MOVING

http://darthstrangle.tumblr.com/

THIS BLOG IS MOVING TO THE WEBSITE POSTED ABOVE

Modern Warfare 2: Tech That's Too Old and Topics That Are Too Modern?

The biggest release of the video game world so far in 2009 has hit the shelves: Infinity Ward's Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 (MW2) dropped Tuesday, setting the 24 hour sales record for a video game easily. The record was previously held by Grand Theft Auto (GTA) IV, which sold 3.6 million copies in April of 2008. Modern Warfare 2 blew that measly record out of the water, selling an astounding 4.7 million copies in 24 hours. That's just under 3,264 copies per minute, or 54 per second (http://ow.ly/BHiH). MW2 is already (after only two days!) the 5th highest selling Xbox 360 game (http://ow.ly/BHp3) of all time.

Craziness.

In the age where remakes of World War games are beat out only by sports games in numbers, Infinity Ward made an excellent call when they shifted their focus to a modern first person shooter and away from the festering Call of Duty World War franchise. But the release of MW2 has been surrounded with controversy and a mixture of feelings from both reviewers and users.

The gaming community is, in general, torn over the gameplay presented in MW2. Critic reviews, on a whole, have been fantastic, praising the game for Spec Ops, the new multiplayer mode, the depth and pace of the story, and the overall polish set on top of the original Modern Warfare. Critics commended the realism of the game, with comments like "I see everything on the screen as though I were actually doing the killing myself, as though I was a soldier and there was a man breathing his last breaths in my arms" (Wendi Benedetti, Citizen Gamer http://ow.ly/BIaH).

The intimacy of some moments in the game have been compared to much more artistic

games. Several close encounters with the enemies of the have the potency of artistic leaders

as Bioshock, Assassin's Creed, and similarly artful games. The few professional critics who did try their hand at the multiplayer knocked it for dismal PC matchmaking systems which offer no random skill mixing, meaning one can only play with people at one's own skill, comparable to the ranked system of Halo's matchmaking system. Critics also repeatedly mentioned the brevity of the solo campaign. But honestly, the CoD franchise runs along the lines of Halo with respect to the campaign mode. Who buys them for the campaign? Not many would buy either of these franchises on a claim of amazing solo campaign, rather the campaign is a nice story and filler to the dominate multiplayer.

Those who bought the game are also less than satisfied, especially on the PC side of the spectrum. Console users on a whole are generally more pleased with the game, but MW2 is still not receiving the stellar gamer reviews it was hyped to have. Infinity Ward has not given MW2 any dedicated servers, giving the average PC gamer the inability to "rent" a server to host games, which again does not allow random skill mixing, which is no problem for the console users out there. The multiplayer capacity has been slashed to half of the previous Modern Warfare, dropping the maximum number of players from 32 to 16. The graphics are nothing exceptional, just a slight improvement from the last game. The gameplay is is not even remotely different from the original MW. Yes, there are new guns and new maps. But new guns and new maps with no substance underneath is just a rehashed version of the previous.

***SPOILER ALERT BEGINS***

The meat of the controversy in this game is in the second level. The player, infiltrating a terrorist organization, is ordered to open fire on civilians in an airport. The moral decision comes into play here versus the tactical one. If the player refuses to fire on the civilians, he/she risks being exposed as a intruder in the terrorist group, while blindly killing the civilians will not only affirm the trust of the group, it will solidify it.

Is this type of gameplay TOO modern? The terrorist attacks of September 11th still shadow the international community, as does the Bush-era "War on Terror." Infinity ward took an enormous risk by including a mission of this type. Of course, the mission is completely optional, as the player can refuse to take any action against the civilians. but the question is, does the context of the game justify a player-controlled terrorist attack on civilians in the era we live in? The group is, after all, order to kill as many people as they can, meaning the civilians crawling to safety or pulling others to safety. The faces of the civilians are even realistically terrified, and looking down onto them and pulling that trigger/clicking that mouse is a conscious decision that is realistically disturbing. Gore and blood I can take, but the professional critics around the world thought this scene was a little over the edge even.

