"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.

Freedom for some is freedom for none.

Ok so things have died down a bit over Richard Spencer getting clocked in the face.

Some people have cheered on the attacker because Spencer is a Nazi, other have said that it was an act of cowardice on the part of the Left.

First off, just who is Richard Spencer?

He's a White supremacist and president of White nationalist think tank National Policy Institute. He calls for a homeland for the White race and calls for "peaceful ethic cleansing". Overall a pretty rotten individual. The guy is a piece of shit, there is no argument on that one. The world would be a better place if he just went out into the desert and lived as a hermit.

But is that enough to physically assault someone, and therefore revoke their right to free speech (yes I'm aware the 1st Amendment applies to the government and not private parties)? Let's be clear here, Spencer wasn't physically attacking anyone, just voicing his views. If there is going to be a time where it is acceptable to physically assault someone for their speech then where are going to draw the line?

Are we going to draw the line at "evil" and "hateful" ideology? That sounds nice and reasonable, but the fact of the matter is, while there is an absolute evil, that absolute evil is surrounded by grey area. Is maliciously killing another person evil? Yes. Is accidentally killing someone with no intent to do so evil? Well it could be, like if someone was driving drunk. Is killing someone in-self defense evil? Well the law says no... but it also says you could go too far...

That being said, what happens when we start getting into that gray haze around the evil core? Many Christians see abortion as evil and a pro-choice stance as an evil ideology. Ok, so if the standard of where we draw the line then is what is "evil" and "hateful" then logically it would follow that because someone from a particular group or mindset, or just of a particular thought saw someone who was voicing support for a pro-choice view, that it would be permissible to punch that pro-choice person in the face.

While yes there are limits to the 1st Amendment but here's the thing, those limits are whether or not the government is allowed to censor someone's speech. It has nothing do to with permitting acts of violence on an individual for non-protected speech. State regulations and limitations on the 1st Amendment are also set on the basis of public order, as opposed to controlling thought. Spencer was punched for what he said, not how he said it.

So again, where do we draw the line? On that note, who's the one who gets to decide where the line is to begin with? Because of that grey area that surrounds the things that are universally considered evil, that's an axe that swings both ways. Say it is ok to punch someone in the face on the basis for political speech, is the Left willing to accept being punched in the face by someone on the Right who sees them as an emerging Mao Tstung? If the answer is yes, then well I guess the Left better get caught up with the Right when it comes to self-defense preparations. If the answer is no, then why should they be exempt from getting clocked in the face while the other side isn't?

Say we do allow for violence to be inflicted on a person on the basis of unpopular speech. How far should that violence go? Why stop at a punch and why not go the whole nine yards and just stab or shoot the speaker to death? After all, they're evil right? And the only thing for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing right? I doubt more than a handful of radicals will argue that Nazis aren't evil, so why shouldn't it be acceptable to just shoot a Nazi or some crazy right winger even if they're not physically harming someone?

Well there's been just as much evil on the left as there has been on the right, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and the Kims have killed countless people in the name of Communism. So if people on one side have the freedom to start attacking people on the other side for nothing more than their speech, then the people on the other side also have the freedom to punch the other side as well. Otherwise we have a situation where only pre-approve opinions are allowed. That's not freedom, there's no freedom of thought there.

And is that where we want to go? Where only prescribed ideas are acceptable. Well ok, if that's where you want to take us, then what happens when you're out of power and it's the other side that gets to decide what is right-think? What happens when you're getting knocked in the face, or just out right shot? Not because of anything you did, but because of something you said...

I've been called a very opinionated person in the past. Lately I don't agree too much with the Left, in fact it see a lot of the ideas the Left is floating to be out right repugnant and down right insidious. Is it ok then for me to punch an SJW hipster square on the nose as hard as I can, not because he was threatening or assaulting me, but because he was saying that minorities are too weak to get by without the help of "privileged" Whites? Is it ok for me to cave in his face?

Remember, the axe has to swing both ways unless we want thought police, if we're even going to be swinging the axe around to being with. If you want thought police, then I sure hope you're ready for the proverbial gulag when the other side becomes the thought police.

There's also an underlying sense of arrogance on the side that would argue that it is permissible to physically assault someone based upon their speech. It shows a distinct lack of faith in those around them. Think about it for a second, if someone is spewing insane despicable ideology like Nazism, than reasonable people wouldn't give that person a second thought. They would quickly go out of business in the market place of ideas on their own. But instead, the, I guess I'll call them activists, sees a need to physically attack them to silence them. As if they have the exclusive domain of knowing what should and shouldn't be allowed into the market place of ideas. It shows that the activists thinks they know better than anyone else.

Well who died and made you king and gave you authority to decide what ideas I do and don't get exposed to? I'll decide what I will and won't take seriously thank you very much, especially if I've been around a tad bit longer than you have been.

I've heard the argument that Spencer is too charismatic and could one day get people to carry out his bidding, and that's why physically assaulting him is ok. Well, thing with that is that line of reasoning can be used to justify assassination for something that someone might or might not do. Is that a road we want to go down on? Sure it's one thing when it's someone you don't like who gets whacked, but what if someone else sees your side as the bad guys and it's someone you support that gets whacked? Is that something you're prepared to accept as a reality?

Now if Spencer was out causing violence, under US law it would be legally justified to even go as far as fatally shooting him depending on what he was doing. Acts of violence is a wholly different story. If Spencer was running around assaulting people, trying to burn down buildings with molotov cocktails, trying to run people over with his car, then yes by all means shoot the fucker dead. Shoot him dead and anyone else with him being a danger to other people.

