According to some clever Unix timestamp manipulation, 1001 days from now it will be November 4, 2013. According to some clever folks on the Internets, 1001 days is a convenient amount of time to get some serious stuff accomplished. And … Continue reading →
Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio is now Pope Francis I.
Yeah, I’m a few (several) weeks late on the announcement. But it’s still momentous for two immediate reasons:
First pope from Latin America.
First Jesuit pope.
As with the election of every new pope (though there have only been two since I’ve been around), everyone is trying to predict what he’ll be like. The Catholic Church isn’t exactly known for its tendency to turn on a dime, so whatever grand hopes folks have for radical changes from an already-elderly pontiff in a Curia established over 35+ years, those hopes need to be tempered.
That being said, Pope Francis has already shown early signs that things may not be business-as-usual. Which is good, because at this point–John Paul II and Benedict XVI certainly had their strengths, but administration was not one of them–the Curia has become the very definition of corrupt. Even the Cardinals acknowledged it:
John Paul II’s notions of heroic priesthood lay in tatters, his episcopal appointments too often a collection of hot-blooded and imprudent ideologues who love to parade around in yards of silk and fine lace. Eight years ago the gathered cardinals would have smirked at talk of a church in crisis; this year they spoke of it themselves.
This article does a phenomenal job of summing up the aspirations of all Catholics (and non-Catholics!) who still hope that the Church can right itself, and do what it was meant to do: serve those no one else will.
The article nails it with this line:
Catholics really want to like and believe in their leaders. As has been demonstrated, it doesn’t take much. Catholics are not so much in search of world-class theology or grand international gestures as they are of authentic holiness and personal integrity.
(Corollary: the same can be said for our politicians. Just be a decent person instead of a viper out for blood)
Like so many top-heavy institutions of late, I feel that the Catholic Church has endless untapped potential that its leaders of late have ignored, leading to infighting and corruption and misplaced priorities. Why exactly do we care so much about whether or not to sanction pre-Vatican II High Masses? Why is this even an issue when it’s clear that the Curia cares more about preserving its own hold on power than, say, firing predatory priests or the bishops and cardinals who protected them?
While I sincerely doubt Pope Francis will set the Church back on the road to Vatican II collegiality–as awesome as that would be–I am very hopeful that he will at least reorient the Church back to putting the poorest and marginalized first. I think this has a realistic chance of happening, for a few reasons:
He’s a Jesuit. It’s kind of what they do.
He has a history of living the pauper’s life: taking the train to work, paying for his own apartment, shirking the traditional papal garments for plainer, more modest ones.
In perhaps the most concrete break with tradition, he did not give all the papal staff the rubber-stamped form letter that they should simply remain at their posts. Rather, he told them to remain “for now”, until more permanent accommodations are made.
The last one may not seem like much, but remember: we’re talking about an institution in which Tradition (with a capital T) is pretty much the same as law, and any breaks in those Traditions are serious business. For him to simply imply that changes might be coming is pretty much a guarantee that they are.
Ultimately, we can’t be sure what kind of pope he’ll be until all is said and done. While I don’t expect him to turn tail and embrace Vatican II, I do have hope that he’ll swing things back towards a healthy ecumenical middle ground. And all politicking aside, his down-and-dirty approach to leadership is something that I think is desperately needed after so many decades of intellectual standoffishness. At the end of the day, if his primary focus is the poorest of this world, I don’t think I or anyone else can fault him for that.
For the entirety of Lent this year (February 13 – March 30), not once did I log into Facebook. Only once did I post on Twitter, when I was having some Hadoop issues. Totally cold turkey.
And you know what? It was awesome.
I’ve made some extremely self-righteous posts here before about how I don’t really much care for social networks. While those were certainly somewhat hypocritical–I was checking those very networks almost daily–this particular Lent was the first time I completely stepped away from them for an extended period of time.
There are some very specific items I want to detail.
I didn’t miss anything important. Yeah, my birthday falls smack in the middle of Lent every. single. year. And in the age of Social Networks, that usually means you miss 95% of the birthday well-wishes from your friends and family. But the cool thing is: the people you’re really close to usually send a text message, a birthday card, or even a phone call. The people you want to hear from the most are the people who will find a medium in which to communicate with you. One measly social network does not a social life make or break.
