Out-of-the-Mainstream Video Game Reviews

So it's been a while since I last posted. I'm sorry about the long break- it really is inexcusable. The main reason it's been so long since I posted here is because from my last post to mid January college apps. I really didn't have any time to write anything. After that came the crush of midterms and end of semester projects. And after that I guess I've been kind of recuperating from all the stress of second quarter. Don't let anyone else tell you differently- Senioritis is for real. I really have not felt like doing anything since second quarter ended. Anyways, to get the ball rolling again I thought I'd post the video game reviews I wrote for the January issue of The Hawk Talk (my school's newspaper, for those of you who don't know). They were supposed to be nontraditional, non-third-person-shooter type games.

Ace Attorney Investigations: Miles Edgeworth

While “Ace Attorney Investigations” may not provide your traditional slicing-up-bad-guys video game action, you may find pressuring witnesses to admit false testimony just as exciting. The game starts with the main character, the eponymous Miles Edgeworth, discovering a murder scene in his office. Using his investigative skills, he has to figure out who committed the murder. As Edgeworth, you have two primary methods of investigation: you can collect evidence at crime scenes and you can question different people related to the crime. The game allows you to expand on these two basic techniques in several ways. First of all, you can use logic to piece two inconsistent sets of evidence together to formulate a new hypothesis. You can also present evidence to point out inconsistencies in witnesses’ story, thus forcing them to tell you more than they would otherwise. Most of the game involves reading text as it spills across the screen, but this is a lot more interesting than it sounds. Using evidence to force witnesses to divulge more information proves intensely satisfying. The only problem with the game is the ease in which cases are solved. It is almost impossible to mess up, as a wrong move will prompt a question by a non-player character along the lines of “are you sure you want to do that?” This definitely detracts from the satisfaction of having solved the case yourself. Despite this shortcoming however, “Miles Edgeworth” is a very fun game to play, and if you can handle a video game without any action whatsoever, you should definitely pick it up.

Little Big Planet 2

Little Big Planet 2 harks back to the days of side-scrolling platformers, a-la Super Mario Bros., but with several twists that make it incredibly engaging. The game has you controlling a creature called Sack Thing as he tries to save his world from destruction. But the story line isn’t really important. It’s mainly just a vehicle to give the player a reason for guiding Sack Thing through levels that include various bad guys and pitfalls that range from electrocution to poisonous jam. This is accomplished using some well-timed jumps and different weapons that include a grappling hook, a Grabinator, and a Creatinator. The levels are very well designed and strike just the right balance of difficulty. The campaign is a lot of fun, but what really elevates Little Big Planet 2 is its incorporation of the online experience and its amazing level-building tools. The creation tools in LBP2 allow you to design your own levels and take it in almost any direction: you can create your own cut scenes, add different sounds for different objects, and create custom-designed enemies that come complete with artificial intelligence. After designing a level, LBP 2 allows you to upload it online for others to play. The game does a good job helping you find the best stages designed by others to play, and some of the player-designed levels are really quite amazing. You can easily spend hours searching for and playing random ones. If you are looking for a game that goes beyond the generic shoot-people-in-the-face appeal, then you really can’t do any better than Little Big Planet 2.

Gilbert Arenas, you will be missed (by one fan, at least)

The first time I really started caring about the Washington Wizards was during the 2004-2005 season. That was the first year in forever that they were actually good. They had this guy on their team- Gilbert Arenas- who could just blow by anyone. No one could stop him. I remember watching Game 5 of their series against the Bulls. I remember that buzzer-beater shot Arenas hit over Kirk Hinrich to give them the win and eventually send them into the second round of the playoffs for the first time in about 20 years. The opening sentence of the article in the Washington Post the next day went something like this- "The Washington Wizards blew a 20 point halftime lead and then a six point lead with 30 seconds left. But Gilbert Arenas bailed them out. Hey, that's what superstars do." For the first time in forever, the Wizards had a bona fide superstar on their team, and things were looking up.

