The Shepherd transcends upon all.
He tells the sheep that they are strong.
They beckon to His every call,
But they don’t know that He is wrong.

His unchecked words are lies.
They believe Him as if they were blind.
They just wait for the day they die
As He poisons their minds.

The Shepherd makes his final call
And grabs His rope and gun.
One by one they slowly fall,
As their faith burns in the sun.

The shepherd’s sins of seven
Send the Sheep directly to heaven.

The violent storm shook the sea,

And destroyed every ship in its path;

No storm passed through says he,

But the captain sees and hears all.

There he floats on the surface of the sand.

You can’t see him, but look again;

He’s there! Do you see his arid hand?

The lies have blinded your eyes.

Here he drowned and was left to die.

You can’t hear him, but be quiet;

Listen! Do you hear his shrill cry?

The lies have deafened your ears.

The golden waves of dust float through the air,

Sending a haunting message to the world;

Only survivors can stop and stare,

While the rest of the world faces the blue sea.

Hyppo! Hyppo! Lying lies

In a city hypnotized,

What immoral mortal

Would dare deceive thee?

What deprived desert’s faction

Did cause thou so much detraction?

Was their motivation from rage?
Did they put you in your cage?

Was it corruption and conceit

That put the chains on your feet?

On what prophets can you lean?

What King? & what Queen?

What torch? What fires?

Hades longs for liars.

Why the lies? Why the guilt,

And the suffering that you built?

When the truth was spoken out

And your dependability was in doubt:

Did they smile their work to see?

Did they who made the Tyger make thee?

Hyppo! Hyppo! Lying lies

In a city hypnotized,

What immoral mortals

Dared deceive thee?

What is love? By Haddaway: http://youtube.com/watch?v=nsCXZczTQXo

The question in the title of this post is one of immediate importance. I’ll try to confront and answer the question as a scientist would, but without doing any research or experimentation. To that degree, I suppose I’m not confronting the question like a scientist at all then. However, I will be using fancy words with a lot of style, but arguably with no substance…like a politician (ZING). I hope you find my analysis worthwhile, enlightening, and above all, entertaining.

Professionals, scientists, and scholars have devoted a majority of their time and resources in order to answer a wide array of questions like: is there a God? Did Shakespeare write all of his play by himself? And why did President Bush get elected twice? Unfortunately, outside of mere speculation and theory, these questions, and similar others, are void of any concrete and valid answers. However, the most immediate and elusive question that the human race, especially artists, have pondered for centuries is that of love.

Artists attempt to answer the world’s most elusive questions aesthetically, rather than scientifically, through art, music, film, writing, etc. The question at hand has particularly been a long-lasting and defining theme of the music industry. In a medium that uses the word “baby” and “love” about as many times President Bush has been cited as using the words “umm” and “aww,” music has captivated its audience with its emotionally charged lyrics and seductive melodies. It’s an industry that prides itself on its ability to be present even after the lights go out (thanks in large part to cheesy 80s jazz). With a countless number of songs about love, does music also answer the seemingly unanswerable?

One song, in particular, attempts to answer the question about love directly, if the title of the song is any indication. The song, “What is Love,” by Haddaway, begins with the all too appropriate question: “what is love?” As the listeners anticipate the answer that should follow shortly thereafter, Mr. Haddaway proceeds by singing, “Baby don’t hurt me, don’t hurt me, no more…” Then an upbeat and techno-inspired melody filler follows. An ingenious marketing ploy if I ever saw one. Stamp an unanswerable question on the front cover, lure the customer by misleading them into believing the CD has the key to the answer, and Mr. Haddaway buys himself a fifty million dollar house. We, on the other hand, are left in the same place we started, but fifteen dollars poorer.

It seems as though we humans are the only species on the planet that can’t directly answer the seemingly simple question, not even in our songs. Animals seem to have found their answer, as their limited capacity to think and reason outside of their genetic and biological instincts have rendered their understanding of love as mere sexual infatuation. For humans, the relationship has to be much more complex.

