Helios 57 - Factual articles on history, politics, science, and more by TWC's budding journalists!

[Jom]

Contents

Political Theories Pt.3: A brief look at Conservatism by René Artois.
Cinematography In Video Games by rez.
Star Wars vs Star Trek or: How Much I Love Star Trek Part IV by Lord Rahl.
An Explaination of Kantian Ethics by Major Darling.
How many times is Apple going to reinvent the wheel? by Saint Nicholas.
The Battle of Kursk Part 2 by Limskj.

---

From the Editor:

Greetings all,

As I write these words, one repressive Arab regime has already fallen and another looks like it is on its very last legs. With the departure of Zine El Abidine Ben Ali after a term in office of over three decades in what is now being referred to as the Jasmine Revolution, repressive regimes across the north of Africa and the Levant suddenly started to become aware of their own mortality. Now Egypt seems to be the first to follow Tunisia's example as over a million protesters gather in Egypt's Tahrir Square to demand the departure of Hosni Mubarak. Like Ben Ali, Mubarak has clung onto the reins of power for around 30 years now, and now, finally, the citizens of the country he rules over have decided that enough is enough.

As I watch the footage being beamed around the world on 24-hour news channels, and read the countless articles which appear at a bewildering rate as every new occurrence in the crisis is played out and narrated to the rest of the world, I cannot help but be slightly overawed by the significance of it all. It is a comparison which has been made many times since it became apparent that Tunisia may have started a domino effect, and the idea certainly is not my own, but I am reminded of the fall of Communism in Eastern Europe and the establishment of free democracies in those countries who broke free of the grip of the Soviet Union. Of course, I am too young to actually remember these events but I am an avid reader of history and upon learning of the events surrounding Latvia's own struggle for independence, I could not help but be touched and inspired by the popular movement which finally gave the country its freedom. Now I feel the same sensation: that of history being made before my eyes; I hope that in the decades to come, in Egypt and Tunisia, these events will be taught to generations of schoolchildren as a demonstration of the power of the people.

Whilst these events do have their parallels with the fall of Communism, they do go beyond them in another respect, which is the sheer weight of information which is emanating from Egypt at the moment. Naturally, television crews rushed to see the Berlin Wall dismantled, and there was enormous coverage of it in both the print-media and on television. In 2011, however, there is an added dimension, one whose importance was strongly underlined during the protests in Iran over election results a couple of years ago: the role of the internet and mobile phones. No-one who has seen the harrowing video of Neda Agha-Solta's last moments will ever forget the scene, and the outrage that reverberated around the world. This was made possible thanks to mobile phones and the internet, with bloggers telling the world what was happening and those in the midst of the action tweeting about what had just happened on Twitter. Camera-crews can -- and have -- be detained, and have their equipment confiscated or destroyed, but anyone can hide a mobile phone with internet access in their pocket. Mubarak's regime clearly recognised this in their effort to effect an internet blackout across the country: the internet is a very powerful tool during events like these as they can expose the truth of what is happening like nothing else can. There have been reports of people being arrested but not having their phones confiscated, free to tweet about their treatment at the hands of the police; it is getting increasingly difficult for repressive regimes to control their populaces, a development which is to be welcomed with open arms.

There are, of course, the naysayers in all of this: those who fear the repetition of events which led to the establishment of Iran as a repressive theocratic regime with only token democracy. What is happening in Tunisia and Egypt is the complete opposite, however. These are not people inspired by Islamism and the desire to create an Islamic state; these are people motivated by the rising price of food and the increasing cost of living amongst an already impoverished population; these are people who have recognised and denounced the Islamist elements who have tried to hijack the protests. Time and time again I have watched and read interviews of protesters violently rejecting the Islamist groups who have tried to wrest sovereignty away from the people in these protests to use for their own, twisted agenda, and they have so far not succeeded. Let us hope that they never succeed and that Egypt is born again as a free democratic nation.

With that, all that remains is for me to wish you a very happy and belated New Year 2011, and to ask that you forgive the lateness of this edition of the Helios. As I move into the final semester of my final year at university, I feel the weight of the significance of these next few months bearing down upon me, and a simple lack of energy and willpower has led to the Helios languishing somewhat on the back-burner. However, with the publication of this edition, I hope to build up and keep the momentum flowing which will see the Helios continuing to appear on your computer screens for the months to come.

Jom

---

René Artois

René Artois has continued his run of articles political theories for this edition by discussing what is generally considered to be one of the two main political ideologies: conservatism, and whether it is, indeed, an ideology at all.

A brief look at Conservatism: “Conservatism is more a state of mind than an ideology.” Discuss.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Conservatism is the philosophy that promotes the preservation of traditional values and beliefs. As such, conservatism does not work towards a perfect system, as most ideologies, such as socialism and communism. This means that it is not clear what an “ideal” conservative society would be like, and what features it would contain. This also brings into question whether conservatism is actually an ideology or not, for example, many believe conservatism to be an “anti-ideology”, which is a set of ideas and values that challenge another ideology. It can be argued conservatism is an anti-ideology because of the way it has adapted itself, showing considerable doctrinal flexibility, as well as how it is difficult to isolate a consistent set of ideas which have been followed by conservative writers.