And that's the thing beyond a narrow set of circumstances, like murder, like subjugating other's individual rights, there's a bit of grey area and degrees of evil. So if you're going to argue that it's ok to censor someone with violence based upon the content of their speech, then you'd best be prepared for the other side to the do the same thing to you. Because in that grey area one person's evil conduct is another's permissible conduct. You might think that speech from some radical feminist like this (satire or not) is permissible, but another may take this as evil in the level of Nazis... so does that mean it's ok for someone to come punch Lori Day in the face? Or you if you're speaking in support of it in public? The other thing to consider though, if violence based upon speech content is the road you want to go down on then that fist might not even be a fist at all, it could be a blade, it could be a bullet. Is that really a road you want to go down on? Is being on the receiving end of violence, potentially lethal violence, for the contents of your speech something you are prepared to accept?

No?

Well that's the reason courts have ruled the way they have, courts are very reluctant to restrict speech based on content. Equality would mean that the axe must swing both ways. If it's permitted to assault one extreme, then it's permitted to assault the other extreme. Otherwise there really is only freedom of thought so long as you pick an approved thought to have. And who gets to have the power to choose what approved thought is? The mob? The State? The Party? It doesn't matter because as long as there is someone who is in charge of deciding what is right-think and there is a mechanism to enforce that, there is no freedom of thought.

So why even swing the axe at all? That's why you would still be charged with a crime even if the person you committed the criminal act on deserved it like a Nazi would. Does he deserve to get cracked in the face? Sure does. Should he? No. In law the principal is generally that words are not enough to allow for assault. Same principal here, words alone, generally, aren't enough to justify violence.

Personally I'll take freedom over any sort of content filtering by any random person with no State authority. At least a state authority has to act within the confines of a system, a random person punch people in the face because they don't like what they have to say is acting under nothing more than their feelings.

No the Dreamcast didn't get killed by PS2 hype, the PS2 really was just a better system

So every now and then I'll see a article on the Sega Dreamcast on Facebook and almost always there are comments declaring that the system was killed because of the PS2 hype train. This kind of implies that the PS2 wasn't a better system and it only came out on top, not on it's merits but on it's marketing blitz.

I am going to say that the PlayStation 2, genuinely was a better system.

Before I get called a PS fanboy or some other crap like that, I have both systems. I had a Dreamcast right next to my PS2 back in 2001. I liked the Dreamcast, it was a good system, it's just that the PS2 was a great system, and I'll explain why.

The first thing that comes to mind is the PS2's DVD drive. Back in 2001, DVD players were no where near as ubiquitous as they are now. A 2-in-1 system was a big deal since now you didn't need to spend another couple hundred dollars for a separate device to play movies on. I remember I specifically bought a 3rd party remote control so my dad could use my PS2 as a DVD player. It was great for multimedia, but it also gave a benefit to game developers. They now had a bigger storage medium, and therefore bigger games. Bigger in more ways than one. Developers now had more options, multiple audio tracks if they wanted, multiple control schemes if they wanted, or more content.

Or cut scenes like Yuna's concert in Final Fantasy X-2.

A single layer PS2 DVD stores up to 4.7GB. In comparison a Dreamcast GD-ROM disk holds around 1GB. That's over 4x the space giving developers more freedom in what to put into their games and how to implement things.

Next is the hardware. I don't want to talk too much about the hardware and specs since that can be debated till the sun burns out. Though the PS2 was more powerful (not by too much) and it did have better looking games.


To be as fair as I could I found two games that were held up for graphics on both systems that came out around the same time period in each of their respective console's life span. It just wouldn't be fair to compare a Dreamcast game to something on PS2 that was made after the Dreamcast was continued, like Zone of the Enders 2 or Ace Combat 05, when developers really started figuring out how to squeeze the most out of the PS2 (one could argue the Dreamcast wasn't around long enough for developers to really get out it's full potential). On the left we have Shenmue which came out in Japan in 1999, the year after the Dreamcast was launched in Japan. On the left is Metal Gear Solid 2 which came out the year after the PS2 had launched in Japan. Compared to Ryo, the Russian mercenary looks to have more detail and more crisp detail. Compare Ryo's belt buckle to the buckles on the mercenary's equipment harness. I'll admit I might be comparing apples to oranges a little bit given that one screenshot is outdoors while the other is indoor, but I tried to find the screenshots that bring out the games visuals the best.

But at the end of the day, graphics aren't everything, and I only wanted to briefly touch on this.

Then there's the control. Oh the controller. Fuck the Dreamcast controller, there I said it. By 2001 I've played the NES, SNES, Genesis, PS1 (OG controller, Dual Analogue and Dual Shock), Saturn, and the N64. I would easily consider the Dreamcast controller to be one of the worst. I'm not going to complain about the shape since that's something that's largely subjective, but I will call the Dreamcast controller obsolete.

Why is the controller a big deal? Well the controller is the way the player interacts with the game's world. The more versatile the controller, the more the player can interact with the world. Be it more things the player can do, or the more in-depth the player can interact with the world.

When the Sega Saturn came out in 1994 it came out with this controller. One D-pad and eight total buttons (6 face buttons, 2 shoulder buttons), that means at least 8 functions that the player can do in the game's world.

In 1997 the PlayStation came standard with the Dual Shock controller. Two analogue sticks and 10 buttons not counting Start and Select (4 face buttons, 4 shoulder buttons, and two more buttons integrated into the sticks). This controller worked very well for multiple games, especially action shooter games, and it's layout would become the standard for gaming controllers from then on out.

