Plato's Euthyphro

This semester, I’m taking a class dealing with the philosophy of ethics. This is an interesting choice for me, as I am a moral nihilist (someone who believes that ethics and morality are purely a manmade creation, and have no existence outside of our heads). Which means I spend most of my time in the class disagreeing with the entire premise of the class, and building arguments to prove why everyone else around me is wrong. Fun times.

This is an essay I wrote for the class, dealing with Plato’s Euthyphro (which will make this the second time I’ve posted something about Plato’s writings on this blog). Euthyphro is a dialogue between Socrates and Euthyphro discussing the relationship between what is holy (or what is good/moral, in modern terms) and the gods.

In the essay, I make reference a Shafer-Landau. This Shafer-Landau is the author of the class’s book, Whatever Happened to Good and Evil, where he attempts to prove Ethical Objectivism (the belief that morality and ethics have a real existence, objective from human perceptions of them). To express my opinion of the book in the most positive tone possible, I think that the arguments in it could use a little work. It contains various logical fallacies, and while Shafer-Landau does very well disproving Ethical Relativism (the belief that morality/ethics exist, but they are relative to what a society believes them to be) and Ethical Subjectivism (the belief that morality/ethics exist, but are relative to what the individual believes them to be), he absolutely fails at disproving moral nihilism.
But that’s not what this is about. Well, it partially is, but not entirely. No, this is about me making the claim that, based on Plato’s Euthyphro, we should all become either nihilists or Gnostics.



Plato’s Euthyphro details a conversation between the philosopher Socrates and Euthyphro, as they discuss what is “holy”. The situation which frames this discussion is a trial Euthyphro will be attending, to testify against his father for homicide. These actions had brought about the ire of Euthyphro’s contemporaries, who claim that it is not holy for a son to testify against his parent. However, Euthyphro holds his belief that his actions are holy.

To explore this issue, Socrates poses the question of what is and is not holy. According to Euthyphro, what the gods support is holy. However, Socrates quickly points out that the gods of their pantheon bicker more than schoolgirls. This forces Euthyphro to modify his definition of holy to what all the gods support.

At this time in the discussion, it is possible for modern readers to follow from a monotheistic perspective. Socrates and Euthyphro are now speaking of a unified committee of gods, which holds only one opinion. The implication of a unified voice of multiple gods would be identical the voice of a single god, as both produce only one opinion on matters.

With that little digression out of the way, allow us to move on with this delightful discussion. At this point, Socrates poses a question to Euthyphro, which becomes the central idea of the argument: Is something holy because the gods approve of it, or do the gods approve of it because it is holy? To put it in modern, monotheistic, terms, is something good because god made it good, or does god approve of good things?

The first idea, that something is good because god made it good, is called the Divine Command Theory. It is a stance which most theists take, as it supports the concept of god’s omnipotence. While it seems that the Divine Command Theory is the most sensible choice, after all, if God created everything, this would include morality, there are many criticism against it which support the second idea.

One of the implications of the DCT which critics attack is the arbitrary nature of morality under it. If there is no objective basis for morality, god’s choices on what is good and what isn’t were made entirely at whim. At any time, he could decide to make genocide morally acceptable, or have even made it acceptable from the start. This clashes with the idea of a benevolent god, as his morality is arbitrary instead of kind.

For a benevolent god to work, morality would need be independent of him. In this way, his support of morality is genuine kindness, and not arbitrary decision making.

However, such a view makes a major assumption: the benevolence of god. While from the perspective of Western Christianity, we may claim that god is benevolent as a sound basis for a claim, this does not uphold itself universally. To return to the Greek pantheon; most of the gods of the ancient Greeks were not by any stretch of the imagination “good”. Instead, they tended to act more akin to drunken frat boys after a football game, except with the ability to throw lightning at random pedestrians. For more modern religions, the Jewish take on Yahweh makes himself out to be a far more violent figure than the compassionate one of the New Testament. Then we have Deism, where god is merely apathetic, not necessarily good. For the most extreme example, we can look at Gnosticism, which has god as a malevolent, cruel tyrant who arbitrarily creates our current morality for the purpose of subjugation. None of these religions have any difficulty with the idea of the DCT, and by assuming it is false based on god’s benevolence assumes the truth of Western Christianity. And settling the truth on that definitely isn’t the point of this class.

But, for the sake of me getting a good grade on this essay, let us assume that DCT was rejected. Would it be possible for morals to exist independent of some divine figure.

No.

Longer answer: According to Shafer-Landau, it is. However, SL’s evidence for this claim is faulty, and in the end, fails to prove his point.

The basis of SL’s claims to morality independent of god is on his argument over whether morality is eternal or not. SL tries to prove that both ideas could be true, because apparently no one ever told him the saying about chasing two rabbits. For non-eternal morality, SL claims that not all laws which govern the universe are eternal. Photosynthesis is an example of such a law; before plants existed, there was no such thing as a law of photosynthesis. Therefore, laws need not be eternal.

First off, if you told a biology major that there was a “Law of Photosynthesis”, they would likely laugh at you. Secondly, the process which drives photosynthesis existed long before plants. All the examples given by SL are just different ways which atoms and energy interact. The laws which govern this have been in place for the entire existence of spacetime, and thus could be called eternal. There has never been a case of a new law appearing at any point in time.

Then we see SL attempt to prove that moral laws could be eternal, independent of god. This is based partly on the fact that there are principles governing the universe which are eternal, and partly because of the arbitrary claim that it would be wrong to torture future alien space babies. I’m not going to bother with the second part, and instead focus on SL’s faulty concept of principles. To start with, there is a world of difference between a scientific principle and a moral principle. Scientific principles say how the universe works; I cannot just decide to ignore gravity. Moral principles say how we should act, and can easily be broken. The universe cannot stop me from burning down an orphanage while kicking a puppy. The only connection between these ideas is the fact that they both have “principle: in their name; as far as definition is concerned, they are completely separate.

In the end, the concept we are left with are: SL’s claims that morality can be independent of god is faulty. Thus, If we assume morality exists, it must come from a deity figure. Thus, morality is arbitrary. Thus, god is a jerk. We’re left to choose between either a Gnostic concept of a tyrannical god, or just throw the whole thing aside and go with nihilism.

A Brief Lesson on Free Speech

So, apparently people are completely fucking retarded. I direct this mostly at 4Chan/Anon, as historically they have understood free speech to mean "LULZ I R SO SMART I CAN DO WHUTEVER i W@Nt AN JOO HAVE 2 TAKE IT!" But I also direct this at anyone who thought the "Soldiers are not heroes" group is protected by free speech on Facebook and anyone stupid enough to think this is somehow an issue of free speech.