***SPOILER ALERT ENDS***

Overall, the critics seem to believe the hype was fulfilled in this game, but gamers see quite the opposite. With the upcoming release of highly anticipated Assassin's Creed 2, Left 4 Dead 2, Mass Effect 2, and Splinter Cell: Conviction, the sales of MW2 are sure to thin, but the numbers say it already-the game is selling at an absurdly fast rate. Hopefully Infinity Ward will rectify their differences over the game with the PC world, but for now, the mass majority of the console consumers are relatively pleased, or at least not unhappy, with Modern Warfare 2.

(Critic and user reviews http://ow.ly/BIhc, http://ow.ly/BIhW, http://ow.ly/BIEa)

A Realization and Meditation

After a deep chat deep into the night with a good friend, a realization dawned on me. At this point in my life, my religious affiliation has teetered between my traditional Baptist upbringing and my scientific and philosophical reasoning. On one side is the traditional American religion, which surrounded me my entire life. I have since rejected that concept of God. The Bible, Christianity, Christians, and the message of the purported son of God do not rationalize and are not compatible with each other. My life has been directed and steered down a path of rationalism and the love of truth, none of which can be found among the pages of the Bible or in the words of Christians.

My religious views have since fallen into a system of doubt and disbelief, shunning the traditional conceptualization of a god. If anyone were to ask me today what my religious beliefs are, I should say to the mass populous I am an atheist, as I do not believe in any humanly conceived notion of a god, but to the educated and reasoning people of the world, I should say I am an agnostic. I will not rule out, in the end, the existence of a god. As of right now, no "proof" offered to me for the existence of a god figure has been a sufficient amount of empirical evidence to say conclusively "God exists." Adding to that, however, from a purely philosophical argument, I should also say that I see insufficient evidence to claim "God does not exist."

If one is to claim that the God of Christianity exists, with what evidence can one cast down the gods of the other religions of the world? If one has evidence to refute Allah, Shiva, or any other god, why should that evidence not be turned on the god of the questioners religion? When people speak of the classical gods, they now laugh at the pantheon of incestual, bickering gods of Homer. Zeus cannot possibly exist in the mind of the common Christian today. Christians are atheists in respect to the Homeric, classical gods. But if Zeus cannot possibly exist, and is therefore an invalid theory, why is the Christian concept of God any more valid? Following this mode of thought is how I come to say that I am an atheist in relation to the god of Christianity.

Philosophy and the Existence of God

The reading of Meditations on First Philosophy presented our philosophy class with an interesting proof of the existence of a god as given by Rene Descartes. A few definitions are needed first. Ideas have objective reality, while objects, things, have formal reality. Objective reality, the reality of ideas, comes in degrees, based on the how much formal reality it is based on. The example is this: the idea that unicorns exists has little objective reality, because unicorns do not have much formal reality. The proof follows as thus

Proof of God (Descartes)

• (Causal Effect) There must be as much (blank) in a cause as the (blank) in the effect (Cause is greater than or equal to effect)
• The Causal Principle (P1) holds true for things with formal reality an for things with objective reality
• If any idea has so much objective reality that Descartes cannot be the cause of it, then something other than Descartes exists
• Descartes has an idea of God
• The divine idea “tops out” the scale of objective reality
• Passivity Principle (I’m not the cause of all my ideas) (perception comes to one without willing it)
• The only thing that could cause the divine idea is a formally real god

The conclusion to this argument being that a god exists. Descartes prudently steers away from claiming the characteristics of god or claiming which god is the correct god (Descartes was a devout Roman Catholic). Descartes does however claim some properties of any divine being so as to ward of those who would doubt his theory. 1) God cannot be a thought created by man, because by the Causal Principle, an imperfect being cannot create a perfect god. 2) God cannot be the sum of culture, family influence, ones own ideas, etc., because a divine being is the perfect one-ness. The list goes on.