And this wasn't just your average, generic superstar. Arenas seemed to get it like no other NBA player could. He knew how to connect with fans, because, he said, he was still a fan himself. It wasn't about the money or the fame for him. It was just about playing the game he loved. Back then, he seemed like the nicest guy in the world. I remember hearing one story about how he heard about this little boy whose home had been destroyed in a fire and whose parents had been killed, and just took him in and paid for everything. I heard another about how some random fan sent him a message on Myspace, and not only did Gilbert respond, he actually got the kid a job as Wizards ball-boy. He started a program where for every point he scored in a home game, he'd donate $100 to a needy DC school. He had that crazy blog where he would tell the truth exactly as he saw it- no platitudes, no hesitation. Who couldn't love him?

On the court he was pretty good too. In 2006, the Wizards played in one of the most exciting playoff series ever against the Cleveland Cavaliers. Even though they lost in the first round, it was okay because Gilbert Arenas and Caron Butler were just going to get better and Antawn Jamison was in his prime. Back then, it seemed like they had the whole world in front of them. Then, they had that amazing start to the 06-07 season. I remember seeing Gilbert score 60 points against the Lakers- he was unstoppable man- then, after promising to drop 50 on the Suns, he actually scored 54 against them. I remember watching him hit two ridiculous game-winning threes (in the same week!), and just walk off the court as if nothing had happened. I still imitate his arms raised, back to the basket celebration when I play basketball with my brother or friends. For a while the Wizards had the best record in the Eastern Conference and Arenas was the front runner for MVP. When asked about the team's success, Gilbert said that their "swag was phenomenal". Who else but Gilbert would say something like that?

And then, in one second, on one play, it all came crashing down. Arenas got injured and was out for the year, and the Wizards ended that season getting swept by the Cavs in the playoffs. Then, being the idiot he is, Arenas tried to return from his injury after only like three months when he should've waited at least seven months. What followed were two seasons in a row lost to injury.

And then Gun-gate happened. This time you couldn't excuse it as just Gilbert-being-Gilbert. Arenas had always tiptoed the line of decency with his inane comments and weird pranks. That's just who he was. But this time, he'd gone way too far.

People asked me why I still liked him. Why was I still a fan of someone whose jersey I was too ashamed to wear to school? Why was I a fan of a thug, a lunatic? The reason is because of all those times he carried the team on his back to victories. Because of all those clutch shots he hit. Because of all those memories he provided. Because, for five years, Gilbert Arenas WAS the Wizards. I realize I'm being irrational here. This guy wasted three whole seasons for the Wizards. He screwed up everything for this franchise. But you have to take the bad with the good. John Wall, if you can provide even half the happy memories that Gilbert did, I'll be satisfied. I hope you can help me move on.

College Rejection

So I had applied to Columbia as an Early Decision candidate back in the beginning of November. The decisions came back a couple of days ago and unfortunately I wasn't accepted
:(. I'm obviously disappointed by this, but at the same time I'm not crushed. I realize that Columbia is one of the most selective schools in the country and, regardless of how intelligent I think I am, there are hundreds of other kids in the country who applied who think the same exact thing and are just as qualified, if not more so, than me. I was reading collegeconfidential.com (a momentary weakness, it won't happen again, I promise), and saw that one of the few people on the thread to say they got accepted was some guy from a tiny school in Iowa who works on his farm every day, had an SAT score in the 2200's, was on the varsity football team, and had been the star of two school plays (yes, I know this could be made up, but I'm inclined to believe it). I realize there's no way I can compete with that. Honestly, I wasn't 100 million percent sold on Columbia anyways. Don't get me wrong, I love it a lot and I did want to go there (which is why I applied Early Decision in the first place), and this isn't a cop-out, but I wasn't really sure if I would've been able to adjust to the fast-paced city life that is NYC. I would have figured it out eventually, but it might have adversely affected my college experience.