Since De Tracy first coined the term “ideology” in 1801, to mean “the science of ideas”, many other political thinkers have put forward their own definitions of what an ideology is. For example, Martin Selinger defined ideology in a neutral way, as “a set or system of related ideas, beliefs and values that may be used to understand and interpret events, and to guide and direct actions towards specified aims”. This definition would suggest that conservatism is an ideology as there are several ideas, beliefs and values core to conservative thinking, such as tradition, pragmatism, organicism, hierarchy, authority, and property. However, the liberal definition associates ideologies with radical and extreme, “closed” systems of thinking which claim to be the absolute truth, posing the danger of totalitarianism. In this view, conservatism is not an ideology, unlike Marxism or Nazism, which are relatively unchanging in their goals for the perfect society. Daniel Bell took this view, writing that ideologies ended in the mid-twentieth centuries with the end of Nazism. However, this can be seen to be false when looking at the rise of nationalism and the religious conflicts of the 1990s onwards, showing that extremism is still alive. For Marx though, an ideology could be defined as “a subjective and distorted set of ideas and beliefs that reflect the interests of a particular class, and constitute “false consciousness” because they are believed to be a true and total picture of the world when in fact they are not.” Using this definition conservatism is an ideology because it is upholding what Marx was against, namely hierarchy and authority, which are key elements to conservatism.

It can also be argued that as there are differing types of conservatism, some are more like ideologies than others. For example, Traditional conservatism, according to theorists such as Michael Oakeshott, does not have any real sense of direction in terms of what its overall aims are. However, there is definitely a broad vision of society containing the main principles of conservatism (pragmatism, property, hierarchy, authority etc.) Traditional conservatives are, on the whole, opposed to fixed ideas and parties and movements which have fixed ideas, preferring to adapt and reflect the dominant political environment of the time. This can be seen for example, throughout the 19th century when the conservatives opposed liberals, so had an organic view of society, and changing as they moved into the 20th century, as their main opponents became socialists, so they switched to an individualistic view, with emphasis on free markets and individualism. However, New Right conservatism (or Thatcherism) does have a set of fixed ideas, as Thatcher created this new political movement, combining elements of classical liberalism, populism, whiggism, and traditional conservatism, showing the influences of Friedman and Hayek’s economic views on Thatcher.

Those who reject the idea of conservatism as an ideology, often propose it to be a “state of mind”, based upon several core values. These values include: tradition, which is the central theme of conservative thought, and is “the desire to conserve”, closely linked to the perceived virtues of tradition and respect for established customs and institution. This is arguably the most important aspect of traditional conservatism, which supports tradition due to the preference of order over liberty, believing that what already is established and is known to work is more favourable than the unknowns of radical change; Pragmatism, which emphasizes the conservative’s belief in putting faith in experience and history, rather than abstract principles which are distrusted. In other words, it is “following what works”; human imperfection, because the conservative view on human nature is broadly pessimistic, therefore humans should live in the familiar, tried and tested and orderly community. Individuals are morally corrupt and therefore require a strong state and stiff laws to prevent crime; organicism, as conservatives have traditionally viewed society as an organic whole or living entity. Society is thus structured by natural necessity or “the fabric of society”. Shared values and common culture are often seen as being vital to the community; hierarchy, as gradations of social positions and status are natural and inevitable in natural society. These reflect the differing roles and responsibilities or, for example, employers and workers; authority, which is “exercised from above”, providing support for those who lack the knowledge to act wisely for their own benefit. The idea of natural aristocracy was once influential but now authority and leadership are now more so because they result from experience and training. Freedom must coexist with responsibility; it therefore consists largely of a willing acceptance of obligation and duties; and property ownership, which is seen as being vital because it gives people security and a measure of independence from government, and encourages them to respect the law and the property of others. People see themselves in what they own: houses, cars etc. We have duties as well, as custodians of property that may be valuable to future generations.

I believe that conservatism is an anti-ideology, as it can be seen throughout history to be changing to the economic circumstances, for example Thatcher’s New Right putting more emphasis on welfare as recessions happened, as well as changing to political circumstances, as seen in the changing views of traditional conservatism through the 19th and 20th centuries. However, I do believe the nature of conservatism being an anti-ideology does make conservatism an ideology, as shown by consistent views and values always kept alive, meaning the “ideal” present in conservatism is the want to keep order, security and happiness for people by sticking to tried and tested methods of government and government policy.

rez

rez is a greatly versatile writer, and one which I value highly for his continued range of articles on a wide variety of subject. Moving away from character analysis, which he has dealt with extensively over the last few editions, rez has written an article on cinematography in video games, with a comparison between spectacles witnessed in cinema versus those seen in contemporary video games.

Cinematography in Video Games

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

We've all told our friends about the amazing game we're currently playing thats "So cinematic." Frankly I feel a little cheated by being forced to use a term created for the purely visual medium of film. Its one thing to watch a spectacle like Avataron screen and drink in the beauty of a scene. But its quite another to stride into a different world and mould its conclusions with your own hands. In the end we're left with being forced to say that a game is so good its "like a film." As if a game couldn't stand on its own two legs or even surpass the storytelling capability of cinema. We're often told that the murky mire of the average video game storyline is reason enough to discredit the medium as nigh on worthless as a piece of genuine art. But I find myself wondering what sort of quality-to-terrible ratio cinema throughout the ages has produced? The truth is that fine art is always in the minority and a person's unwillingess to acknowledge video game art is largely founded in the, now, erroneous assumption that games are small minded distractions for young children. It wouldn't bother me so much if this outdated idea was an uncommon opinion but unfortunately those of us that value the multi-faceted medium of gaming as artistic are somehow the rare breed. Even many people that actively enjoy gaming are quick to dismiss it as a guilty pleasure or simply never venture beyond Pro-Evo two thousand and whatever.

