Disproving the media's blatant lies about Israel and Palestine

      With Israel continuing its slaughter of Palestinian civilians, (with the occasional Hamas fighter here and there), the war between the pro-Palestine and pro-Israel supporters in the media and on social media is also getting extremely nasty. Any hope for a rational, logical discussion on this issue is soon thrown out the window in any confrontation because one side calls for the death of the entire other side, or calls each other terrorists, or completely rewrites history to blot out deeds done by the side they support, etc, etc, and all the other usual political bullshit. People no longer wish for the truth, but for the information that makes their side look right and the other side wrong. Who cares about reality when you have a political agenda at hand?!
      What will happen in this post is that I will lay out the bullshit claims, one by one, and clearly explain why each claim is wrong, using logic and facts.

       1. Israel was forced to launch this invasion in self-defense.
       Reality: Israel started this current flare up in hostilities by breaking the 2012 ceasefire in three ways: One: Restricting the fishing waters of Gaza to three nautical miles when they had agreed to put it at six nautical miles. http://mondoweiss.net/2012/12/israel-violates-ceasefire-attacks-gaza-fishermen-who-is-holding-israel-accountable.html
       (This is all the while international standards put it at 12 miles and in the Oslo Accords, Israel agreed to put it at 20 nautical miles, so that's another Accord Israel broke). Two: By lying, saying Hamas murdered three Israeli teenagers in the West Bank, while providing no proof that Hamas did so. When asked for proof, Israel said the information was a "matter of national security," and therefore, could not be released. This is while Israeli authorities knew the teenagers were already dead, but they didn't say so, prevented the media from reporting so, so they could whip up public hatred of Hamas. http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/7/israel-hamas-palestiniansconflictunitedstatesinternationallaw.html
     Also, this is while Hamas has denied killing the teenagers, and a Egyptian group has claimed responsibility. http://www.vocativ.com/world/israel-world/egyptian-group-claims-killed-3-israeli-teens/?utm_campaign=June1&utm_medium=cpc&utm_source=outbrain
     Notice how mainstream media sources are reporting none of these three actions committed by Israel, nor have they reported about the Egyptian group claiming responsibility for the murders. Why? Because that would show Israel is responsible for instigating this latest round of violence, and that Hamas is innocent of killing the three teenagers.
      I get hate messages all the time simply for writing what I wrote above. Apparently, I am a "anti-Semite, a Jew hater, (even though some of my family is Jewish), and radical Islamist terrorist, (even though I'm not Muslim)," simply for reporting what has been documented by American, Israeli, Palestinian, U.N., and other international organizations. A great case of shoot the messenger, not the message. They are trying to frame the discussion to be that any criticism of any Israeli action is not actual criticism of that action, but because that critic hates Jews. Suddenly, in the world of pro-Israelis, Israel can literally do no wrong, because any criticism of it is automatically and without question anti-Semitism.

      2. Hamas uses human shields, and therefore, they are to blame for each and every Palestinian civilian death.
     Reality: There is no evidence that Hamas uses human shields. This was not said by a radical Islamist organization, but a liberal, mainstream U.S. media outlet, the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/24/world/middleeast/israel-says-hamas-is-using-civilians-as-shields-in-gaza.html?_r=0 But according to the pro-Israelis, the New York Times did not report this because this is what their reporters found out, they published it because they are radical Jew haters.
     All I'm saying, is that if Hamas uses human shields, which they must do pretty often because Israel is killing an average of 40 Palestinian civilians a day, then show me the evidence. Where's the evidence? Back up your claim. Show me the facts. Because the only fact I have is that "There is no evidence that Hamas and other militants force civilians to stay in areas that are under attack — the legal definition of a human shield under international law." (from NYT article).
      On the contrary, the only side that I've seen documented using human shields...is Israel. That's right, the very side that is constantly lying saying that Hamas is using human shields, is actually the side that is fucking using human shields. http://mondoweiss.net/2014/07/survivors-massacre-palestinians.html
     Quote from Palestinian survivor Ayman Abu Toaimah “As Israeli invading troops advanced to the village they besieged it and used residents as human shields. When the Israeli army arrested people and then released some of them, they were told they are free to go back to the village, but as they were fleeing they came under fire and some of them shot dead. These people were used as human shields.”
      How fucking fucked up is that?! Doesn't that make your blood FUCKING BOIL?! This isn't the only time Israeli forces have done this, this is only the most recent time they have done so, hence, why I choose that particular source. There are countless other instances of Israel doing so, you only have to type "Israel using human shields" in a Google search, and you will get all the examples you could possibly want.

