"CNN reserves the RIGHT..." But does it have the right...?

CNN claims to reserve the right, but do they actually have the right? Well lets take a look at a couple of torts (torts are the kind of stuff you sue people over rather than the kind of stuff people go to jail for) here and see if that claim of having a "right" to reserve holds any water. If putting "HanAssholeSolo" on blast will resort in a tort, then they don't have the right.


Invasion of Privacy - Public Disclosure of Private Facts:
Requires the widespread disclosure of private information.
- The public disclosure must be objectionable to the reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities.

- Liability may attach even though the statement is true.

- First Amendment limitations may apply if the matter is a legitimate public interest.

- Newsworthy exception: Example, Donald Trump's medical report may be published because it is a legitimate public interest.

-- Causation: The invasion of the Plaintiff's interest in privacy must have been proximately caused by the Defendant's conduct.

-- Damages: Mental anguish and emotional distress damages are sufficient.

Ok so there's our rules for invasion of privacy. Now lets look at the facts of this situation. Basically what happened was we had this guy on Reddit create a meme based upon a segment from Wrestlemania 23's "Battle of the Billionaires" segment, where he superimposed the CNN logo over Vince McMahon's head when he was clotheslined by Donald Trump. CNN traced the creator of the meme, uncovered his identity. CNN agreed not to put him on blast... but... they reserved the right to do so if he reneged on what ever their behind closed doors agreement was.

Now lets go though our rules and see what we get.

Widespread disclosure of private information.
Given that "HanAssholeSolo" is an alias, we can argue that his real name is of private information. Yes the person's name can be looked up, but the link between "HanAssholeSolo" and the guy's actual name, that link is likely to be private information. Like the link between Batman and Bruce Wayne.

The public disclosure must be objectionable to the reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities.
More often than not, you'll find people online using aliases rather than real names. Many people on YouTube use an alias, on social media it's about 50-50 that people use their real names or a pseudonym. Then on PlayStation Network or Xbox Live, people almost exclusively use an alias. Now why would people use an alias, well naturally to protect their privacy. Given the level of commonality in the use of alias, more than likely it would be found that the public disclosure of someone's real name, when they use an alias online, would be objectionable to the reasonable person.

Liability may attach even though the statement is true.
Just because it's his actual name, won't shield CNN from liability. 

Newsworthy exception.
CNN might try to say that because this guy's meme was shared by President Trump that his identity has become newsworthy.

But on the other hand, these kinds of memes are a dime a dozen on the internet. After E3 2013 when the Xbox One and the PlayStation 4 were revealed we saw memes like THESE:


And we didn't see Microsoft bitch up a storm over this and accuse anyone of trying to incite violence against their employees. And these memes are arguable more graphic and violent than the Wrestlemania one. Memes like this are par of the course when it comes to the internet. The only thing that made this particular meme special was that Donald Trump happen to see it, and Tweeted it out on his account. Possibly without even communicating with HAS, so in other words, Tweeting it out without the creator's control.

CNN might have something here, but it would be a weak argument. Mainly because it's a meme that doesn't really have a direct impact on the public. It has no weight on public policy and to any reasonable person, Trump posting it is nothing more than a joke (bad taste or not) and not the establishment of violence against a particular company as a matter of public policy. Regardless of the persecution complex of said particular company.

The invasion of the Plaintiff's interest in privacy must have been proximately caused by the Defendant's conduct. 
The invasion of privacy would be HAS's personal information, real name, and likely employment/school attendance, and home address. If CNN did publish it, then their conduct would be the actual and proximate (direct) cause of the interest in privacy.

Damages.
Well nothing's happened... yet... by nothing I mean they have yet to put HAS on blast.

But say it did happen, it has been said that HAS sounded uncomfortable about his personal information being released. Given that then emotional distress and mental anguish would likely be what would result.

Conclusion:
Very likely, releasing his identity would resort in a tort, therefore CNN doesn't have a "right" to reserve.


So what else can happen here?

Defamation:

- Defamatory language: The statement must tend to adversely affect the Plaintiff's reputation, but must be more than name calling. There must be allegation of fact that reflects negatively on a trait or character.

More than likely releasing the link between HAS and the actual person behind the alias would have an adverse affect on his reputation with a very vocal segment of society. The allegation of fact being the linking of the HAS internet persona with the anonymous person behind the alias. It certainly would expose HAS to hate, ridicule and contempt.

Now CNN might point out that the personal information is not a falsehood, but whether that matters, we'll go into that later.


- Of or concerning the Plaintiff: A statement that a reasonable person would understand to refer to the Plaintiff.

It would be pretty clear that the statement would refer to the person behind HAS, so that element is going to be a gimme.


- Publication: Communication of the defamation to someone other than the Plaintiff.

TV viewers and anyone reading their internet articles would be "someone other than the Plaintiff", so that element would also be a gimme.


-Damage to the Plaintiff's reputation:
-- The type of damages to be proven depends on the type of defamation.

• Libel - Written or printed publication. Plaintiff doesn't need to prove special damages (suffering some pecuniary loss), and general damages will be presumed. 

So this would be like internet articles posted by CNN. With special damages not needing to be proved and general damages presumed, HAS wouldn't really need to prove anything other than the libel was created by CNN.

• Slander - Spoken defamation. Plaintiff will need to prove special damages unless it falls under one of these "slander per se" categories. 
• Adversely reflect on one's conduct in business of profession. 
• One has a loathsome disease. 
• Guilty of a crime involving moral turpitude. 
• A slut (well ok the term is "unchaste woman") 

Here unlike libel HAS will have to prove some kind of monetary loss, like getting fired and losing his livelihood. Give that we don't know who HAS is... yet... we don't know what kind of problems this guy can get into. But if he's in an industry where political incorrectness can get someone disciplined or fired, then very likely there will be general damages.


- Public or Private figure: This is important since for public figures there are two more elements the Plaintiff is going to have to prove (falsity and fault). Public figures are people like politicians, celebrities, prominent business men, and professional athletes.

HAS is Joe Schmoe, he's not like James Rolf, or maybe the Carl Benjamin who've become very well known because of YouTube. CNN even said he's a "private citizen". I don't think anyone would consider HAS a public figure.


- Defenses:
-- Truth: Truth is a defense in Common Law defamation.

This would be CNN's strongest defense, but it only applies to Common Law, what ever jurisdiction the hypothetical court this lands in might have a defamation statute with different provisions.


Conclusion:
This would hinge on two things, HAS being able to prove that the doxing is defamatory, and whether or not the jurisdiction just uses the Common Law rules. BUT, there probably is at least one jurisdiction where in this particular set of circumstances, truth is not a defense, so there is the possibility that under this, CNN would not have a "right" to reserve.


Now people are calling this Blackmail, well lets take a look at that next.

Blackmail:
When an offender threatens to disclose embarrassing information or information that is potentially damaging to a person’s standing in the community, family or social relationships, or professional career unless the victim surrenders money, property or services.

OK, given that we've already established that CNN does not have the right to "publish his identity should any of that change" we can reasonably construe that statement to be a threat to disclose information that is potentially damaging to that person's standing. Even if they did have a right to publish it, it's foreseeable that putting him on blast would get the anti-Trump hate mob after him and possibly even be in the receiving end of aggravated battery, or even killed by some antifa member. So either way this requirement would likely be met.

CNN isn't demanding money or property from HAS, but that article can be read as to be demanding and apology, display of remorse and removal of "offending" material. Requiring him to do something could be taken as surrendering a service.

Conclusion:
So all the people calling this blackmail, the #cnnblackmail, might actually be right. This could actually be blackmail on the part of CNN.

Now from my understanding there is a statute in New York called Coercion (Penal Law - PEN section 135.60).