You see kids, free speech is NOT, as it turns out, limited to just saying and writing stupid shit. Actions too are a form of speech. If you don't believe me, take a look at the concept of symbolic speech. You can exercise this speech by, say, favoring certain products over others in a store. Maybe your store caters to environmentally friendly products. That is an act of free speech. A Jewish book store is under no obligation to sell Mein Kampf and pro-Nazi propaganda.

If you're reading this and thinking "Well DUH Damios, that's just stupid!" then ask yourself one, possibly 2 questions: 1, did you object to Amazon refusing to sell the aforementioned handbook on pedophilia, and if so, what the Hell makes Amazon any different than the Jewish bookstore? The correct answer is the scope they CHOSE to take. A Jewish bookstore is perfectly, legally capable of selling pro-Nazi propaganda if it so chose. Amazon is nothing more than a store with an incredibly wide scope of goods. But just because it chooses a wide scope of goods doesn't mean it has to accept all goods.

And before you go all "Fahrenheit 451" on my ass, let's be clear that book burning is perfectly fine. Free speech is protected from the government because governments have power. If a government has power, they can control opinion. When a bunch of free citizens burn a book, it is EXPRESSING their opinion. Do you see the difference? It's subtle, I know.

So, to recap, a bunch of citizens expressing dislike about Amazon selling a book, and Amazon choosing not to sell the book, is not a free speech issue. It is an expression of free speech. If you force Amazon to sell goods they don't want to sell, that is a violation of free speech. Come on people, it isn't hard!

Carry this over to the fucking internet. Here's a page on Encylopedia Dramatica that demonstrates this principle wonderfully. Notice this line;

"Fast Eddie — The founder of the site. He does not believe in free speech, is mentally retarded, is very paranoid, and, above all, is incredibly lazy. He's also not fond of words liek weeaboo because they are "derogatory specifically in a way that is against our cross-fandom."

He doesn't believe in free speech? Oh, right. See, that's in reference to Fast Eddie locking down the Encyclopedia Dramatica page.

"Encyclopedia Dramatica Locked because Fast Eddie fears that someone will mention this very page and how it exhibits TV Trope's numerous fuck-ups. Update: Fast Eddie has now pussied out entirely, and has removed even the token mentioning of this very page. Stay classy, you frail-nerved crybaby."

And...you can pretty much take everything I said about a couple paragraphs up there and just cut and paste, only replace "store" with "website." Who gives a flying fuck if Fast Eddie actually is a hypocrite? It's his fucking website. It's not a violation of free speech if its his fucking website, you retarded fucks. He has every right to say whatever the fuck he wants. If he posts a page HIMSELF about Encyclopedia Dramatica and Anonymous on TVTropes, trashing them entirely and displaying nothing but gay porn to ineffectively parody your pathetic trashy subculture, then not only would he degrade himself to your level, but he'd be exercising free speech.

By the ways, I love how quick you are to claim Fast Eddie is a hypocrite. The reason he's several rungs above you on the evolutionary ladder is that you brats are equally hypocritical, if not more so, and he's at least twice as beneficial to society. Because what screams "TEH INTERNETS R NOT 4 SRS BIZNESS!" like writing an enormous Encyclopedia Dramatica page that makes you sound like a...to steal a term, "butthurt fanboy..." who just had their favorite TVTropes article "unfairly edited" by the guy who fucking owns it.

So, fuck 4chan, fuck Anonymous, and fuck anyone stupid enough to believe that Amazon's refusal to sell a handbook on pedophilia is a violation of freedom of speech.

Elections

It's 12:08 A.M. MSN has informed me that there are currently 149 Democrats and 224 Republicans in the House. In the Senate, there are 49 Democrats and 46 Republicans, with 2 independents and 3 undecided.

Wow, what a massacre. I know the GOP were projected to win the House, but this seems excessive. Also, the Dems suffered some hard core losses in the Senate. A lot more than I was expecting. Ironic, really. Obama always cites the GOP as holding back America's will. America seems to disagree.

Election Coming Up In November

In the 2008 U.S. presidential election, 56.8% of American citizens voted. That's the highest it has been since 1968, between Richard Nixon and Hubert Humphrey.
In the 2006 Congressional election, only 37.1% of the population voted.

If you feel like the government isn't working for the benefit of the average American, it's because they're not. They're working for the benefit of the average voter, which consists of just over a third of our entire population.

Something to keep in mind whenever you're passing by the ballots.

Torture Porn and Nickelodeon!

Tis the month of Halloween, which means every television station with decent ratings is airing horror flicks to be seasonal. So in honor of what has to be one of my most favorite months of the year, I figure I'd do two quick bits about horror flicks.

First is torture porn. I am decidedly not a fan. At all. I'm talking your run of the mill Saw movies, your Hostel flicks, and pretty much all the mindless derivatives thereof. Now, before I do begin my rant of why I don't like these two series in particular, let me say that not all gore movies are lost causes. I remember hearing of a movie whose name I can't recall that was an exceedingly violent gore flick. It was done by a bunch of make up artists, set designers, the kinds of people who are usually involved in making a violence look real. The actual movie was basically a demo reel, a showcasing of alternative techniques to make the screen come alive with horrible, horrible violence.

The difference between a movie like that and a movie like Saw or Hostel, to me, is that the Saw and Hostel movies are fundamentally about watching people get hurt and getting off on it. That in of itself confuses me, because a lot of times it isn't like the people even really...and I am loathe to use this word... deserve it. That is to say, the characters don't really do anything to warrant ANY punishment. The pain and suffering become a thing unto themselves, celebrated for their own sake in these movies. It sort of saddens me that people are like this. Beyond that, there really aren't any horror elements to it, it's just simple human brutality. And perhaps what perplexes me the most is that it's become a genre for something that's rather...unremarkable. It's not like human on human violence is uncommon. It happens all the time in real life, and it isn't very hard to find. The Saw movies I might give you because the Rube Goldberg death apparatuses, comedically impractical and insulting as they are, do keep things... "fresh."

The demo reel, on the other hand, has less to do with violence and suffering and more to do with workmanship. Though it may not be my ideal way to spend an afternoon, I could see the draw to watching such a movie. At the very least, the revulsion you might feel serves as a really good indicator of how well done the special effects are. And that is something that I can appreciate. It's like Crysis really, just a demonstration of what a team of dedicated experts is capable of with what they have available to them.