     3. Fighting in civilians areas is the same as using human shields.
     Reality: Guerrilla groups, like Hamas, by nature, HAVE to fight in civilian areas. They have no other choice because they do not have the funds nor the infrastructure to have a conventional country's military like the U.S. and Israel do. By saying that fighting in civilian areas is using human shields and/or terrorism, you are taking away the poor peoples' of the world right to self-defense, because that is the only way that they can fight. If Hamas had the money and the territory to have military bases totally separate from civilian areas, then they would do it. But they don't. 1.7 million people are squished in a 26x6 piece of coastline. There is no room for that.
     Throughout history, guerrilla groups have fought in civilian areas, because if they were to meet their state enemy on the open battlefield, then they would be annihilated in two seconds because they don't have jet fighters, artillery, tanks, APCS, the likes. So they are doing the logical, rational thing. The Republican rebels during the Spanish Civil War, the French under Nazi occupation, the Syrian rebels in the Syrian Civil War, the Finnish during the Russian invasion during WW2, the Viet Cong during the Vietnam War, and the American Patriots during the American Revolutionary War all fought using civilian disguises because that was the only way they could fight their enemies. They operated in the shadows of towns, in the underground of cities, in the fields of farmland, etc, etc, because that was the only way they could fight.
      Were they terrorists for doing so? Of course not, you wouldn't call George Washington a terrorist, but at the time, the British certainly did. Were they using human shields? Of course not, you would never say George Washington did that, but at the time, a British officer said something that pro-Israelis say all the time about Hamas: "The Americans are the most absolute cowards on the face of the Earth," "The Americans do not fight us like a regular army, only like savages behind trees and stone walls, out of the woods and fields," "The Americans never engage us properly," "We are enraged at the suffering from an unseen enemy," (Invisible Armies by Max Boot, page 66).

     4. Hamas doesn't get to enjoy the right to self-defense.  
     Reality: Every people, regardless of race or creed, has the right to self-defense. There's no negotiations on this right. I've already explained in a previous post why it is logical and rational to use force to defend yourself when you are physically being attacked, and that if you believe that a certain group doesn't have the right to self-defense, then you are condemning that entire group to death, solely for belonging to that group: http://noholdsonfreedom.blogspot.com/2014/07/every-person-has-right-to-life-and-self.html But the U.S. government does not believe that the Palestinians have the right to self defense, in fact, they call the idea "offensive": http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2014/07/229550.htm      
     Critics of this idea will say "Oh, because Hamas is a terrorist organization, they don't get the right to self-defense." There are two things wrong with that statement. One: If you believe that, then you must believe it for every other terrorist organization. You have to apply the rule fairly to everyone, otherwise, there is the double standard in your logic. Using this logic, then the American military and the IDF do not enjoy the right to self-defense, because they are, by all standards, terrorists. Well, of course pro-Americans and pro-Israelis do not want their own logic applied to themselves the same way they apply it to the Palestinians! Oh no! They certainly couldn't have that! The problem is, anyone can call anyone a terrorist. So that's no criteria for having the right to self-defense.
     Two: Just because someone is a terrorist doesn't mean that suddenly they're not human, and therefore, do not enjoy all the human rights that each and every person is born with. I know everyone likes to dehumanize their enemy, but of course, that is an application of a double standard. The truth is, a person can be a terrorist in the morning, and then in the afternoon, run a soup kitchen for the homeless, and then in the evening, go back to his loving family and be a good father, and then at night, go back on another terrorist raid. Enemies are people, and people have human rights, simple as that. If we used the dehumanized logic, then all someone would have to do is to call a certain group a terrorist organization, and then proceed to slaughter them all. If anyone tried to stop them, the person could say "Oh they're terrorists, so it's okay for me to kill them all." This dehumanization tactic was used in the Holocaust, in Rwanda, in Syria today, etc, etc, and is not something that I want my country to use.