But hey, just because it isn't fully appreciated that doesn't mean that we can't bask in the efforts of those artists and programmers who worked damn hard to elevate their profession. For me, as im sure it was with many of my generation, Metal Gear Solid was the first game I played that really brought across Cinematic quality in its cut scenes. Not just because it was well written and well acted, two miraculous achievements for a game of its day, but because its camera work was shot with attention to the dynamic angles and sweeps that we were seeing at the cinema. Who can forget the rooftop scene where Liquid surges onscreen piloting a HIND. Despite the huge disparity in strength the camera work evokes the idea that this is a duel without making the player cringe with comparisons to anime cliches (Something the sequels have entirely failed to avoid). But before even MGS came the impressive innovations of Resident Evil. Having the camera operate independantly of the character's actions had been seen in many point and click adventure games before Capcom tried it but now we were seeing a stable camera in real-time life or death situations. The literal scope of the camera's position made combat much more of a spectacle but, far more importantly, it added an eerie sense of trepidation and heightened tension to the simple act of walking down a corridor. Capcom really made the most of this feature by positioning their cameras not just in optimal viewpoints but also with a view to capturing particularly gruesome cadavers, unsettling artwork or simply on a slightly diagonal slant. As something of an arachnophobic the true horror of Capcom's stable camera was realised with the arrival of the giant tarantulas. Thanks to camera positioning the hairy horrors would often appear massively on the screen even though they were far away from the actual character. When coupled with the ingenious loading screen of the door opening into blackness this was genuinely harrowing to the point of actual fear of going through doors. And what is art if not the attempt to evoke poignant emotion?

Moving forward in time we come to two of my current favourites for video game cinematography. Neither of which should be any sort of suprise for anyone thats seen at least a trailer. I'm speaking of course about the Mass Effect and Uncharted series'. Although, as fully fledged games, there is a gulf of quality seperating their writing they are both almost unparralelled when it comes to their cinematics. At least they will be until L.A. Noir comes out. But where these games excell is in the appreciation, firstly, of good facial animation but, more importantly, also in not being afraid to focus in on it. Games that didn't bother much with facial animation tend to keep their cameras off their characters faces and instead go for panoramic style shots that try to include everything. In these cases we just get stale, unevocative exchanges of conversation because the camera isn't attempting to highlight particular emotions or phrases. This is a feature of games like Gears of War which, whilst being a real spectacle to play, didn't have a good cutscene between them. This sort of problem also occurs with games that have a helmeted hero. Master Chief, despite being a walking suit of armour, is actually a character with a considerable amount of charisma but zooming in on a faceplate doesn't really lend anymore gravity to a situation. Unfortunately, because the hero was effectively neutered for actual dramatic ability it meant that cutscenes were lopsided as the supporting characters appeared to steal the show with what were actually quite mundane lines. This made a change for the better with Halo: Reach but this game suffered from Bungie's incredibly puzzling ability to create magnificent, grandiose backdrops and general story themes but at the same time completely fail to produce dialogue, character development or even small scale narratives. So even with more effective camera work, the blunt emotions and lacklustre writing left me feeling disappointed.

Where Mass Effect achieves a great deal with its cut scenes it tends to fall down during actual gameplay. So far I have referred a lot to cut scenes and for the most part they are simply doing what cinema does and really do justify the phrase "like a film." But where video games really come into their own is in creating cinematic experiences that you are still controlling. I have seen only a few games that can hold a candle to Uncharted and its use of cinematography in this regard. A particularly fine example is the very beginning of Uncharted 2 in which you attempt to claw your way up a wrecked train as it hangs off of th edge of a cliff. Naughty Dog not only paid a hell of a lot of attention to the graphical spectacle but made excellent use of selectively stable camera angles depending on what was going on onscreen. Seeing the carriage you are in from the outside as well as flitting back in during an impact creates a much better sense of action and excitement particularly if you are still in control of your hero.