So what is love you may ask? There’s no easy answer, but I have written a short narrative (from a man’s point of view) that I hope is almost as orgasmic for you to read as it was for me to write:

Love is when a woman looks into your eyes with devoted hunger and yours look straight back. Love is when a woman grasps your shoulders firmly with bare hands as if to share the weight that you bear. Love is when a woman begins moving closer to you in a slow, seductive manner that transfers her body’s heat over to yours. Love is when a woman begins swaying her hands back and forth across your spine while massaging every tension in your body. Love is when a slow seductive melody engulfs both of your bodies with aural pleasure. Love is when the music stops and the lights turn on and the woman looks down, and says:

“what the heck is that?”

“That’s my penis,” you proudly boast.

Surprised, and appearing a bit disappointed she exclaims, “oh damn, I thought you were a woman.”

Caught off-guard, and embarrassed, you say: “oh shit, I guess the long hair does confuse some,”

While nodding her head, “Yeah. This is quite uncomfortable, isn’t it?”

You snap back, “Why yes, yes it is.”

With the look of disappointment evident in her face, she proceeds to sing: “What is love? Baby don’t hurt me, don’t hurt me, no more.” Her eyes begin drifting away from yours as tears fill her eyes.

Before you lose her from your grip, you make one last attempt to capture her heart, and sing: “You and me, baby ain’t, nothing but mammals, so let’s do it like they did it on the discovery channel.”

She smiles and agrees. Both of you live happily ever after.

Fin.

And that, ladies and gentleman, is exactly what love is all about. When a female is willing to convert her sexuality in order to satisfy a man’s every erotic and animalistic fantasy. Suffice to say, this situation could work both ways (that is, a man converting his sexuality from homosexual to heterosexual in order to satisfy a woman’s fantasy would still be love).

This is exactly why “My Best Friend’s Wedding” was such a satisfying movie. Julianne chases Michael for 95% of the movie in order to satiate her sexual thirst with Michael after Kimmy has already got his penis in her disposal. The movie ends unsatisfactorily when Julia finally loses her prey to Kimmy and Michael enjoys a nice car ride with Kimmy in a “just married” limousine, both excited about what is to come in the hotel room. Julianne, on the other hand, is left behind at the wedding party as the limousine leaves behind nothing but a gust of smoke from its exhaust pipe.

But wait! There’s George (the dashingly handsome Gay single in the movie) to save the day. The buildup is genius. George calls her on her cell phone. Julianne tells him how she has moved on and has let Michael go in a melancholy tone. George tells her that he is proud of her, but wants her to cheer up and enjoy the party. But with the thoughts of Kimmy giving Michael a hand job in the Limo, how could she? George then comments on Julianne’s velvet dress, hinting his own presence at the party. Julianne transforms from a tiger that loses its prey to a lion, to a mouse sniffing through a maze in order to find some new cheese. And then, when the “crowds part”, and a familiar song begins to play, there he is, her beacon of light, her avenue of hope, her sex machine.

Unfortunately for her, George crushes her sexual prospects when he tells Julianne, “Maybe there won’t be a wedding, maybe there’s won’t be sex, but by God, there will be dancing.” Something amazing happens in this scene. Julianne’s reaction is surprisingly positive. No sex? Just…dancing? Where’s the pleasure in that? But you know what? I had a revelation. Maybe love isn’t about sex, after all. And maybe love has nothing to do about converting your sexuality in order to satisfy a member from the opposite sex. If that’s the case, why the fuck did I write this post?

Watch the scene for yourself: http://youtube.com/watch?v=VPGmqA4_-WM&feature=related

“How can something have meaning and no purpose? The term soul is practical indeed in that it defines the eternal part of man.”

Let us make a distinction between ”practical purpose” and “meaningful purpose.” Remember that I defined “practicality” as a concept or object that aids human beings by achieving something productive. Thus, the concept of “practical purpose” characterizes objects like doors, chairs, telephones, hearts, or anything that has a physical and concrete application to the world that can aid human beings productively (”pass me that chair,” “go through that door to find him,” “tell her to get off that telephone,” “the heart is bleeding. Pass the scalpel quick!”).

