have been influenced by western cultures, for better or worse, you see some of the similar cultural believes held in places where fundamentalist religions like Whabbi Islam, having been left behind by the West long ago. Slavery, left behind in history, not acceptable in modern western societies. Legislated religious dogma, largely left behind in history, is not generally acceptable in modern western societies. Legislated sexism, left behind in history, not acceptable in modern western societies. Violence perpetuated in the name of scripture, by and large left behind in history, not acceptable in modern western societies. Facts are facts no amount of feel-good politically correct bullshit can change that. We as the west moved on from that kind of archaic thinking, while without the Ottoman Empire, segments of Mid Eastern (not all or as a whole of course) society reverted back to it. That's being backwards. Flogging women for not covering up their hair, that's being barbaric. Fucking acts of terrorism is barbaric. Rationalize it in you regressive leftist, PC head all you want, but that is being backwards and that is being barbaric.
On a side note... when these people do their virtue signaling, it's really out of a genuine but misplaced belief in "can't we all get along?" Or is it just jerking their ego and building their ideological cred...?
So far, America doesn't seem to have much of that issue at the time of writing. Yes there are some enclaves that want nothing to do with with integrating in the larger resident population, but that want to impose their custom on the rest of the nation. That is the point where those who don't want to just throw open the doors of immigration are right. The balance, the correct proportions must be maintained in order for a culture like the US's to maintain straight, to continue to be steel. Though, generally, by and large, the US remains a melting pot, people enter to become Americans, not as just economic migrants. This melting pot is what makes American culture strong, instead of compartmentalization, all the different view points that are brought in are selectively disseminated into the larger whole, with the most desirable ones being adopted by others. Cultural extremists are largely mocked, ridiculed and relegated to the fringe in American culture. Extremist views are by and large not treated as equally important.
There is one aspect though, that is potentially damaging to the melting pot and essentially fatal to multiculturalism. Cultural guilt driven permissiveness, or miss placed cultural pity. A sort of arrogant narcissistic ideal that somehow you have a hand in these people's supposed predicament and that you have the power to save them. This idea manifests itself in tolerance for the worst acts of barbarism that might be brought over by the dregs that accompany the decent people. It also manifest itself in this apologetic, kiss-ass, mentality that leads people to pull down their own national flag out of fear of offending someone and the victims apologizing to the perpetrator of their own sexual assault. Someone who might or might not even give a damn or have any respect for the country and culture they came to. They're not here to become part of the larger resident society, they're not your people, You owe them nothing, if they don't like it, if they get offended, if their feelings are hurt, no one stopping them from going back to where they came from if they don't like it here. If you come into the US without the intention of becoming an American, then I have no sense of camaraderie with you, and I owe you not a damn thing beyond common courtesy. If you come in here as a tourist or for business, then I only owe you the courtesy owed to a house guest. This amounts to nothing more than cultural suicide. In addition, using the example of the contemporary liberalism, it runs counter to the very thing they claim to stand for. They claim to stand for women's rights, while at the same time permitting the copy-pasting of a culture that subjugates women. And even more ironic, this is massive disservice to the immigrants that do enter in order to escape said barbarism and oppression. So what about them, by doing this, you are literally throwing the actual legitimate refugees, people fleeing war, violence, and barbarism, under the bus, all in the name of political correctness and virtue signaling. This only makes you look like either ignorant or like a hypocrite.
This is not how you forge a strong nation. This is not how you forge steel. You cannot forge an alloy by not allowing the individual metals to blend. In the modern world with things like air travel, it's inevitable that different cultures are going to meet at a much higher frequency than ever before. Each of these cultures is like an individual metal or element. You can have them all blend into a strong alloy like steel or titanium alloy, or you can just have a hodgepodge bag of ingredients. Hell even if I use the analogy of a vinigrette where the different ingredients separate and layer, the full strength of the flavor does not come out until the bottle is shaken up and all the component ingredients are blended together. I've heard the description of multiculturalism as a "cultural mosaic". Well that doesn't work. A mosaic is an arrangement, ordered by an individual or group, with a particular goal in mind, the goal in the case of a mosaic being a particular image. But in multiculturalism, who is the "artist"? What is the particular image to be portrayed by the mosaic. There is none. There's no plan, there's no one directing where each individual distinct culture goes, or what their role is? Again, it does, not, work. The phrase "greater than the sum of the parts" comes to mind. Could you imagine if a theater troupe all did their own thing? The production would be a disaster.
For Europe to stay Europe, for European cultures to continue, multiculturalism needs to be dumped. when you let people come into your country, you must insist that they become a part of your people, otherwise, do not enter. Germany, don't be afraid to deport people who come into your country and do not become Germans, they are not your people, they are only renters at best, squatters at worse. As they are not your people, you owe them nothing. If they come into your country with no intention of becoming German, or French, or British, etc. they are outsiders that you owe nothing to.
If you come into my country, the United States of the America, to work hard, and carve out your own piece of the American Dream, to live your live under the values that lead to the Bill of Rights, to become an American yourself, you're certainly more than welcome to come. But if you're just coming in here to bring your BS and impose it on the rest of us and refuse to integrate and become an American? Go the hell back home, you have no place here. You want to come here for business, fine great, just leave any BS you might have at home. Check that shit at the door.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