So what the hell was this...?!

I honestly find this design baffling. It has only six buttons, four face buttons and two triggers, a single d-pad and a single analogue stick. The single stick is a real head scratcher for me given that the dual stick design already proved itself in how well it works for First Person Shooters like Medal of Honor and Medal of Honor: Underground, for Third Person action games like Siphon Filter, and has been very intuitive even for flight simulators like Ace Combat 3. Love the controller all you want, but at the end of the day this controller design was a step back. The lay out would have been great when the Saturn came out, but when the Dreamcast hit the US it was already 1999. 

This is a big deal, because this controller quite possibly limited how developers can make their games. Lets take Zone of the Enders. ZoE took full advantage of the PS2's dual analogue design to control your mech in three dimensions. The left stick moved you around while the right stick allowed you to look around in all directions, you're ability to look and move was very precise.  Having two sticks made moving and looking in a three dimensional environment very intuitive. 

Compared to the PS2, had the Dreamcast continued on past when it was discontinued, unless Sega introduced a new controller with dual analogues, Dreamcast games would have gotten the same criticism that the PSP gets in terms of 3D action games. Metal Gear Solid 3 is considered one of the best games in the PS2's library. Hardware issues aside, had the game been ported to Dreamcast, because of the lack of four buttons and a stick, the game would have to play like either MGS: Portable Ops or MGS: Peace Walker in order to be playable. MGS:PO was very awkward compared to the console games, and your actions in MGS:PW were limited to compensate for what the PSP was capable of control and gameplay wise. 

Part of the reason the PS2 was able to bring out a lot of these great games was because the controller was able to make developer's ambitions a reality. I can conclude this because many games made use of every or very nearly every button. MGS3 in the form that it came in on the PS2 literally could not be done on the Dreamcast, not without a new controller design. MGS3 on Dreamcast would have been like MGS:PW. Other games like Devil May Cry or Onimusha would have worked well on the Dreamcast's controller, but others like Red Faction would have had to be gimped to compensate for the controller. 

Then there is networking/internet capability. I certainly have mention that. There's certainly no argument that Sega had a one-up on Sony in that regard and the Dreamcast, while not the first, was certainly a pioneer in online console gaming. But it lost that edge it have over the PS2 with the introduction of the PS2's Network Adapter in 2001. Given a choice would you rather play Unreal Tournament on a Dreamcast, or on a PS2?

Of course this isn't to say the Dreamcast wasn't good, this certainly isn't to say that it's library wasn't good. The original Soul Caliber remains on of the best games in the franchise. While hard as balls, Ikaruga is certainly one of the most fun overhead shooters. Aero Wings 2 is definitely a fun game for the aviation enthusiast, like a more realistic version of Pilot Wings. I would definitely love to see the Dreamcast library ported over to the PlayStation Network and to Xbox Live. But did the Dreamcast fall prey to a giant unstoppable hype machine? No, it was simply a case of "may the best system win" and PS2 came out on top. Sure the PS2 had a lot of media hype at it's launch, but it talked the talk and walked the walk. 

Why the Left is my punching bag.

I tend to rip on the Left a lot these days. Some might be wondering what the hell my problem with them is. Or wondering if I'm just some angry conservative. I'm keeping this out of my Triggered series, since this isn't meant to be satire, though it is meant to be social commentary.

Well my reasoning is this, generally speaking I strongly believe in individual rights, in individual rights and in minding your own goddamned business. Generally speaking, in terms of society, I take the Classical Liberal view of protecting individual liberties. I don't fuck with you, in exchange, you don't fuck with me. I try to be as consistent to this as possible, so whether the Left or my Right is my punching bag, wholly depends on which way society's pendulum is swinging. Let people walk their road in life, and over come their own obstacles. Back in college in the early years of the '00s, aside from firearms, I was actually quite liberal, but the left kept on moving since my college days, past the point of still being liberals, while I had stayed largely put in my social and political views. In other words, the left, left me behind, and that is certainly not a bad thing.

Simple enough, but there are always groups of people that, for one reason or anything, they think they know better than everyone else, and that we should listen and do what they tell us. If this was, say, 2004, then I would be ripping a whole lot on the Right, specifically the Religious Right. The thing is, today the Right is the group that's socially "out of power" so to speak. They lost their social influence when the Republicans fell out of power in the 2006 midterms. Ten years later we're in a position where the pendulum has swung the other way, and rather than Right-wing social totalitarians we have Left-wing social totalitarians.

Totalitarian - exercising control over the freedom, will, or thought of others; authoritarian; autocratic.

I refer to these groups as "social totalitarians" because they don't actually have political power. Sure they can influence public policy to some regard, but they're not bestowed legal state powers the way members of the Nazi party or the Chinese Communist Party are. Rather than exercising control over the freedom, will or thought of others though organs and institutions of the state, these people use social pressure and various forms and levels of shaming to impose their control over people.

Lets take a look at the right first.

In 2000, George W Bush won/was awarded the White House, and with him came this ideology referred to as "Compassionate Conservatism", characterized by:

Compassionate conservatism suggest that social issues such as health care or immigration are best solved though private companies, charities and faith-based organizations, rather than large government -funded programs. 

That bit there, "faith-based organizations" brought along with it a wave of religious conservatives like John Ashcroft. During this time, things like their "Faith-based initiative" were passed (basically giving federal money to private religious schools), gay rights were curtailed, and multiple restrictions on abortion were passed. Their religious doctrine even creeped into public schools in the form of prayers and to more serious extent in the form of teaching abstinence-only sex "education", which predictably was an abysmal failure that resulted in a spike in teen pregnancies. More or less we had these religious moral busy-bodies with nothing else better to do with their time, telling people what to think (basically telling people they need to be religious Christians). It got to the point where we had someone like Ann Coulter saying we needed to bomb the Mid East and convert everyone to Christianity. Basically to the extent that these Right-wing social totalitarians wanted to launch another Crusade.