Remember that I agreed with you that the soul does have “meaning” within a system of belief. In fact, no legitimate word, concept, or object is meaningless, and consequently, they all naturally have a purpose, a “meaningful purpose,” to be exact. A “meaningful purpose” can aid human beings by allowing them to communicate about a concept metaphysically (”What is a chair?” “What is a chair’s relationship with a door?” “What is a soul?” “What is a soul’s relationship with the body?” Thus, with that (hopefully) clear distinction, my argument may make more sense. Here’s what I said in my last post:

“The question [we should ask ourselves is] does [the soul] serve a “practical” purpose? You could argue that it “aids” humans by allowing them to communicate about the soul, and thus, it does serve a “practical” purpose, however that’s missing the point. The word telephone can “aid” us in communicating about telephones as well, but unlike the soul, a telephone is something that has a physical application to the world, which is why it’s “practical,” while a soul is not.”

Thus, the argument is that a telephone can have a “practical purpose” and a “meaningful purpose,” while a soul can only have a “meaningful purpose,” which is why I argue that the soul is pointless. Now the word pointless is a strong word, one that usually has a negative connotation, and so I should clarify the scope of that word within my argument. I don’t believe a soul is pointless because it has no meaning, but because it doesn’t aid human beings productively (i.e. it doesn’t have a “practical purpose”).

It is easy to step outside a system of belief and disregard its structure and content as pointless. I could do the same for science. What is the purpose of the term “evolution”? It’s just the name given to a contrived time line of possible, biological changes that attempts to explain the here and now.

Firstly, I just want to add that I am not advocating one system of belief over the other. Never did I, or would I, advocate evolution over religion, or vice versa. I have no self-interested agenda to impose my beliefs or persuade anyone to believe me. In fact, if there is anything I advocate, it’s that all humans are entitled to their own opinions and beliefs.

With that said, I agree with you completely. Evolution has no “practical purpose” either. Therefore, evolution, just like the soul, is pointless. I’d contend that evolution and religion are both excellent arguments that try to answer essentially the same kind of questions. The only difference is in their approach; one takes a more empirical approach, and the other a more abstract and interpretive approach.

I don’t believe that we invent ourselves and I don’t believe we invent our own consciousness. You are exaggerating Man’s ability to create which I do not agree with.

First of all, I never argued that we invent ourselves or that we invent our own consciousness. As for exaggerating man’s ability to create, I think you may be underestimating the power of man. We have done some amazing things in our history, from building pyramids, to writing the Bible (assuming that a man or woman did write it), to building the empire state building, to programming a chess program that beat Garry Kasparov. Sure, some may argue that everything we’ve done so far hasn’t been able to match God’s creation of man, but who knows? Perhaps one day we may if our track record of amazing feats is any indication.

There is always a level of uncertainty, which is why I contend that human beings may, one day, create artificial intelligence that emulates our own. Do I know when that day is? No. There’s not much I do know, and I’d be willing to bet that other human beings are in the same boat as I, despite the fact that they think they know.

Do I know that God created the world in seven days? No. Do I know that particles in space began rotating really fast and caused the Earth to form? No. Do I know that we originate from apes? No. Do I know that there is a soul? No. Do I know that there is such a thing as the unconscious? No. Do I know that I’m typing this argument now? Yes. Is there a cup of coffee on the table next to me? Yes.

We build complex and efficient tools, but the idea that simply because we have made a main-frame computer smaller means that we can create a machine with a notion of itself and its place in the universe is a far reach. Where are the flying cars, or floating platform cities in the clouds? “The Jetsons” were supposed to be a reality by now, and in a similar fashion true artificial intelligence is a function of the vast, human imagination.

I wasn’t making the point that our ability to create smaller main-frame computers was directly related to our ability to create intelligent artificial intelligence. I was simply arguing that humans have been able to achieve progress at an accelerated rate in such a short period of time. That’s the best evidence that I can come up with to back up my argument that aids my argument that we may one day be able to create artificial intelligence that has a notion of itself, as you said.

As for “The Jetsons” comment, I can relate with you there. I, too, was in my second grade classroom, young and naïve, willing to absorb anything Mrs. Harper spewed out of her mouth. I remember the statement “By 2000, we will have flying cars and blablbla.” So you can imagine my disappointment when 2000 rolled around and still no flying cars. But just because my second grade teacher was wrong doesn’t mean there won’t be flying cars eventually, just like eventually there will be truly intelligent artificial beings. But when? Some experts think it could be as soon as 2029.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7248875.stm 

^{According to the US National Academy of Engineering, which is made up of eighteen technology experts (including Google’s Larry Page), we will be able to create artificial intelligence “with the broad suppleness of human intelligence including our emotional intelligence by 2029.”  To see a reputable news outlet like BBC post an article about something like this is a powerful testament of artificial intelligence’s impact on society in the present and in the future.Whether this is analogous to the statement “we’ll have flying cars by 2000″ I do not know, so I won’t hold my breath.}

Expectedly, my last post on the soul has conjured up some controversy and so here is my counterargument to those objections.

