Review - Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 - Campaign

After leaving the Year 8 Gala day with extreme sunburn (Ow!) I managed to convince my dad to let me stay home from school today. Surprise surprise, today was also the release date for Modern Warfare 2, and, of course, the Hardened Edition was due to turn up on my doorstep. Being off school gave me quite a bit of time to play it, and I finished it less than half and hour ago. So let's get cracking. Before I begin, a note about spoilers. I will try to keep them to an absolute minimum, with no plot twists revealed and stuff, but some may creep in.

******POSSIBLE SPOILERS******

Okay, well I boot up the disc and see a nice shiny new menu, quite attractive. Multiplayer and Spec Ops can wait, I'm off to kill some Russians. Starting off with the pre-requisite training mission for newbies to the franchise, I'm quickly swept up into the kind of action that made COD4 so intense. The Rangers are in Afghanistan, and Taskforce 141 is getting busy in Kazakhstan. The snowmobile chase you all saw at E3 is ridiculously awesome, and the Glock 18 made me drool massively.

Story:

Pretty unbelievable. I won't give away why, cause it'd spoil some of the surprises, but lets just say that I doubt the Russian government would ever, ever do what they did. However, who cares if the story is ridiculous? I certainly don't. It provides plenty of justification for shooting bad guys, and that's all you really need. If you want a deep and meaningful story, go play an RPG.

Weapons:

There are a lot. Some of the favourites from the first game are missing (the only MP5 available is the tiny K variant) but IW have added so many modern guns its like sitting in an episode of Future Weapons. Without the annoying voice of that ex SEAL dude. Also, if you thought controlling an AC-130 was fun, wait until you've controlled a Predator UAV, armed to the teeth with AGMs. There's something immensely satisfying about precision guiding a warhead into a group of Russian soldiers sitting on top of a Burger Barn.

Levels:

Levels are still completely linear, but with very little back track. IW also seems to have succeeded in eliminating the infinite spawn problem that COD4 had, where enemy after enemy would poor endlessly out of a tiny basement until you pushed past a certain point. In total, the game is definitely longer than its predecessor, giving you more bang for your buck.

Graphics:

The game is, in my opinion, stunning. Typical of our household, we have an HDTV, but the Xbox is not connected to it. Never the less, IW has certainly made a pretty world. They've also improved your ability to destroy it. If you thought cover in the first game could disappear fast, wait until you get into MW2. I have a new found appreciation for concrete roadblocks and brick walls, that I'm pretty sure this game had something to do with. The game is also a lot gorier, with blood looking a bit more like Gears of War. No, enemies' heads do not disintegrate when shot, but they do perform some very convincing death animations.

Overall:

To conclude, the campaign was a big improvement over an already fun COD4. New weapons, graphics and greater length meant that I cam out itching to go back in. There are still enemy intel items to collect, and something tells me I'm going to have to look a lot harder than in the first game.

Stay tuned for my review of the multiplayer aspects of the game, including a new addition to the Modern Warfare franchise, Spec Ops.

Critique: The Case for a Creator (student edition) - Chapter 2

Chapter 2 is where Strobel actually begins to present his case. It is titled:

Beginning With a Bang: The Evidence of Cosmology

In this chapter, Strobel "explores" (I use the term loosely) the different theories about the origin of the universe. In actuality, he presents just two theories. Throughout, he talks to Dr. William Lane Craig. Oooooh, a doctor? Surely this man must be an expert in cosmology, after all, that's what this chapter is about. No. He isn't. Dr. Craig received a doctorate in philosophy, and a doctorate in theology. He is in no way an expert cosmologist.

The first theory, "Spontaneous Existence", talks about the idea that things can suddenly appear out of a vacuum. Strobel dumbs it down for the kiddies and make it sound fantastic and implausible, without giving detailed history, description or explanation. Then he moves on to his second theory, which centres on the Kalam argument (an argument written by guess who - Dr. William Lane Craig). The Kalam argument is this:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore the universe has a cause

Strobel then proceeds to examine each point of this argument. Which makes me laugh. In horror. He states that point 1 is true because in his everyday experience (and the experience of others) things don't come into existence without a cause. However, he fails to note that this is in no way adequate support for point 1. He can provide no evidence that substantiates the claim that "Everything that begins to exist has a cause". To make the statement work, we have to change it. Watch:

1. Everything that begins to exist that we know the origin of has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore the universe has a cause

Do you see that how by making the first point true, we have destroyed the rest of the argument? We don't know the origin of the universe, in fact, that's what this chapter is trying to determine! Since we don't know the origin of the universe, we can't conclude that it has a cause, and thus a creator. Oops.