A person is guilty of coercion in the second degree when he or she compels or induces a person to engage in conduct which the latter has a legal right to abstain from engaging in, or to abstain from engaging in conduct in which he or she has a legal right to engage, or compels or induces a person to join a group, organization or criminal enterprise which such latter person has a right to abstain from joining, by means of instilling in him or her a fear that, if the demand is not complied with, the actor or another will:

5. Expose a secret or publicize an asserted fact, whether true or false, tending to subject some person to hatred, contempt or ridicule;  or

 9. Perform any other act which would not in itself materially benefit the actor but which is calculated to harm another person materially with respect to his or her health, safety, business, calling, career, financial condition, reputation or personal relationships.


Ok lets unpack this thing. You're guilty of second degree coercion if you make someone do something or not or something that they have a right to do, or not do, by means of instilling fear that if the demands aren't complied with you or someone else will:

• Put them on blast
• Do something that doesn't really benefit you but is instead aimed at harming the person targeted. 

 
Basically we'd follow the same analysis we did on Blackmail. HAS has the right to make memes and just be a general asshole on the internet. CNN won't put him on blast so long as he apologizes, shows remorse, takes down his "offending" posts, and not repeat this "ugly" behavior on social media again. Essentially having him stop doing something that he has a legal right to do.

CNN will dox him if any of that should change. Given that HAS sounded uncomfortable with his private information being exposed, this would meet the requirement of instilling fear in him that if he didn't comply, something was going to happen, that something in this case would be 5, and 9.

Now elements 5 and 9 are met as I mentioned earlier, publishing HAS's personal information would be publicizing an asserted fact that would tend to subject him to hated, contempt or ridicule from the anti-Trump segments of society as well as be calculated to harm materially with respect to his health and safety at the very least given that this segment of society has a violent element to it.

So yes, the elements of this crime would also be met.


So what does this all mean then? It means that in this whole school bus fire if CNN releases his personal information then it's likely a tort (Invasion of Privacy, or, depending on jurisdiction, possibly Defamation) and being a tort, CNN would not have the right to publish his personal information to reserve to being with. Given the way this was carried out, is quite possibly blackmail and/or coercion, so we have a potential tort, and an on-going crime.

My advice to HanAssholeSolo?

Brooklyn hospital shooting: Why gun-control is not working in America

So a few days ago a deranged doctor went to a hospital and opened fire on people with a NY SAFE Act compliant rifle. Among other things the NY SAFE Act, bans "assault weapons", which are defined by the Act as:

A semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least one of the following characteristics:

  (ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;

So basically this:

This is illegal in New York under the NY SAFE Act. Looking at what happened and where it happened what I get out of this is that gun-control doesn't work. It didn't work there and it didn't work in California which has equally strict gun-control, when two jihadists decided to shoot up San Bernadino, when a loser who couldn't get laid decided to shoot up a college town, and when a disgruntled UPS guy showed what brown could do for you.

I have two main points on why gun-control isn't working in America. First, it doesn't work because it's a copy-paste solution from places like Europe and the People's Republic of China. Second, simply put, gun-control proponents in the legislature (usually Democrats in states like California and New York) have absolutely no idea what they're talking about. Both of these points go hand in hand.

A copy-paste solution from a foreign culture:
I've mentioned before, American cultural development is unique to much of the world. One of the ways that makes it unique from old world powers like Great Britain to the West or China to the East, is that the cultural identity of what's "American" didn't exist until after the invention and mass proliferation of the gun. Ancient empires like Rome were built and spread with the sword, but America on the other hand, was established and settled with the gun. Unlike Old World nations like France, the gun has marched though history with America from Day 0, there were no American knights who rode into battle. There were American colonial militia who took up their flintlock rifles. There wasn't a moment in American history where the gun wasn't there. Guns and the United States have a relationship with each other unique to the rest of the world. So in order to find an effect solution to this uniquely American matter, will require a uniquely American solution. America is the New World, as such, her problems will require a New World solution. Old World solutions won't necessarily work here.

The biggest reason why copy-pasting gun-control laws from Australia like what Hillary Clinton hinted at won't work here (and quite possibly played a factor in her losing to wresting heel like Donald Trump) is because Australia doesn't have the cultural relationship with firearms ownership that the United States does. The problem is, many of these politicians either don't understand this (which seems to be the case since they always point to solutions from the Old World), or they're attempting social engineering to remake American culture into something else. Regardless of which it is, they're essentially trying to hammer a square peg into a round hole.

Most politicians don't know what they're talking about:
Before you make rules about something, it makes sense to know about what that something is and what it does and how it does it right? You wouldn't write traffic laws without knowing anything about cars and how they operate. Well that's what's happening here. You might be wondering, these people have access to all sorts of experts that can educate them to make informed decisions, right? Well, that is true, but the operative word here is can, they can educate them, whether or not they actually do, is a whole other matter altogether.  

I can tell they don't know what they're talking about because all these rules and regulations they like to make up have nothing to do with a gun's internal mechanics. But everything to do with cosmetic features. For instance, this is the rifle used by the shooter (no I'm not going to name him, I'm not going to add to his infamy).

So what's the difference between that NY SAFE Act compliant rifle and the other one above that's illegal in New York? Mechanically? Nothing. The guts and internal working parts are identical. Hell you could even swap the parts between the one the shooter used and the one I posted up above.

Well why don't they just do a blanket ban on that kind of mechanism? Because the constitution doesn't let them. Semi-automatic technology, regardless of the method used, has been around since the late 1800s. Being such old technology, it has naturally proliferated though the civilian market, and is in common use. And speaking of "common use"...

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time. - United States v. Miller (307 U.S. 174)

This ruling has been taken to mean that firearms in common use cannot be banned. The AR-15 is probably the most popular semi-automatic rifle in the US. As far as firearms go, it's literally the physical manifestation of "common use". Perhaps that's why politicians try to ban features rather than type or model line? I don't know maybe, or maybe I'm giving them more credit than what is due.

The other problem with this is that it ducks the human element behind the trigger. Like I mentioned, semi-automatic technology is over 100 years old, so what that tells me is that it wasn't the gun that changed, but it was us. Now was it us, in that now everything that happens gets attention/reported, meaning the number of instances has remained the same, we just hear about it more? Was it us, in regards to mental health? Was it us, in regards to society? What ever it is that changed in us, gun-control completely ducks the matter and moves the onus onto an inanimate object. It makes the gun a sacrificial talisman in order to avoid dealing with the real, and difficult, societal problems.

So what's the solution?
The solution is actually pretty easy, the only problem is, it's only as easy as we, as a country, make it out to be. What do I mean by that? Well, both sides are going to have to sit down at the same table and break bread.

As I mentioned, giving the politicians the benefit of the doubt, of just being ignorant as opposed to maliciously trying to remake American culture into what they think it should be, don't know what they're talking about. They don't know the mechanics and technicalities of firearms, nor do they understand the cultural impact and attachment. If they don't know, then who does?

The gun owning community.

They understand the technical details of how these weapons work, but more importantly, they're the ones who understand and appreciate their cultural effect. In other words, they know guns. Because they know guns, they're the ones who would know what works and what doesn't. The problem is though, in places like California and New York, the community is more often than not, left entirely out of the decision making process. That's why they're angry, the laws that get passed have major, direct impact on them, but they don't even get to have a seat at the table.

But, with how polarized American politics has become, thanks to both Hillary's divisive, us-against-them, identity-politics driven campaign and Donald Trump, well... being a WWE heel character, I don't think that'll happen any time soon. Neither side trusts each other, both sides are angry at each other, and both sides are doubling down on their positions. While there is common ground, no one wants people getting murdered, neither side is willing to budge on how that can be addressed. One side thinks recklessly passing knee-jerk emotionally based laws will accomplish something, while the other side thinks any dumbass yahoo should have a gun.

Guns are not f*ing toys! On the accidental youtuber shooting.

Ok so a couple days ago this happened...

A Minnesota woman killed her boyfriend Monday by shooting at a book he was holding over his chest, in an incredibly dumb YouTube stunt gone wrong.