I try not to, but my rejection does make me second guess myself. I know my SAT score and GPA were high enough to get in, and I'm pretty certain that I did all I could within my ability to burnish my extracurricular resume (and I feel my extracurriculars should have been sufficient for Columbia), so it keeps on coming back to my essay. Did my personal essay make me sound too conceited? Too underhanded and dishonest? Maybe it just wasn't written well enough? But when I look at my friends' essays and compare it to mine, to me mine seems to be a lot better written and have a much better communicated message than their's. Maybe it was my "Why Columbia" essay? I'll admit to having looked up random famous Columbia professors on Google and included them in my essay, and maybe Columbia saw through that.

So what's next for me? I definitely want to get into Georgetown. That's my new #1. Georgetown is also a very selective school, but I'm hopeful (and even confident) that I can get in. The only problem with applying to Georgetown is that I'm going to have to take another SAT II, because they require three, and one of their essay questions asks about my "goals in life". I don't know what my goals in life are- I'm only 18 man. Whenever I get that question in person I try to deflect it, so it's annoying being forced to formulate a well-crafted answer to it. (Georgetown, if you somehow find this blog and are reading this, please know that I still love you and would be extremely honored to attend your college.) (Other colleges that might read this, know that my love of Georgetown doesn't diminish my love for you and I'd still be grateful to be accepted into your school.) In addition to the Georgetown essay, I now have to write 10-15 more (relatively short) college essays for the other eight to nine colleges I'm applying to. It's going to go back to the school-clubs/sport-homework-college apps-sleep cycle that I was on while applying to Columbia. Four years from now, when I graduate, I hope it'll all be worth it, and my rejection from Columbia just a bump in the road. Only time will tell, I guess.

Pre-election Link Dump

I don't usually do this, but I read a couple good articles that I think you all should read too. Also, I need to post something and this is not very time-consuming:

• http://finance.yahoo.com/news/5-Campaign-Fibs-About-the-usnews-2615553179.html?x=0

So this article talks about election myths. It really does a good job and everything it says makes a lot of sense. It is nonpartisan, so don't try to label this as Democratic propaganda. While most of the myths have been propagated by Republicans, it does take Democrats to task over some of their myths.

• http://money.cnn.com/2010/10/25/news/economy/macguineas_british_austerity_plan/index.htm?hpt=C2

While the British actually do something about their debt, we're still stuck in gridlock back here in the US. Republicans and Democrats always talk about getting rid of the debt, but none of them actually do anything because getting rid of the deficit requires hard choices- cutting millions of government jobs, raising taxes, cutting entitlements, etc. Republicans are going to sweep into power promising to cut the debt, and unless something changes, they're not going to do anything.

• http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/archive/2010/10/24

This is so true. The Republicans don't have a single idea about how they're going to cut the debt (how can you lower taxes and lower a trillion dollar deficit? There isn't enough even close to enough spending to cut to accomplish that ). Democrats, meanwhile, have already taken a significant step in reducing the deficit with their health care overhaul, which is estimated by the non-partisan CBO to cut $500 billion + from the deficit over the next 10 years, and are trying to lower the deficit by $700 billion more over the next 10 years by raising taxes on the rich.

• http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/10/29/zakaria.create.jobs/index.html?iref=allsearch

I don't agree with everything this guy says, but most of what he advocates makes a lot of sense. The stimulus plan wasn't just for jumpstarting our economy in the present but was also designed to build our economy for the future, with an emphasis on preparing it for the new green revolution.

• http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/sports/blogs/pick-and-roll/Arenas-on-whether-hell-play-in-Wizards-opener-Youll-see-105702528.html

This is old news, but Gilbert Arenas is so crazy.

What does Roger Federer have left in the tank?

The US Open is in full swing, and once again, Roger Federer faces a make-or-break tournament, as the media increasingly believes that his time on center stage is up. We've been here before. Two years ago, at this exact same time, Federer looked to be in serious trouble; he had not won a major all year, had been crushed by Rafael Nadal in the French Open final, he had been taken down on his favorite surface, grass, in that epic Wimbledon final, and he was increasingly losing in the early rounds in the lesser tournaments . The pundits said that Nadal, and maybe even Novak Djokovich and Andy Murray, had overtaken Federer forever. Instead, Federer handily won his fifth US Open in a row and revived his career, eventually breaking the record for most Grand Slam titles ever won by one man.