      5. Israel only targets Hamas soldiers and Hamas targets Israeli civilians.
     Reality: Let's look at actions, not statements, because anyone can say they do anything. Judge a person by their actions, and not their words. That way, we can tell who is lying in this case.
     Israel has killed around 1,200 Palestinians at the time of this writing. 80% of those are civilians http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/10967279/UN-80-per-cent-of-Palestinians-killed-in-Israeli-offensive-are-civilians.html
    So, that is:
    Israel has killed 960 civilians and 240 fighters.
    Hamas has killed 3 civilians and 53 Israeli soldiers.
    Those are the numbers, plain and simple. You be the judge as who is to targeting combatants and who is targeting civilians. 

      6. Israel isn't occupying Gaza anymore.
      Reality: If a team of thugs step one inch from your property, guns pointed at your house, and prevent you and your family from leaving, no, they're not on your property, but they're still occupying your house. http://www.jadaliyya.com/pages/index/8807/is-gaza-still-occupied-and-why-does-it-matter. The same goes for the Israeli occupation of Gaza. Israel controls all movement around the Strip. Israel prevents building materials for homes and hospitals. Israel prevents potato chips and chocolate from entering the Strip on security conditions, can't have the terrorist children having a snack! Israel prevents fuel, medicine, and food from entering the Strip. Israel shoots anyone who gets "too near" to their "security fence."
      Sounds like occupation to me.  

     7. Hamas's tunnels are only used for terrorism against Jewish civilians.
     Reality: First of all, we've already debunked the first part of this statement in #5. Hamas targets Israeli soldiers, not Israeli civilians. Look at this video: Hamas dug a tunnel specifically to attack an Israeli army outpost. Not a Jewish neighborhood, not a synagogue. AN ARMY OUTPOST:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NAhozItSq0
     Second of all, the tunnels have a lot of other practical, rational, logical uses due to the Israeli blockade. They bring in goods banned by Israel. They provide jobs for Palestinians in Gaza, which they desperately need, as the unemployment is around 50% http://www.npr.org/blogs/parallels/2014/07/26/335332220/the-long-history-of-the-gaza-tunnels. They allow for Palestinians to actually enter and leave Gaza, since it is next to impossible for them to complete all the requirements needed to leave. And yes, Hamas uses them for sneak attacks. ON ISRAELI SOLDIERS. A guerrilla group has to be adaptive. Hamas changes its tactics. There's nothing wrong with that. It is rational and logical to use tunnels for sneak attacks because Israel hasn't adapted to counter them yet. They're a good way to fight.

     There you have it. All bullshit arguments, laid out one by one, and each one logically picked apart. I have these opinions, not because I hate Jews, not because I'm an Islamic terrorists, but because my opinion is the result I have reached through the analysis of all of the facts.
     
     