Oh, and before we continue, let me single out the Saw series for a moment. Lots of people seem to think that Saw was a cerebral experience and that it had a relatively engaging plot. I understand where this is coming from. The killer has a complex modus operandi, and on paper it would work very well. He is interested in forcing people into difficult situations because he wants them to appreciate their lives. Odd reason though that may be, the theoretical horror comes from the fact that he is a disinterested killer. His actions aren't personal, it's merely a selection process. That means that on some level, these "individuals" have marked themselves for the killer's games, even if they weren't aware of the terms.

In practice, however, the Saw series is only a gimmick. The first Saw movie may have remained somewhat faithful to this ideal, but the concept of "fairness" that would be essential to the modus operandi of the killer is lost completely in the sequel. Many of the characters die due to circumstances that had nothing to do with anything beyond the serial killer's desire to murder. The third movie, the last one I had the patience to watch, was a much worse offender, with several characters dying despite following the serial killer's "rules," with many gratuitous deaths playing out because of the simple fact that the Saw series isn't as smart as it wants you to think. The movies are about complicated death machines, and nothing more. The paper thin rationale behind Jigsaw is just a contrived device to keep the bodies coming in and the plot moving forward.

Let's move on to something a little lighter, shall we?

Last night I actually forced myself to sit down and watch "The Boy Who Cried Werewolf." This wasn't on anyone's radar I'm sure, but I decided to make the effort to see this one through for two reasons. One of them was Victoria Justice. The other was because I'm relatively out of touch with children's horror, which will always have a very special place in my heart. As a 90's kid, I had the distinct privilege of growing up with stuff like Goosebumps (both the books and the television show) and "Are You Afraid of the Dark," a classic program that actually had some fantastic horror in it. It basically springboarded me into my current fondness of the Twilight Zone and Tales from the Crypt. And there were also the full length movies, both animated and otherwise, that were pretty good all things considered. I wasn't a big Alvin and the Chipmunks fan, but I really liked Alvin and the Chipmunks meet the wolfman. Annoying voices aside, the music was actually pretty good. And you will never, ever, ever convince me that Scooby Doo On Zombie Island was not a fantastic movie. It was a great movie, easily better and spooker than 99 percent of the bullshit that Hollywood passes off as "horror."SERIOUSLY. It might actually be one of my favorite movies. I stopped watching the direct-to-video movies after Scooby Doo and the Witch's Ghost, which was still pretty good in my opinion. And it brought forth the existence of the Hex Girls, who were pretty rockin' all things considered. I heard they went really weird with aliens in one of them, which...doesn't bode well. Let's leave it at that.

That being said, I acknowledge that there's a lot of shit kids horror. What I was curious to see was if the generational gap that I've noted elsewhere remains true for this. I do believe 90's animation was better pound for pound than it is now. Mind you, our regular programming is vastly superior, with stuff like House and Breaking Bad and Dexter. We also have reality television to contend with, so it's hard to say who has it better. Either way, as someone who seems to have developed a new found fondness of television, I figured it was something worth investigating. I want to see more children's horror, hopefully before Halloween ends. Unlikely given my schedule, but a guy can hope. Til then, this is the only movie that really fit into my window of opportunity that I got to see. Also, Victoria Justice has motivated me to worse endeavors before. My weakness for the fairer sex is going to get me killed some day.

So, what exactly is this movie about? It centers around a single parent family consisting of a father, a teenage girl named Jordan (Victoria Justice), and a younger brother named Hunter (played by Chase Ellison...I'd be impressed if you've heard of him). The family I guess inherits an estate in Romania from an estranged uncle on their deceased mother's side, so they decide to go over and claim it. The estate ends up being a large castle which they plan to sell to pay off their home back in the states. There's some adjustment drama with Jordan, and Hunter has a blast as he's obsessed with the supernatural. In particular, the town's legendary Wolfsberg Beast draws his attention. The two kids eventually stumble upon a hidden lab in Castle Wolfsberg (the estate they inherit) and Jordan ends up dropping a vial with some liquid labeled LB 217. She ends up stepping on the glass from the vial, and that's when the horror ensues! (spoiler alert: She becomes a werewolf).

How is it as a horror film? I'm actually impressed with some of the themes they tried to tackle. They start off with some great internal conflict. Jordan's newly acquired werewolf DNA...or whatever it is, they never really explain it...brings about a lot of animalistic changes in her; making her very aggressive, physically augmenting her, and instilling in her a newfound fondness of meat (she was a vegetarian prior to wolfing out). Eventually though she makes a full on transformation and nearly attacks her brother before jumping out of the castle. This all culminates in the high point (low point?) of her transformation after she ate an entire live boar, when she expresses tells her brother she's afraid she might kill him or their father. It's interesting and curious for a kid's movie, but I guess not completely unfounded. I find it reminiscent of Gingersnaps, a horror movie which told the story of female puberty through the not-so-subtle metaphor of lycanthropy (uncontrollable urges, monthly cycles, hair in strange places, etc). TBWCW didn't quite take it that far, mind you. I detected one potential mention of puberty, and I might have been searching due to the aforementioned Gingersnaps having conditioned me into thinking that way.

Course, this sort of gets thrown out the window when the vampires show up. Yes, I know, collective groan. Apparently werewolves and vampires hate each other in TBWCW universe. I won't get into much detail. You'll be pleased to know there are no romantic elements to this conflict whatsoever, as Jordan is chasing after a Romanian butcher who is in no way supernatural. Nope, these vampires just want to plunge the earth into total darkness to rule as undead kings for all eternity. And thank the Gods. I can't stomach any more vegetarian vampire sissies. But with this conflict and resulting werewolf/vampire graveyard fight scenes, there comes the fact that the werewolves kind of lose their crazy "can't control myself!" ness and sort of become trained attack dogs. They end up taking orders from a mortal at one point. A shame, I found the first conflict much more interesting.

Beyond that, the story is relatively well told I suppose. It's no Scoobie Doo On Zombie Island, but really who is? It's fairly straight forward. The comedy is a bit lacking, though I did chuckle once or twice. Special mention goes to the horrible, horrible accents though. I get it, Romanian/Transylvanian accents can never again be done seriously. But these are just...painful. Particularly the previously mentioned Romanian butcher love interest. He sounds like some horrific blend of Romanian and Italian, heavily favoring the Italian. I feel as though he should be trying to sell me lamb-flavored gelato in some poorly thought out SNL skit. The maid isn't much better, even though she has a clear shout out to Young Frankenstein.