Personally. I have a hard time reconciling premise #5 and the idea of objective reality. If the idea of god tops out the scale of objective reality, how is one able to imagine it? Anything that is comprehendible, or thinkable as it were, by humans, cannot tip the scale of objective reality, or one would not be able to think it by my reasoning. Another problem I have is that Descartes has an idea of god. Does not his idea of god represent an imperfect idea, by the Causal Principle? An interesting theory that I believe takes too many "well if this..." moments to be plausible, while also not applying some of his own logic to his argument.

Just because the new site I will be using to expand my blog reach said so, I will paste this goofy little sentence for them. "a bug is the biggest lie we know!"

September 3oth is recognized around the world as International Blasphemy Day. This holiday was created in the wake of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoon, which blasphemously depicted the prophet, a serious religious offense in Islam. Riots ensued. Over 100 people were killed. Danish embassies in Syria, Lebanon, and Iran were attacked and set on fire. Danish, Scandinavian, and European art, flags, and buildings were defaced across the Middle East. All because some people believe their religion is above criticism and satire.

Religious tolerance is one thing that I hold very high. People of the world have enough things to fight over without throwing made-up big brothers into the ring. Another right I hold very highly is my right to fully criticize any religion if I so please, as is your right to criticism my religion (or lack thereof). People have grown to believe that their religion is above criticism or satire, which simply is not true. Multiple people from the University of Northern Iowa (all being some Christian denomination) have audibly voiced their dislike about the dissenting religious opinion written on their sidewalks. Boo hoo. There is a little thing in this country called the Constitution, you should read it sometime. And that big document, a little tiny freedom is asserted to everyone. This freedom is known as the freedom of speech!

The situation at UNI is not a deviant case. This same of type of blatant idiocy in the face of free speech is coming to a head everywhere today, International Blasphemy Day. Keep in mind, this holiday was not constructed for anti-religious purposes, but to expose the fact that religion is not above criticism or satire in any way. But the lack of understanding in the mass populace of religious people is absolutely astounding. I entered into a full fledged argument with a lady today who believed her rights were being violated by people writing anti-religious statements on the sidewalk. Um, what? In case you, humble reader, are unaware, there is no law stating people must respect the opinions of others, which is what this lady was fervently unaware of. Her (stated) problem was not that people were expressing an opinion dissident to hers (not likely), but that they did it in such a disrespectful way! (Sigh) Free speech protects the rights of people to say whatever they feel like (relatively), as long as they are not committing a crime in the way they do it. In this instance, this woman first claimed that these messages were done in such a way that they constituted vandalism. She was incorrect. She then slated her argument to defacing me for being an immature child, which lasted only as long as I entertained it. Her entire argument fell apart then when she tried to prove that her views are Constitutionally protected. Ah ha, ah ha, ah ha.

It is ridiculous how people in America, and most specifically in this case religion, believe that when they are in the majority, that makes them correct. In my book, Constitutional law comes before your personal belief any day, whether you like it or not.

So, a Happy Blasphemy Day to all!

The Newest Addition (SPOILER WARNING)

Halo 3: ODST (Orbital Drop Shock Trooper) was originally billed as a simple expansion pack to the original Halo 3, but in the end came out being much more. ODST contains a solid seven hours of band new campaign material. The campaign takes place on earth during the Covenant invasion of New Mombassa, at which time in Halo 2 Spartan-117 is leaving earth in the wake of the Prophet of Regret for Installation 05.