Every person has the right to life and self-defense

     It's really sad that I have to write this post in the 21st century. You think that mankind would evolve and figure out that just because a person belongs to a certain ethnic group/ religious group, that doesn't mean that they, automatically and without question, deserve to die. But no, that would be asking WAY too much for humanity.
     The logic is really quite simple. If a person doesn't have the right to self-defense, then that invites anyone to just go up and kill them, and they can't fight back at all. They just have to sit there and take it, and die in the process. Even the Nazis had the right to self-defense. If the American soldiers are attacking them, I'm not going to cry and call the Nazis terrorists when they start fighting back, (they're terrorists for other reasons). Because fighting back is a natural and logical response, it is psychologically engraved in animals and in us as well. Just because a person is your enemy, does not mean they are not human, and therefore, should not enjoy human rights.  
     These are the reasons why every person, regardless of race or religion, (or any other group identity for that matter), have the right to life.
     1. A person is not responsible for the actions done by other people of his/her same religion or ethnicity. Every day, dozens of white people murder innocents in America and Europe, steal from people, kill people in car crashes, commit vandalism, rape people, etc, etc. Just pick up any local newspaper and you'll see examples. Now, imagine how absurd it would be if all the minorities in America and Europe demanded that all white people apologize every single time a white person did any of those things. That's right, you'd be thinking "Hey, I didn't do this crime xyz, why should I apologize for it?"
      You can substitute white people for any other ethnicity and the scenario would be the same. People dehumanize groups they hate, thinking they are all one monotonous group. But of course, they never apply the same logic to the groups they are apart of. A person is only responsible for the actions done by himself/herself, AND THAT'S FUCKING IT. In the Central African Republic, for example, when a group of radical Christians kill Muslim civilians on purpose, it is not "getting back at them" if Muslims go and kill random Christians in a retaliatory attack. Why? Because those aren't the Christians who killed the civilians. DUH!! All the Muslims have done is the exact same thing back to the Christians. They've both committed terrorism now.
     2. If a human being has committed no crime, then they shouldn't be put to death. Again, common sense, which is never common these days. Simply existing is not a crime.
     3. Thinking that because some members of xyz commit a crime, therefore, all members of xyz should die is a double standard, because people never think that about their own race. See this example to illustrate it:
      Racist Jew: A Muslim killed a Jewish civilian today, so all Muslims should die!
      Me (showing the fallacy): A Jew killed a Muslim civilian today, so all Jews should die!
      Racist Jew: What?! You can't take the crimes of one person and apply it to all Jews! I didn't do anything wrong! I shouldn't die!
      See what I mean? They never apply the same logic to the groups they hate and their own group. If they did, then they would think that literally everyone on the Earth should die, because all religions and races have had their share of people who have murdered innocent people throughout history.
      4. All religions and races are equal. Again, so sad that I have still have to write this. For every Asian terrorists I can find a South American terrorist to match, and vice versa. Substitute for any other religion or ethnic group and the statement is still the same. Besides, I'm sure there are more terrorists in one religion than another, for example, more Muslims than Jews, because there are 1.5 billion Muslims and only 15 million Jews. So even if percentage wise they're same, numerically, there will be more Muslim terrorists than Jewish terrorist. Does that mean Islam supports terrorism and Judaism doesn't? Of course not. Since when it is a rule than if your religion has more terrorists than my religion, then that means your religion supports terrorism and mine doesn't?
      Let's just say, for argument's sake, there are 40 million Islamic terrorists, and 34 million Christian terrorists in the world. What moral high ground can Christians have on Muslims? "Ha, you have 40 million terrorists and I only have 34 million! So that means you support terrorism and I don't!" Yeah, it makes no sense.
      5. Self-defense is logical. If you're a Palestinian, just walking through Gaza, minding your own business, and then, your house gets bombed by Israeli warplanes when there are no missiles or militants nearby, killing your family. What is your natural, logical reaction? You go join the group that is fighting Israel. Does that make you a terrorist? No, but unfortunately the only group fighting Israel is a terrorist organization, so technically, yes, you are now in a terrorist organization, and Israel has the right to kill you. But you haven't launched any rockets at civilians. You want to fight Israeli soldiers that killed your family.
     See how real life is more complicated than children stories of "good guys vs evil guys"?