When I returned, I found nothing particularly engaging. This sounds a bit old-fogey-ish, so let me explain, as it’s tightly coupled to the previous point. In scrolling back over the history of the timeline, everything I’d “missed” was either 1) something kind of cool but which I didn’t desperately need to know, like a picture of someone at a cool event or a status about some exciting new development in that person’s life, or 2) something I’d heard about through (recurring theme!) another medium. This was actually somewhat of an epiphany for me; there really wasn’t anything essential on Facebook. Fun, perhaps; dramatic, oh certainly; but essential? Important? Time-sensitive? Not in the slightest.
I cannot describe how liberating it was. This is probably the biggest item. Maybe it’s because graduate school leaves one looking for distractions anywhere one can find them, but after awhile you start feeling as though you have to keep up with everything that’s happening on Facebook. And it’s utterly draining. Conversely, the feeling of consciously ignoring everything on Facebook and instead relying on more personal methods of communication is so liberating. My stress levels fell noticeably, and the very thought of actively not logging in to Facebook to keep up with the rat race would always slow my heart rate down a couple of beats.
In the interest of complete disclosure, there are certainly a few points that warrant mentioning regarding the benefits of social networking that I missed during those 40 days.
Little things. A new video or picture of a friend’s growing baby, growing up and being completely adorable. Some witty bantering between family members I haven’t been able to see as much as I’d like. These truly carry a certain significance that can’t be overlooked.
Poke wars. The Lady and I have been engaged in a poke war pretty much since we met, and I REFUSE TO LOSE.
That’s pretty much what I get out of Facebook. Meaningful, yes, but it’s not what one might expect. This all comes with a very hefty dose of “your mileage may vary“, but I just can’t shake the overriding perception I have of Facebook as the epitome of millennial narcissism: it gives everyone an implicit audience to show off how awesome they are, but all that happens is everyone looks like a caricature of their true selves. Complex individuals are reduced to flat parodies, especially if I have no regular contact with them through any other means of communication.
To wit: Person A posts nothing but inflammatory political rants. Yawn. Person B posts nothing but GET IN SHAPE OR GET OUT memes. Yawn. Person C posts nothing but petitions. Yawn. Person D posts daily statuses about nothing in particular.
Yawn.
People become completely uninteresting, to be perfectly blunt. It hurts the soul, because I know they’re more than just the sum of their Facebook content! But that complexity doesn’t filter through into a self-curated online avatar. And that, more than anything else, is why I just can’t sell myself on the social networking boom. It is, at best, selectively social. And that is significantly less awesome. Case in point.
To wrap this up: those 40 days of Lent were among my most productive, engaging, and social. Basically everything that Facebook says it’s supposed to be. Chew on that one, Zuckerberg.
The Boston Marathon is huge. Iconic. Legendary. If you qualified to run it, you're lauded as a Real Runner - fast, dedicated, and maybe a little bit crazy (well, all of us marathoners are a little crazy, aren't we). It's the holy grail - this fierce, fragile thing just outside the average mid-packer's (like myself) grasp. We dream of it. We hunger for it.
This month is a beast. Like marathon training, I have to respect the beast. As such, until May 3 (when the last of my projects is due for the semester), I make no guarantees about the frequency with which I post here, or at any of my otherblogs. It will be a grueling race to the finish, and any spare time I have will (or, at least, should) be devoted to inching closer to the light at the end of the tunnel.
I have several mind-blowing posts in various stages of completion–more thoughts on SimCity, initial impressions and predictions for Pope Francis I, and even a statement on how much Facebook sucks–so make sure you stay tuned for all the upcoming EXCITEMzzzzzzzzzz
Yeah I know: I’m not a reviewer, I don’t review things on this site (much), I’m not even a critic of any kind (in the official sense). But I care enough about this game and the StarCraft universe in general that I feel like my opinion needs to be added to the multitudes of the Internets. For some reason.