That's not to say that we'll see the same thing happen again. There are some differences between 2008 and 2010. For one, Federer is two years older now, and since tennis players peak at a notoriously young age, it can legitimately be argued that Federer is now past his prime, which would not have been true two years ago. Secondly, in 2008, when it came to the majors, Federer only lost to the best. He lost to Nadal twice and #3 Novak Djokovich once. This year, he has lost to someone he had never previously lost to before, Robin Soderling, and someone who was not even a top-20 player at the time, Tomas Berdych. That does not bode well. Those losses have stripped from Federer the psychological edge he held over most opponents at all the major championships, which is something that cannot be underestimated.

Another difference between 2008 pre-US Open and 2010 pre-US Open, this one positive, is the momentum that Federer and Nadal had entering the event. In 2008 Nadal was at his highest point and Federer was at his lowest. Nadal looked like a shoo-in champion after winning the last two majors and performing well in the US Open Series. This year, Nadal entered in somewhat of a summer swoon and Federer entered riding high after two finals appearances in a row at minor tournaments and one tournament victory. Since Nadal always picks it up in the majors, I do not expect his recent downturn to last, but I think Federer's upturn will.

Before delving into Federer's future, the first question that must be answered is how well he will play in the US Open (and before delving into that I have to admit that I'm a big Federer fan). How well he does at this tournament, I believe, will tell a lot about what the rest of Federer's career holds for him. If he loses early (quarterfinals or before), I believe that he will fade fast and won't remain much of a factor for long. On the other hand, if he wins the whole thing, I think he's here to stay and will be competing with Nadal in major finals for a long while.

So how do I think he'll do? I still think Federer is much better than Djokovich, his presumed semifinal opponent, and I don't see him losing to Novak at this tournament. Given his current streak of good play, both pre-US Open and during it, I also don't see him losing to his next two presumed opponents (as of the writing of this blog post) Jurgen Melzer and Robin Soderling (who is the biggest threat here). I also don't see him losing to any other random opponent who crops up. However, I don't think Federer is better than Nadal, nor will he ever be again, therefore I think that he'll lose to Nadal in a hard-fought, four to five set final.

I think my prediction for Federer's US Open sums up my prediction for the rest of Federer's career as well. He'll remain the second best player in the world for a while- up to 2014 even; but he'll never again be the best. He might win another major if Nadal loses in the earlier rounds or if he pulls off the finals upset over Nadal, but it won't happen very often. However, given what he's already accomplished in his career, what's wrong with that?


So did I miss anything? Did I misrepresent some issue? Even though i know this is more of an esoteric topic to you all than my other posts, comments would be appreciated.

The "Ground Zero" mosque and freedom of religion

There has recently been some furor over a proposed interfaith mosque, tentatively named the Cordoba House, that is being built near where the World Trade Center once stood (if you're unclear exactly what I'm talking about, I suggest you click the link). This mosque has been demonized as insensitive because some feel that it would be celebrating the religion that caused the deaths of thousands of innocent people. These people say that the mosque would be like a victory flag for al-Qaeda, planted on the ashes of those they murdered. This is, of course, not true, for several reasons.

First of all, the name that the building is most often referred to as- the "Ground Zero mosque", has led many to believe that it is situated right next to or maybe even on top of the former World Trade Center. This is false. The proposed mosque/community center would be a full two blocks away from Ground Zero. In New York, two blocks is like twenty miles because of the density of the city. There are, in fact, quite a few mosques or Muslim prayer areas already within two blocks of Ground Zero, including one in the building that would need to be demolished for the Cordoba House to be built. Are all of these mosques monuments to terrorism also? If the Cordoba House isn't allowed to be built, why should all these other mosques be allowed to exist?