19-year-old aspiring YouTube personality Monalisa Perez faces second-degree manslaughter charges for shooting her boyfriend, 22-year-old Pedro Ruiz, in the chest.

In terms of ridiculous social media stunt videos, you really can't get any more tragic. Ruiz was holding a large book up to his chest, which the couple thought would actually deflect a bullet fired from a monstrously powerful .50 caliber Desert Eagle handgun. The young couple was filming the clip in a desperate bid to gain more views on YouTube.

Ok... let me just get this out... Guns. Are. Not. Toys! A gun is a dangerous weapon that demands respect, the minute you don't respect it, you put someone in the hospital or the morgue with it. Like what happened here, the Desert Eagle .50 caliber Action Express is one of the most powerful handguns on the market. Let me put things into perspective.

On the high end (depends on loading, how heavy the bullet is, how much powder is packed into the case), the 9x19mm used by the military and most law enforcement organizations, hits with 617 joules of energy, that's more or less how much energy it hits with.

Dirty Harry's .44 magnum hits with 2078 joules at the high end. 

Then the .50AE, this thing hits at 2200 joules at the high end. Just to add more perspective, the standard NATO assault rifle round (used by the M-16, FNC, and the Sako) the 5.56x45 hits at 1843 joules at the high end.

The thing that really boggles the mind is that this wasn't some freak range accident, this was planned, planned all for Youtube fame. This is what happens when you blend narcissism with stupidity with a lack of respect for guns. I'm all for the 2nd Amendment, but with with great power (like 2200 goddamn joules) comes great responsibility. If you're going to wield something that powerful, you need to have the maturity and responsibility that it commands. Otherwise, you're just not ready for it.

As to the girlfriend... I'm going to say she's lucky she didn't get depraved heart murder for this. Thinking a book is going to stop a .50AE? How is that not reckless disregard/depraved heart?

Benoit murder-suicide - an insanity plea

Nancy and Daniel Benoit. RIP

This year is the 10 year anniversary of Benoit's murder-suicide. Way back doing the "Monday Night Wars" when WWF/WWE and WCW were going head-to-head and pushing the bounds, trouncing even Monday Night Football in ratings, I was a huge wrestling fan. I watched both promos, jumping back and fourth, and "The Crippler" Chris Benoit was one of my favorite wrestlers. His skills were amazing and he brought an intensity to the ring that kept you glued to the match. In other words, and unrivaled performer.

When ever something like this happens, people always try to make sense of the matter. Try to figure out why something happened, why someone did what they did, when no one expected it. A lot of people are saying Benoit was out of his mind, that he went crazy, that he was insane. Truth is we'll never know, the only ones who really know why are dead.

But based on what we know, is that insanity explanation going to fly in court? Let me say this first, I'm not excusing what he did. All I'm doing is following the road of 'is Benoit insane' and testing to see if he fits the legal definition of. Why? Just to give some kind of concrete foundation to the term "insane".


Lets start with what we do know.
- According to Chavo Guerrero he sent out a series of bizarre text messages just before his suicide.

- According to Chris Jericho what Benoit did was vastly out of character for him, that no one expected it. Also according to Jericho, Eddie Guerrero's death weighed very heavily on Benoit. Jericho also mentions bizarre behavior from Benoit, such as paranoia.

- According to, Nancy Benoit's sister, Sandra Toffoloni, there was strain on their marriage, and a lot of personal strain after the deaths of Victor Mar (ring name: Black Cat), Ray Traylor (ring name: Big Boss Man), Eddie and others, deeply affected Benoit. Also according to her there was a lot of self-medicating going on between Nancy and Benoit.  Additionally, according to her he didn't display the typical Alzheimer's symptoms. Toffoloni also revealed that Benoit spent two whole days alone in the house with the bodies of his wife and son, as well as a WWE official mentioning to her that Benoit had attempted to book a flight for the show he was scheduled for.

- According to Sean Allen Morley (ring name: Val Venis), at the Benoit home there were open alcohol bottles everywhere.   

- Researchers at the Sports Legacy Institute released findings that demonstrate Benoit as having Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy. Having suffered the same sort of brain injury that NFL players have suffered that caused them to sink into depression and hurt themselves or others.

- Benoit's method of suicide was to rig his weight lifting machine to hang himself. A method that took an enormous amount of strength, and therefore, demonstrated to be thought out.

Lets now synthesize all this. Benoit has suffered brain injury consistent with what NFL players have suffered. There was in all probability alcohol and/or drug abuse, brought on by both personal and professional pressures. Benoit himself displaying odd behavior from the paranoia observed by Toffoloni to the bizarre text messages received by Chavo, and the strange behavior observed by Jericho. Behavior that had been observed as on-going during the last year and and a half of Benoit's life. That he had spent several days alone with the corpses of his family, with the thing that occurred to him being trying to get to work. His ultimate method of suicide being one which was difficult and took great strength to do.


So that's what we do know (I'm not even going to entertain bullshit like the Kevin Sullivan conspiracy theory, Kevin gave him a push in WCW even after the Kevin and Nancy divorced, Sullivan was behind Benoit winning the championship, I don't think there's any credence to this). What legally constitutes as "insanity" depends on what state/circuit a given court happens to be in. The important thing to focus on is if the person is "insane" at the time the act was committed. The other thing to consider is that it doesn't have to be any one single factor behind this. We'll go through each of these standards.

McNaughten Rule:
Under this rule, insanity will be found if because of a mental disease/defect the defendant:
- Did not know that his act would be wrong. 
- Did not understand the nature or quality of his actions. 

So based on what we know, regarding Benoit's behavior and the medical report, it is very likely Benoit had a mental illness/defect as a result of brain injury coupled with substance abuse.

We don't know enough to consider whether Benoit knew what he was doing was wrong.

Going by what we know it is possible that Benoit did not understand the nature of quality of his actions at the time he did it, because of the brain injuries he sustained? He did stay in the house alone with the bodies of his family. No calls to the authorities, or any mention of what happened, instead just trying to go back to work. He just killed two people and he's trying to book a flight to make a show? Did he really understand what he was doing when he did it? There is an argument there to be made that Benoit did not understand the nature and quality of what he just did. It might be mostly conjecture, but there is something going on there and a picture can be scratched together from it.

There is an argument that Benoit was insane under this rule.

Irresistible Impulse:
Under this rule insanity will be found if because of a mental disease/defect the defendant is unable to control his actions or conform his action to the law. 

Benoit has been observed by those closest around to him to be displaying strange and bizarre behavior. We don't know enough to be able to tell whether Benoit was unable to control himself, but if his acts of paranoia, such as driving different routes to the gym everyday, taking different cars, if there was some compulsiveness to that behavior, then it may point to him being unable to control his actions at the time he committed the murders.

We just don't know enough to argue whether or not Benoit was insane under this rule.

Durham Test:
Under this rule insanity will be found if the crime was a product of a mental illness. 

As I mentioned, Benoit was displaying strange and bizarre behavior, and the medical reports are consisted with brain injuries. So there is a strong argument that everything combined resulted in some sort of mental illness.

That said, it was very likely, based on what his family and friends have said about him, that the murders were a product of this mental illness. His closest people didn't see it coming, and he was behaving strangely for awhile, so more than likely something was going on in his head.

Under this test, there is an argument there for insanity.

Model Penal Code:
Under this rule insanity will be found if because of a mental disease/defect the defendant lacked the substantial capacity to either"
- Appreciate the criminality of their conduct. 
- Conform their conduct to the requirement of the law.

Based on what we know, this one is hard to tell. Did he understand what he was doing was criminal at the time he did it? Maybe. Maybe not. If he's refocusing on work with two dead people that he's just killed, maybe he was so out of it that he didn't appreciated the criminality of what he did.

From what we know, there's a weak argument, mostly conjecture, but there's still enough there to work with, and things do lean towards insanity.

...