“Does something need to have a physical application to the world to be “practical” or hold any meaning? The notion of the soul operates within a system of belief, and within that system, it is full of meaning and has an important purpose.”

I believe the concepts of “practicality” and “meanings” are two completely different concepts. The point I was trying to make wasn’t that the soul is “meaningless,” but rather, “pointless.” In the scope of my argument, I defined “practical” as a word that “aids” human beings by achieving something productive (refer to my doctor example) or describing something we use everyday (telephone). Thus, with that definition clarified, physical application to the world, I’d argue, is necessary for a concept to be “practical,” as far as my definition is concerned.

You also pointed out that a soul operates within a system of belief, which is very true, and it does have meaning, but the question is does it serve a “practical” purpose? You could argue that it “aids” humans by allowing them to communicate about the soul, and thus, it does serve a practical purpose, however that’s missing the point. The word telephone can “aid” us in communicating about telephones as well, but unlike the soul, a telephone is something that has a physical application to the world, which is why it’s “practical,” while a soul is not. Again, not to sound redundant, but I can’t stress enough that I’m not arguing that the soul is meaningless, because it evidently means something within a system of belief.

“I can agree with animals having souls. If you are operating in the system of belief that acknowledges the existence of souls it is paradoxical to state that man has the power to create them.”

It seems paradoxical because 1) the statement that was quoted was put out of context, and 2) because I do not operate in the system of belief that acknowledges the existence of souls. I was only speaking hypothetically. However, I made a rather large assumption, didn’t I? I assumed that the soul (if there is such a thing, remember, I’m being hypothetical) arises from creation in general. If God created humans, and in the process gave them minds to think up of elaborate belief systems that include concepts like soul, then isn’t it possible that we can emulate that? In other words, by playing the role of God, we are not necessarily creating entities that have souls, but are creating intelligent beings that might think of complex belief systems that lead them to believe that they have souls. Are we not so different, or are we? No one can say for sure outside of mere speculation.

“Souls are supernatural and created in the image of God, by God. Were we ever to acquire the ability to create intelligent, sentient, productive entities, then your statement concerning machine-souls would hold some relevance. As we do not have that power, we are incapable of “playing the role of God” and subsequently incapable of creating eternal souls in the image of the divine.”

There is one very significant assumption in the quotation above that needs to be addressed. You seem like you’d agree with me that if we were, in fact, able to create “intelligent, sentient, productive entities” then perhaps there is a possibility for a presence of a soul in one of our creations (artificial intelligence). You contend that cannot be possibly, however, because we do not have the power to create. I hold that we don’t have the power to create…yet. I am optimistic in my belief that humans can and will create truly intelligent machines. Just food for thought, here’s a quote by Hans Moravec, a pioneer in mobile robot researcher and founder of Carnegie Mellon University’s Robotics Institute:

“I see a strong parallel between the evolution of robot intelligence and the biological intelligence that preceded it. The largest nervous systems doubled in size about every fifteen million years since the Cambrian explosion 550 million years ago. Robot controllers double in complexity (processing power) every year or two. They are now barely at the lower range of vertebrate complexity, but should catch up with us within a half century.”

Who would have thought that a weapon like the bow and arrow would evolve into a nuclear weapon in the course of two hundred years (give or take). A more striking leap is the sixty or so years it’s taken to go from main frame computers that takes up the space of a whole room to a Macbook Air that fits inside a Manila folder. With the accelerated rate that technology is progressing, I’d say we’re well on our way to creating intelligent beings regardless of whether they have a soul, or think they have a soul, or don’t have a soul at all. It’s just a matter of when.

Our best hope is that we don’t kill ourselves with the aforementioned weapons that are also technologically improving at an accelerated rate. If weapons don’t end our species, then let’s hope that the machines we create won’t.