The use of cinematic gameplay rather than cutscenes dates back to the days of Half-Life where Valve paid particular attention to set piece events despite keeping the character in control. The obvious example is the catastrophic experiment that sets up the disaster at Black Mesa but the moment that always sticks in my mind is the introduction of the marines. Most games will give you a cutscene before introducing a new enemy to make sure that the player knows its an enemy. Valve not only let you walk into the trap but actively encouraged the idea that they were going to be your saviours. So when you see scientists being gunned down the scene is actually quite evocative despite having no flashy camera angles or even, by our standards, particularly good graphics. This kind of cinematic gameplay has found its current champion in the Modern Warfare series. I've yet to play any other game, read any book or watch any film that can make me physically duck my head down when a rocket flies towards the camera. What Modern Warfare have managed to do with an entirely fixed FPS camera is nothing short of genius. The choreographed set pieces are as impressive as one could imagine but even the core gameplay creates a wonderous spectacle. From a cinematographal point of view it is the set pieces that need to be credited. My favourite of which is the now famous character death sequence from the first game. I enjoy it so deliciously because an average game studio would simply have been excited about creating an astounding cinematic video showing a nuclear bomb destroying a city. Modern Warfare however chose to focus on the single person experience of the horror. Not content with merely having you desperately fight your way to a helicopter, carrying wounded troopers only to endure the gunship's harrowing crash soon after take off. The developers then allowed you to crawl forth from the wreckage to witness the devastation of a nuclear blast first hand. This would have been a laughable sequence if the FPS camera hadn't been altered to simulate, first, crawling and then the swaying, haggard stance of a crash victim. But as you pull yourself out of the smashed hull of your helicopter the sight of the ruined city and the explosion coming into view is a thousand times more evocative than a panoramic shot of a massive explosion. Why? Because the attention to influencing the camera work and excellent writing created a sense of perspective. The beauty of this perspective is that even without any actual cinematographical camera magic, the scene still feels amazingly cinematic.

The perspective of an eye witness is something that cinema will always struggle more seriously to create as you will never feel the same attachment to a character you watch that you will to a character that you have control over.

Lord Rahl

Anyone who has been following Lord Rahl's column over the past three issues will by now be very familiar with his love for Star Trek. For the very last time, Rahl will be tackling this subject, and he has prepared an incredibly long article which I have had to cut into several parts to publish over the next couple of editions.

Star Wars vs Star Trek or: How Much I Love Star Trek Part IV

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Star Wars vs Star Trek or: How Much I Love Star Trek Part IV



Finally! Finally I have come to the last Star Wars vs Star Trek piece. I'm sure even all five of my readers have become bored with my ramblings on the subject but hopefully this article will have a bit more spice to it. This time I'll actually be talking about Star Wars vs Star Trek. As a fan of either franchise it is almost impossible to avoid some sort of discussion or debate about which one is better. I think we can all guess which franchise I think is the best! If you guessed Star Trek then congratulations. You have at least the intelligence of a five year old.

Most of my Star Wars versus Star Trek arguments were done in high school...and when I was student teaching at a high school. Odd? This makes sense because while I was in high school is when the Star Wars prequels came out and consequently everyone thought that the movies were...*deep breath* so awesomely cool and like so good because the special effects were awesome and Darth Maul had like a double-ended light saber and the droids looked like so cool...etc. That was a run-on sentence on purpose, by the way. What was happening with the Star Trek franchise at the time? Voyager, and later Enterprise, as well as the various TNG movies were on TV or in theaters. So, whereas the Star Wars franchise was being reinvigorated, the Star Trek franchise, while still producing entertainment, was beginning its slow death. For example, 1998's Star Trek: Insurrection grossed around 113 million dollars worldwide while 1999's Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace grossed over 924 million. It should be noted that the "heart" of the Star Trek franchise is in the various television series and Star Wars' is in the movies. Considering that it makes it more understandable Star Wars movies would gross more than Star Trek movies but it is common knowledge that the Star Trek franchise for years was slowly "dying". Sure, Trekkies from all around the world still loved the franchise and the characters more than anyone else, but if the movies or shows aren't good then people won't spend their money willingly. I remember even as a junior high and high school kid the Star Trek movies not being so good. I didn't think much of the Star Wars prequels either.

More recently I again became involved with defending Star Trek because I was student teaching at a high school. It didn't take long for me to have the students know I am a Trekkie and for them to start making accusations against Star Trek or explain to me how Star Wars is better (in their infinite high school wisdom ). But enough of the back story. It is time to dive into one of the most heated rivalries of all time: Star Wars versus Star Trek!

As I stated in Part I of this series of articles about much of the same thing,

For years Star Wars fans and Trekkies have argued which franchise is better, what starship is cooler, which villain is better, etc. Personally, I’ve had many arguments that fall under the subject “Star Wars vs Star Trek.” Such arguments are inevitable if Star Wars fans and Trekkies are allowed to be in close quarters with each other for an extended amount of time. ... I’m a fan of Star Wars as well but Star Trek is what I have a special place in my heart for. The majority of my Star Wars vs Star Trek arguments occurred during high school, when my friends considered me liking Star Trek as nerdy and not cool, and when I was student teaching in a high school where the young students knew almost nothing about Star Trek, what they thought to be everything about Star Wars, and thought Star Trek to be nerdy as well. I’ve come to a general conclusion that most people who argue against Star Trek are the ill-informed about the franchise. They have seen the Star Wars movies multiple times but haven’t seen any significant amount of Star Trek.

I stand by these statements. After all, most Star Wars fans just have six films to base their arguments on while Trekkies have, now, eleven movies and five television series (hundreds of episodes) to base their arguments on. These are the only sources that should be used in argument because they're considered canon (although even with using them the debate is still difficult). The nerdy rivalry of Star Wars versus Star Trek is known by both Star Wars fans and Trekkies/Trekkers alike. I mean, look at this thread! It currently has 1,126 pages of responses! That's unbelievable! Hell, the debate even has a Wikipedia page! Most general sci-fi fans that have enough fervor will be interested by the debate in some ways and both Star Wars fans and Trekkies will have such a devotion to their franchise that any sort of argument made will incite a rebuttal (and most likely reveal the true extent of their nerdiness!). It's easy enough to figure out someone is a fan of a franchise but it's another to see them make arguments based on their extensive knowledge of said subject. If someone challenges you to a Star Wars versus Star Trek debate then you should make sure your friends aren't around (unless they're as nerdy as you) because you might not want to embarrass yourself with your nerd knowledge!