Secondly, the claim that this mosque would be akin to an al-Qaeda victory flag is completely untrue, because the whole idea of the mosque/community center is as a bulwark against jihadist Islam. The proposed iman (preacher) of the mosque, Faisal Abdul Rauf, is well known for his preachings condemning the 9/11 attacks and terrorism in general. Rather than encouraging terrorism, this mosque would help prevent it.

But the most important reason that the proposed mosque should be allowed to be built is because it would send a message to the rest of the world. America is unique in that it's a nation founded not on ethnicity but on ideals. Two of the most important of these ideals are freedom of religion and freedom of speech. These two principles have been abused numerous times in the past, but many had believed that America had finally turned a corner on its ugly history and was finally ready to live up to the ethos on which it was founded. Support and understanding for the construction of the Cordoba House would have been the ultimate symbol of this new tolerance and egalitarianism. We had a chance to show the terrorists that no matter what they did, no matter how badly they wounded us, they could never touch that which is at the core of our country: freedom. And we blew it. We showed that we have not turned the corner from the segregation and religious intolerance of years past. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg said it best: "We do not honor [the 9/11 victims'] lives by denying the very constitutional rights they died protecting." Somewhere, Osama Bin Laden is laughing and watching us do his job for him- radicalizing more Muslims against the US. If we had accepted and supported this mosque, it would have sent a powerful signal to Muslims the world over, that we are not at war with Islam and rather that we respect it as a religion. Instead, we now could see an increase in homegrown terrorism as Muslims see this debate as the true face of America, and ignore the innumerable good things about the country. Rather than waging multiple wars in foreign countries, perhaps the best way to hold back terrorism in America is by taking a long, hard look at our country and what it stands for.

So did I misrepresent the issue? Did I overlook something? Did I make any factual errors? Comments would be appreciated.

College search

Senior year is fast approaching, which means the questions about college have only intensified, to the point where the first question I am asked by any adult I meet is "So which college are you going to?" To the chagrin of most of these people, I don't have an answer to this question (well, not really). Apparently, because I haven't decided what college I'm going to go to yet, I am destined to live a sad, destitute life. What I don't understand is how I'm supposed to already know what college I want to go to when there are over 4,000 colleges in America, the vast majority of which I've never even heard of.

Even if you know what major you want to pursue in college, which is a big if (how are you supposed to know what we want to do for the rest of our life after just 17 years?), that still doesn't narrow the options down much, because most mainstream majors are available in pretty much every college. Obviously, some colleges are known for being strong in certain majors, but in reality you can pursue almost any major at every college.

If you've decided to go to one of Virginia's lovely in-state public colleges, that narrows down the options quite a bit; especially if you have good enough grades to take out all the crappy in-state schools and narrow it down to the likes of UVA, Virginia Tech, VCU, and William and Mary. I luckily (or maybe not so luckily) have the option to go anywhere in the country for college, meaning that all these in-state schools are just one of many possibilities for me.

I recently visited one college possibility, Georgetown, and it looked nice and all; the campus is pretty stunning, the academics are amazing, and the opportunities for internships are great, but I could say the same thing about a large number of colleges. What really separates a Georgetown from a UVA or a Princeton really? This confusion has left me with the odd situation of evaluating colleges based on their selectivity (Virginia Tech is not selective enough, for example, and Harvard is too selective) rather their merits; because I don't know enough about all these colleges to be able to tell the difference between each one's individual assets and liabilities.

Hopefully I'll figure this thing out before too long. I have high expectations for a college hunting trip I'm going to be taking up Northeast in a couple of weeks. Maybe I'll get an even stronger version of that "I-can-imagine-myself-here vibe" than I got at Georgetown. Or maybe a ray of sunlight will fall on my face and I'll realize "this is the place I have to be", and all these college problems will be solved, and whenever someone asks me "what college are you going to?", I can answer confidently "NYU (or Columbia or Princeton)", instead of stuttering and trying to deflect the question. You can only hope, I guess.