Needless to say, they didn't give two shits for individual rights beyond what it did for their particular brand of social ideology. With things like bigotry being cloaked in "freedom of religion". They wanted to lock the thoughts of others within the box of their form of socially conservative Protestant Christianity.

The Religious Right demonstrably wanted to exercise control over the freedom, will, and thought of others. They wanted to control what a woman could do and couldn't do with her own body. They wanted to dictate to people what they should want and what they should think. That people should want and embrace their brand of missionary Protestant Christianity. That people's thoughts should be in accordance with their brand of Protestant Christian doctrine.

But enough of that, that was all 8 years ago. Now on to the Left.

Fast forward to 2015 or so, past Barack Obama's decisive 2008 victory. We now have the Left in the position of Thought Police. Where in 2005 it was the Religious Right trying to tell people what to think, we have the Progressive Left (I say "left" rather than "liberal" because the Progressive Left are not liberals) trying to tell people what to think. After the Right was decisively crushed in 2008, the Left found themselves as the wing of society in power, and just like the Right did, it wanted to impose it's own vision of society on people rather than simply letting it be.

The point I would single out where the whole thing exploded and snowballed out of control into full totalitarianism was when the whole "Gamergate" controversy broke. Prior to this most of the focus was on legalizing gay marriage and to a lesser extent rolling back restrictions on abortion.

Distilled down, Gamergate was basically a consumer revolt after information got out that game developer Zoe Quinn had slept with Kotaku writer Nathan Greyson in exchange for exposure for her game Depression Quest on the Kotaku page.

Normally something like this would have been simply swept under the rug and Greyson quietly disciplined, but instead the video game "journalist" (they're essentially just glorified bloggers really) circled the wagons and painted these angry consumers as "sexist" and crafted this narrative about how they didn't want women invading their hobby. The narrative stuck, blew up on social media and caused this massive chain reaction that lead us to the point where we are now. The point where "everything is sexist, everything is racist and you have to point it all out."

So now we're in a position where the Left demands that individual liberties be subordinated for the sake of "diversity" and "equality". Sounds great on the surface, I mean who doesn't want diversity and equality? Only for the social totalitarian Progressive Left, diversity and equality are subordinate to all other considerations. Where as the Right draped the cloak of "poor moral character" over opposing thought, the Left drapes the cloak of "bigotry", "racism", and "sexism" over opposing thought. Not automatically and blindly agreeing with women and feminism is "misogyny". Rejecting the idea that there are 2000 genders is "bigotry", as is being weary of fundamentalist Islam. Refusing to support Black Lives Matter because of the more radical elements of the movement is "racism" regardless of whether or not you think that Black lives are just as important as any other.

When a socially totalitarian Progressive Leftist encounters thoughts and ideas that are outside or in direct opposition to the orthodox Progressive narrative, it is met with hostility. The speakers of the "wrong think" are shamed to the point that there are demands to their employer to fire them. Espousers of the wrong think are not allowed to speak in public and are shouted down, with the Progressive Leftist, in some cases trespassing into their speaking engagements with the intent to disrupt the event to the point that the speaker is not able to speak.

In their quest for diversity and equality at all costs, the Progressive Leftist demands all sorts of accommodations and concessions for even the most bizarre and made-up conditions. Then when they're denied they throw tantrums and act the victim like a child that was never told no. Additionally Progressive orthodoxy is enforced though the same social totalitarian engines of shame and internet harassment, as well as creating echo chambers euphemistically called "safe spaces", where the Progressives are shielded from any wrong think that might challenge them or worse yet, cause them to question Progressive orthodoxy.

This wouldn't really be a problem if their social totalitarianism stayed localized to their own circles, but they want to spread their totalitarianism as far as they can go with it. Instead they go and try to infest as much of society as they can with it. Most notably being university campuses, where things like pushing "safe spaces", race segregated student housing, and bullying those opposed to Progressive orthodoxy. They've also taken to social media with both their bizarre messages, that while varied still fall in line within Progressive orthodoxy, and the enforcement of their Progressive orthodoxy. 

How is this all totalitarian? Though various social engines, namely some form of shaming/harassment, they seek to exercise control over the freedom, will, and thoughts of others. If you say or think this, we will dog pile you on the internet, and blow up your boss's phone in an attempt to get you fired. By labeling things as "offensive" they seek to control people's freedom of speech. You can't say this or that because it hurts people's feelings.Though their shaming and harassment they try to control what words are acceptable and which aren't. As Orwell demonstrated, you can control thought, by controlling the words that conceptualize thought. They seek to control people's will and thought though various ways out side of the shaming/harassment, many (certainly not all) university professors are "tolerant, progressive, liberals" and pass on their Progressive orthodox thought to their students, teaching them the things that they are supposed to think. In complete and total opposition to the purpose of college, opposing views are attacked and students are shielded from it.

For someone who is in support individual rights, the Progressive Left is a natural social enemy. Progressive orthodoxy couches social issues in terms of identity, society is broken up into identity groups and from the perceived oppression of each group. As opposed to looking at particular circumstances around an individual, or smaller sub-group's life Progressive orthodoxy is essentially a collectivist view of society. There are no individuals, only groups, and the more each group is perceived to be oppressed the louder of a voice/the more valid the things they have to say are. In enforcing Progressive orthodoxy, the Progressive Left is in fact, the most racist, most sexist and most bigoted of all.