In the end, it's decent. It's on par with old Goosebumps if you're willing to look past a bit of rushed storytelling and a couple of idiot ball moments. If you're into kids horror, feel free to give it a whirl. It'll probably be on again some time this week. 'Tis the season after all.

Modern Animation

Those of you who are friends with Damios on Facebook (which in all honestly is probably everyone who would read this) may have noticed that he posted the video for “A Whole New World”, from Aladdin. If you scroll down a bit, you can read a conversation between him and me, which at one point discusses the animation quality of Aladdin compared to more recent works. We also discussed time travel, THE BURNING HUMAN SPIRIT, the fact that Crowley proves that my attempts to make Omegia asexual inadvertently turned the entire setting into a gigantic mental/spiritual orgy, the fact that Omegia also is documented proof that I am a creepy pedophile, and that Jesus is David Bowie. However, you really only need to focus on the animation part.

Go ahead and watch the video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8VfN2BhJA8) or if you own a copy of the movie, just watch it instead. Pay attention to the animation. It’s GORGEOUS. Prior to watching the clip, I had assumed that a movie from the 90s wouldn’t have aged well. After all, we live in the future, with computers which can drastically reduce the amount of work needed to animate; plus, modern CGI should have improved dramatically since then. Except that’s not the case here; I watched the clip from Aladdin, a movie I watched when I was just a wee lad, and realized that its quality was superior to the majority of recent animation that isn’t PIXAR.

The oddity doesn’t just end with 90s era Disney. Look at the works of Studio Ghibli. The animation in their film Ponyo is hand drawn, but it is far, far superior to animated movies using computer technology to assist the process. True, Disney and Ghibli had larger budgets than most studios, but we’re comparing hand drawn animation to studios that presumably have the help of modern technology.

The problem isn’t just restricted to movies; many cartoons and animes have animation quality which makes me feel sad. There are only a few shows which I find visually appealing; Code Geass, Death Note, and Sayonara Zetsubou Sensei are the only series I’ve seen recently where I’ve said to myself, “Damn that’s pretty” while watching. Part of it is a slight, personal problem I have with modern anime style: everything is so damn shiny and colorful. Even Code Geass has this, with bright primary colors thrown all over the screen every scene. It’s like they think we have the attention spans of children, and need the rainbow effects to keep us entertained. Death Note avoids this with a more subdued, realistic color scheme, but everything is still so bloody shiny looking.

Maybe I’m just ranting. In fact, I definitely am. I’m not an animator; I have no experience with the process it takes to make a cartoon. But when I look at modern work, I expect it to be higher quality than works that lacked modern technology. If it doesn’t, what’s the point of having all that expensive stuff in the first place?

Video Game News!

I had a serious post lined up about Glenn Beck's Washington rally, but then homework happened. I'm at work now, so I figured I'd just post some recent news in the world of video games.

Vanquish demo is out for XBL and PSN. Played it a bit last night, and it's actually even more fun than I'd anticipated. High speed, loads of adrenaline, craziness abounds. Highly recommended.

Kotaku got their hands on the "Playstation Move" and some games prior to it's September 19th release date. Seems that they are rather impressed with it, but I wonder how much of that is genuine "I'm-impressed-ness." Not that I'd suggest Kotaku is being paid off by Sony or anything, but having strongly negative opinions about a system that's going to be here for a while does have consequences. When you're gonna be reviewing games and whatnot for this system for that long, you can't really just say "Move sucks" and then convince everyone your reviews aren't affected by that. Just the same, most Kotaku writers seem to feel that the constant calibration is a concern.

http://kotaku.com/5626492/playstation-move-review-the-motion-controller-wars-start-now

http://kotaku.com/5626491/what-we-loved-what-we-hated-about-the-playstation-move

Me, personally, I won't be getting it. I share Yahtzee's sentiment that without tactile feedback most motion control games won't feel natural or intuitive. While there are some genuinely innovative design implementations possible (usually of the painting and brush stroke variety a la "Okami," or possibly paint brush mechanics in Epic Mickey), they don't seem to show up often enough to warrant (in my opinion) the purchase of a motion control system. Course, Move still beats Kinect no matter what. I mean seriously...what exactly is the point? So I can play imaginary full body soccer in my living room? Why not actually go out and play soccer? At what point is technology like this "innovative," and what point is it "a substitute for having no friends?" And yes, this is totally coming from the guy who has no friends whatsoever at college. Feel the judgment.

But I can't give Kotaku all the credit for early reviews. IGN posted a review as well. While I'm not the biggest fan of IGN (A perfect 10 for GTA IV? Seriously?), it's good to have different opinions. They seem to think the motion controls are solid, but the software is pretty weak. Really? Shovelware? In MY Playstation Move? What nonsense is this!?

http://gear.ign.com/articles/111/1117286p1.html

Also, Tank MMO. As in, an MMO where you play as a tank. Because...why not.

http://kotaku.com/5627067/welcome-to-the-world-of-tanks

Online Arguments: Serious Business

http://kotaku.com/5621295/

Oh, you silly humans and your "Hunting down and attacking a man who insulted you while playing Halo." (And yes, I know that it was a PS3 game they were playing, and therefore could not be Halo. Quiet down with your facts).

Predators

After the horror that was Damios’s post, I feel that we need something to repair our brains. You can start by listening to this.

Now to continue the therapy, by talking about something very unlike Ms. Glitter Demon. That is, “Predators”, by Robert Rodriguez. The film, released last month (Yes, I’m a bit behind the times. Shut up.) was made as a sequel/spiritual successor to the original “Predator” film, with the intention of taking it back to its roots.

I should warn you now, I have never seen the original Predator. A horrible crime, I know, especially when I’ve seen most of Ahnold’s other famous movies. I am familiar with most of the memes that spawned from the film, but apart from that, this review will be from the eyes of someone new to the franchise.

The premise of the film is simple. Six of the world’s best killers (and a doctor), ranging from Spetsnaz to Yakuza (why does spellcheck hate Spetsnaz, but not Yakuza?), are dropped onto an alien planet, where they are hunted as game by three aliens. No time is wasted in establishing this premise either; film starts, people are dropped out of the sky onto the planet, everyone gets together, and we get into the action.