So there it is, had Chris Benoit gone insane when he committed murder, under three of the legal standards of insanity, based on what is known, quite possibly. He was quite likely insane in both the "he's want himself" sense, and in the legal sense. Had he not killed himself, had he gone to trial, it's certainly possible that he's be found Not Guilty by reason of insanity. Does that mean he'd walk for what he did? I doubt it, he's probably be institutionalized.

So what's my take on this as a fan of his ten years after? Do I think he should be inducted into the Hall of Fame? Hell no! Because of what he did the attention will always be on the double murders, not on his skills as a wrestler. Do I think WWE should continue to pretend that Chris Benoit doesn't exist? No. Because he did exist, I don't think he should be glorified (like don't release any blu-rays focused on him, but have an archive of his matches), but by pretending he didn't exist just fuels the kind of infamy/mystique around him.  People know why he's treated like he doesn't exist and new fans who hear about him are going to get curious and look him up. In fact, it's reached the level of being an internet meme. In other words he'll never be erased.

Ten years ago when it happened, WWE made the right decision. But ten years later today, I don't think they should go out of their way to show him, but also shouldn't go out of their way to pretend he never existed anymore. But also, Benoit is an example of what can happen to someone when the perfect storm of personal and professional pressures, substance abuse and brain injuries all come together. Why it's important to seek help, because that shit will eat you. Was he a monster for what he did? YES. But monsters don't come from nowhere...

The angry rantings of an Asian-American: Why I hate the "Progressive" Left part 1

The main reason why I hate the Pro[re]gressive Left is simple and it really boils down to this, I'm not weak. I'm Asian-American, Filipino to be specific, so that makes me a minority in the US. I'm not sure what chain of logic leads them to think so, but somehow for the Pro[re]gressive, that means I'm weak.

So how did I get to that conclusion?

More often than not, I'll see some young upper-middle class kid saying they're fighting against racism, sexism and bigotry. So on the surface I ought to be friendly towards them right? I mean after all they claim to be fighting for me.

Well here's the thing... I never asked them to. I never needed them, nor wanted them to "fight" for me. Their "help" was never needed, is not needed, and never will be needed. Combined with age and personal experience, I've been around a bit. I've been to my share of crazy parties, seen my share of drug use and their aftermath, and buried my share of friends.

A little bit of background. 

I was born the in early/mid '80s, early enough that I still have memories of the '80s. So I grew up though the '90s, becoming socially aware of things around the mid to late '90s ,and becoming politically aware around the mid '90s and formulating my views in the late '90s and into the early 2000's. Essentially my socio-political views came out of the end of Bill Clinton and into the era of George W Bush's presidency. During all of that I ran with multiple circles of friends, I ran with a circle of video game and anime nerds and at the same time I ran with a circle of crazy party friends. So I had a pretty varied social circle of friends. I'd go from one night hanging out at a 24-hr diner talking to friends about Gundam Wing and how the Tallgeese was the most bad ass of all the Mobile Suits, while the next night I'd be drinking a poorly made cocktail (that was just all alcohol) and spending the night with a wild punk rock chick, who wore black all the time and liked to spin fire on her free time. 

These circles of friends I've ran with came from all strata of society, all races and social classes. In short it was a microcosm of assimilation. We had the kids with parents who had money that would host the parties when the parents were away, and the poorer kids who lived in the shady neighborhoods who had the hook ups. No one gave a shit what you were as long as you were cool. The crazy parties I went to had people in our late teens, some of us had just graduated, while others were about to. Then in college there were frat hangouts I had gone to. No one cared about "privilege" or "oppression".  

On that note, college was also something completely different back the from what I've been hearing that it's turned into. Many moons ago, I took a class at San Francisco State University that was an objective and academic look at the three big Abrahamic religions. One of my classmates was a practicing Muslim. So when we got to the section of Islam, he was having a hard time stepping out of his faith and analyzing the religion from an outside view, and the idea that the Koran wasn't the perfect word of God but yet another religious/cultural text was a concept that seemed to even scare him. It wasn't till the prof conceded that what we were doing would amount to blasphemy. In a polite and articulate way, the proffessor essentially said that his feelings didn't matter.

But this being 2004, and all of us there having some vague memory of the '80s and a time called the Cold War, and of a scary ass country on the other side of the world called the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics that jailed people who didn't agree with the government and who had over 100 nuclear missiles aimed at us, no one was offended, no one was crying about their feels, no one ran to the nearest safe space, and no one got fired. Perhaps it was because we all had perspective on what oppression really was.

My classmate persevered in the class, and presumably gained new insight into his faith. He didn't lose his shit, he didn't freak out, didn't accuse the professor of anything and tried to get him fired. He didn't go complain to someone that he was being oppressed, nor did he go

Back in my day, "Bonita Tindle" is something that never could happen. Back then people were much more grounded and it took a lot more than some White guy with dreads to set them off.

During this time period, I easily fell into one of the many forms of Liberal. Conservativism at the time was exemplified by then President George W Bush and his first term administration, with people like John Ashcroft. In other words, my personal liberal views were forged in the era where "Compassionate Conservativism" was at it's height. My views were forged with the last fading memories of the Cold War and stories of the oppressiveness of the Soviet regime, and in the era where factions of Protestant Christianity, factions including the apocalyptic, belief in the Book of Revelations faction of Protestant Christianity, were trying mold society into their own ideal image.

So where does that put me in terms of what's going on today? 

Well I see this shit happening all over again. Only this time it's extremist jackasses on the left who are trying to mold society into their own ideal image. I really couldn't say why I didn't turn into a whiny-ass, unable to function in society, crybully. Maybe it was old school parents who didn't buy into the bullshit new-age hippy style of parenting. Maybe it was the fact that for a part of my life I lived under the threat of nuclear annihilation, and shared half the planet with a big brutal oppressor. Maybe those things helped me keep perspective. 

I didn't worry about "microaggression", I didn't worry about a "racist White patriarchy", probably because I saw us come out of the Cold War without glowing green and seen us as a society make it past that knife edge period in history. Now why am I constantly bringing up the Cold War. Well, to put it straight, I don't think these 20 year old millennials know what evil is. They weren't there for the Civil Rights movement, they weren't there for the horrors of Vietnam, and they weren't there for the fear of the Cold War.

Many of these millennials were born after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Cold War. Though they would be old enough to have memories of 9-11, so maybe that theory is a bit off. 

So that's where I came from, a nerdy kid who befriended some people who would go one to become crazy parties, in the backdrop of a transition of the geopolitical order from the old Cold War era to the new era that came, from the Cold War to the War on Terror.

In other words... I seen a lot of shit! Seen a lot of shit, gone though a lot of shit and I'm still standing. Still standing and still plowing forward.

So that said... How did I get to the conclusion that the Progressive Left sees me as weak? Well, not to toot my own horn, but I've got quite a bit of experience behind me. Compare that to the experience that the typical college SJW has. Now, after doing that, what could possibly make any of these SJW types think that someone like me, needs them to fight for them?

Well there are a few things that got me to that conclusion

First their paternalistic, view of minorities, that we seem to need them to protect us and clear the roads for us. They have it in their heads that we need them to, not make society more fair, but instead to make it harder for White people. Essentially, they want to give White people a handicap, implying that minorities are inferior to Whites and need a handicap bonus to compete with them. This first point also ultimately shows their racism. They're trapped in this weird "White guilt" mindset, that everything is White people's fault. Now I'm not going to say that Colonialism in the early 20th Century didn't cause problems but that's a topic for another day. Here's the funny thing though, if White people have the power to cause all these problems, then the existing inverse is that White people have the power to fix all these problems. Heads, it's White Guilt, tails it's the White Savior Complex (by that I mean this idea that White people have the responsibility to fix the social problems of minority communities, and remove the obstacles that minority individuals face because they have the "power and privilege" to do it), two sides of the same racist coin. How is this racist? It's racist in that the premise is that White people need to fix the problem, as opposed to minorities having the power themselves to overcome obstacles and fix the problem ourselves. Look motherfucker, I can overcome my own damn obstacles without you. You are not needed, you never were needed, and you won't ever be needed.