If there’s anything I’ve learned in my brief exposure to English and linguistics last semester, it’s that language is innately arbitrary. There is no real connection between the object that represents a door and the word door. What seems to attach an abstract concept and a concrete object together is our mutual acceptance that the word door unequivocally represents the thing that we use to pass from one room to another. What if it was common practice to call the thing we sit on a door, as opposed to chair. Would that have made a difference to anyone? Maybe it would right now, but not if we had learned it the other way around in Kindergarten.

So where am I getting with this here? Well, the concept of a soul is quite possibly the most abstract, transparent, and elusive concept known to man (by man, I really mean just me). The word is naturally arbitrary, yes, but it is also elusive because it serves no practical function. The word doesn’t serve the function of describing a part of our body that could aid doctors in conducting a surgery (a heart, for example), and it’s not a word that describes a thing we use everyday (like a telephone). We’ve created a lot of words in our history, but the word soul is (dare I say it) pointless.

Now don’t get me wrong here. I’m not complaining that the word is abstract. We have thousands of abstract words, which are perfectly fine. The concept of soul is almost no different than the concept of love (almost is the key word). I can’t hold love, I can’t see it, and I can’t smell it, just like a soul. However, I know (or do I?) what love is based on some physical and concrete associations I have about love (kiss, hug, sex, etc.). A soul, on the other hand, has no physical and concrete associations. There is no way I can witness my soul in action unless I die, and that’s ONLY IF religious texts are accurate, which nobody can say for sure if they are or not. In contrast, with love, I know for sure I’m experiencing it when I hear cheesy 80s jazz music.

Now there’s a lot of talk about how only human beings have souls, but animals and machines do not. To those I say: who are we as human beings to assign a soul to ourselves and to others? I mean big freakin’ deal, we have the ability to create abstract words and come up with complex ideas, but that’s only by virtue of acquiring language. Trust me, if Gorillas could acquire language, they’d be boasting about their benevolent souls and our lack of. I mean after all, we start wars, commit genocidal acts, create weapons of mass destruction, emit harmful vapors into the atmosphere, cut down rainforests recklessly, and eat wastefully. Who would win the debate over who has a soul and who doesn’t? Us or them?

I’d go as far as to say that machines can have souls too. Why not? I can say anything I want. I, however, lack authority. Who am I to say machines have souls? I am neither a philosopher, scientist, nor a priest. No one will ever agree with me, and thus, I might as well be crazy. But who’s really crazy? The one who blindly believes the word of authority, or the one who uses their own mind and makes a decision for themselves? After all, if the argument is that God’s creatures have souls, then aren’t animals God’s creatures too? By that logic, animals should have souls, and so should machines, because man plays the role of God by creating intelligent and productive entities (when we do create a fully sentient intelligence, that is).

Is the word “soul” a word that we’ve created to give meaning to our very existence? If so, I guess it does serve a practical purpose after all, but just not a very good one. When there is a possibility to know the meaning of existence, then there’s naturally a possibility to find a lack of meaning to existence. A lack of anything leads to desire. Desire leads to greed. Greed leads to hate. Hate leads to death. Death leads to…well, I guess we’ll never know, because by then, it’s already too late.

Very seldom do I cry. That’s kind of an odd sentence to start a review with, and with the risk of losing my manhood (some people who know me personally may be rolling their eyes right about now), it’s a risk that I’m willing to take. Super Mario Galaxy has touched me. It has touched me like no other novel, movie, or game, for that matter, has touched me before. It has touched me more deeply than when Michael Jackson touched me in my bed while I was singing Beat it. I really want the readers at home to understand just how much Mario Galaxy has touched me. To make my point as visual as possible (as if the Michael Jackson reference wasn’t visual and enough), the game made me blubber like a Sunday school boy after dropping a cone of ice cream outside Church and then being told that littering is a sin.

Super Mario Galaxy made me cry for two important reasons: 1) It’s a game that balances old with new with such confidence that in one moment, the child inside you manifests itself while playing the game, and in the next moment, when your parents force you to turn the Wii off, you come to the sad realization that you are a nineteen year old male who still can’t grow a thick and luscious mustache like Mario because you haven’t fully completed puberty yet. And 2), the musical score is so beautifully composed with a small hint of nostalgia that it brings back painful and repressed memories of your parents forcing you to turn off the Super Nintendo to go to Church where you consequently spilled your ice cream and were then scared of burning in Hell because that stupid older kid who always sits in the back thought that that he could exploit the naivety of your childhood, but it doesn’t even matter anymore, because he now has Aids.