“Predators” does exactly what it tells you it’s going to do, and no more: Provide 1 hour 47 minutes of human versus Predator action in an alien jungle, filled to the brim with action and testosterone. There’s nothing else going for it; the plot is simple, the characters are flat, and there’s no message the director is trying to give us. But that type of manly awesomeness is what the Predator franchise does best, and “Predators” is very, very good at it. There’s no mystery for the audience when we walk into the theater. We know exactly what’s going on when all the characters find themselves on the planet, even if they themselves don’t know. Even people like me, who haven’t seen the original films, are so familiar with the concept that we don’t need anything to be told to us. The film knows this, and works with it amazingly. It’s as though Transformers had just compressed everything with the human characters and their silly human stories into 10 minutes, and then had spent the rest of the film in a huge battle between the Autobots and Decepticons. It’s nothing but cheap action and suspense, but it’s good cheap action and suspense.

And here I need mention Hanzo. Hanzo, played by Louis Ozawa Changchien, is a Yakuza enforcer. He singlehandedly outbadasses every other character in the group. I now feel that Damios’s talks about how amazing the Yakuza are how now been justified, as from the moment he steps down onto the planet, in his clean, white suit, every action he does is filled with awesome. This is despite the fact that he has among the fewest speaking lines out of every other character (which really only adds to his badassness). And towards the end of the film, he succeeds in outdoing every other character from the Predator franchise by (spoilers ahead) fighting and defeating a Predator in single combat WITH A KATANA. Yes. A katana. No traps, no tricks, no camouflage, he stands out in a field, waits for the Predator to come, and then fights it. With a katana. I feel that has to be reemphasized.


“Predators” is nothing but action oriented fun; that’s all it succeeds at being, and that’s all it tries to be. There is absolutely no reason at all to go and see it unless you want over an hour and a half of violence and testosterone, but if that’s what you want to see, hell yeah go and watch it. And then bask in the manliness that flows outward from the screen, as you chop down a tree and eat a shattered glass and rusty nails sandwich.

And I never thought I would describe a movie with Adrien Brody in the lead role as manly….

The Death and Post-Mortum Rape of Music

I consider myself a fairly decent music reviewer. Yes, I have very particular musical tastes, and I make them well known. But even with genres I don't like, I can appreciate music for what it is. For example, I greatly dislike pop, but I can respect Lady Gaga for writing her own music rather than having it written by the Matrix like everyone else in mainstream music does nowadays. And I don't even mind all that much if someone else writes your music as long as everyone accepts the real intent behind it. I don't hold it against performers like Miranda Cosgrove, or even the dreaded Miley Ray Cyrus, because it's a big marketing tie-in by the television networks. This is fine. It's to be expected, it's a way to make money, and it's a way to have little kids get more involved in their programming. I don't take it seriously and I move on, like most people eventually do. I like to remind those who think real music is dying that fads come and go like they have since the music industry became huge. Let's face it folks, if you don't think that the 70's and 80's had shitty music, you're blinded by nostalgia. And that, too, is fine! I've embraced it! Look, my favorite incredibly shitty 80's synth pop song of all time is a living drug PSA! I can't recommend that song enough, for the record. So I always said what I've always said about mainstream music, that contrary to popular belief it's not getting any worse.

Today, I just ate my fucking words. I watched Ke$ha's latest music video.

To preface this as a form of self defense, I got to the video in a cracked.com article. I read it not knowing at all who Ke$ha was prior to reading the article. Never even heard the name. Read through it all in a manner of minutes. The complaints in the article about the lyrics and autotune were so par-for-the-course that it just kind of left me unimpressed. "WOW, you mean a pop star used gratuitous AUTOTUNE?! I NEVER THOUGHT I'D SEE THE DAY!" At the bottom of the article was a link to a music video of hers, so I figured I'd click it and give it a whirl. I expected it to sound exactly like Britney Spears, or Miranda Cosgrove, or Miley Cyrus, or Victoria Justice, or whoever else is big nowadays.

Please don't watch this. If you must watch, wait until the end of the article. I feel I am legally obligated to provide a link to the video I watched. But I can't stress this enough, don't click the video.

If you watched it against my warnings, then you might as well stop reading now because you know. You understand. You realize what's so...just...wrong about this...soundscape and you don't need another couple of paragraphs reminding you of the trauma you just witnessed. In fact, I'm begging you to turn away from this post and just go ahead and enter the shower to wash away the shame. Reading a whole blog post about what you just had to endure is comparable to forcing a rape victim to watch the video of her experience. And to those of you who wisely chose not to watch the video and read this paragraph, YES IT REALLY IS THAT BAD!

I really wanna single out the autotune for starters. I know earlier I said every pop star and their little brother uses it, but I never thought I'd see the day when someone's singing would be so bad that even fucking autotune couldn't mutilate it into something passable and not offensive to the human ear. I liken autotune to a miraculous device that can squeeze clean, drinkable water out of animal droppings. And yet somehow this would-be-diva's bullshit is so toxic and foul that no matter how hard you try and wring something worth enjoying out of it, you can't. I'm serious. I really can't even put into words what her voice sounds like, because no one on earth has ever failed this spectacularly at making music with a full multi-million dollar production team behind them, so I have no point of comparison. If robots could have sex, Ke$ha's voice on autotune would sound like one crying rape. In fact, that's almost a perfect way to describe her voice. Imagine an entire song being sung by the female version of Robocop. No, seriously! If you make the mistake of going back to listen, please tell me how "Female Robocop" is not the best way to describe her autotune. And I don't mean the first 10 seconds of the video that is distorted, I mean her actual...ick, I'm hesitant to call it singing...

Oh, and then there's the music itself. Remember that song little kids used to sing on the playground, the "There's a place in France" tune? Yep, she basically turned the beat from that into a fully-fledged song. That's not just lazy, that's spectacular. That's not simply "not trying," that's trying extra hard core at "not trying." It's like she thought to herself "Hey, how can I show the musical world that I couldn't give less of a fuck about it's integrity? Oh, I know! I'll do dirty children's tunes!" Is it seriously that fucking hard to have someone write a few new original riffs?

And don't even get me started on the fucking lyrics. "Dirty version of kids tunes" doesn't just cover sound. The Chorus? "There's a place downtown where the freaks all come around. It's a hole in the wall, it's a dirty free for all." And then, "There's a place I know if you're lookin' for a show...where they go hard core, and there's glitter on the floor!" Yep. Let that sink in. She must mean "hard core" in the porno sense of the term, because when I think of hard core shows, my mind goes back to the shows I went to that I considered "hard core." There wasn't glitter on the floor, there was blood, and lots of it. There weren't strobe lights, there were torches. And afterwards I didn't smell like sex, I smelled like cigarettes, vomit, and dead animals. Then again, I imagine the outcome of a Ke$ha concert would smell very similar to that if you're standing in the front row.