This is also sexist, in that it becomes sexist when you replace "White" with "men". It's essentially the same argument. That we need to give handicap points to one side so they can compete with the other.

Second, well as the old saying goes "who died and made you king?" I can't even begin to get into the level of arrogance that it takes for them to think that they deserve to be given power, so I'm just not going to. Now the reason I take issue with this, is that given my background, vs the background of your average UC Berkley SJW undergrad, what gives them the right to tell society what's what under my name? Subheading A, what makes them think that I need society changed for me to make it? Subheading B, even if I needed society changed for me to make it through, what makes them think they know what changes I need? Hinde mo alam ako!

Third, what makes them think that I need them to be a voice for me? That I need them to be a voice for me in both volume and content? I mean case in point, Democrat Sally Boynton Brown. Look dumbass, I don't need you to shut people down for my benefit. Are you implying that I am so weak that I need YOU as my advocate? That I am so weak that I need a White person to be an advocate for me (what was I saying a little while about about White Savior Complex)?! This is the paternalistic crap I was talking about earlier, that these people seem to think they need to regulate people's individual conduct. They think that because they have "power and privilege" that they have some kind of warped sense Nobelesse Obilge to use that "power and privilege" to bring down the "racist White patriarchy" so minorities like me can make it in this country. As if we didn't have the knowledge and power to do it ourselves.

Given those three factors, the only logical conclusion that can be reached, is that they think racial/ethnic minorities remain in a position of weakness. Such weakness, that someone as naive and fresh faced as them are in a position where they can help us. Maybe it's just me, but this level of arrogance, or this level of delusion, just burns my ass. It perpetuates this concept that minorities are weak and unable to make their own way in this country, which the example of countless successful minorities in this country prove false. In other words, it attempts to brainwash minorities into thinking they're weak and that they need the "White Savior" to clear the way for them, because they can't make it otherwise.

There are other reasons, why I just out right hate the Progressive Left, usually related to their other deranged unhinged views on things, but I'll save that for later. But I did mention the Cold War several times so I will go into that a bit.

The Cold War ended in 1991, Progressive Leftism arguable blew it up into the mainstream with the Gamergate controversy that started in summer of 2014. So people born the year the Cold War ended were already 23 or so years old. In other words, they don't really have a real reference point for what constitutes "oppression". They don't have any real cognitive memory of the Cold War, nor is there any real kind of connection with historical material to the era. I read stuff on the Cold War and for me, it's childhood, for them, it's something that happened a long time ago.

In other words, they don't know what evil is. The horror stories of Communist regimes is too far in proximity to them, so for them "oppression" is now something that makes them emotionally uncomfortable. Something that hurts their feelings.

When I was a kid, probably into 1993 and 1994, we still heard about and learned about the horrors of Communist regimes of the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China. I went to a private school and we were introduced to history earlier than the public schools were, so we watched a lot of interviews with Communist defectors, and I recall one movie about a family that fled East Berlin into West Berlin on a hot air balloon, so we got to see a depiction of life in East Germany, with the Stazi watching everyone. We heard stories of oppression from people who actually were oppressed, oppressed by some of the most iron fisted regimes in history. But not just that though, there was also a proximity in time when we were learning all this, it either was still happening, or only happened a few years ago. I remember in 1993 or 1994 we watched VHS recordings of the Berlin Wall getting torn down. Then in 1995 we had the Bosnian genocide, we followed that very closely in school.

Now these college millennials haven't really been exposed to the same kind of thing. The Bosnian genocide was something that happened far away, by a regime that couldn't come here and hurt us. Then in 9-11 and the subsequent War on Terror, we saw the Taliban collapse in a matter of days, we saw Saddam's regime collapse in just as short amount of time. We saw the 2011 surge that saw the end of some of the major insurgency actions like in Falluja, and in the same year we saw the end of Osama bin Laden. The War on Terror is no longer on the forefront of public thought. We don't have regular forces boots on the ground against ISIS, so for the general public, it still remains as something far away.

Having not been exposed to these kinds of things, the reasonable assumption is that they don't have a really concrete reference point for what is "evil". Now I'm sure there are other reasons, but the fact they the equate the most minor slight as "aggression", the constant othering of someone who simply has a different political view as "a Nazi" and therefore evil. I mean shit, even segre-goddamn-gration is making a come back. The reasonable conclusion is that they've never experienced actual evil. Because if they had, then they wouldn't be wasting energy on non-sense like "microagression" and "cultural appropriation". It's that or they're really just that weak due to leftist helicopter parents who moved aside all personal obstacles from them and therefore never really had a chance to grow.



Now has things in the US been harder for me because I'm Asian-American? To tell you the truth... I don't know. I really don't and you want to know why? Because most of my life I've been busting my ass to get by, finishing my BA, getting a job, going to law school and finishing my JD, getting a job again, and prepping for the Bar. I've been too busy working hard to make something of myself to really notice, let alone give a damn. You know what I was told as a kid? To work harder. Oh you didn't succeed? It wasn't because of racism or what ever other -ism, it's because you didn't work hard enough. If you want to change things, then go and get into a position of power and change things from there. Some people have it harder than others and that's just life. You can work hard and carve your way to the top and change it from there yourself. Or you can bitch and cry and wait till someone else does it for you.

So there it is, where I came from and why it is only natural that I would find myself in direct opposition to the Progressive Left who claims to be my "ally".

So apparently taking a Gaullist view of a matter makes you a Nazi...

Recently French presidential candidate, Marine Le Pen stated:

"I don't think France is responsible for the Vel d'Hiv..."

"I think that generally speaking if there are people responsible, it's those who were in power at the time. It's not France..."

"I consider that France and the Republic were in London during the occupation and that the Vichy regime was not France..."

 
This view was ultimately held by the Fourth Republic that replaced the gouvernement provisoire de la République française (GPRF). That Petain's Vichy regime was an illegal government and not the legitimate government of France. The two factions that would come to form the Comité français de Libération nationale (French Committee of National Liberation) were based in London (de Gaulle) and in Algiers (Giraud). That said, did Le Pen say anything wrong here?

Charles de Gaulle's GPRF has been seen as the legitimate government of France after the collapse of the Third Republic. The establishment of the Vichy government has been considered illegal on several grounds.

First issue was the absence and non-voluntary abstentions of a number of  Senators and Deputies as well as coercive manipulations by pro-Nazi Pierre Laval (subsequently executed via firing squad for treason by the GPRF). This puts the vote granting powers to Marshal Philippe Pétain, in question and makes Petain's assumption of power suspect.

The second issue is that parliament couldn't delegate it's powers without control of it's use. In effect, that is what it did when it granted full powers to Marshall Petain. The vote essentially gave Petain dictatorial powers and was the end of the Third Republic if it wasn't already dead.

Third, was that the constitution made it impossible to question the regime's republican form. A form utterly rejected by Petain's French State.

Essentially the Third Republic didn't just collapse under the weight of the Wehrmacht assault and Hitler's demands, it was dissolved under dubious circumstances. Vel d'Hiv happened under the governance of the French State, not the Third Republic, and certainly not the GPRF that the Fourth Republic grew out of.

So if we take the view that the Fifth and Fourth Republics were successors to the GPRF, which carried the torch of republic after the dissolution of the Third Republic, the yes, like Le Pen said, France and the Republic were in London.

Look at this way, in Star Wars, the New Republic founded after the Empire's defeat in Epi. VI was a continuation of the Galactic Republic. Taking the view the Left has on this, is akin to holding the New Republic responsible for the atrocities carried out by the Empire. It's the same as saying the New Republic was responsible for Jedha City's destruction as well as planet Alderaan's.