Under Progressive orthodoxy, women are seen as an oppressed social class as are minorities, racial and others. Progressive logic being, that if women are oppressed, then men must be privileged. For the Progressive, equality is brought about though removing the privileges men have. Naturally this all falls apart and looks like blatant misandry when the premise that women are an oppressed social class is rejected. Progressive orthodoxy does not look beyond the on the surface appearance nor does it look into things along a case by case basis. The best example is the supposed "wage gap". On the surface it looks like women make less than men, however when taken a deeper look, you'll find that the discrepancy is in the types of jobs men and women tend to gravitate to, and to the average number of hours men and women tend to work.

Of course That isn't to say that in some non-western societies, like Saudi Arabia, aren't oppressed. However the Progressive Leftist, isn't rallying and protesting these countries. You won't find a large scale feminist protest in front of the Saudi embassy.

Progressive orthodoxy is essentially the same way in terms of race. Under Progressive orthodoxy all non-White races are oppressed, due to Slavery and the era of Imperialism that occurred in the early 1900s. While I won't say that racism doesn't exist, on the same token as mentioned earlier Progressive Leftists do not look beyond surface appearances. Racism is something that needs to be looked into on an individual level. Since the Civil Rights movement, and Jim Crow laws going the way of the dinosaur, racism has by and large been purged from the frame work of the legal system and jurisprudence. Where the Progressive Leftist's failure to look into things deeper causes issues, is that they don't differentiate an individual state actor's (like a cop) racist behavior from the larger legal system. Laws have already been passed that ban discrimination based upon race. Example, I go to the DMV and a person is rude to me and tells me to "take my chink ass the fuck out of there" that's not racism on the part of the DMV, that's racism on the part of that particular DMV employee.

The incarceration rates are often pointed to, so lets look at that. 37.8% of the prison population are Blacks, while Blacks make up about 13% of the overall US population. So just looking at those two numbers itself, makes it look as if the system is racist. But when we look deeper we'll notice a few other things. One of those things is that about 50% of violent crimes are committed by Blacks. Does that mean Blacks are more violent, or is something else going on here? If I was like a Progressive Leftist, I would stop there and just say "look, the numbers show that Blacks are more violent! The African-American poverty rate is about 24.1% (10 million people). There are 71,904 Black prison inmates. Given that crime is generally more prevalent in poverty stricken areas, and that a quarter of the US's Black population lives in poverty, is the incarceration rates for Blacks a question of race or a question of poverty? How many Blacks in prison are in the same economic class as, say, Michael Jordan, vs how many Blacks in prison are in the same economic class as pre-NWA, pre-Death Row Records, Dr. Dre?

On a side note, I myself an Asian-American. I've gone into various different gun shops and not once have I encountered a law that forbade the sale of a gun to me on the basis of my race, nor have I been told by any gun shop staff to GTFO of the store. If there was institutional racism as the Progressive Left claims, then wouldn't only White people be allowed to buy guns? The Progressive Left sees guns as evil tools of mass killers... and yet Whitey has no problem selling one to me...

Then there's the Muslims. As with everything else Progressive orthodox treats Islam as a monolithic group. Yes there are legitimate refugees escaping the violence of the Mid East, yes there are Muslims that don't hold an extremist believe and leave their neighbors alone, but Progressive orthodoxy applies this characteristic to ALL Muslims. The Progressive Leftists makes little to no distinction between different groups of Muslims, it refuses to recognize that some of the Muslim migrants are religious fanatics. They essentially refuse to acknowledge that there are Muslims that refuse to integrate into their new societies, and that these Muslims bring and impose Middle Eastern/North African social norms. Because Progressive orthodoxy eschews individuals and subgroups within a larger group, Progressive Leftists never address issues and concerns related to things like Sharia Patrols in countries that do not have an established religion, or issues involving spikes in sexual harassment/assault of women.

"Not all Muslims!" Is what the Progressive Leftist will say. And that is true, but not everyone is saying "all Muslims" but on the same token you can't deny that something like this had nothing to do with Islam, any more than bombing an abortion clinic, or assassinating a doctor who performs abortions had nothing to do with Christianity.

On the same token, because Christianity is not the minority faith in the US, it is seen as "privileged" by the Progressive Leftist, and in an inverse of the views on Islam, the views of the extremist Christians are applied to the whole.

Each of these all involve some form of minority group. As minority groups they're automatically perceived as "oppressed" where as Whites, specifically White males are automatically perceived as "privileged". The whole ideology, is nothing more than a game of Oppression Olympics. Progressive orthodox thought is stuck in zero-sum mentality.

Though it doesn't just stop there, Progressive orthodoxy groups and categorizes other things as well. As with Muslims, Progressive Liberals have the same monolithic view of gun-owners. Regardless of an individual's race, sex, education level or ideology, the Progressive Leftist simply groups all owners in as White, Conservative, uneducated, Christian, males. This makes it easier for them to "other" these people and demonize them. The same goes for video gamers. Video gamers are probably the most diverse group of people, you'll find that it crosses sexes, it crosses age generations and it crosses cultures and societies. Yes there are little punks and assholes on Xbox Live and PlayStation Network who like to talk a lot of shit online (whether they are genuine sexists and racists or they're just saying things because they know they'll get a rise of people is another issue). But when the whole Gamergate thing broke, the Progressive Leftists in the industry, in their efforts to circle the wagon and protect and maintain the chicanery that goes on being the scenes of their over glorified blogs, applied the characteristics of the worst of these fringe elements to the broad group as a whole.