It will take three days of scrubbing to remove the smell of dead fish from your clothes.

Then there's the actual video. It starts off with a really boring clip of her running around, hopping over cars with her friends for no apparent reason...in fact, that part was kind of funny. I'm not sure why her friends walk to the car, jump ontop of it, walk across the hood, and then jump off and continue walking. It's the only car in the fucking parking lot, and yet they singled it out as their own personal area rug. Is it even theirs? If that bitch got anywhere near my car, much less stand on top of it for kicks, her sorry ass would be chained to the back getting dragged at 120 miles her hour while I'm blaring real fucking music through the speakers. But I digress. Stupid as that bit is, it's not really noteworthy. Nor is the gigantic free-for-all tag game that takes place in the entire upper lot of the hotel. Again, I'm forced to wonder what the point is. Aren't there other places to play tag, where you're less likely to piss off someone who is likely just trying to get some sleep? I'd write something about what I'd do to her if she woke me up in the middle of the night at a hotel with a game of tag, but I've already included a car dragging murder scene. I feel if I wrote a violent threat every time she did something stupid then this whole piece would just devolve into a gory murder fantasy.

Regardless, if you get past that and the part where they throw trashcans around (those horny rebels), you get to the pool scene. This is where everyone starts ripping off eachother's clothes in a haphazard fashion. Then, all of the sudden, tension! A young man and a young woman eye eachother from across the pool...no sorry, same side of the pool...with intense animal passion! Unable to restrain their physical urges, they run towards each other to meet, and as they leap into the air to embrace, they explode in a gigantic poof of pink and blue sand!...yes, you read correctly. They explode upon contact into tons of gender-color-coded sand. Yes, to YOU it may seem non-sensical, but to the mind of a lyrical genius like Ke$ha, whose entire song amounts to a naughty little kids version of a naughty little kid's song, the multi-colored explosion has deep symbological meaning! In this case...yeah. Sex. I get it, two people of opposite gender bump into eachother and you get sex. There have been stupider metaphors for orgasm before. I get that. So we'll just pan to the next scene, where for some unexplained reason Ke$ha is covered in pink and blue sand...wait. Wait. Didn't we just establish that the sand explosion was a metaphor for sexual climax? So if your face is covered in it then...what the Hell? Is that something to be proud of? Fuck, I'm starting to think I've put too much thought into this. Ok, maybe I was wrong. Maybe it's not a metaphor. Maybe she never figured out what a metaphor is. But if that's the case, we are only left with a literal interpretation of the previous scene,which would indicate that the sand is just what used to be that one guy and that one chick. So which is it Ke$ha? Is your face and hair caked with sexual fluids, or the crushed remains of your now dead friends?

And then it gets better! The sand is EVERYWHERE! It coats the walls of the pool, the floor, other people...Not only am I not sure why everyone is dancing in it and slathering themselves in it (a disturbing thought given I still don't know what the fuck that stuff is), but I don't know where the Hell it's coming from. From what I've seen, the only place it comes from is head on collisions between members of the opposite sex. Are people dying off screen to provide you with sex juice/decomposed bodies for your own amusement? Camera pans to Ke$ha, who know has less colored sand on her face for no explainable reason, and then to a disturbing scene where out of a pile of sand on the ground merges and reforms the two lovers from the first scene. Holy fuck! Is this necromancy or did the giant mixture of toxic splooge create some type of primordial ooze from which these invertebrate life-forms spawned? I don't know whether I'm watching the end of the world or the origin of life according to Ke$ha. Either way this shit is more fucked up than anything I've read in the Bible, and God ordered the Isrealites to smash the heads of Babylonian babies in with rocks. Which, according to the Transitive property, means watching Ke$ha is more fucked up than cracking open a baby's skull.

Course, I seem to be the only person disturbed by this Caligula-esque display of hotel pool orgy fun. Everyone is throwing the sand at everyone else, sprinkling it around themselves, at some point the sand becomes glitter which I don't even question...she dons on some random fur coat while everyone else is gorging themselves in the pool, only to immediately take it off. I'd make a snarky comment, but my head is still wrapped around the mystery sand. But then, suddenly, we are given an answer! A young man standing outside the pool reaches in and grabs a young girl who desperately wants to escape this Hellish carnal nightmare, when all of the sudden she rips his arm from him and blue sand pours out of the stump where his hand used to be! YES! YES, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE HAVE THE ANSWER! Ke$ha MYSTERY SAND IS PEOPLE! Rest easy that Ke$ha doesn't party in vats of semen, but in tubs filled with dead bodies! This discovery almost made me miss the part where a young man dancing gradually has his limbs randomly turn into sand...which is kind of disturbing. I guess he tore his own hands off in some drug-fueled revelry, but whatever!

Though, this does leave the question of what the glitter was. If dead bodies made the sand, what made the glitter? Well, Ke$ha is never one to leave her...audience...unsatisfied, so she did indeed decide to bare all and show us just what the source of her special glitter is. She reaches into her chest to a zipper...a zipper attached to her flesh, which she begins to unzip down. And as she does, glitter pours out of her chest wound, and her arms gradually dissolve away into even more glitter. But...but...I thought dead human bodies made sand? Or...wait...are you trying to tell me that Ke$ha isn't HUMAN? Yes! That must be it! It all makes sense now! So the glitter is the remains of Ke$ha's rapidly deteriorating non-human body! The same glitter that she insisted covered the floor of all her hard core shows...holy fuck, she was describing her own decaying body!

But why, why bathe in the dead bodies of humans? It's a very rare practice that wasn't often done even as far back as history. The only time I can specifically think of is the great Countess Elizabeth Bathory who would bathe in the blood of virgins to stop her body from aging. And that doesn't make sense within the context of that legend. For one thing, the people in that pool definitely weren't virgins, as they were kind of in a gigantic orgy, and for another Ke$ha still dissipated away...wait. No. No. It all makes sense. She dissipated because they all lost their virgin status in the pool! Ke$ha is Elizabeth Bathory! Then...at the beginning...that wasn't a game of tag they were playing at all! THEY WERE KNOCKING ON THE DOORS OF THE ABANDONED HOTEL IN A DESPERATE SEARCH FOR HELP AGAINST ELIZABETH BATHORY! And so they must have resigned themselves to their fate at the end and decided to deny her her feast and destroy her once and for all by engaging in a massive orgy to deny her sustenance! IT ALL MAKES SENSE! Ke$ha IS COUNTESS BATHORY, AND SHE IS NO MORE! Countess Bathory is dead! Long live Countess Bathory!