Before I begin the debate, though, I wish to make one thing very clear: The Star Wars and Star Trek franchises and their canonical technologies are based on SCIENCE FICTION and as such the validity of any and all statements I make hereafter are purely hypothetical. I'm quite aware that the legendary debate that I'm about to dive into is more about dick-waving for our favorite franchise rather than any sort of fact. I also wish to make it known I will be omitting many arguments so that I can keep this article relatively short and so I do not bog myself down with minute details and base my arguments too much on the science fiction of the franchises instead of using common sense. For example, an old a somewhat legendary member of TWC who has unfortunately not been around for years, Darth Wong, maintains a website, stardestroyer.net, where he posted a semi-short essay titled Star Wars vs Star Trek in Five Minutes where he makes some good points...but in my opinion doesn't actually answer the true questions. Certainly assuming someone saying, "Star Wars versus Star Trek," actually means, "The Galactic Empire versus the Federation," is where the arguments should be based is a bit ridiculous since the United Federation of Planets only controls perhaps a quarter of the Milky Way in the Star Trek franchise while the Empire in Star Wars is a power that truly spans the entire galaxy...far far away (whatever galaxy it is). ATTENTION: This article (better identified as an essay considering its length) will be split into three parts so as to save any reader's sanity. Anyway, I've delayed too much. Time to get into it!

_____________________________

I should state first that I will be arguing for Star Trek in this, mostly, since I am a Trekkie but I will submit to some obvious advantages Star Wars does have. Also, before I make more specific arguments there are some points I wish to make to more clearly define the inherent differences between the Star Wars and Star Trek franchises that should be taken into account before considering everything else.

1) As stated previously, both franchises are science fiction and therefore any and all relevant canonical information from them should be considered as fiction. We all know what is in the franchises is not real, however, we should further understand that the information about the franchises' technologies are also made up. Whether or not the technology is based on real science, pseudo-science, or purely science fiction is almost irrelevant because it was imagined for an imaginary universe.

2) The Star Wars universe is purely imaginary while having many similarities to our own while the Star Trek universe is imaginary but based on our own with real locations, technologies, and culture. Because of this we must understand that comparing the two universes may be inherently incompatible and/or incomparable. Units of speed, power, etc could be completely different from each other between the two franchises. This is one reason why I wish to base my arguments more on common sense rather than by the numbers.

3) The Star Wars franchise has always had a focus on the military power in its universe, land armies, and the incredible power of the Empire. Star Trek has always focused on single starships and their crews with minimal attention given towards actual wars and battles. This is another inherent difference between the franchises. In Star Wars we constantly see the huge and seemingly limitless armies of the Empire, their gigantic fleets, etc (as well as the clone and droid armies from the prequels). This fits with the story to tell of the scale of the conflicts (as well as the universe and budgets of the movies) to show how powerful the Empire is. In Star Trek we hardly ever see fleets, let alone armies, as each episode (and movies too) usually centers around the Enterprise, its crew, and perhaps some aliens in a dilemma with a ship (maybe). If the episode showed more than two ships then that's when things got really serious! Also, if people or starships had to use force then it meant things didn't turn out for the better and so this rarely happened (as in an all-out battle). In Star Wars battle and shootouts happened constantly. The point is that in Star Wars you see the huge fleets and armies. In Star Trek you do not so already comparing the two franchises is difficult since you never have a true understanding of the militaries in the Star Trek universe.

4) Again, as stated previously, any and all statements I make are my opinions based entirely on science fiction and my common sense and as such everything I say is equally as hypothetically correct and incorrect. I'll make arguments but they can be just as easily thrown out the window by someone else who has "better" knowledge of information (based on science fiction).

5. Since there is so much information that the franchises have for me to research I will miss something. Seriously, I'm about as big of a Trekkie as you'll meet (unless you know someone who goes to conventions [I haven't done that yet!]), but I don't have the time or want to make the effort to research every single episode and movie so that my arguments are perfect. No argument will be perfect since a perfect comparison between the franchises can't be done but I will try my best. If I leave something out then let me know. Just don't get mad when I make a mistake.

And so it begins...

Ah... Now we get to the good part where I make my case. I believe, in many ways, that Star Trek as a universe is better than the Star Wars universe and I am prepared to point out why. Actually, I guess I won't necessarily be saying Star Trek is definitely "better" than Star Wars, but I will definitely have a pro-Star Trek stance. Keep that in mind. My arguments will be split into different categories, each explaining why I think Star Trek has(/may have) the upper hand, as well as trying to compare the technicalities and specifics of the franchises so that there is a better understanding of my argument(s), all the while concentrating on using common sense as my reasoning.

The Franchises

The Star Wars and Star Trek franchises, while similar in being both science fiction universes, have inherent differences that I wish to address. I've already stated that both franchises are science fiction. That is obvious. But what must be understood is what the franchises are based on, as in if they have any basis on the real world or not.