This collectivist view, coupled with their totalitarian social engineering completely tramples the rights of individuals. It runs completely contrary to this country's founding principals. Individual rights were held to such great importance, that before the USA in it's current form could even exist, 10 Amendments, all protecting individual rights, had to be made to the Constitution before all the delegates were willing to get on board. For the Progressive Leftist "everything is racist, everything is sexist, and that have to point it all out." But not just pointing it all out, they feel the need to rectify it, nothing wrong with wanting to do something about racism, sexism, or bigotry but it's in the way they go about doing it. Progressive orthodox thought places great emphasis on equality, but rather than equality of opportunity, it seeks equality of result. We couple this with the privilege/oppression paradigm and social collectivism we see an ideology that seeks equality of result, not thought lifting up all boats but rather by drilling holes into the hulls of boats that are in their perception floating higher than others. Rather than working to address each individual boat's particular issues (this is the view I take, to teach everyone how to fix their own boat) the Progressive Leftist seeks to affect the entire class of boats.

When looked into at a deeper level there is something insidious within Progressive orthodox thought. Because of it's emphasis and focus on identity and privilege/oppression, a sort of White male savior complex has emerged from this thought. The idea that White males are responsible for much of the ills of the world, also leads to the idea that it is White males that have the power to fix it. If White males have the power to cause these problems, they have the power to fix these problems. We see Progressively aligned groups, demanding that White males do something about these social problems. By doing this, it logically follows that White males must do something about society's problems because minorities are too weak to do anything about the problems that affect us. Progressive orthodox thought is racist in that it assumes that minorities cannot overcome the challenges that we face without the help of Whites. It is also sexist in that it assumes that women of ethnic minorities are unable to overcome the challenges they face without the help of males, specifically White males (tell my mom or her sister that they can't get by because they're minority women and they'll smack you across the room). In fact, due to this, the White male SJW "allies" are actually the most racist and sexist of Progressive Leftists. Before they know the individual, before they get to know a particular individual's life conditions, they automatically assume that they have something to offer and the power to help a minority person or a woman by virtue of being a White male. They assume that someone like me, needs them to be a voice for me, or to help me in some other capacity because I am oppressed.

I've made it known in the past, what my views towards SJW "allies" are. But I'll reiterate it here. "Hit the road you arrogant fuck!" I've been making my way though life in the US as an Asian-American with immigrant parents just fine without your help. I've fought my battles though life, taken my victories and defeats while you college freshmen SJWs were still sipping on that Capri-Sun pouch in the back seat of your mom's SUV/minivan after soccer practice. I sure as shit do not need someone who was still eating kindergarten paste while I was working on my Bachelor's Degree to be a voice for me.

I really don't give a damn who you are, whether or not you think you're doing God's work, or you think you are a tolerant, progressive, liberal, if you're opposed to individual liberties, you will get nothing but open hostility from me.

Triggered: California secession, nothing more than a pro(re)gressive leftist crackpipe dream.

The following contains:
- Brutal social commentary (fine, I make fun of people here)
- Brutal satire
- Political incorrectness
- Liberal use of profanity
- Not a single damn being given for feelings

If these are things that you find to be triggering, please refer to this link to find your nearest safe space.

------

First things first I'll reiterate that I make a distinct separation between "liberals" and "leftists". Liberals are in support of individual rights and the rule of law. Leftists on the other hand are group rights supporting totalitarian social engineers. In this case, I'm more or less putting "leftist" and the California Democratic Party in the same basket.

That said.

Ok, so, well looks like butt-hurt has reached a level once again for talk of secession to rear it's ugly head again because the losers want to take their ball and go home. In 2008 it was Texas when Obama was elected, in 2016 it's California when Trump won the election.

And to these people I say... "Shut the fuck up, you ain't doing shit! You ain't going no where!"

This talk is stupid and pointless for a couple reasons. One there's the whole the Union Army to contend with. California is a state that has been dominated by partisan Democratic political ideology. It welcomes illegal immigrants (to the point that Ca Democrats for all intents and purposes want to dissolve the boarder with Mexico, more on that later) and it rams down gun-control on the rest of the state. In short California's urban centers, aside from the criminals, aren't armed to the extent of what you'd find in Texas. Keeping that in mind, there are multiple assets in California that the Federal government isn't just going to waive goodbye to and just let go. One being the major ports and shipping lanes in Long Beach. I believe it's the biggest port on the West Coast. Next there's Vandenburg AFB located in Santa Barbara County. Vandenburg is the largest domestic USAF base (the title of largest base goes to Ramstein AFB in Germany) and an important missile launch facility. We hear a lot about manned launches in Cape Canaveral in Florida, but a lot of unmanned launches are carried out at Vandenburg. In fact the Space Shuttle was going to operate from Vandenburg.

