Why Can't I Carry More Than Two Guns?

Call of Duty was the third first-person shooter I owned back when it came out in 2003. The game was a big shift from previous FPS games in that you fought alongside other soldiers instead of being a lone wolf the entire time. The Russian campaign was particularly exciting as the developers didn't seem to care if dozens of them were slaughtered next to you. The first portion was based off the film Enemy At the Gates-crossing the river into Stalingrad while boats were being sunk and strafed by the German Luftwaffe all around you. Then you were issued five rounds for a rifle that you were supposed to take off one of your comrades after they were slaughtered by entrenched German MG-42s.


At least you finally got a weapon by the second level.

Anyway, it was an exciting game and I didn't resent a restriction in the series that continues to this day-you can only carry two weapons at a time.

Medal of Honor: Allied Assault was the second FPS I owned back in 2001 and part of its appeal was that you could switch between sub-machine guns, shotguns, sniper rifles, the BAR, and the rest of the World War II arsenal. The campaign wasn't quite as exciting, but it was fun to be able to switch weapons based on the circumstances. You could grab a sniper rifle for some situations, whip out a shotgun if you had to enter a house, or pull out whatever you wanted for when you had to hide from the MG-42s in Normandy.


Obligatory D-Day level. It's mandated to be in every WWII game.

Multiplayer for Allied Assault was similarly varied. You could pick whatever weapon you wanted and keep picking them up off the corpses of your enemies until you died.


You could also choose to play as a mad scientist, among other ridiculous costume choices.

Unfortunately, most games chose to follow Call of Duty's example in order to be more "realistic" instead of opting for the fun of being able to carry around a backpack full of assorted weapons. I can understand why restrictions exist in multiplayer, as it may affect game balance if one player is able to have every weapon at once. But why does this limitation exist in the single player game? Part of the fun is switching between different weapons.

This was particularly infuriating in the British campaign in Call of Duty 2. The first problem was that instead of giving you a Sten SMG or a Bren LMG, the unique British weapons, you were given the same Thompson that you were issued for all of the American missions.


Get used to looking at this for 75% of Call of Duty 2's single player campaign.

The second problem that occurred in both the first and second Call of Duty games was that it was easy to run out of ammunition for your starting weapons. This meant that you could either try and get through the game by using melee attacks or you had to pick up the German weapons. The first option is ridiculous and the latter option means that you're stuck using nothing but the MP40 and Kar-98K rifle for the entire goddamn game whether you're playing as Russia, America, or Britain. This was a significant factor behind why I never finished Call of Duty 2's campaign.

In 2007, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare came out. Surely the huge variety of weapons in the game means that the campaign will be diverse now, right? After all, you have American weapons, European weapons, Soviet bloc weapons, surely they'll let you use all of that? Well, no. You're still limited to just two guns. Usually you get issued an American weapon with more attachments than you're allowed to use in multiplayer and a pistol or SMG as your second weapon.


If you want to pick a gun up off the enemy, it's just a question of which AK-47 variant you want to use.

Although the graphical improvements were enough to get me to the end of Modern Warfare, along with the one really fun level in Pripyat where you got to sneak around in a ghillie suit, it's not a game that's worth playing twice because of the weapon limitation. Even worse, there are some parts of the game where you have to pick up a Javelin or other anti-tank or anti-aircraft weapon. This necessitates swapping one of your two weapons with the missile launcher. I always end up accidentally swapping the weapon I want to keep so I have to stand there for ten seconds or so until I can get to the right gun. This will end with me getting killed because they never place them behind cover; they're always set out where all the enemies are shooting.


Fortunately it locks on automatically so I don't have to figure out how to use that complicated sight.

Even games that shouldn't have to worry about seeming realistic have decided to limit the player to two guns. Army of Two, for instance, limits the player to either two or three weapons, (I forget which). This is despite the fact that they could easily haul around a few more if they just ditched some of their extraneous body armor.


Or if they put a backpack on...

Duke Nukem Forever, which tries to poke fun at current games, decides to follow the same convention for some bizarre reason. I've never actually played any games in the series, but I thought that part of its appeal was that it was just trying to be fun with no pretensions of seriousness. Why would you limit Duke's arsenal?


I guess the advertisements for previous games in the series were prophetic.

Why is this Problematic?
Let's go back to the first FPS I owned, Chex Quest. This was easily the best prize to come with a box of cereal ever. It was a modified version of Doom where you zorch green Flemoids with a wide variety of weapons.

You could:

Shoot them at long range with the Zorch Propulsor, although this risked causing damage to you if you were too close.


Wade into melee with the Super Bootspork!


Use the Rapid Zorcher for intense firefights.

All these different weapons led to a lot of strategy. If ammo for a staple weapon like the Rapid Zorcher was running low, you could use the Super Bootspork to save a few rounds. It also allows for more specialization of weapons, with some being useful for long range, some for short range, and some that you should only use against large groups or in desperate situations, like the Zorch Propulsor that also hurts you a significant amount. In comparison, if you only have two weapons the game can't fairly limit your ammunition supply as you don't have a lot of backup choices.

Bioshock was another game that gained a lot from allowing the player to hold an entire arsenal in their inventory. In addition to different guns you could also use different types of ammunition, each of which makes the weapon more effective against different enemies.


For example, antipersonnel rounds are great for blowing holes in splicers.

Max Payne also had a lot of different weapons to pick from, ranging from handguns to assault rifles. In many cases, this would require the player to decide whether they should stick to handguns and shotguns for single encounters early on to save more powerful ammunition for larger fights later in the level.


Fortunately the game was also much better than the movie.

Conclusion
I don't care if it's not realistic for the main character to have two handguns, three assault rifles, two sub-machine guns, a sniper rifle, and four different kinds of grenades. It's fun and that's what games are supposed to be about.