Story-9.0

The story is your standard Mario fare. It begins in the Mushroom Kingdom as Mario whimsically prances around the castle and heads toward the main gate after receiving a cordial invitation from none other than Princess Peach. As the celebration gets warmed up by fireworks (that are reflected by the water in stunning detail might I add), the celebration is abruptly interrupted by a plethora of flying ships commanded by the treacherous Bowser and his son, Bowser jr., who are both intent on stealing the Princess. Mario heroically gallops toward the castle as Peach waits atop the balcony of her castle as she helplessly cries for help.

For the two or three people who haven’t been keeping up with Super Mario Galaxy, or for the English-speaking individual who doesn’t know what the word Galaxy means, you’re in for a real treat in the form of a plot-twist. If you’re one of the few mentioned above, don’t read ahead unless you want to me spoil an essential part of the game’s story…

Mario ventures into space for the first time! Yep, that’s a plot twist that’s almost as surprising as the time we all found out that Mel Gibson was an anti-semite (i.e. we weren’t that surprised at all, we just needed the booze to officially prove it).

For those of you who play games for their deep and enthralling story lines, Super Mario Galaxy will not disappoint. Aside from the main plot (man saves princess), there is an additional “story time” segment in the game that very dramatically tells the story of how the Lumas and Rosalina (a Princess Peach lookalike) got to where they are in space. And what a drowsy and boring story time it is. Don’t get me wrong, Final Fantasy fans will no doubt be enthusiastic about story time. Thankfully, for the rest of us, story time is optional, which is great, because had it been forced, it would have ruined Super Mario Galaxy’s otherwise flawless presentation.

Everyone knows that Mario games have never been about the story, but rather, about the fun and engaging gameplay. Super Mario Galaxy does not disappoint in this department, in fact, it exceeds every expectation.

Controls-10

The adventure kicks off after Mario lands on a tiny spherical planet in space, and the player takes full control of him. You’ll immediately notice when beginning to play the ease at which Mario can be maneuvered. The controls are on point and very responsive. Moving Mario is as easy as pointing the nunchuk’s analog stick in the direction you want Mario to move, while jumping is as easy as pressing the A button on the wiimote. Mario’s special somersaults and long jumps can easily be performed by using a combination of the analog stick and Z button on the nunchuk and the A button on the wiimote.

This all sounds self-explanatory and that’s because it pretty much is. There are also some unique elements that Nintendo added to the game in order to take full advantage of Nintendo Wii’s motion sensing technology. For example, to jump from star to star, the player only needs to gently shake the wiimote when Mario is near a star so that he flies from one planet to another. When Mario is not near a star, shaking the wiimote will initiate his new spin move which is useful for stunning enemies, breaking glass, turning switches, among other special moves. Additionally, the wiimote’s pointer allows the player to control a star on-screen known as the star pointer that is used to collect star bits. These star bits can be fed to hungry Lumas that populate the Galaxy. The star bits can also be used to shoot and stun enemies by pointing the star pointer at them and pressing the B button on the wiimote.

Gameplay-10

Take Mario 64’s superb gameplay, change the setting to space, add innovative and groundbreaking controls, and you have the essence of Super Mario Galaxy’s gameplay. Because the game is set in space, Nintendo has created an ingenious physics system featuring every planet having its very own gravitational pull that effectively affects Mario’s position on each planet. Thus, Mario can walk on surfaces sideways, backwards, forwards, upside down, etc. The game is primarily three dimensional, but there are moments where Mario is confined to a two dimensional space that oftentimes adds interesting dynamics to the gameplay.

You would think that walking sideways and backwards would be a chore, but thankfully, the physics never get in the way of the gameplay thanks in large part to the groundbreaking camera system. About eighty percent of the time, the camera will be fixed on the best possible position so that Mario is always visible and the player can control him without having to worry about positioning the camera his or herself. The other twenty percent of the time, the player has the option of controlling the camera by using the C button on the nunchuk, but its use is seldom necessary.