With Star Trek the franchise is based partially on our real universe. There is Earth, Alpha Centauri (not inhabited by Na'vi [or omitted from mention {hopefully}]), and many other known stars, nebulae, etc. Gene Roddenberry, the creator of the Star Trek franchise, wanted the universe to be set in our future. Because of this many of Star Trek's technologies is based on real science or pseudo-science, although some is simply pure imaginary "science". I've made many references to the link between Star Trek and our technological advances before, most recently in the last edition of the Helios, so I don't need to repeat that. But even with Star Trek's pseudo-science, much of it is actually based on logic, mathematics, physics, etc. Take how Star Trek handles warp speed, known as "warp factor" in the show, for example. The speed is based on mathematical equations and in later shows they modified the equations to make more sense! All units of measure in the show are either what we use in the real world or are made up but based on real world units of measure too. For example, starship power levels are measured in joules or watts. As we can see, Star Trek, even though it is science fiction, is very much based on science fact or at least tries to stay within some realm of reality.

With Star Wars it is my opinion that is is much more science fiction fantasy. After all, the franchise is set "a long long time ago, in a galaxy far far away..." I'm not saying that Star Wars being much more fantasy-oriented makes it worse, but if we're trying to compare the two franchises and whether one would have the upper hand in a conflict then science or pseudo-science is much better to argue with rather than fantasy. But fantasy does work with the Star Wars franchise. It is more about an epic story of good versus evil, of the Jedi versus the Sith, than about science (until Lucas ruined the mythology of Star Wars when he added midi-chlorians). Technobabble is rarely used in any of the Star Wars films. And then you have Star Trek where the shows seemed to increasingly use science and/or technobabble in the story. I wrote about that in Helios 56 as well. If you pick up a Star Wars technical manual the information you read about the starships or persons is not based on science or pseudo-science at all. Yes, a blaster shoots lasers but the movies never attempt to explain how they function. The engines in Star Wars allow them to go FTL speeds but we don't know how this is achieved. I can tell anyone with relative accuracy how the engines in Star Trek function just by watching enough episodes. In the technical manual it will show you its parts and such but none of the information is, or should, be considered canon. With Star Trek the people who helped maintain scientific accuracy, realism, and consistency from show to show also worked on the Star Trek technical manuals, so rest assured what you read in them actually has a real relation to the show or movies and is based on science or pseudo-science. I'm not the best expert on Star Wars knowledge but the only technical consistency I know of with regard to starships, weapons, etc in the franchise has to do with starship dimensions. All other facts aren't supported by anything else.

Even NASA needs LeVar Burton, who played "Geordi La Forge" in TNG, to help with their engineering problems!

I think it is obvious that Star Trek, at least for argument's sake, can actually be used in arguments that require canonical facts. Star Trek is already based on science and pseudo-science and its technical publications echo that. Again, this doesn't mean Star Wars is a lesser just because it is based more on fantasy, scientific realism was never a goal of the franchise, but if we're debating Star Wars versus Star Trek then Star Trek clearly wins in terms of relevant canonical information to be used.

Major Darling

Putting aside the theme of British politics for this edition, Major Darling has decided to write about one of the most important Western philosophers, one whose influence is still felt today in philosophical thinking: Immanuel Kant. For the next edition he will return with how we can apply Kantian Ethics to the issue of Abortion and also give you a nice Politics article on the Social Representation of the British parliament.

Saint Nicholas

Love them or hate them, Apple is a major player in the technology and innovation field of industry, and, as befits our resident technology writer, Saint Nicholas has penned an article which asks just how many times is Apple going to keep remaking the i-pod?

How many times is Apple going to reinvent the wheel?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

We should all know by now what an Ipod is and who makes these devices; Apple. Lead by Mr. Steve Jobs, Apple has had some great success in recent years, toppling competitors and dominating in market share. The popularity of Apple's products has grown exponentially and continues to grow at an even faster pace. It all started with the Ipod Classic back in 2001, a basic model that was the first of it's kind.



This first generation of Ipod devices featured a scroll wheel and push buttons with a small display screen, the hard drive capacity was between 5 and 10 Gigabytes. Competing devices had nothing on the Ipod, they were larger, heavier, had less memory (in most cases) and never developed the popular following like the Ipod did. It didn't take long for Apple to develop a new and improved device though, in a little over a year a second generation of the Ipod classic was released. This model looked much the same as the first generation, with some minor design changes. However people were snapping these devices up like they were hotcakes, the success of Apple continued. Over the next few years Apple released a new model of the Classic Ipod, each becoming as popular as the last.

In January of 2004 a big innovation hit the market, the Ipod Mini.



Like the Ipod Classic, the Mini shot to immediate fame. Being smaller than it's predecessors, it was designed for those people who were always on the go and didn't want to mess around with a larger unit. The Mini was small enough to easily fit into a small pocket or be strapped to your arm while exercising. It only had 4 Gigabytes of available memory to start with, however later models increased the memory. The Mini came out in a range of colours, allowing people to personalise their device somewhat, this was probably a big contributing factor in the Mini's success.

Following on from the success of the Mini, Apple saw that people had a strong desire for smaller more compact devices and more variety in colour and design. In 2005 two new devices came out, the Ipod Nano and the Ipod Shuffle.