So lets put all these elements together. Most of the people that want California to secede because of Donald Trump are urban dwelling leftists. The majority of these urban dwelling lefitsts are opposed to private gun ownership, they're among the most die hard gun-control supporters you'll find outside of New York City. There are multiple important national assets in California that the Federal government won't just let go. So when the hypothetical "Calexit" happens, the Union Army (yes California secessionists, YOU are the Confederate Army) will be deployed to put down the insurgency. Other than maybe Ca National Guard units and military deserters that join the Ca Confederate Army, how the hell do these leftists expect to fight off the Union Army? What, with safe spaces?! With safety pins?! By crying on social media?! At least Texas can claim to have enough private gun owners to mount an insurgency that'll be on the level of Vietnam and Iraq (their secessionists are just as stupid, but they're not the topic of this particular codex entry) The people that own the guns in California won't want to live under a Ca Democrat one-party regime, they have little to no loyalty to the California Democratic Party and would like to see nothing more than a "March to Sea" by the Union Army with Sacramento as the destination (yes I know Sacramento is inland) so you'll expect no help from them, and I expect a portion of them to actively support the Union Army. I'm not even going to get into the gun-owners and other conservatives who want a "State of Jefferson" seeing a California Secession (come on, lets call it what it is, not this rosy term "Calexit") as their chance to make it happen, somewhat similar to how we got West Virginia when several counties of Virginia wanted to stay with the Union and broke away from the rest of the state. Expect to be run out of those counties. So I'll pose this question to Shervin Pishevar, "So you want to leave the Union? With what fucking army do you plan to do that with?! Your supporters aren't the ones who own all the guns in this state!"

And it might not even be limited to just the counties that would form Jefferson that would potentially break away from the secessionists and remain in the Union. About half the state voted for Trump, so in all likelihood, only half the state will go along with these whiny leftists, like Shervin Pishevar's bitch-ass, on their Quixotic crusade.

The Union Army would roll right in, while the Union Navy would blockade the State's major ports. Again, what do these leftists expect to do against the Union Navy? What, hijack the USS Iowa? I really doubt she can do much without her 16in shells and Tomahawk cruise missiles, and with a crew of safe space needing hippies and their safety pin wearing "allies". What are they going to do? Ask Vladimir Putin for help? Russia can barely keep their medium carrier (note: "carrier" as in singular), Admiral Kuznetsov in service, it wouldn't stand much of a chance against a full USN carrier battle-group centered around something like a Nimitz-class super-carrier.

You can see here the USN's Nimitz-class has a much larger hangar and carries more aircraft than the Admiral Kuznetsov, and the Nimitz-class isn't even the largest carrier class (Note: "class" as in plural) in the fleet anymore. While the Kuznetsov carries anti-ship missiles, that advantage would be off set with the battle group that would be accompanying the US carrier. The design of the Nimitz-class, making use of steam catapults to launch fighters as opposed to the Kuznetsov which uses a "ski-jump" to launch fighters. This means the Su-33s launching from the Kuznetsov need to have reduced payloads or fuel in order to take off, vs the F/A-18Es launching from the Nimitz-class which can be launched by the catapults with full fuel and payload. 

Additionally, the only real base the Russian Navy has in the Pacific is all the way in Vladivostok in the Russian Far East near Japan and they lack the logistical capability to conduct independent, long range, long term operations.  Ask Xi Jinping for help? Yeah, China doesn't even has an operations ready carrier which would be mission critical to long range, long term operations that the geography of the Pacific Ocean dictate. The non-operational one they bought off the Russians is used as a training ship. Let alone the logistical capability to conduct operations beyond the South China Sea. Maybe ask Pranab Mukherjee for help? India's in the process of building up it's navy, it's not going to send it into the teeth of the most powerful navy in the world several times over, just to help your hissy fit over Hillary Clinton losing. You think Japan is going to help you with the JMSDF? You think Britain will help you with the Royal Navy? You think France will help you with the Marine Nationale? Yeah, quit hitting the crack pipe, Washington's European and Pacific allies will stay on Washington's side. At most you'd probably get Rodrigo Duterte talking more of his usual shit, on your behalf.

Before anyone tells me the Union Army won't be deployed to crush a California secession, remember, the Federal government doesn't just let States leave the federation. There are 11 States that tried to do that about 150 years ago, and you can go and ask them about how well that all went down, once the Federal government got serious about it (hint: the most they have to show for that is a flag on a bright orange Dodge Charger). When those States tried to leave, Washington sent down the Army (eventually, once Grant took command) and deployed the Navy to blockade it's ports. It was simultaneously beaten down by a numerically and later technologically superior land army while getting strangled to death by the numerically and later technologically superior Navy. Somehow you think that won't happen to you? You really think you're that special and unique that Washington won't drop the hammer on you, because you're "tolerant progressive liberals"?

Oh and good luck getting an amendment passed that'll allow for a legal secession from the Union. Not when the Republicans have majorities in both houses of Congress, and Trump is poised to nominate the next SCOTUS judge.

Then lets take a look at the economic side of it. There's are two ways to look at economics. One, just the economic condition itself, and two economics as a weapon. The leftist secessionists always like to point that California would be just fine leaving the Union since we're the 6th largest economy, even larger than France. California is also $400 billion in the hole. You secessionist leftists like to claim, that California is in the hole because it's been sending so much of it's money to the Union's coffers. Well that's not true, California is $400 billion in the hole because of money owed on pensions. The situation is bad enough the Governor Jerry Brown said "it's so massive it's tempting to ignore it."

What kind of effect would that have on the 6th largest economy?

The costs associated with maintaining debt grow as it grows and remains unpaid. They may further harm the state’s fiscal sustainability by limiting its credit worthiness and ability to borrow. Furthermore, delaying massive debt repayment inherently weakens the state’s long-term financial sustainability because it poses the risk that those debt costs will become prohibitively expensive for future generations to repay.

 Without significant reform, citizens will continue financing rising debt interest, annual retirement benefit, and higher retiree health cost payments. In the long-term, chronically underfunded systems will hit critically low levels (as is currently occurring with the California State Teachers’ Retirement System, or CalSTRS), meaning they will require ever larger bailouts going forward. Inaction will result in even greater tax burdens on citizens and/or additional cuts to key public services.