Where does that put the Fifth Republic though? You ask me, tracing it's linage and republican tradition to the Fourth Republic, to the GPRF, and ultimately to the Third Republic, the Fifth Republic has the responsibility of bringing to justice the criminals of the French State that perpetuated it's wrongs against the citizens of the Third Republic. If the survivors of Vel d'Hiv were French citizens, or Jews that fled to France for safety from the Third Reich, then as successors to the Third Republic, the current Fifth Republic has the responsibility to drag those French State perpetrators to justice. Not because the Fifth Republic had anything to do with the State's atrocities, but because by extension the Fifth Republic is responsible to the people who were under the protection of the Third Republic.

Since the French State doesn't exist, then that responsibility is to pursue the individual perpetrators. Once they are all dead, that's it, they're dead, the French State is dead, the officials of the State that carried out the atrocities are dead, there's no one else to come after. Time to turn the page on that chapter of history.

I find it funny that adopting the view of one of the few of the utterly broken and demoralized Third Republic who wanted to continue the fight against Hitler, makes you a Nazi. Say what you will about Charles De Gaulle, that he was an ego maniac who quite possibly had a messiah complex when it came to France, who compared himself to Jeanne d'Arc. That he was hard headed and got along just barely enough with Roosevelt and Churchill to fight Hitler and Mussolini. The fact remains that he never gave up the fight against the fascists and he was able to ultimately rally the various French colonies, and French nationals who still wanted to fight into a single unified body, the Free French. The fact remains that he, along side General Henri Giraud, formed the Comité français de Libération nationale, and later formed the GPRF when the Free French 2nd Armored Division lead the charge into Paris and liberated the city from the fascist's army, the Wehrmacht.

And now all of a sudden, his views are Nazi views? The man who commanded the French Army's 4e Division cuirassée, one of the few French Army units winning victories against the Wehrmacht, the man who later went on to continue the war against the Nazis when his demoralized country no longer had the stomach for it. The guy who was on the hitlist of actual fascist regimes. His views are now "Nazi" and "fascist" views? Yeah ok...

General Charles de Gaulle, for all his personal flaws, has done more to fight the actual Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei than any of these black block "Antifa" Storm Divisions ever have with their rioting and terrorist acts they carry out against their imaginary Nazis. So excuse me while I laugh my head off when a Leftists cries "Nazi" at someone who voices a Gaullist point of view on an issue. By the time Germany was invaded the GPRF's Armée française de la Libération fielded over 1 million troops and marched right into Germany along side the British and the Americans, and if we include the Normandie-Niemen squadron that de Gaulle created, along side the Soviets. The first of the Western Allies to reach the Rhine and the Danube was the French 1st Armored Division. The French 1st Army also clashed with the Nazi Waffen Schutzstaffel (not the German Wehrmacht regular army, but the Waffen-SS an actual wing of the Nazi Party, you know, actual Nazis) in Operation Nordwind and other engagements. So what have Leftists today done to fight actual Nazis as opposed to their imaginary Nazis.

Yeah excuse me while I laugh my head off at Leftists calling views held by de Gaulle (refusing to associate the French Republic with the atrocities of the French State, declaring that the Vichy regime was "not France") as "being a Nazi".

What ever it's worth, I am getting sick and damn tired of this culture of guilt that the Left likes to push on people who aren't brown on black. Between the purges and trials carried out while the GPRF was in power, and subsequent trials under the Fourth and Fifth Republics many of Vichy authorities who actually carried out the Nazi's policies have been imprisoned or executed. Is it regrettable that some of them escaped judgement well into the 1990s? It most certainly is. But if there's any fault to be found with the Fifth Republic it's in dragging it's feet to bring these collaborationist to justice, not for the actual acts committed by another government.

Basically what I'm trying to say is, "you didn't do it, so you have nothing to feel guilty about." My family comes from the Philippines, should I be resentful at Spain and the United States for what they did to my ancestors? No, that would be stupid, the people that carried out the wrong are all dead (though contemporary Leftists would probably encourage me to still be angry at the "evil White colonialists"). And soon within the next few decades, if it hasn't come to pass already, the Vichy officials who carried out Nazi policies, who haven't already been executed, will be all dead. When that comes to pass, then what? Will the Left continue to hold citizens of the Fifth Republic responsible for the actions of the French State? People with absolutely nothing to do with it? People who very may well be children and grandchildren who fought under the Cross of Lorainne? Sure maybe there would be some argument if the Fourth and subsequent Fifth Republics were continuations of the French State, but they were continuations of the GPRF and by extension the Third Republic.

At least with Japan the argument is there that the current State of Japan is a reformed continuation of the Empire of Japan, given that the Emperor Jimmu's line continues to reign and the current constitution is technically a heavily altered (granted it's been altered beyond recognition) Meiji Constitution. There's some basis there to keep hounding the current Japanese government for apologies and reparations for WWII. But the Fifth Republic doesn't even have that level of ties with the French State.

Should the atrocities of the French State be forgotten about? No, certainly not. But on the same token, there is no need for self-flagellation and assuming the sins of another, Jesus already did that for all of us. Did you round up Jews and put them on a train to the ovens? No? Then stop hitting yourself, feel free to flagellate and hit the guy who actually carried out the deed though.

Do I support Le Pen, no not really, I'm largely neutral towards her the way I was largely neutral towards Donald Trump. I'm sure she's wrong on many issues and might just be pandering to an enraged voting bloc with populist rhetoric. But in this regard, I don't really see anything wrong that she said. I just see more of the Left looking for something to complain about like they've been doing in the US. Though I do also find it funny that the Left is supporting a banker over a woman in this final round of election in France, how many of the same people in the Left in the US who back Macron were the same people that were saying if you didn't back Hillary you hate women?

"Bros on the Road": Final Fantasy XV Review (PS4)

Overall Score: 4/5

B

Gameplay: 4
In terms of the gameplay, FFXV definitely moves the franchise forward, but there is still room for improvement. Given Final Fantasy Type-0 and before that Final Fantasy VII: Crisis Core, we could see the Square-Enix was starting to move away from the menu based combat interface. Even in FFXV's prototype form, Final Fantasy XIII Versus, the battle system was to be more action oriented.

Having played though parts of, or the entirety of FFVI, FFVII, VIII, X, X-2, FFVII:CC, FFXIII and FF Type-0, I don't necessarily see this as a bad thing. And this free roaming sort of action-style battle isn't anything that Square-Enix hasn't done before, I thought the system was very reminiscent of Star Ocean 3's. Is this the only way to evolve the series? No, but for a flagship franchise like Final Fantasy, I think it's the correct way to go. For instance, I think Trails of Cold Steel is a phenomenal game that uses a menu based combat system, but the game is also a little more niche, as opposed to a big flagship, bread and butter, franchise like Final Fantasy. In other words evolving the series in this direction will more likely draw in a larger audience.

Exploration is done in one massive screen/interface, ala Grand Theft Auto. There are no longer a world map/town screen/dungeon screens. You can run out of town and straight into the wilderness, or be out in the wilderness enter a cave and be in a dungeon without a change of screens. It all just seamlessly flows together. While at first it might have seemed like a radical departure for a Final Fantasy game, making it open world, in practice it simply feels like a natural evolution of the franchise. Given that exploring the world map for out of the way dungeons and towns with rare goods was a part of JRPGs in the past. In short it works very well for an RPG. The world can be traversed via on foot, in your car, on chocobo, or later on, via aircraft (I don't want to call it an airship since it's pretty small this time around).

Like with games like GTA or Red Dead Redemption, FFXV has a real time, day-night timer. Nighttime bring stronger monsters so it's suggested that the player find a hotel, or a campsite to bed down for the night. Doing this also tally's the group's experience points, no longer is exp tallied at the end of every battle. Night time is also when you'll see the more traditional Final Fantasy monsters like Bombs and Iron Giants, though you'll still see some old staples during the day. During the day you mainly encounter wild animals that actually become cooking ingredients for Ignis to use. One side quest actually has you going after a Behemoth after Gladiolus has a hankering for Behemoth meat.