Pensively human Kerrigan is pensively human.
For those who may not be intimately familiar with SC2 lore, let me catch you up really quick…
The original StarCraft pitted three races against each other: the Terrans, the Zerg, and the Protoss. As the legend goes, the latter two races were created by a very mysterious and powerful race of beings known as the Xel’Naga (for StarGate fans, think of these guys as the Ancients–very wise and intelligent beings whose experiments, while born of good intentions, sometimes had unintended consequences) who have long since vanished, though the Zerg played a part in that. It was through the annihilation of the Xel’Naga that the Zerg learned of the Protoss, sought them out for assimilation / destruction, and the Terrans get caught in between.
Now for a few character introductions. The Terrans see a lot of political conflicts in StarCraft I, at the forefront of which is a man named Arcturus Mengsk. He’s a revolutionary, leading a revolt against the corrupt Confederacy, the interplanetary governing body for the humans. He joins forces with Jim Raynor, a local marshall fed up with the Confederacy. The duo run quite the campaign against the Confederacy, destabilizing its hold on the surrounding colonies.
Jim Raynor: eternal optimist or disenchanted washout?
Enter Sarah Kerrigan. She’s also a former Confederate officer, a highly-trained assassin (or Ghost) with heightened mental abilities. She joins Mengsk as his lieutenant. Raynor takes an instant liking.
Long story short, Mengsk turns out to be pretty much as bad as the government he’s revolting against, using tactics that make Raynor and Kerrigan both cringe. Mengsk notices this and, in perhaps the single most pivotal moment in the entire StarCraft universe, betrays Kerrigan and leaves her to die at the hands of the Zerg during a mission.
Raynor departs the company of Arcturus, vowing his own revenge. But not long after these events, rather than Kerrigan having died as believed, they learn instead that she has been reborn within the Zerg as the Queen of Blades.
Fast forward a bit more: Kerrigan becomes the Zerg’s leader, and sets out not only for revenge against Arcturus, but also to wreak havoc across the entire sector, killing as many as possible in a campaign wrought with bloodbath. She’s absolutely ruthless.
Between StarCraft 1 and 2, there is a period of quiet. Four years’ worth, in fact. Mengsk, having shattered the Confederacy, installs a new government–the Terran Dominion–with himself as its emperor. Raynor becomes the revolutionary, but is ostracized and marginalized by Mengsk’s control of the media. And Kerrigan withdraws into an unsettling silence.
Come the events of StarCraft II, Kerrigan suddenly appears again, launching the Zerg in a series of invasions in an effort to capture a long-lost Xel’Naga artifact of extraordinary power. Coincidentally (or not so much), Raynor is also after the same artifact, and the two clash multiple times. Ultimately, the game culminates in a showdown between Raynor and Kerrigan, the former of whom has possession of the artifact, the latter of whom is attempting to take it. At the last minute, the artifact is activated, and has the effect of “deinfesting” the Queen of Blades, returning Kerrigan to her human form.
Thus sets the stage for Heart of the Swarm!
SPOILERS! SPOILERS! SPOILERS!
Having returned to her human form, Kerrigan is no longer the bloodthirsty Zerg she once was. But she still remembers Mengsk’s betrayal, and still wishes to kill him.
It’s a very interesting character dynamic. She obviously still loves Raynor–and he loves her–and they now have a chance to leave it all behind and be together, which is what Raynor wants. Kerrigan wants it too…but she has a hard time letting go of the hate.
Enter the Dominion, still trying to kill Kerrigan once and for all. Raynor and Kerrigan are separated in their escape attempt. It becomes clear Kerrigan is relying on Raynor to keep her newly-returned humanity intact. So it makes sense that, upon news from the Dominion-controlled news media that Raynor was executed, Kerrigan goes ballistic.
Kerrigan is a woman scorned–twice!–out for revenge. And yes, she is clearly capable of some horrific atrocities from her time as the Queen of Blades. But she’s fully in control of her actions now.
So why the F does she go kill-them-all on the Protoss expeditionary force in the Kaldir missions?
“The plot has broken! Retreat to a better story!”