Leaving behind the by now blood-stained HUD of the Master Chief, ODST is played from the vantage point of a human UNSC (United Nations Space Command), known fondly as Rookie. If you remember the events of Halo 2, the Prophet of Regret hits the "enter slip space button" on his vessel, causing a massive shockwave that destroys much of the city of New Mombassa. ODST takes place after that shockwave, as the Master Chief is pursuing Regret. The main plot of the story involves Rookie reuniting with his five other teammates, and after doing so, moving through the city searching for the core of the city A.I. known as the Superintendent, which holds crucial information about the reason why the Covenant is attacking New Mombassa. Sparing the ending spoilers, the campaign is nothing to scoff at, easy as it is to trim it down. Coming off Halo 3, whose campaign was less than appealing to those of us who had played Halo 2, a refreshing viewpoint in ODST will offer an exciting new vantage point for the most faithful to the Halo series.

But we all know that we don't play the Halo series for their stellar campaigns. Halo is not a series that claims to have the depth of plot of The Elder Scrolls or Mass Effect. Halo is the king of the sci-fi multiplayer, and ODST is just another form of that greatness. ODST ships with 11 original Halo 3 multiplayer maps, the Heroic map pack (Foundry, Rat's Nest, Standoff), the Legendary map pack (Avalanche, Blackout, Ghost Town), the Cold Storage map, and the Mythic map pack (Assembly, Orbital, and Sandbox) as well as three new maps (Citadel, Heretic, Longshore). An impressive collection for those who didn't drop the Microsoft Points on the packs separately, but nonetheless this means that ODST multiplayer is just a large expansion pack for Halo 3 right? Wrong! ODST contains a new multiplayer mode called Firefight, brand new for any Halo game. Firefight has been affectionately compared to (and no doubt somewhat modeled off) Horde in Gears of War 2, in which teammates face waves of varying enemies, and Firefight is much the same. Firefight contains new medals for the Halo multiplayer (everyone loves getting that Death From the Grave medal with that last grenade you threw before took the Energy Sword in the face), which is only trivial to some. Firefight plays like this: the team has a pool of lives that are added to after a set number of rounds. Upon the depletion of all those lives, the game is over. Skulls are included in Firefight for variety, and enemy spawns are completely random, meaning anticipation of the strength of the next wave is nearly impossible, adding to the confusion. Firefight contains ten maps, three of which are unlocked by playing the campaign. firefight also contains the musical score to ODST, giving each level much more atmosphere.

A completely new character, campaign, and multiplayer mode would be enough to elevate ODST to the top tier of games one would believe, but ODST has received some less than stellar ratings from across the gaming world. Arstechnica gave the game a "Rent" rating, pcmag.com dished out an anemic 7/10, Games Radar also garnered a 7/10. ODST is being knocked for shoddy graphics, a short campaign, linear campaign gameplay, and set pieces used from previous games. Does this look like sub par graphics to anyone? If anything, Bungie has improved the graphics from Halo 3 for their newest, enormously hyped brain-child. The short campaign is, to be repetitive, nowhere near a 100+ hour Elder Scrolls: Oblivion, but coming into the release of ODST we knew that. Halo has never been known for an amazing campaign, plain and simple. As for linear campaign play, I would love to raise the question "What were the previous Halo campaigns? Completely freeform?" The answer is no. Halo is about fast-paced campaigns that are part of any overall story. You don't need to have 37 different side quests to be fulfilled by the campaign. One legitimate question is over the price of ODST. Is Firefight and seven hours of campaign really worth $60? Considering you are paying for every map expansion for Halo 3, the math needs to be done. Each pack cost (at original release) 800 Microsoft Points. And Live users know the obnoxious 800-avoiding-prepaid-card-prices of 500 and 1000 points, so one must buy 1000 points for $12.50. That only amounts to $37.50. Dropping another $22 for a seven hour campaign and Firefight seems like a decent deal to me.

Overall, the preliminary ratings for ODST are positive and worth checking out. As another chapter in the Halo saga is already under production (Reach) , ODST may soon pass as just another short twist in the original story. But as a game, ODST is comes highly recommended from this author and from the majority of professional game critics in the world.