The Mass Effect 2 cinematic trailer was released yesterday. I watched it via xbox live only because I wanted to experience the trailer in surround sound, and damn that was a good decision. Though I'm sure my neighbor might not have thought so when I watched it twice.

After I first beat Mass Effect, I could not wait for Mass Effect 2 to come out. I read Mass Effect: Ascension as soon as it came out, and that only hyped me up more for it.

Then I heard about Subject Zero. Then I watched a trailer dedicated to Subject Zero. And my infatuation dimmed, other games came out, and I became more excited for Dragon Age: Origins instead. (Another amazing game.)

But then I read this article followed by this article and my excitement was revived.

I love that they killed Shepard off, and that Cerberus -- of all the unlikely allies -- brings Shepard back after 2 years. It's also an excellent way for bioware to compensate for integration of save data from Mass Effect. If Shepard died, was revived and is now part cyborg, of course he/she needs new badass skills. It also sounds like the enemy in Mass Effect 2 will be the collectors -- an alien race referred to in the second Mass Effect book. I'm not sure on the veracity of this claim, so take that with a grain of salt. It kind of makes sense to me, however, because Shepard needs to unite all of the alien races to combat the reapers -- and the collectors appear to answer to no man.

The weapons have also been improved substantially. I was not a fan of the overheating in the first game and went out of my way to locate and obtain the frictionless materials mod for myself and all of my party members -- to the exclusion of other weapon mods. I'm glad that the bioware team axed that, and added clips instead. That feels more natural to me, and was a hard habit to kick from my counter-strike days -- the reload. The addition of the heavy pistol that adepts and engineers can use is also nice, because pistols are not nearly as cool as shotguns -- and nothing tops the rocket launcher Shepard uses in the trailer below.

From what I've heard, read, and gleaned, it sounds like Mass Effect 2 is going to one awesome game. Dare I say, better than the first. I sincerely hope that that renegade//paragon paths (if they're still included) provide a bit more variation to the game. Mass Effect's use of that tree and the consequences of your decisions was pretty nice when it first came out. But once I played Dragon Age, it was obvious that Mass Effect's was weak tea in comparison. A lot of my other "hope it's better in the sequel" items seem like they might actually be better. Months ago, I watched some video interviews of the bioware team working on the graphics, talking about the improvements they were making to the character modelling, weapons, armor, and battle animations. Now all I need is the game, so I can play the crap out of it.

Needless to say, after reading many recent reviews, watching lots of interviews and videos, then topping it off with this trailer, I'm pretty damned excited for the release of Mass Effect 2.

The last shot of the space ship reminded me of The Fifth Element when the Mondoshawan ship lands in front of the tomb to collect the weapon capable of defeating the Great Evil.

John Doe, I think he is the author of this blog, wrote this post, which I came across from vjack's twitter feed (who writes atheist revolution). His post is intriguing, and has many things wrong with it considering why atheists are so vocal about atheism. He doesn't seem to understand why atheists bother arguing about the existence of god. Aside from the fact that it's interesting to speculate about and talk about with people of differing opinions, the real point of interest comes up in the comments, where John Doe (among others) seem to perceive atheists as equal to solipsists: if atheists believe others are just gobs of flesh, why do we bother being vocal about atheism, why do we care about what other people do?

Methinks atheists doth protest too much.

In my first comment, I directly addressed the atheist movement: we want to be recognized, treated humanely by theists, be allowed to maintain our dignity, etc. But John Doe became obsessed with the "gobs of flesh" metaphor -- and he really wanted to know why I, among other atheists, do not perceive other humans as just meatbags, as it were.

I answered that question, directly applying it to myself. I'm expanding upon my answer here because I feel that it really is an important question and the answer is even more important.

“All you said is that you don’t consider them globs, but you didn't say why not.” I don’t consider other humans to be gobs of flesh because it is inhumane to do so, and we are so much more than that. We are not just gobs of flesh — we are capable of thought, creativity, originality, love, hate, reason, superstition, etc. We recognize that one day, we will end. We cherish what we have now (or don’t depending on who you are) because we know that one day, we will no longer be here. As far as I know, we are the only species on earth that knows we are going to die, and what that means.