     6. People have the right to self-defense in the best way that they can. If America is attacked, they attack with jet fighters, artillery, marines, etc. If you are attacked in your home by criminals, you attack with a gun. Is your actions automatically terrorism because you aren't a official state military using big expensive equipment? Of course not. But some people act like that's how it is. For example, they think the Free Syrian Army is a terrorist organization because it uses guerrilla warfare, with AK-47's and car bombs, against the Assad dictatorship. But they don't think Assad is, even though he is using jet fighters and artillery against civilians. Why don't they think Assad is a terrorist? Because he is a government, using machines to fight, so therefore, he couldn't possibly be a terrorist. 
      You store your gun in your home, because, that's the legal and rational thing to do, because it is on your property. But if you were a Palestinian in Gaza, Israel would drone strike your house, saying that you're using human shields because you're hiding arms in a civilian building. See how easy it is to twist things to make a normal action look like a terrorist action?  If your best weapon are homemade rockets, then that's what you have to use. If Hamas had jet fighters and cruise ships and artillery, believe me, they'd much rather use those then homemade rockets than cannot be aimed very well. But saying that all methods of warfare except expensive state of the art warfare that only rich countries can afford is "terrorism" is taking away the poor men of the world's fight to self-defense. You'd be condemning millions of people to death just because they can't afford laser guided missiles that your government can conveniently afford.
      In conclusion, this is a quick summary of my post, using again, an example:

• Israel has the right to fight against Palestinian militants, because they are both combatants who are at war with one another. 
• Israel DOES NOT have the right to kill Palestinian civilians, just because they are living in Gaza, or are Arab, or are Muslim etc. There is no excuse. Terrorism is terrorism, no what who the perpetrator.
• Palestine has the right to fight against Israeli military forces, because they are both combatants who are war with one another.    
• Palestine DOES NOT have the right to kill Israeli civilians, just because they are living in Israel, or are Jewish, etc. There is no excuse. Terrorism is terrorism, no what who the perpetrator.

5 older video games that were better than their predecessors

     One thing that I really don't like about the vast majority of video gamers is that they are band-wagoners. They only play the most recent games, because they see that as the cool thing to do. They say they like games x, y, and z, only because they are recent games, even though, when compared to older games, these games are complete and utter shit. They never play older games, (pre-2005 or so), and utterly deny that they ever liked those games, even when, at the time these games came out, they said they loved them, because, at the time, they were the recent games.
     This annoys me because the video game industry has steeply dropped in the quality of video games it is producing the last decade or so compared to the decade before last. I mostly play old video games, and every two years or so I'll find a good new video game that I really like, (like Assassin's Creed 3 and Dead Island), but for 99% of the time, recent video games are not nearly as good as they used to. I have no problem looking up old video games that I didn't play back when they were new, and finding a couple that look interesting, and ordering them off the internet to play them now. I did this with Heroes of Might and Magic 3 and the Legacy of Kain series, and they were great games to play even though they were more than a decade or so old. That's a very rare thing to do, because most gamers have the mindset "If it's old, it automatically sucks."
      Another thing that I like to look for in video games is one that is better than the previous one in the series. This is rare not only in video games, but in other media like movies as well. It's hard to top the original because you have to walk a fine line. If you make it too much like the original, then people will say "Oh, this is too much like the first one, it adds nothing new to it, the developers couldn't think of anything else...etc." However, if you make it too different than the first, then people will complain "Oh you took out my favorite things about the game, you changed it too much, it's not even the same game....etc."
      So here is a countdown of the 5 best older games that were better than their predecessors:

5. Hexen>Heretic

    

     Heretic: 5/10

     Hexen: 6/10

Synopsis of Heretic: An powerful evil sorcerer and his army has taken over your lands and corrupted them. You must fight through damned cities and demonic strongholds to get to the sorcerer and defeat him to save your world. 

Synopsis of Hexen: Another evil being, the older brother of the sorcerer you defeat in Heretic, has invaded a totally different world with his army. You must choose one of three characters to play as to basically do the same as in Heretic: go through a lot of creepy places, fight monsters, solve puzzles, and defeat the head honcho. 