Going back to Mario’s original roots, he can now collect power ups that allow him to proceed further into his mission. Some of the power ups are classics, like the fire flower that changes the color of Mario’s suit to white and gives him the ability to shoot fireballs from his fists. There are also some new and welcome additions to Mario’s arsenal like the ghost and spring power ups. The ghost power up, like the names implies, transforms Mario into a Ghost, allowing him to float and go through walls. The spring power up allows Mario to jump higher so that he can reach the hard to reach platforms in the game. In all, there are eight power ups that each add to the game’s charm and fun factor.

The game’s objective, like in Mario 64, is to collect power stars in order to power the Comet Observatory and use it as a ship to reach Princess Peach and rescue her. The Comet Observatory serves as the game’s main hub from where Mario can access the different galaxies, typically through what are known as domes. These domes grant access to the different worlds in which Mario can explore and collect more Power Stars. Other means of collecting Power Stars include feeding the previously mentioned Hungry Lumas that will, in turn, turn into their own planets that house a fun and exciting mini-game/mission.

Graphics-9.5

Super Mario Galaxy proves that the Nintendo Wii’s hardware shortcomings don’t necessarily mean that it can’t have beautifully crafted games. Super Mario Galaxy, although by no means a technical showcase (to the degree of Gears of War, Crysis, Uncharted, etc. on more powerful sister platforms), still boasts a unique and visually stimulating world thanks in large part to its art direction and style. The gorgeous and grandiose spatial backdrops, shimmering stars, and foreboding black holes render an atmosphere that is unlike anything we’ve ever seen.

What makes Super Mario Galaxy such an impressive sight to behold is the sheer volume of things to see. One of my major complaints with Super Mario Sunshine was the lack of variation in the environments as each world seldom strayed away from the tropical beach setting. In Super Mario Galaxy, each galaxy exudes its own personality and its own style. Some galaxies are filled with devastatingly hot lava, while others are filled with chillingly cold ice. It doesn’t just stop there. There are deserts, beaches, planets on skies, underwater levels, and much more. The variation in the environments is astounding and brings back the much needed flavor of Mario 64 and all of its predecessors that Super Mario Sunshine lacked.

The variations in enemies are unfortunately uninspired and uninteresting. Most of the enemies in the game are either goombas or some variation thereof and pose no challenge. The bosses are typically some animal or plant that takes about three hits to the weak spot to kill. The animations are quite solid, but nothing spectacular. Mario runs and jumps as we have come to expect and love, the enemies move fluidly, albeit a bit too simply. I was hoping that with the dramatic shift in the environment, Nintendo could have come up with some more interesting space enemies. Still, I am nitpicking here because the enemies are not the main obstacle that Mario is faced with, but rather, the platforms are, and considering that the platforms are part of what make the environment great, the experience is not negatively affected too much by the tried and true enemies.

Sound-10

The sound effects in the game are simple but very appropriate. Every “Hoo” and “Ha” that Mario chants after every jump is pleasing to the ear as is every “pop” or “boop” after jumping on top of enemies’ heads. But the sound effects by themselves don’t contribute too heavily to my score of 10. The reason the sound is so unbelievable is because in Super Mario Galaxy, Nintendo finally embraced live orchestrated music, and with stunning results. The truth of the matter is, had Nintendo even used the MiDi format (which is the old-fashioned, digitized format), the scores written for Super Mario Galaxy are so fantastic that I still would have given the sound a 9.9 with my only complaint being that the music wasn’t orchestrated.

I’d like the music to do the talking for me, so here’s a clip of Nintendo’s orchestra playing one of my all time favorite songs ever written from the Gusty Garden Galaxy in the game.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqBfsdGrn8s

If God does exist, then the man at 00:40 in the video (Shigeru Miyamoto) must channel His power because no other force on this planet can create something as blissful as this.

Lasting Appeal-10

With so much to see and hear, and with 121 stars to collect, Super Mario Galaxy should bring you more pleasure than any tantalizing steak, any ripe and juicy fruit, any sweet and creamy cake, any man or woman (depending on your sexual affiliation) can offer. Quite frankly, when I wasn’t wiping my eyes with tissues while playing this game, I was jumping with excitement (and with Mario), awing at every spectacle, gasping for air after every close call, humming after every tune, and cleaning my floor after every orgasm. Yes, you read that right. No need to go back.