As the rest of the chapter continues, Strobel stops looking for other theories about the origin of the universe and assumes that he has found the right one with the Kalam argument. As I believe I've shown how it is flawed, the rest of the chapter can be discounted. However, I want to point out something at the end, a bit of nice, informal language, great for engaging the kiddies, that is just silly. Having supposed that a creator does exist and that the creator is personal, he asks this:

"... let's see if the Creator still answers prayers, if he still changes lives, and so forth. That's the kind of evidence I saw in my wife's life when she became a Christian, the kind of evidence that started me thinking about the possibility of a personal God in the first place."

Wow. My wife became a Christian, and she seemed nicer afterward. Ergo, this is evidence of God. All I can say to this is that while sure, his wife may have started to act nicer, kinder, whatever, you CANNOT claim that this is evidence of the influence of God or any other kind of creator. If she started following the rules set out in the Bible about being caring and so on, then of course she would have seemed nicer. But that doesn't mean she has been affected by a creator.

For a full critique of the Kalam argument, go here. On that page you will also find a link to the full argument.

Critique: The Case for a Creator (student edition) - Introduction and Chapter 1

A few days ago, I was given a book by a girl in my grade. We had been discussing (to be honest, it was really closer to arguing) religion, God, creation, etc. It was all very unstructured and informal. But one of the things she said had caused me particular dismay. She told me, completely straight faced, that there was scientific evidence that supported the existence of God. Now, to me this sounded absurd. It was after this that she handed me a book. That book was Lee Strobel's The Case for a Creator, Student Edition. Having just finished the book, I now plan to do my best to critique the claims it makes. I plan to do so in a series of posts, probably one per chapter. As this is a student edition of the book, it doesn't really have much in the way of hard detail and the like, preferring to dumb things down for what seems (at least to me) a primary school audience. My posts will quite likely be rather brief, but for a full critique of the full length version of the book, go here

Chapter One:

Chapter one of the book is essentially a foreword. Strobel talks about how he used to be an atheist, before explaining how his search for answers about science and God (specifically creation) came about after his wife converted to Christianity. At the end of the chapter, he describes the 3 questions he wishes to answer:

• Are science and religion incompatible?
• Does current science point towards or away from the existence of a creator?
• Does evolution still work, given our current understanding of the worl?

So stay tuned, readers, for what I am sure will be a most intriguing look into the case for a creator. ;)

P.S. I've just remembered that while the full edition of The Case for a Creator was written by Lee Strobel, he had help from Jane Vogel for the Student Edition.

Up - Movie Review

The problem:

You want to take your kids or younger relatives to a movie. But almost everything around these days is full of fart jokes and potty humour.

The solution:

Up is the latest offering from Pixar Animation Studios. It tells the story of Carl Fredricksen, who dreams of adventure as a boy. However, time passes, things change, and his ambitions are never realised. When faced with being forced into a retirement home, he attaches multiple helium filled balloons to his house and sets off for South America. Along the way he gathers such followers as Russel, an eager wilderness explorer, Kevin, an eccentric bird and Doug, a dog with a collar that enables him to talk.

Visually the film is quite impressive, although CG is getting so good that this is rarely not the case. The art style is amusing and will certainly appeal to small children. The film is cleverly written as well; "Oh yes, yes, I do ever so want the ball!" pants Doug when offered a tennis ball. The humor will amuse both young and old, and, as I hinted above, there is no crude or lewd potty humor to be had. This was a really pleasant surprise and made me respect the movie a whole lot more.

All in all, Up is a great laugh, aimed at the smaller kids but with intelligent enough humor to appeal to teenagers and adults. 3/5 stars from me.

Review - The Crucible

Hello again everybody, long time no post.

Earlier tonight I had the pleasure of seeing Year 11 Drama perform The Crucible, a play written by Arthur Miller in 1953. While I did plan to review it, I've spent a decent amount of time trying to put something together with no success. (Note to self: Read some reviews of plays to learn the lingo and what not)

So, I'll just belt out some observations and thoughts like this:

• They all acted really well.
• Kristy, Bronwyn and Sharan were seriously eerie (and really, really cool) as the (allegedly) possessed girls.
• Brent was really good as John Procter.
• It was occasionally hard to understand what was being said, but this was mainly because a bunch of people were sometimes talking at once, and the acoustics in the gym aren't too crash hot.
• This made me really glad I put down Drama as an elective for Yrs 9 and 10, and made me hope to the FSM I get into it as well as IST.
• The lighting was good.
• The way the dancing girls at the start were shown in a nightclub called "The Woods" (instead of being set in a bunch of actual woods) was really good, and worked well. It was also quite well shot, as you never saw the actor's faces. This made it creepy, and set the tone well.
  
• Jesse's Francis Nurse developed quite a strong Australian accent at one point.

All in all, it was a thoroughly enjoyable experience, and everyone was excellent. The only bone I could possibly pick was the understanding what was being said, but this issue rarely came up, and I can't think of any way to improve it, nor could I do any better.

4/5 stars from me.