     What Hexen did better than Heretic:

• Changed the atmosphere. Heretic is a frantic, action paced first person shooter, with a lot of enemies and minimal puzzle solving. While this is cool, Hexen changes it up a bit by making it a creepy, gritty first person shooter with less enemies that are tougher to beat, and with very elaborate and complicated puzzles to solve. Heretic's music is standard MIDI old school music. Hexen's is still MIDI but it gives the game a sense of horror and scariness that is not present in Heretic. Hexen can legitimately be a scary game at times, especially for younger kids.  
• Changed the level progression. Heretic is a linear game: you beat one level to go to the next in order, and you never back-track. Hexen is a hub based game where you have a home base level, and from there, you branch out to other levels to solve the main hub level puzzle. You have to go back and forth many times to proceed to the next hub. This makes it a harder game to beat, and therefore, a more satisfying game to beat. It also adds a level of sophistication that is not present in Heretic.  
• Added a limited RPG element to it. In Heretic, you only play as one person, and therefore, only have one set of weapons. In Hexen, you can choose one of three players: a fighter, a cleric, or a mage. Each has their own playing style and set of weapons tailored to that fighting style. This allows a more customized play for the player.
• More varied locales. In Heretic you pretty much play in dungeons/necromancer/demon sort of plays. None of the places really stand out. In Hexen you fight in fortresses, badlands, swamps, etc. They are more varied and therefore are more memorable.   

      Both of these great games are on Steam for like super cheap like $5 or so, so download them and give them a go!

4. Heroes of Might and Magic 2>Heroes of Might and Magic 1

     Heroes of Might and Magic 1: 4/10

     Heroes of Might and Magic 2: 7/10

Synopsis of Heroes of Might and Magic 1, (HoMM): It's a medieval fantasy strategy game where you can pick one of four factions: a Knight, Sorceress, Barbarian, or Warlock. You get a castle and get soldiers/magical monsters and then proceed to conquer the map in turn based combat. 

Synopsis of Heroes of Might and Magic 2, (HoMM): Not much has changed. You're still in the same world as the first one, and the premise is still the same. Two new factions have arrived, the Wizard and the Necromancer, to make 6 in total. 

      What HoMM 2 did better than HoMM 1:

• Way better music. HoMM 1's soundtrack was bland/uninspiring MIDI music, except for a few good tracks. HoMM 2's soundtrack is an utter masterpiece that is better than 99% of movie's scores and other New Age music. 17 years after it came out and I still enjoy listening to the music as much as I did when I first got the game. Hands down one of the best video game soundtracks I have ever listened to. The music definitely draws the player into a fantasy world. It's hard to pick my favorite track but here's just one of my favorites: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRHor2L_NQE 
• Better artwork. HoMM is very cartoony/kiddy when it comes to the animation of the background and monsters. It's okay, but HoMM 2 makes it awesome. Visually it is still a very aesthetically pleasing game to look at even given the limited graphics the producers were working with in 1997. 
• The addition of some features such as a marketplace makes game play much  more easier and realistic. The two additional factions make it a funner game to play, as it gives the player more options to suit their fighting style. The addition of new terrains such as the beach and the badlands make for more varied maps. More spells is good. Basically more everything is good. 

      Both of these games are available on gog.com, again, for very cheap. Definitely worth the small pocket change, as these games can immerse you for hours on end.      

3. Jak 2>Jak and Daxter: The Precursor Legacy 

      Jak and Daxter: 4/10

      Jak 2: 8/10

Synopsis of Jak and Daxter: 2 evil sorcerers, Gol and Maia, are planning to destroy the world etc the usual bad guy stuff. Also, your best childhood friend, Daxter, gets turned into an Ottsel, (a orange rodent), and you have to figure out how to change him back, as Gol is the only person in the world who knows how to do so. The game is a platforming/hub based collection game that is similar to the Spyro series. You run around locales, gathering precursor orbs, (money), fighting monsters, and solving puzzles. 