The Nano featured a more sleek design with a longer battery life, apparently it was like a rock, very durable and hard to break. The Shuffle was like the Mini only smaller again, and it was the first Ipod to not have a display screen. It was designed solely to hold music, the smallest Ipod to be released at that time.

The following year (2006) the second generations of the Ipod Nano and Ipod Shuffle were released. The 2nd gen Nano had a brighter screen, a few smaller design changes and a much improved battery life. The 2nd gen Shuffle was the smallest Ipod ever to be released and remains so to this day. The device had been redesigned to be a small square shape, rather than the traditional vertical rectangular shape.

The next year Apple's biggest innovation yet was released, the Ipod Touch.



The first ever Ipod to feature a touch screen and many new concepts never seen in an Ipod before. The ability to download and play applications on the device led to the formation of the Itunes App Store, of which today has sold close to 10 billion applications worldwide. Fast forward to 2010 and the 3rd generation of Ipod Touch hit the market, along with several new generations of all the previously mentioned Ipod models. The latest iteration of the Ipod Touch includes a brighter and clearer screen, improved battery life, two cameras and firmware improvements. A newer version has yet to be released however the year is 2011 and if Apple's history is any indication, we can expect a new model sometime this year. Apple has completely dominated the mp3 and mp4 player market, outshining and beating all its competitors in almost every way.

In my personal opinion, the reason Apple has had such great success is that not only are their devices quality products and easy to use, the software accompanying them is also easy to navigate. It's a simple matter of uploading songs to your Ipod and ripping CD's into Itunes. Loading apps and browsing the Itunes store is also easy. Apple have a very good set up all round, between its products, its stores and retailers making their products freely available to the public.

The big question I ask though is the one in the title, how many times are Apple going to reinvent the wheel? There must come a time when Apple runs out of ideas or improvements for their devices, or the public loses interest and looks elsewhere. Or maybe the whole Ipod craze is merely a passing fad? Albeit an extended fad.. who really knows.

Limskj

If you cast your minds back to the last edition, Limskj treated us with a narrative of one of the most pivotal battles on the Eastern Front, although many would argue that the momentum had already decisively swung to the Soviets and that victory was inevitable for them at this point, anyway. In this edition, Limskj concludes his article on the Battle of Kursk.

The Battle of Kursk Part 2

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

On the afternoon of July 4, 1943, the Germans attacked as planned. Leading the way are the heaviest tanks the Wehrmacht has to offer - Tigers and Elefants. As this went on, aircraft from both air forces flew toward the front, each side eager to gain the upper hand. The Germans’ entire campaign hung on the success of this operation. Failure would mean the complete collapse of the German war effort in the east, possibly the end of Nazi Germany and Hitler’s “Thousand Year Reich”.

For the Russians, victory would ensure their continued success against Germany. Should the Russians be victorious, the material loss they would inflict would be devastating enough to paralyse German resistance, enabling them to reach Berlin and end the war. Should defeat be the result, at most a few hundred thousand deaths and possibly the careers of a few Generals ended in disgrace. Not a huge a loss.

Ground attack aircraft were hitting enemy strongholds and troop concentrations, fighters engaged in a massive air battle in the skies and all the heavy artillery mustered fired volley after volley. The advancing German armour suffered heavy losses at the hands of the AT crews, but pressed forward. As they drove into the Russian defence lines, the AT crews started to hit the German Panzers from the sides where there is lesser armour. The Germans’ long guns also became useless at such short ranges, losing the range superiority.

The German advance in the North loss 25,000 men and 200 tanks in just 2 days of fighting. At the southern advance, the Germans had to commit all the reserves they had to continue the advance. On July 12, General Hoth decided to concentrate what remained of his armour (about 600 tanks) and push through the last Russian defence line to the open field near the town of Prokhorovka.

What General Hoth didn’t know was that the Russian High Command had already predicted this move. With the German Northern advance effectively halted, the Russians ordered the 5th Guards tank army (which has not taken part in the fighting so far) to hurry from its position east of Kursk to Prokhorovka.

Because of very poor visibility, the air filled with thick smoke and dust, the German and Russian tanks didn’t stop advancing until they were all around each other. So about 1500 German and Russian tanks fought it out at close range, where the Germans’ long guns handicapped their traversing. The Germans loss half their tanks, though the Russians lost more. At this point, Hitler ordered the halt of Operation Citadel, at which the Russians began their counter offensive.

Kursk was said to be largest tank battle ever occurred, with over 3000 tanks manoeuvring on the battlefield. But Kursk proved to be the demise of the Wehrmacht. The Russians could absorb the losses and continue the advance and shift the front to other sectors. The Germans however, lost the core of their army. Hitler’s gamble at Kursk had failed disastrously.

The war on the eastern front had turned for good. Just 2 years ago in the summer of 1941, Russia was on the brink of collapse with German armies on Moscow’s doorstep. In the summer of 1942, the Germans attacked southern Russia, striking the Volga and Stalingrad. That led to the massed surrender by General’s Paulus’ army. At that point, the Germans lost the strategic initiative. In the summer of 1943, Germany attempted to recover its losses by throwing in its best but victory eluded them.

Kursk proved to be last major operation mounted by the Germans. It is last time the Germans were able to challenge Russia. After Kursk, the Germans had neither the men nor the material to stop the Russian advance. They could only delay the inevitable defeat and capture of Berlin by Russian troops.