Max Payne doesn't like it when his weapon choices are restricted.

Trickle Down Economics Doesn't Work

The Theory
One of the most heralded theories behind Republican economic policies of the last few decades has been trickle down economics. Basically, the theory holds that wealthy individuals pass down a significant portion of their income to lower income brackets. Thus, what is good for the wealthy will also be good for everyone else. After all, someone has to mow their lawns and prepare their meals right?

The theory is also applied to large corporations and companies. Policies beneficial for them should also be good for smaller businesses and consumers.

In Practice



Unfortunately, in practice there isn't much of a trickle down to the lesser classes. With the exception of some celebrities and dictators, most of the wealthy tend to place their wealth in places like this:



This is great for their personal net worth, but unfortunately wealth has to be spent in order for it to trickle down to the middle and lower class. The wealthy also have access to all sorts of ways to keep their money in places where it cannot be taxed at all or is not taxed at a very high rate. This results in the middle and lower classes bearing a larger share of the tax burden needed to finance the government than the upper class, (yes, the wealthy still pay more total dollars in all likelihood, but as a PERCENTAGE of their total wealth they do not). Corporations are also fond of moving their corporate headquarters around the world to dodge taxes as well.

So how has the last couple decades of removing regulations and lowering taxes for the wealthy played out in terms of the finances of the common folk? Since the wealthy are, by any standard, doing better than ever, if the trickle down theory holds true regular people should also see their situation in life improving.


A Rolex for everyone right!?

It isn't trickling down
Here's an image of the actual income distribution in the United States.



The top 20% of incomes hold about 80% of the wealth in the country. The bottom 60% of Americans hold around 5% of the total wealth. If trickle down economics really worked that would not be the distribution.

Another unsurprising but depressing statistic came out recently, the average worker's share of national income produced by businesses has dropped to a record low. This trend began in the recession following 9/11 and has continued to this day.




This is despite the fact that corporate profits have been rising significantly over the last year or so, with massive gains reported in late 2010. However, rather than using that money to create jobs, raise pay, or promote workers, companies have chosen to use it to expand their infrastructure by purchasing new equipment and software. Although this may improve productivity it doesn't create many jobs. Even worse, many are simply holding on to their profits as a cash reserve.

Why has the worker's share of revenue decreased so much?

Partially it would seem to be the end result of the shift of millions of well-paying manufacturing and technology jobs overseas. With the benefit of strong, tough unions, laborers used to make good wages and solid benefits building automobiles and other items, but shifting jobs overseas allowed companies to hire cheaper workers and not have to pay union salaries. This helps companies profit handily but the workers who held such jobs are stuck with poor career choices. In many cases, they have to train for an entire new career. I know several nurses who used to work in the automobile industry but they saw the changes that were coming and realized they would have to find a new career if they wanted to keep a job.

Another possible explanation is that unions have declined in power lately. In many cases, they have been successfully cast by conservatives as being a villain fighting hard against corporations valiantly trying to create jobs.


After all, the Communists had a union too!

One of the most successful smear jobs was against the U.S. automobile industry, where union wages and benefits were blamed for why U.S. automakers were uncompetitive. Some popular myths included the "fact" that auto workers were making $70 a hour. It actually was blatant misinformation that included all benefits in the hourly wage, but that was conveniently ignored. Besides producing inferior vehicles for a period of time, the main reason that U.S. automakers are in trouble is that they have a lot of retired workers to support whereas foreign automakers haven't been around as long in the United States so they do not have hundreds of thousands of retiree's worth of pensions and healthcare to cover.

Yes, unions create vexation for many companies, but they are one of the few ways workers have to negotiate with large multinational corporations. If anyone thinks Domino's Pizza will talk to one of their delivery drivers who has a problem with how they do things, they're talking out of their ass. However, they will have to listen if all of their delivery drivers together have a problem with the way they're doing business. If you are in a business without a union, asking for a raise with all of the current economic fear is a good way to lose your job. This is especially true when all sorts of companies and even the government are hemorrhaging positions, forcing early retirements, cutting pay, and slashing benefits.

How could this problem get any worse?

Expenses are Rising
Well, unfortunately the price of most basic commodities like fuel and food have also been rising lately.


The data is still coming in for how Rolls Royce prices have been affected.

As pay isn't improving in line with price increases, the spending power of most Americans is reduced. Given that the average salary of the bottom 90% of Americans is around $30,000, that poses a bit of a problem.



Well, the solution to that should be easy right? Get a better education and you can get a higher paying job! That would be a great solution except that the price of college has also been rising dramatically. I was fortunate in that my parents made wise investments for my college education so that I graduated debt free, but I know many friends who are $40,000 or more in debt and will have to try and pay that off with dubious job prospects on the horizon. But, hey, maybe the answer is to take out some more loans and go to grad school!


Possible back injury risk not included in tuition and fees.

Will it get better?
There is certainly a problem with the distribution of wealth in the United States. It used to be that one decent salary was able to support an entire family back in the 1950's. I'm not going to pretend that it was a golden age for the United States, as there was a great deal of wage and job discrimination toward women and minorities, but the actual distribution of wealth was much more equitable.

Jobs should offer a decent living wage. It isn't right when families with two wage earners, who are possibly working more than one job each, are worse off than families who had just one position fifty years ago. Unfortunately, many of the jobs that are being created at this point tend to be in the service industry category-jobs with low pay, poor to no benefits, and minimal room for advancement. These aren't the types of positions that are going to solve this problem.

It's somewhat understandable that companies are reluctant to make new, well paying jobs right now. The economy's recovery is still uncertain. However, it's also a fact that until unemployment goes down Americans will not feel confident in the economy. Maybe if companies tried hiring some employees it would help move us in the direction of a recovery.