Synopsis of Jak 2: Gol and Maia are defeated, Daxter remains an Ottsel. Jak and the gang get teleported into the future, where their tropical home is now the center of a huge, sprawling distopian city called Haven City. A tyrant called the Baron rules with an iron fist from within, and monsters called Metal Heads are beating down the city walls from the wastelands. Jak has to figure out how to survive in this new, much more dangerous world and try to find a way back home. This game is more like Grand Theft Auto, with an almost open world environment that you navigate freely while completing quests from many different locales.  

     What Jak 2 did better than Jak and Daxter:

• Combat is much more fun. In Jak and Daxter, you fight with just your hands and feet, and the occasional Eco boost. It's very limited, as the game focuses on puzzles and exploration more. In Jak 2, combat is a much more bigger presence in the levels. Not only can you have hand to hand combat, but Jak gets guns, he can fly vehicles, man gun turrets, etc, all the cool action stuff. It adds of this combat action while still having puzzles and exploration being important too. Oh, and you can turn into a killer mutant and proceed to fuck up monsters and soldiers with your claws and blowing the shit up with your...mutant powers, I guess. Whatever, it's cool!  
• Story-line is much more cooler. Jak and Daxter has a limited story-line with very few video clips. It really isn't central to the game. The story-line, while present, is kinda lame compared to its sequel. Who hasn't seen the "bad guy going to destroy the world" story-line before? Jak 2 has a ton of movie clips, one for each mission basically. It does a lot to bring the player into the world. Characters actually have character development. There are many plots going on at the same time. Jak, who is a mute in the first game, is a genuine bad-ass in Jak 2. You like Jak, you want Jak to win, you want to be Jak. Jak joins a group of underground insurgents and then proceeds to fuck up the entire Krimzon Guard, (the Baron's army) practically single handedly. 
• Environment is cooler. Jak and Daxter takes place mostly in rural zones with minimal population and no authority whatsoever. Interactions are limited because the environment is limited. In Jak 2, you have the Krimzon Guard constantly on patrol. If you attack one, the whole city will come down on you until you hide for a while or you die. It gives you the sense that you are being hunted. And the Krimzon Guard are tough; you cannot last against them for long. It is actually realistic, as insurgents can rarely hold their own for long against occupying forces.  

Both games are for the PS2 and are abundant online. Obviously they work with backwards compatible PS3s as well.

2. Oblivion>Morrowind 

 

      Morrowind: 2/10

      Oblivion: 8/10 

Synopsis of Morrowind: Imperial forces rule the Dark Elf, (Dunmer) province of Morrowind. The central plot revolves around the reincarnation of the Dunmer hero, Indoril Nerevar. The incarnate of Nerevar, referred to as "The Nerevarine", has been prophesied to oppose and defeat the rise of the malevolent deity Dagoth Ur and the remnants of his followers. These followers are encompassed in a forbidden faction named "The Sixth House", and are mainly located within the volcanic region of Red Mountain in the center of Vvardenfell, the island on which the game takes place.

Synopsis of Oblivion: Some years after Morrowind, we're not sure exactly how much, fanatical zealots of an obscure demon worshiping cult murder the emperor of Tamriel, plunging the empire into chaos. To make matters worse, this somehow broke the planar barriers separating Tamriel and the demonic plane of Oblivion, where the demons, (daedra), are. So now we have a demonic invasion led by a demi-god on our hands. 

     What Oblivion did better than Morrowind:

• Fixed fundamental flaws that made Morrowind unplayable. I have no idea how Morrowind sold so many copies, got so many good reviews, etc, because that game is a train-wreck from start to finish. I can't play it. First off, you can't block. At all. What kind of first person RPG game that focuses on melee combat doesn't let you block?! And since no character is fast enough to dodge anything, combat becomes a taking turns style of trading blows. Boring, and that means even the weakest of enemies will hit you once, maybe twice. That wouldn't be so bad if you had healing potions. But there aren't any in the game. At all. I searched for hours, I found no potions in loot. I stopped by shops, no one had any. What the fuck was wrong with Bethesda Studios when they made this game?! I had to sleep after every other battle to recover my health. Then, after playing the game for 9 hours, I had still not leveled up at all. Not once. I used many skills but I never got a level up. What's the point of making an RPG game if you can't level up after 9 hours of gameplay?! Lastly, there is no organization of your quests, making following them impossible. 
• Oblivion fixed all of this. You can block, thank God. Health potions are abundant in loot and in stores. You level up regularly, and the game clearly explains to you how to level up. And your quests are organized in a book and they have markers showing you where to go and things like that. What a relief.     
• Music is better. Morrowind's soundtrack is one of the only good features about this game. But Oblivion even tops that soundtrack. Like HoMM2, it is a classical/New Age music masterpiece. Again, I don't have a favorite, but here's a really good one:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24Q-7dJU0ys. Not only that, but it's dungeon tracks are downright scary and really set a good atmosphere: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hS1gjFh36GI  
• Combat is more fluid, you can actually learn spells!!! (Learning spells in Morrowind is near impossible, as they never tell you how to). Animation is better. 
• Environment is better. Not just the graphics, but just how they made the world. The forests are beautiful, Oblivion is really what I picture Hell to look like. The Shivering Isles are awesome!

 

 

 

Both games are for the PC. Oblivion works for Windows 7, and is also on the X-box 360, but I recommend the PC version because you can mod the shit outta it. 

1.Serious Sam The Second Encounter>Serious Sam The Second Encounter

 

 

Serious Sam The First Encounter (TFE): 6/10

Serious Sam The Second Encounter (TSE): 10/10

Synopsis of TFE: In the 22nd century, humans have spread out to numerous planets, creating a sort of empire. Suddenly, an evil alien named Mental, (pun intended apparently), and his insanely big army of a conglomerate of aliens invade, and push us back to Earth. In a desperate bid to save mankind, humans can only send 1 person back in time, in the hopes that he will defeat Mental in the past to avoid humanity's destruction in the 22nd century. Kind of like a Terminator sort of plot. The man they send back is a one man army/unstoppable killing machine that makes Chuck Norris and Rambo look like pussies. His name is Serious Sam. 

Synopsis of TSE: Serious Sam continues his rampage across the ancient world, after slaughtering every alien in Ancient Egypt. His journey takes him to South America, Babylon, and Europe, in which he slaughters even more aliens, as if that even seemed possible. 

      What TSE did better than TFE:

• Bigger battles. This is the number #1 reason why TSE is better than TFE. The sheer insanity of the battles you fight in this game dwarf any other first person shooter. It is an adrenaline rush that just never stops. Here's just a short video which illustrates the action this game has: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HdT-Ci1GbA. As you can see, a 4 minute ride of non-stop carnage. 
• More varied locations. TFE is only set in Egypt. While the locales are cool and graphics are awesome even for a 13 year old game, TSE takes it up a notch. You go through the jungles of the Aztec Empire to Babylon under the Persian Empire to villages and castles in medieval Europe. It's more visually pleasing than just seeing deserts and Egyptian temples for an entire game. 
• More weapons and enemies. Need I say more?
• Better music. As you can tell, music is a huge factor in how I judge games. TFE had some great music, no doubt, but TSE manages to even top it. It has great ambient music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUJD1Ho2wj8 and great heavy metal fighting music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swotKhlIlZA&noredirect=1 

     Both these games are on Steam for really cheap!!
     In conclusion, it's a shame that many American gamers do not know about the Serious Sam series. They only pay attention to American games or mainstream games, and that's it. Serious Sam was made by Croteam, which is from Croatia. If only bandwagoning gamers knew what they were missing, as Serious Sam TSE is my favorite first person shooter game of all time. It makes Call of Duty looks like child's play.
     All I'm saying is to expand your restrictions. So what if a game is old or foreign? So what if its not popular? That doesn't mean it isn't good. Look at its gameplay on Youtube and see if it interests you. You might wanna rent it. Who knows, you might like it. And won't you be glad you tried something off the beaten path this time?