These three missions seriously make absolutely no sense to me. The purpose is to re-establish contact with the brood mother here; you learn very early in the first mission that she’s dead. We know the Protoss are no friends of the former Queen of Blades, but she’s been de-infested. New beginnings and all, right? Plus the Protoss don’t like Mengsk either. Soooo, maybe try to form some sort of alliance? Or at least a detente?
Zeratul even pays Kerrigan a personal visit during the Zerus missions. I know he’s in self-imposed exile, but what with the Prophecy and Kerrigan’s role in that, I would hope he’d have informed a few of his Protoss buddies that she’s the key to the whole thing? Even so, these Protoss clearly recognize that Kerrigan is different now. There’s at least a chance for some diplomacy.
But no, Kerrigan decides to just wipe them all out. End of story.
Seriously, WAT? This makes no sense from either a story perspective or even a tactical one.
The rest of the game makes up for this slight, I think. Kerrigan learns that Raynor may still be alive, and she learns about the Prophecy and her role against Amon in the coming battle, and her actions become more nuanced. Even before she learns he could be alive, it’s clear she hasn’t surrendered completely to revenge, as evidenced by this particularly heart-wrenching cutscene.
The ending of the game is equally bittersweet. The final mission is seriously one of the best I’ve played, both from a gaming perspective and in terms of a story. It’s a phenomenal ride up to the climax where she exacts her revenge. Both she and Raynor, obviously still in love, know that they have other duties at the moment, but they’re not enemies. It’s wrapped up nicely, not necessarily in the way I wanted, but in a way that works really well.
Except for those damn Kaldir missions. What the hell were those?
Positives
Engrossing story (for the most part)
Lots of creative missions, but with plenty of “turtling” opportunities
Zeratul comes back again
Badass final mission and final cutscene
90% of Kerrigan’s character arc is fantastic
Non-binding unit upgrades are epic
Negatives
Too short (only 20 missions)
Don’t get to play as Protoss
Kerrigan’s motives are occasionally completely nonsensical
Kaldir missions make no sense at all
Zeratul should’ve been able to beat the snot out of Kerrigan, just sayin’
Overall: A-
I’ll definitely play it again (gotta get all the achievements!), and I’ll absolutely get Legacy of the Void when it comes out in another 17 years to wrap up the StarCraft II storyline.
As I sit here in my absurdly comfortable hotel room in Kampala, Uganda, and attempt to fill out my grant assessment forms (amendment to my previous post: in addition to Maroc Telecom, PAPERWORK is satan incarnate!), I realized I have yet to do the real grant assessment: a blog entry about Tameslouht's first annual Interfaith Dialogue!
I played the original SimCity as a kid. I have fond memories of being so hooked on the game that I’d wake up at 4am just so I could get in more gaming time beyond my 1 hour/day allowed quota.
(that lasted until I got caught one morning…oops)
It was engaging. It was immersive. It appealed to the fledgling nerd in me to play a game that was open-ended and for the singular purpose of seeing what I could possibly create. It let my imagination run wild.
Fast forward a few years, and out comes its sequel, SimCity 2000.
Mmm, stadiums.
I played the bejeezus out of this game. I was old enough to start employing some semblance of strategy and to understand the benefits of pre-planning the terrain for your city, and still young enough to be passionate about the opportunities awaiting me in the virtual sandbox.
It took awhile, but one of my best cities eventually acquired enough Launch Arcologies to begin the Exodus, the closest thing to “winning” in this version of SimCity. I couldn’t have been prouder. I further experimented with different asset overlays, the robustness of various terrains to particular natural disasters, and even flew through a bunch of my cities when SimCopter came out.
Even though I never got around to trying out SimCity 3000 and SimCity 4, these two games alone defined a not-insignificant portion of my childhood. They directly led to many other games I played growing up–SimAnt, SimFarm, SimPark (which my sister played far more than I did, and I played it quite a bit!), and SimTower, another one of my favorites.
Needless to say, when I heard about the new SimCitythat was under development, I was pretty excited. I immediately stuck it on my Amazon birthday wishlist, since its release date was in conveniently close proximity. I waited with breath that was baited.