Combat this time around is done in a field where the player has free roam and can run in any direction with the left analogue stick, and attacks are carried out with the O button. Attacks vary depending on which way the player has the stick tiled. The player also has the ability to dodge and parry, with parrying being done though very forgiving QTE inputs that are done in a way as to not be annoying or cause instant death/game over. There's no longer a battle screen, rather enemies are seen on the main interface and battles are triggered by encountering them (ala Xenosaga or Trails of Cold Steel). Rather than going into a separate screen the game goes into a battle mode, escaping battles is done simply by just running out of the battle zone. You have three support characters, that while you can give them orders (this game's equivalent to Limit Breaks) but you can't take direct control of them. Though they will also support you, they will come and heal you when you have your HP down and are staggering.

This is my first place of critique, only the O button is used for attack (though you do get a one hit warp-strike attack with the T button which strength depends on how far away from the target you are). Meaning the game lacks a combo system and battles ultimately just become mashing the O button. Not a huge deal, but the gameplay could have been made a bit deeper by integrating in a Xenogears style combo system where combo attacks were done though pressing S, T, O, and X in different orders. By adding in a combo system like this, players can learn new and more powerful moves to use.

The second point I would hit on, would be the weapons, the firearms in particular. This time around, instead of character classes, the player character, Noctus (I'll call him Noct from here on) is a jack of all trades and uses all weapons. When the game was still Versus, the player was able to take control of Prompto (the gunslinger) and target weak points on enemies. I would have carried this mechanic over to the firearms in the form of an aim-down-the-sight or scope mode, and also given Noct access to rifles, and shotguns instead of just handguns. As it stands, in the game, other than flying enemies and weak enemies, Noct's handguns are hardly useful. I would have made the firearms very powerful but at the cost of them only being powerful on weak point hits and having to manually aim for those points.

The third point, is the magic system. The magic system has some really good and really bad. First the good, across the map there are elemental draw points where Noct can absorb energy from, you can then use this energy, in combination with various items to craft your spells with. The spells then become consumables that you equip like weapons. Herein is one of my issues with magic in this game. It does get a bit annoying having to craft more spells mid battle. Instead I would have taken from FFVII's materia system. Instead of crafting spells, I'd have the mechanic as crafting materia, or to stick with the game's theme, crystals. Here, rather than being used for spell casting, magic points (MP) are used for evading and warp-striking. I would have given those a separate meter or have them draw from the Stamina meter instead. The other thing I take issue with, is there seems to be some level of friendly fire with magic. You can't order the team to go to a specific point, so when you cast an area of effect (AoE) spell, they take a slight hit plus what ever negative status effects the spells give. I'd have just made them immune to the player's offensive magic. So essentially, I'd have the mechanic being crafting your own materia/magic crystals and having magic drawn from you MP points, as had been traditionally done.

Summons return, only this time, the player has no control over who is summoned and when . It's not completely random, there are certainly conditions where they would become available. When this happens you'll be prompted to hold down the L2 button to trigger the summon. The list of summons is relatively short this time around, certainly no where near FFVII and FFVIII's number of summons. I think this is a bit of a step back, I would have liked to take direct control of the summon like you did in FFX, just have a time limit for how long you have control. Built on that, Square-Enix could even add an extra mechanic where the more often a particular summon is used, the greater the bond between that summon and Noct and therefore the longer they stay on the field.

As mentioned earlier, you can use Chocobos to get around, but now if you have your bird sufficiently leveled up, it'll come and assist you in battle. Either supporting you, or attacking your target.

Another relatively new element to be brought into FFXV is the ability to customize your characters and your car. Though character outfits are fairly limited and there aren't any new ones to buy at the stores in the game ($5 says we'll see DLC for stuff like SOLDIER or SeeD uniforms for them). Your car on the other hand is a wholly different story. You can change the colors, the color patterns and decals of the Regalia, as well as upgrade the car later. This isn't just limited to the car, you can even customize the colors of your Chocobo and decorate it with medals you've earned from winning races with it. Yup, the Chocobo races are back.

I ultimately settled on this

Stability: 4
For the most part the game runs stable. However I did run into a couple hiccups. I've had one or two instances where the game didn't come out of sleep mode, and I've had one instance where I was streaming the game to my Vita and had the PS4 crash at the exp tally screen. I was still able to load a previous save and continue past the point of where the game crashed. So there wasn't anything that would be considered a game stopper.

Graphics and Visuals: 4
The game looks great, however some aspects doesn't look all that much better than the PS3, in fact, I'd go as far to say that Metal Gear Solid 5 on the PS3 had better looking on-field character models (though FFXV certainly has MGS5 PS3 beat in terms of cutscene models), and possibly environments that looked just as good. This is probably due to the fact that FFXV was originally FFXIII Versus being made for the 7th gen consoles. It's by no means ugly, but on the same token it also doesn't really seem to push the PS4 in the way the FFVIII pushed the PS1.

I did see a few texture glitches here and there, I mainly noticed with this plant life having fuzzy texture depending on distance and camera angle.

Plot: 3
The best way I can describe the plot is "strong but short". The game really focuses on the relationship between Noct and his friends/bodyguards/retainers Prompto, Ignis and Gladiolus, and the player really does begin to care about these four. On an interesting note, the Lucian government, and by extension Noct and crew were based on the Yakuza gangsters of Japan. Noct and crew were inspired by young gangsters and their entourage. Despite being removed from the Fabula Nova Crystallis mythos, the plot still focuses around the Crystal in the possession of the Kingdom of Lucis, and using the Crystal to save the world from an encroaching darkness. A literal darkness where the nights have been growing unnaturally long without explanation, and while it's dark, powerful monsters called daemons prowl the countryside. The overall theme of the plot is a take on "the hero's journey" (the most famous telling of this theme being Luke Skywalker's story), that sees Noct growing from an unsure and somewhat apathetic Prince, to a King determined to fulfill his duty.

Despite the fact that I've put in 90+ hours in the game, the vast majority of that time was doing side missions and hunts. On that note all of these side quests happen in within the Kingdom of Lucis (most of which is under Imperial occupation, resulting in run ins with Imperial Army units, and raiding Imperial Army outposts). While you do visit locations in other countries such as Altissia, Tenenbrae and the Niflheim Empire, but you don't get to explore those lands much and are largely confined to one area/city. Which is actually a bit of the shame, while the plot takes effort in the relationship between the four guys, the antagonists by contrast, save for Ardyn Izunia and Aranea Highwind are rather one dimensional. Emperor Iedolas of the Empire, at the end of the day is just out for world domination. Imperial High Commander Ravus was somewhat interesting but no one to write home about. Now on the other hand, Chancellor Ardyn Izunia's character is fleshed out a lot more, given a backstory and complicated motives that you wouldn't guess, but there was still room to further develop his character that would have given his true agenda a greater emotional impact.

While the last chapter of the game did have a strong impact, but it could have been made greater had the player had the chance to travel the land in the ruined world and rally people for one last desperate push to save their world. There was an opportunity there for an everyone-standing-behind-the-King/The-King-carrying-everyone's-hopes-and-dreams-on-his-shoulders moment. A moment like that would have been the exclamation mark at the end of Noct's development.

The plots to previous Final Fantasy games like VII, VIII and X were much stronger than XV's. Those three had much more development, especially VIII and X, of the villains. FFVII gave us two villains, a fallen hero turned madman and a cold hearted Paul Ryan libertarian wet-dream corporate president. FFVIII gave us a villain who arguable did what she did because she just wanted to escape a cursed fate and survive. With a secondary villian doing what he was doing to avoid another world war that had happened prior to the game's start, and quite possible the reason the main characters all ended up together the way they did. Then FFX gave us one villain who was just trying to protect his people from annihilation and subjugation. While another set of villains took advantage of the situation to impose their totalitarian order on the world. Here, the Niflheim Empire is simply doing what it's doing for the sake of expansion and being the dominant superpower. Emperor Iedolas was said to be a wise and benevolent ruler in the past, but the game never goes into what changed him. Things can be speculated and implied, but there's no concrete character development that explains it. Iedolas certainly isn't as developed as the other secondary villains in previous games were.