Yes California is a top exporter to the nation of computer electronics, second to Texas. Also a top exporter of transportation equipment and other non-electronic machinery. What would happen when California loses those domestic markets? As part of the Union, the Constitution and judicial rulings have placed protections on inter-state commerce. Individual states can't interfere with inter-state commerce. So right now, Nevada can't go and put tariffs on those electronic goods from California. Take that away, and then what? What happens when President Trump takes a more protectionist stance and encourages Texas to pick up the slack in those computer goods? Texas gets to keep it's market and enjoy the protections on inter-state commerce. California will have to negotiate trade deals to keep it's US markets and that's even IF that's on a table. IF Washington doesn't just decide to starve California into submission and have it crawling back into the Union. Of course that's also if Washington doesn't just decide to come in and regime change/annex the country because it got fed up having a 3rd world failed state right on it's boarder. Having a narco state on the boarder is plenty bad enough.

Speaking of exports, California is one of the largest dairy providers in the country. Sounds good for an independent California right? Well, many rural counties voted for Trump, those counties wouldn't go along with the leftist efforts at secession, so what happens if those counties that produce the milk don't secede with the leftists?

Mexico is California's number one export market. In 2013 Mexico also received $51.5 million in foreign aid from the US. You think Trump wouldn't use that as leverage to get Mexico to abide by trade sanctions put on California?

Then you have China, and the EU where California is a top exporter. They more than likely like the status quo. They're not going to want to risk roiling the market with the possibility of having to renegotiate trade deals. More than likely, they're going to back Washington. And even IF, somehow you get your way, you think they won't just negotiates deals much more favorable to them, now that you're not part of the US's economy? Given the huge debt, California is going to need those trade partners a lot, and don't think for a second they're not going to know that and not try to take advantage of the situation. Beijing is not going to give two-shits that you are "tolerant, progressive, liberals" and play nice with you, they're going to deal with you the same as everyone else.

At the time of this writing, the US imposed an embargo on Russia over it's activities in Ukraine. This put on a serious hurt on the Russian economy. You think during your hypothetical war of secession that you wouldn't be pimp slapped across the face with an economic embargo? You wouldn't be able to get or send out goods from our ports, blockaded by the USN. You wouldn't be able to get or send out goods into the other parts of the country, it would be safe bet to assume that the Union Army would have checkpoints at the major highways and roving patrols over the boarder. The Mexican boarder? Oh you can bet the Marines would deploy from 32nd Naval Station, along with the Union Army coming in from Arizona would put that boarder under lock down. 6th largest economy or not, you would be strangled to death if not militarily beaten down to death first.

And now lets get into the whole water situation...

Much of California's water supply is sourced in it's northern counties. Remember that "State of Jefferson" I mentioned that may carve itself out of a seceding California? Remember those counties that voted for Trump? Well, guess which counties much of California's water comes from? That's right, those counties would possibly break away to form their own state and remain in the Union and your hypothetical independent California would lose one of it's main sources of water, and you can bet the US wouldn't just give that water from Jefferson away. Which would leave the Colorado River as the main source.

Well look at that, if we refer to the maps above, the counties that get most of the water, would be counties that would make up Jefferson, or countries that voted for Trump. In other words, counties that likely wouldn't join the leftists secessionist efforts. 

California has been in a drought, especially in Southern California, since 2011. So that only really leaves the various smaller reservoir across the state and the Colorado River, and that's IF the counties that those reservoir are in and the counties with banks on the Colorado don't break away and stay a part of the Union. You can also bet, that those counties will have the Union Army present in them one way or the other, so you can forget about accessing that source of water.

Ok fine, you got a big coast on the Pacific, why not desalination plants like how Israel get's it's water? First off, these facilities are expensive to operate. needing a lot of power. They're also not very good for the environment. So you'd get the double whammy of being expensive to run, in a state that would be $400 billion in the hole, plus be bad for the environment, though I'd like to see what's more important to hippies, their water supply or the environment because to generate the electricity needed, you'd need either a lot of fossil fuel, or a nuclear reactor?

The water situation is bad enough that President Obama signed off on a bill for $558 million in federal founds for California drought relief. Now I'd like to see these leftist secessionists put their conviction where their money is and demand that Governor Brown send that money back.

Lastly I'll touch on the likely immigration policy for a hypothetical independent California, ruled over from Sacramento by the Ca Democratic Party (which I'd guess would change it's name to something like Worker's Party of California, or maybe United Socialist Party of California). There wouldn't be boarders. The California Democratic Party literally wants to turn the entire state into a "sanctuary state" where illegal immigrants would not be pursued and deported. In effect, our hypothetical independent California, under it's pro(re)gressive leftist regime would just get rid of the boarder. Anyone can come and go as they please. If anyone doesn't see why this is a bad idea, then you can tell me how well and open boarder policy is working out for countries in Europe. An independent California will inevitably have issues with large influxes of immigrants and experience similar if not the same levels of lawlessness as countries like Germany. And what do you think that's going to do for that $400 billion debt? How are you going to fix that, sell off California to China? Wait, no, don't answer that question...

Seriously Democrats, you got no where when you tried this secession shit 150 years ago. You got your collective asses federally handed to you via a .56-56 Spencer rimfire shot out of a Spencer Carbine. I know throwing a fit and being a bitch when ever you don't get your way is a part of your Party's heritage, but cut this shit out already. You leftists always like to harp on the rest of us about what year it is, well take your own advice, it's almost 2017, it's not 1861 anymore.