Until the reviews started coming in.
EA: “Here’s a brilliant idea, let’s fundamentally break this game!”
First, the game’s very architecture directly resulted in the game being completely unplayable for the first 96 hours after its initial release. We’d known for awhile that EA was going to enforce an “always-on” requirement, meaning that in order to play the game in any capacity, you had to have an active internet connection. This has been implemented before, usually as a DRM method, and the only case I know of where it didn’t create a public relations disaster is that of StarCraft 2. And I suspect that’s because the game 1) is awesome, and 2) allows a limited amount of flexibility with the always-on requirement: you can still play single-player, except your scores won’t be saved and you can’t unlock achievements.
So of course, with a huge crowd of nostalgic gamer geeks clamoring to play the first SimCity title in over a decade, coupled with the requirement that the game be alwaysconnected to EA servers, those servers were quickly overwhelmed, resulting in nobody being able to play the game. Well done, EA. Well done.
Second, EA’s response was paltry. Yes, they apologized (a rare, if otherwise unheard-of, move for the video game manufacturer), and they provided a $50 EA credit to everyone with issues, but in my mind this is pretty useless. They flat-out denied anyone refunds, and frankly I never understood the act of giving someone a credit to your store when it was your own store that created the bad experience in the first place. “Yeah that sandwich tasted like fried shit, so I’d love to have $50 in free fried shit!”
Furthermore, as a quick fix to ease the load on the EA servers, EA disabled a great bit of SimCity functionality. When you have to intentionally cripple software just to get it to work properly, how does that not amount to an argument for a refund? Or suggest that your entire approach may have been flawed to begin with…
Third, and most damning in my opinion, is that EA has not budged on any of its philosophical decisions that went into the game and its architecture in the first place. It has absolutely no plans to remove the “always-on” DRM, even though its justification for doing so recently took a beating. It has no remorse for effectively forcing players into a multiplayer “region” when every single previous incarnation was a strictly single-player game. There’s something to be said for “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” And worst of all, from that previous article, it would seem the game is full of holes: the simulation engine appears incomplete at best.
Zero Punctuation regularly calls out video game manufacturers for essentially cranking a lever on a machine that spits out generic video games stamped with a high-profile manufacturer’s label, guaranteeing fanboy profits for the next several years. EA has been one of the worst perpetrators of this construct, with so many of its games showing a regular inception of sequels. It’s also received a lot of flak for its draconian DRM implementations, but with its hulking bottom line, they probably just don’t care as long as rabid fanboys continue to purchase its spunkgargleweewee.
Well, I’m here to say that I refuse to put my hard-earned and graduate-student-sparse cash into this cheapskate video game manufacturer’s coffers. I loved Maxis and its Sim franchise, and consequently I am appalled that EA would so twist the brand in an obvious pursuit to wrangle every possible penny from Maxis’ legion of loyal followers. I won’t be purchasing the game at all until all of the following conditions are met:
The “always-on” requirement is at least eased, if not removed entirely. I want to be able to play a quick 20-minute session on my laptop while I’m sitting in a waiting room with nothing else to do.
The vaunted and much-publicized “GlassBox” simulation engine is fixed. If you’re artificially inflating figures for the sake of making it look like your simulation engine is doing what you said it does, you have a lot more work to do.
Cities are allowed to expand far more than they are now. One of the biggest limitations of SimCity 2000 was the limited real estate you had to build a city. That was fixed in SimCity 4–the area you had in which to build a city was huge. Now it seems like EA didn’t read up on their history, because they went right back to tiny blocks of terrain. Allow gamers a little room for their imaginations to fill!
I honestly don’t give two shits about multiplayer in SimCity. I really don’t. And no, it’s not one of those “you don’t realize you want it” things; SimCity has a legacy of success in allowing individuals to build the cities of their dreams. If you want to include the option of allowing us to build regions with other people, that’s fine, but forcing it upon everyone breaks a fundamental baseline of SimCity and wedges players into a niche they have neither patience for nor interest in. Not everything needs to be “social”!