Final deliberation- 10

Super Mario Galaxy is by far one of the greatest games to ever grace mankind. After all, if a game can fill your tissue up with more than just tears without the presence of scantily clad women, then you know you have a gem of a game that goes beyond the classification of classic and masterpiece. If Shigeru Miyamoto is a God, then Super Mario Galaxy, by extension, is my savior.

Never in my life have I ever experienced a more suspenseful moment than when I watched “I am Legend” for the first time in the theatres with some of my friends. Part of what added to suspense and thrill of the movie were the moments where the movie would be so quiet that I could not only hear Brendan and Sean breathing heavily (they were sitting to my left and right), I could hear Bryan and Jon too (they were farther). I wish someone had informed me about these silent moments before I ate one of those microwaved bean burritos my theatre was selling that day. I can’t tell you how many times I found myself sitting on the edge of my seat throughout the course of the movie, not because of the movie, but because it was so insanely hard to keep the gas inside me from ripping through the theatres like a nuclear explosion during the long, incessant quiet scenes.

Thankfully, the movie does get loud in the instances that are supposed to surprise and scare the F*** out of you. These scenes i used to my advantage. In the one scene where the dog runs into that dark apartment, the gas was building up inside of me so rapidly, not even US sanctions imposed on my chest would be able to save the theatre. And then, as Will Smith continues his search for his dog, a mutated human jumps out of the darkness with a scream that was so loud, let’s just say that no one could hear something else that was screaming almost as loudly. I subtly used my peripheral vision to glance my right and left before the inevitable realization that something was not right. No movement from Brendan or Sean. In case they were to actually survive the blast, my mind immediately began pondering possible backup plans. I glanced one more time to my right and left. Unfortunately, the stench didn’t kill them.

PLAN A: Play it cool.

Sean: “WHAT THE F***?”
Me: “Ughh. Who just let the dogs out?”
Brenden: “Whoever smelt it dealt it!”
Me: “Seeeaaannn!…”
Sean: “WHAT!??”
Bryan: “DUDE.”
Sean: “It wasn’t me”
Jon: “Then who was it?”

PLAN B: Hope friends are stupid.

Me: “Maybe it was the movie.”
Brenden: “huh?”
Me: “Well, you know those 4d rides at Disney World? Maybe the smell is zombie breath?”

Indifferent and unconvinced faces. All four move five seats down away from me. Another silent gap. And then: Helicopter crash.

Bryan: “MISSAK!!!”
Me: “It’s the smell of the burning fuel!”

Everyone moves five more seats down.

Another silent gap. And then: a conversation between Will Smith and Anna.

everybody: “That’s it, we’re leaving.”
Missak: “It was ANNA. I SWEAR!”

*Disclaimer: Events depicted in this story are somewhat fictional but the characters are not. The four individuals cited in this story have not been asked for permission, and here’s hoping that they don’t sue the hell out of me under Virginia penal code 1.112.

The law states, “all parties who are represented in fart stories, without prior consent, are subject to sue the hell out of Missak Artinian, and then, if so willing, may cut both his hands off so that it would be nearly impossible for him to enjoy the little pleasures in life…you know, the kind of pleasures that could be considered unethical in public settings, such as libraries, high school locker rooms, police departments, but on the other hand, could be considered ethical in motion pictures like There’s Something About Mary where the product of the said pleasure can make great hair gel, but I doubt Cameron Diaz actually used Ben Stiller’s finished product for real, unless she’s crazy, and she might as well be, considering that she was in Very Bad Things, which was a movie so unpleasant, I might as well have gone to a cemetery and have had more fun watching tombstones while Michael Jackson’s Thriller was playing in the background, which, by the way, is a timeless classic, and its a shame Youtube wasn’t around when Michael Jackson’s career went down the drains, as I would have definitely secured a million-dollar contract with a television station for my “Leave Michael Jackson ALONE” performance that would have been viewed by over ten million people who had nothing better to do, but then again, looks who’s talking, considering that I’m writing a super long run-on sentence that I’m sure the principal from Billy Madison would have something to say about.