Or maybe I'm giving her too much credit. Maybe, just maybe, she's a shitty and talentless pop star who has an unhealthy and rather childish obsession with glitter and bright colors.

Yeah. I'll go with that.

Anywho, I realize a lot of this sounded like a bad attempt at humor, and my description of the actual music segued into a ridiculous story about Ke$ha being a many times over dead Hungarian Countess. But I wasn't trying to sound funny. It's really just awful. It was mostly my bitterness pouring out over how little I like her, because it's like no one even tried to make this sound good, and yet it's selling like fucking hot cakes. I truly do not understand anything about her fame and how she came to be who and what she is. If you don't believe me and you're fine with the distinct possibility of never being able to enjoy music ever again, by all means go back up to the top and try out the video. You'll totally regret it.

China Beats Japanese Economy, and Thoughts On New York Mosque

So, for starters there's this bit of important news. A lot of their economic strength, according to the article, comes from how much debt the U.S. owes to them. The nice thing is that they've come into all of this purchasing power now while they still have a lot of room to develop. That money can go towards infrastructure, urban development, building schools, so on and so forth. Not bad for a country with "a fifth of the world’s population and insufficient resources." Glad to see China is progressing well.

And then there's this week's non-issue, the Mosque at Ground Zero. I call it a non-issue because in my mind there doesn't seem to be a decent reason for this to be legally questionable. Government can't just opt not to allow a Mosque to be built there for purely religious reasons. You see, the First Amendment's "Freedom of Religion" aspects come with two distinct clauses, the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause.

Establishment Clause: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"
Free Exercise Clause: "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

If the government steps in and prohibits the building of this Mosque, then it is in violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment by definition. Congress would make a law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. As a member of the smallest and most hated religious minority in America (and perhaps even the world), I'm pretty sensitive about this sort of thing. I'm definitely not pleased.

That being said, I'm confused as to how someone thought building a Mosque next to Ground Zero would be a good idea. Not that I believe such a bigoted opinion is right, as I feel that it isn't fair to stereotype Muslims as terrorists and suicide bombers. I may be harsh about the Middle East and Islam given the sheer volume of terrorist organizations they've got listed (see for yourself), but that in no way speaks for the majority. Yes, I've vocally stated that I'm very upset the moderate elements of Islam don't do more to combat the violent extremist image. That's still no excuse for typecasting Muslims.

Now that that's out of the way, I do feel it's only fair to point out that when grieving, people aren't exactly the most "rational." People are upset about the ordeal. So I really have to wonder about the mindset of the group that wanted to erect an Islamic building in that location. Maybe they had a permit to build there prior to 9/11, and in that case then I'd be very sorry that the terrorist hijackers have made things much more difficult on them than need be. Defending the building of that Mosque would be a matter of protecting finances as well as being right, which is twice the reason to do so. But if not, then I'd figure someone in the community had to think "Gee, there might be some backlash for this decision. Maybe some left over anger and resentment." Which makes it almost seem like trolling. Not that they wouldn't be in the right, mind you. They would still completely deserve the place like everyone else. I'm just jaded and cynical, so this comes off as suspicious in my mind. Then again, I've not really met the leaders of the Islamic community that want the Mosque built, so I can't speak for their character. At the end of the day, it's all speculation, and irrelevant speculation at that. Point is, whether you're talking about rightness in the legal sense or in the not-being-a-bigot sense, there doesn't stand much of a reason not to let the Mosque be built.

Twitter Experiment Pt. II

So, after fidgeting about and realizing I'm not very tech savy, or social, I realized that I might not be getting the full Twitter experience. So I was thinking that maybe I could invite some of you, my readers, to join this little Twitter experiment with me. To that end, I invite anyone and everyone who may be interested to create a Twitter account and try it out for a month or so with me. At the end of the month (or whenever everyone involved agrees we've figured out pretty well how Twitter works individually), everyone writes a review write up which will get posted as part of a super mega collaborative effort on the Extremists.

Feel free to join in and leave your Twitter URL here in the comments section and I'll add. Have fun, all!

Twitter Experiment

So I've decided to give Twitter a shot. You might have caught one of my previous rants about how much I dislike Twitter's interface and how hostile it is to users, but in all fairness I haven't used it since like 2006. I figure one more attempt won't hurt any.

Part of the reason I'm doing this is because of how I use my FB anyways. I'm not much into pictures, picture comments, and the likes. For the most part I just post interesting and random shit I find throughout the day. If there's anything I feel like exploring, I go into a bit more detail with the Well Intentioned Extremists. So I was basically using my FB for what Twitter is supposed to be designed for. Who knows, if this works out my Facebook might fall to the wayside. I was never a big fan anyways. I tried to delete it twice, but others insisted I keep it. Omega whined about how difficult it would be to keep track of me. Though I'm flattered, for the record. I feel so loved!

The plan for right now is to try it out for a month or something and then write a bit about the experience. Maybe this time I'll figure out how Twitter works better. Maybe I'll release it was as unpleasant, confusing, and unnecessary as I first thought. But hey, exploration is always a good thing. You'll never know until you try.

So anywho, if you have a Twitter, feel free to "follow" me or whatever. I'll do the same.

http://twitter.com/FraterOphionoi

(I have way too many aliases)

Another Hero

Some of you may have heard of Steven Slater, a Jet Blue flight attendant who did what everyone who has worked in the service industry has always wanted to do. If you haven't, I'll let Colbert explain.

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/343699/august-10-2010/alpha-dog-of-the-week---steven-slater

Steven Slater, for your service to employed Americans everywhere, I salute you!

Super Villains! But Of Course!

Yes, that's right, someone decided that now that there's a whole bunch of super heroes out there, we need some SUPER VILLAINS! That's right, a super villain page built as a response to the World Superhero Registry. With super villains.

Kill me now, please.

Real...Life...Superheroes...Sort of...

http://kotaku.com/5611331/nerdy-real-life-superheroes-to-keep-city-safe-from-bullies-jocks

Oh wow. I don't even have words for this.

Alright, in all fairness I can appreciate the desire to become a vigilante and strike out against crime and all, but seriously...watch those videos. Watch the Dark Guardian (ohhhhh boy...yes, that is his super hero name) get towered over by a drug dealer. Watch his reaction when he realizes that drug dealer could crush his windpipe with one hand. And notice how his response is to call the cops? Do you really need a fancy costume and ridiculous name just to phone in the police?