Kursk is, in my opinion, the decisive battle on the eastern front. Stalingrad resulted in heavy losses for Germany, but not severe enough to hamper the Wehrmacht’s ability to conduct large scale military operations. Kursk paralysed the Wehrmacht for rest of the war.

And with that we leave you for another edition. All that remains for me to say is thank you for your interest and support, thank you to my outstanding team of writers, and that I hope to see you again in the not-too-distant future.

After reading this edition, now would be an excellent time to pay a visit to one of the other TWC publications, which can be done by clicking on either of the images below.

[abbews]

Very nice edition lads!

[cedric37]

Wow i'm impressed by the intro and the rest of the edition... *speachless*

[jimkatalanos]

nice intro

[Katsumoto]

Really enjoyed Rez's article, once again. I particularly agreed with this line:

This made a change for the better with Halo: Reach but this game suffered from Bungie's incredibly puzzling ability to create magnificent, grandiose backdrops and general story themes but at the same time completely fail to produce dialogue, character development or even small scale narratives

I've always found that really disappointing, that Bungie can create this great story encompassing the holy war of the Covenant and the desperate struggle of the Humans, and the Forerunners and the Flood and whatnot, but when it actually comes down to the personal stories and, as you said, 'small scale narratives', it just feels weak in comparison. Even the whole tale of Master Chief could be far better than it is currently, if more effort was actually put into telling it. I mean, it doesn't really bode well for Bungie when the commercials for their games have a far more emotional and poignant story to tell than the games themselves. I do hope that changes with the new studio in charge of Halo games.

But yeah, excellent article Rez, was very interesting.

[rez]

Cheers mate,

I mean, it doesn't really bode well for Bungie when the commercials for their games have a far more emotional and poignant story to tell than the games themselves.

I really can't agree with you more on this one. Bungie's advertising campaigns have been absolutely flawless but the games themselves fell so far from the mark I was astounded every time.

Next time its either game trailers or soundtracks under the microscope. So I guess theres going to be more Bungie either way

[Noble Savage]

Always an utter joy to read anthing by rez and Lord Rahl . A brilliant issue all round.Well done to each and every one of the contributers.

The only thing missing is a sports writer.

[René Artois]

Depends where you're from. I'd do one on the premiership but I doubt anybody would read it.

[Noble Savage]

Depends where you're from. I'd do one on the premiership but I doubt anybody would read it.

There's plenty of sports fans here mate. As a regular poster in the football/soccer threads I can tell you there are plenty of people who would read it . Give it a go if you want

[M D]

I did a thing a few issues back on Great Sportsmen

[Legio]

A splendid issue, really.

[René Artois]

Then I shall have to post a picture of my West Ham tatoo. Oh, and get one.

[LuckyLewis]

Excellent edition of the Helios.

[Lord Rahl]

Great addition!

I wish to personally apologize to Jom for making him have to work extra hard by splitting up my SW vs ST article. Also, Jom, there is a minor problem at the beginning of my article with the [CENTER] tags.

[Jom]

Great addition!

I wish to personally apologize to Jom for making him have to work extra hard by splitting up my SW vs ST article. Also, Jom, there is a minor problem at the beginning of my article with the [CENTER] tags.

Done. Thanks for the heads up. I'm incredulous at the length of your article, really. I've written final year university essays which were shorter.

[Lord Rahl]

Done. Thanks for the heads up. I'm incredulous at the length of your article, really. I've written final year university essays which were shorter.

Dude, I just copied the entire article into Word and it's approximately 9,000 words! It's also 27 pages long. I think my longest college essay I had was 18 pages. So how many sections do you think you'll split it into? 4 or 5?

[René Artois]

That's just ridiculous (in a good way of course)! I've just finished a coursework essay detailing the arguments for and against whether France was responsible for its own downfall in 1940, and that's only 6 pages, 2,000 words long!

[Lord Rahl]

I've always found that really disappointing, that Bungie can create this great story encompassing the holy war of the Covenant and the desperate struggle of the Humans, and the Forerunners and the Flood and whatnot, but when it actually comes down to the personal stories and, as you said, 'small scale narratives', it just feels weak in comparison. Even the whole tale of Master Chief could be far better than it is currently, if more effort was actually put into telling it. I mean, it doesn't really bode well for Bungie when the commercials for their games have a far more emotional and poignant story to tell than the games themselves. I do hope that changes with the new studio in charge of Halo games.

This is one reason why I never got into the whole Halo thing. Everything human was boring as hell. The only reason why players became invested in it is because Master Chief was sort of void of...character. Yeah, he'd say something every now and then but the only reason why people liked it is because his lack of character was filled in by themselves. And while Master Chief was void of character, all of the other humans had poorly conceived or developed characters. They all seemed so dumb, so uninteresting.

Rez, one thing you made me think about was the fixed camera positions in the early RE games. I'd played them but never thought about why they were like that. Perhaps they did it because it was easier to design that way, but there's no doubt it served other purposes. It's much more terrifying not being able to see where you want to see, and the fixed camera angles restricted the view enough to keep suspense up throughout the entire game.

I'm really excited what some games will be like in the future because of technology like we saw in RDR and what will be in LA Noire. It seems to almost push the definition of video game towards almost an interactive film.