Humans are very different from gobs of flesh because of this. If I throw coffee on someone, slap them, then stomp on their foot, it elicits a reaction: anger, a wtf moment, maybe a sense of betrayal if I know this person. More that that, though, that person is capable of a variety of reactions: they can choose to forgive me, laugh if it off as if I were being funny, punch me, murder me, or any number of reactions. The reaction is what registers with me, though -- and that's how I know that other people are like me: capable of feeling, reacting, thinking, judging, and forgiving.

If I smile at someone who is having a bad day, their day becomes brighter. That, in turn, makes my day brighter. We've evolved to care about the people around us. When we see someone having a bad day, we want to make their day better (well, I speak for myself here -- there are genuine jerk-offs who don't care -- but that's just it, we're all of us different). I, for one, don't like seeing other people having a bad day, so I reach out to them in some small way -- like a smile -- and it let's them know that not everything is really terrible. It provides a small comfort, a sort of relief, in their day. And that makes me feel good about myself.

My point there is that you don't have to be religious to want to reach out to other people. Kindness and religion are not mutually exclusive, and I am unable to fathom how this idea came to be.

When a small child walks up to me, smiles and tells me I have a pretty smile, I feel warm inside. My day has been brightened. This child is doing exactly what I did in the other paragraph -- reaching out in some small way. Just plain human kindness touches me, and it touches other people. Don't you feel warm when someone smiles at you? When you hear a child laughing in delight? Why should religion influence how we feel when we see other people experiencing the small pleasures that make life worth living?

We all feel pain, love, anger, betrayal, vengeance, guilt, shame, joy, sadness, nostalgia, passion. We all cry, rage against things that make us angry, laugh joyously, tell jokes, and sit in solitude ruminating about our futures and past.

There is a difference between atheism and solipsism. All humans matter in atheism, we are a collective of peoples regardless of what each individual believes. I don't see how the idea that atheist == solipsist came about. Why is it that some theists believe only religion can provide basic human kindness? Just because I do not believe in god doesn't mean I'm going to go about kicking people who are in my way, steal from my neighbors, and automatically consider everyone else less than me. Sure, there are atheists who are solipsists, but there are also christians who are solipsists and people from other religions who are solipsists.

This world would be a pretty damned lonely place if I was the only person I considered to be real, worthy of respect and dignity. And if every atheist truly thought that way, there wouldn’t be an atheist movement. We wouldn’t care that other atheists were struggling to be recognized. After all, why would we?

I wouldn’t be here, writing this passionate argument about why I think theists who believe this idea about atheists are so very wrong.

I truly believe that every single human being is worthy of respect, love, recognition, and dignity because all of us are here for such a short time and then it’s over. Why would I want to take that away from someone else when I know just how much it means to me? Even someone who I disliked immensely? What gives me the right to take that away -- the only thing we ever truly have in this world: our time here? That's something that cannot have any price -- life. It's so precious, it's so rare, and it's so beautiful. What each of us makes of it on our own is up to us. We have nothing but what we have now — and this thought drives me to make life the best it possibly can be, to make it wonderful, brilliant, worth living. It makes me want to make our world a better place so that those who come after me have a beautiful place where they can thrive.

That's why I fight for atheism to be recognized. Not because I want to change theists into atheists, but because I want them to know that, regardless of belief, we are all the same, that life is precious, and that we have to work together to make the world a better place.

I like to play with my blog, but apparently not write much in it. That's going to change.

I moved psygeek from WordPress to Chyrp, because I detested the bloated back-end of WordPress. Heavily detested it. So when I saw my husband messing around with Chyrp, customizing the blogging platform to match his needs (which coincide with mine, most of the time), I piped up and asked for a copy to mess with for myself. Which meant I actually got around to designing a logo for psygeek, because I could easily find where to replace it.

I've also been thinking a lot about psygeek and what I want to do with it. While I'm passionate about psychology, and there are issues that truly fire me up, I'm not passionate enough about it to write about it¹.

Naturally, it followed that psygeek should either be no more, or it should evolve with me. I decided to let it evolve, because I feel bad that I've neglected it. Especially since I know I have a few readers who care enough to continue reading what I have to say. Plus, I hate abandoning projects once I start them. So while the idea behind psygeek has changed, hopefully the ardor behind it will not diminish as it did with the first. I still hope and plan to incorporate psychology into some of my posts, especially on the topic of gaming, and why I love the games I do.