And then notice Shadow Hare and his team. I really want to know exactly what a bunch of teenagers who range from pudgy to skinny, who have absolutely no muscle between them to speak of, and who seem to not even have any protection besides their hand-sown costumes, can do to a coked out drug dealer.

Oh, and they totally have a website where you register and form a team. I'm not even kidding. Please, have a look see at these profiles. I like how they actually have an "Arch-Enemy" section. So far only one person has filled that section with anything other than "None." That guy is the Tothian, whose "Arch-Enemy" is Osama Bin Laden. I shit you not.

Ugh...Like I said, I really really wish I could say that I support this, but please...have a look. I can't believe I'm saying this, but you're gonna do something like becoming a costumed vigilante, please actually do all the necessary work and take the correct precautions. Don't put on a costume and cape and assume you can take on the world with your well meaning demeanor. The world has guns. You will lose. If you have to, please exercise, learn free running, learn a martial arts, carry real weapons, and don't announce your presence to the world. Otherwise...ugh.

The Path

Well, this blog seems to be alive again. And since we have a large Omega symbol at the top of the page, and the word “Extremists” is plural, I have a nagging feeling of responsibility to at least make an effort to contribute. Although I would like to comment on my annoyance that, when Damios makes a post filled with girls he considers attractive, the responses are “Hawt” and “I’d tap that”, yet whenever I do something similar, the responses instead are “You sick bastard!” and “I’m calling Chris Hansen!” Seriously, what gives?

Anyways, onto the subject. “The Path” is an art/horror computer game created by Tales of Tales, which can be downloaded online for $10. The game confuses me; at the start, I am given a choice of six girls to play as, all with names based on “Red”. You appear on a path in the middle of a forest, with the instructions to go to Grandma’s house, and not leave the path. Being the obedient person I am, I have consistently followed these instructions to the letter, going straight down the path, for the 1-2 minutes it takes to reach the house. Then the game ends, and tells me that I failed. Very confusing. But at least I have the comfort in knowing that I did what I was told.

Okay, serious review now. Technically, everything I said above is true. In case “Grandma’s House” and the names based on red didn’t tip you off, the game is (another) gothic take on Little Red Riding Hood. The only way to actually play the game is to completely disregard your instructions, and leave the path to explore the forest. Exploring the forest makes up the core of the gameplay, although gameplay may not be the correct term. The Path isn’t a traditional game; there are no enemies, puzzles, or challenges at all really. The goals are vague, especially since the ones stated by the game aren’t the ones you’re supposed to actually follow. Most of your time is spent just wandering around the woods, looking for landmarks. Depending on the girl you’re playing as, approaching different objects/landmarks may trigger a reaction from her, and let you read her thoughts (which is where a lot of the characterization for each girl comes from). If you wander enough (Or if you’re feeling lazy, and just make a beeline for the wolf paw print on your screen) you’ll encounter the Wolf. Each girl has a different Wolf, and for only one of them is it an actual wolf. After meeting the Wolf, a cutscene plays, and the screen fades to black. When gameplay resumes, the girl is lying outside Grandma’s house, except now the color is drained, she moves slowly, and everything is even more bleak and depressing than it was before. When you enter Grandma’s house, inside things get…. Weird. Then, after reaching the end of the house, you’re given a grade depending on how much stuff you found exploring (the grade really doesn’t mean anything at all), and you can try again with a different girl. So, it isn’t really a video game. What is it then?

Well, The Path is what happens when someone, upon learning about metaphor and symbolism during English Class, started taking their use way to seriously, and built up an entire game around it. I’ve heard The Path described as the Rorschach test of video games, and I believe that to be a fitting title. I have read flame wars online between people debating the meaning of each girl’s story. Some of the girls have pretty basic ones which everyone can agree on (Carmen), others tend to be a bit more confusing (Ginger) and others left me with filled with WTFery at the end (Rose). If you try to take a literal approach to the game, you will be confused, and likely won’t be enjoying your time playing. If you go for a metaphorical outlook, you’ll still likely be confused, but at least the game won’t just seem like a bunch of random nonsense.

It’s hard to give a definitive statement on how good the game is. The Path suffers from a massive case of Your Mileage May Vary. I personally liked it, but it has some glaring flaws. Gameplay is incredibly repetitive. There’s only a single map, most of which is a featureless forest. The girls move at different speeds, but some of them feel horribly slow, which only accentuates the blandness of the map. Controls, while simple, can get a bit iffy at times, and the collision detection is absolutely horrible. Graphics aren’t very good, and no matter how high you put the graphic settings on the game, they will never be as high quality as the screenshots from the official website. Another thing the website lies about: The genre. It claims to be horror, but there really isn’t anything scary in it. Creepy, yes. Surreal, yes. Disturbing, yes. But nothing there that would actually scare the player. It’s like they set up the atmosphere for a horror game, but then didn’t add the actual horror. Plus, the lack of instructions can lead to some confusing situations where you sit around having absolutely no idea what you’re supposed to be doing.

But as I said before, I still enjoyed it. First off, I love exploring in video games. I’m one of those freaks who loved sailing in Legend of Zelda: Wind Waker, and who end most game playthroughs with near 100% completion, even when I’m not doing a 100% run. As such, I really didn’t mind the repetitive exploring of the forest, even if I did find myself critiquing the running forms of some of the girls while exploring. Also, I, as an English major, love to analyze things. Trying to figure out the meaning behind the use of the greenish light hue during Scarlet’s walkthrough of Grandma’s house? Fun times! While we’re at it, we can debate about how much Freudian imagery is in the game! It’ll be a party!

In conclusion: If you’re a very strange person like me, who enjoys overanalyzing symbolism and trying to figure out just what a story really means, you’ll enjoy the game, and I’d recommend checking it out. After all, it’s only $10. Otherwise, avoid it.


P.S. After reading Damios’s review, I watched Sengoku Basara. Awesomeness ensued. If you’re ever feeling in the mood for something epic, watch it. I’d put it as the second most inspiring show to watch, behind (and I know Damios will disagree here) Gurren Lagann. And it’s half as long as Gurren Lagann, so you’re able to get the epic inspiration in a faster time!

Coolest Gaming Article Ever: What Do The Yakuza Think About Yakuza 3?

Courtesy of Kotaku.

You know, there's a certain mystique about the Yakuza that I just adore. I think it's because they are a legitimate part of Japanese society, and that's just awesome. The Japanese people have embraced the fact that you need people who work outside of the law in your society. At least, that's my rather uninformed view of it. I kind of want to learn more. Maybe some time soon I'll do some research on the Yakuza.