On the other hand though, Ardyn Izunia is a much better villain than the Fal'Cie or Bhunivelze of the Fabula Nova Crystallis mythos. Ardyn came off as enigmatic, on one hand he helps the player, but at the same time he is Chancellor of a hostile nation, but yet his dress and attire is much different than that of the other Imperial higher ups. By contrast the Fal'Cie just came off as lost children looking for their parent (Bhunivelze), like a crappy, whiny version of Xenogear's Gazel Ministry. But at least the Gazel were biologically programmed to do what they were doing, being part of a biological superweapon's self-repair system, the Fal'Cie just did what they did because they missed their "Father" Bhunivelze. Bhunivelze himself isn't any much better being nothing more than manipulative and petty, and only using others for his own ends. I can name the antagonists of FFVII, FFVIII, FFX, FFX-2, even after years of having last played them, off the top of my head. I can't even name a single Cocoon Fal'Cie off the top of my head. Sure I can name Pulse Fal'Cie, Cactaur and Titan off the top of my head, but that's only because those two characters have been Final Fantasy staples for quite some time, so that almost doesn't even count. As a villain, Ardyn is certainly far more interesting and much better written than the villains of Fabula Nova Crystallis. In fact, now that I think about it, I'd say he's one of the better Final Fantasy villains, better than Sephiroth and Kefka (oh yeah FFVI fanboys, I straight up went there!). However the rest of the Empire though is largely forgettable as villains, unlike the Shin-Ra Electric Power Company of FFVII.

To sum it up, the plot was good, there was great focus on the four main guys, and on the antagonist... but that kind of came at the expense of the rest of the characters. Case in point, the emotional impact of [spoiler]'s death was less than the impact of [spoiler]'s injury, let alone having the same kind of punch that Aerith's death did in FFVII. That's just a result of [spoiler]'s character not being as developed, they had their scenes in the story, but they weren't enough of a presence for the player to really emotionally invest into, and care about this character. Another example would be [spoiler] who has an obvious crush on Noct, but that isn't expanded on, nor is there any sort of resolution to it.

Part of me suspects though that they just wanted to get this game out, given that it's been rolling in development hell for some time, and that they needed to get a numbered Final Fantasy out to get people to forget about the XIII series and put that all behind us. I really just can't think of a good reason/excuse for such a short plot, given the story in open world games like Red Dead Redemption and the plots of past Final Fantasies. Which I suppose it's fine, but FFXVI is going to need more in the in the plot department, no excuse otherwise.

Though, while people gripe a lot over DLC and getting nickle and dimed over them. In this case, I think it would be good to release a few, it would give Square-Enix a chance to flesh out more characters, like Aranea Highwind. There's a time skip between the last two chapters and dialogue in the last chapter states that she's built up quite a reputation. A DLC chapter focusing on her and her exploits during that period would certainly be a nice bonus.

Perhaps this was the game that should have been Final Fantasy XIII...?


Art and Music: 5
I found the art direction to be very reminiscent of Final Fantasy VII and VIII which is no big surprise given that Tetsuya Nomura was heavily involved in XV's development. The game very much has that modern era with magic feel, though I'd say it was closer to FFVIII's feel than VII's dystopian feel. A convo I had with cosplayer and "old coot gamer" (her words) "Cinnabunny" I mentioned how the four seemed like they could have been another class of SeeD candidates from a Garden in FFVIII, an idea she was in agreement on. And speaking of the characters, they very much have Nomura's style.

Four buddies out on a road trip, the titular "Bros on the Road"

Where the characters from the Kingdom have a modern Western look to them, the Empire's characters mostly have a fantasy/medieval look to them, despite being an advanced military superpower equipped with modern small arms, tanks, walkers and airships. The generic Magitek Troopers are clad in medieval style armor, looking like Crusaders armed with assault rifles, or like cybernetic samurai. While the other uniforms worn by Imperial troops (officers I'm guessing) look much like WWI era greatcoats, or Cold War era Soviet uniforms. Even mercenary Aranea Highwind's outfit looks like a stylized feminine knight armor.

Biggs and Wedge in their latest incarnations along with their commander Aranea Highwind

A pair of Magitek Troopers

Along with different designs the characters do have different accents though they don't vary by much. Cindy speaks with a Southern drawl. Ardyn sounds somewhat like Jeremy Clarkson where as Ignis speaks with a more dry sort of English accent. Personally I would have liked to see the Imperials speaking with either French or German accents.

Though the region where the game is set isn't a homogeneous landscape. While you only catch glimpses of it, the Crown City looks like a major North American city like Los Angeles or Toronto. The area around Hammerhead is reminiscent of the deserts in eastern California, with Hammerhead and the other outposts having a kind of dusty feel that would remind one of Barstow or Hesperia. Then moving west you'll find the city of Lestallum, which looks very much like Havana, complete with all the classic cars. A few of the forested regions also feel like some of the National Parks or Forests in the US.

Promprto and his crush Cindy

While the Kingdom of Lucis takes cues from locations in North America, Altissia takes cues from Venice and Rome, compete with gondola rides to get around the city and a Colosseum to watch monsters fight each other. It has very much an old world European city of water theme going.

Altissia, looks like a nice place to live

Then there is the Imperial capital Gralea. Unfortunately we don't get to see much of Gralea beyond an industrial looking area and the Zegnautus Keep which in actuality is a massive aerial fortress stationed above the city. In fact, I can't even find a good picture of Gralea to use. From what we see around Gralea and the Keep, it has a very cold industrial feel to it like Midgar from FFVII does. Hopefully we'll get some DLC that shows us more locations in the world.

On to the music, the music was composed by Yoko Shimomura, who's past work included most of the music for Street Fighter II and the soundtrack for Parasite Eve. The sound track is pretty much what you would expect from Final Fantasy, which certainly isn't a bad thing, it actually reminded me quite a bit of FFVIII's soundtrack. Like most other RPG soundtracks, FFXV's has a wide variety of tracks to fit the mood, in fact, FFVX's soundtrack even has multiple battle themes, giving it the most number of battle scores in its sound track. Having a wide variety of tracks, FFXV's OST has the classical style with Latin lyrics, that was introduced with One Winged Angel and has become something of a go-to in the video game industry when something epic sounding was needed. To the more sleepy sounding music of Hammerhead. To fit the tone, Lestallum's music has something of a Spanish feel where as Altissia has guitars and accordions.

Final Verdict: Definite Buy
At the end of the day I would certainly go as far as to say this with the Final Fantasy game that people wanted after Final Fantasy XIII. No one really wanted XIII-2 or XIII-3, fans just wanted it to be done and over it and moved on from. And that's what FFXV did. Fans were mad that FFXIII lacked any towns. Fans didn't really warm to the Fabula Nova Crystallis mythos. Surprisingly enough, Square-Enix listened, towns were back, and we got a whole new mythos, along with a more action oriented gameplay, that was new but still familiar at the same time. If this is a sign of things to come, of where the franchise is going to go, then I'm pretty optimistic for it's future.

Given that the game has been out for awhile, unless you're a fan of the franchise or the genre, I wouldn't pay full price. But it is a game that any gamer could enjoy. I didn't find any of the main dungeons or bosses to be crushingly hard. It's a game that even casual gamers can enjoy. The game's opening tagline, even before the title screen is "A Final Fantasy for fans and first-timers" given that a friend of mine who's played WoW and had no prior interest in Final Fantasy made this his first PS4 game, I say it lived up to that tag.