Padfoot240.com

So I read Love Wins, I figured I’d post my thoughts on the book.  I really don’t know where to begin.  I have thoughts on what I liked, on what I didn’t like, and on what other people thought of the book.  So, I guess it’s best to just go in that order.  First part is now.

What I liked about Love Wins

I really liked a big focus on the fact that the age to come(the Kingdom of God) is starting NOW.  This isn’t something we have to wait to be swept up into.  We can partake and initiate it here on earth today.  God is yearning for a complete restoration of his creation, and we get to participate in that.  The other age starts NOW!  Along with this mindset, an important biblical truth is brought up–heaven isn’t our final destination.  Bell briefly goes over the difference between what Jesus talks about as heaven, or paradise, and the new creation.  A new heaven and a new earth.  You can read about this in more depth in other books, but the idea is that we will stay in a temporary location before God’s Kingdom is renewed on earth.  While we greatly anticipate that day, we can help change things today!  Get involved in a community outreach program!  Go buy a povertee!  Help fund a well in Uganda.  You can further God’s Kingdom right now.  On the flip side, the opposite of the Kingdom of God can be present here today as well.  Rape, murder, abuse.  I’m fairly sure we all know these things aren’t from God or His Kingdom.  Both of these realities need to be seen as present and future states that we need to address.  I love the emphasis on this way of thinking because Jesus came down to help the sick, not the healthy.  We are to help destroy the hells on earth, and in their places bring about the Kingdom of God.

One excerpt that I really liked was about our craving for justice and judgement.  I’m just going to quote right from the book because I thought it was perfectly laid out there.(37)

God says no to injustice.  God says, “Never again” to the oppressors who prey on the weak and vulnerable.  God declares a ban on weapons.

It’s important to remember this the next time we hear people say they can’t believe in a “God of judgement.”

Yes, they can.  Often, we can think of little else.  Every oil spill, every report of another woman sexually assaulted, every news report that another political leader has silenced the opposition through torture, imprisonment, and execution, every time we see someone stepped on by an institution or corporation more interested in profit than people, every time we stumble upon one more instance of the human heart gone wrong, we shake our fist and cry out, “Will somebody please do something about this?”

We crave judgement, we long for it, we thirst for it.  Bring it, unleash it, as the prophet Amos says, “Let justice roll on like a river” (chap 5).

Same with the word “anger.”  When we hear people saying they can’t believe in a God who gets angry–yes, they can.  How should God react to a child being forced into prostitution?

A lot of thoughts and questions were shared about salvation in general:

A really early point Bell brought up is a thought that while many Christians claim that no action earns you salvation, accepting Jesus into your life does; the personal relationship with Jesus.  Bell points out that accepting Jesus is also an action.  This, I think, was really brought up a to support that we cannot really know what entails salvation, possibly nudging at inclusivism.  Another point was even the demons believe, will they get salvation?  This easily explained away before it gets too out of hand.  Simply believing is not enough.  Yes, even the demons believe that God exists, but do they believe in what God stands for?  Apparently not since they continue to defy Him.  Same for people, believing in who God is and what He is about is the real deal here.  ”I will show you my faith by my works.”(James 2:18)

What Bell is saying that there is a danger in thinking of salvation as transactional; it could be simplified down to that transaction, that action, that work.  We cannot get into a mindset where salvation happens, it is done, we own it.  What salvation is usually thought of is transactional then transformative because there needs to be that point in time when it all starts.  When someone says that prayer, when someone is baptized, when someone decides to throw their life away and give it all to Christ.  That is our transaction and everything afterwards is our transformation.  I would say that we think of it in this way(as a transactional, having a definite start) because that is how we work.  In the same way that we cannot imagine God without beginning or end, we try to nail down t=0 for our salvation.  Maybe it is easier to think we trade belief for salvation from Jesus.  I don’t think Bell is saying that there isn’t a start to it, just that there is a danger if we really care that there is.  Bell is saying that this gift isn’t transactional in nature(or else it would be pointless) but transformative in nature!  When you deny your own idea of what happiness is and embrace God’s love, that isn’t a transaction but transformation!  When you take that leap of faith, you are already being transformed.  What is this gift of salvation?  Its God’s love, correct?  And love isn’t transactional in the same way that buying milk from Trader Joes is.  I don’t decide to trade x for love.

The age of accountability, a belief that young children won’t get judged on what they can’t understand as per their age and will receive salvation.  I’ve always had trouble in this belief.  What, at 12 years old the child suddenly becomes responsible for knowing who God is, what He wants for mankind, and if not they lucked out because their parents took care of them?  If this was true, wouldn’t the humane thing be to kill your children before they reach this age?  What about an atheist who turned 12 a week ago, was that seven day window all the time they had to get salvation?  What would they have to do in those seven days?  Can people be saved without explicitly knowing Jesus’ name?  Inclusivism is a popular view of salvation where salvation can extend to other “neighbor beliefs”.  How far this “inclusivist” gap is is up for debate and quite scary to give a definite answer about.  Can someone brought up in Islam who gets all the finer points of a merciful god wanting to redeem his creation through sacrifice and calling mankind to something greater catch salvation?  No because they call God by Allah?  No because they don’t know who Jesus is?  No because they weren’t baptized?  No because they find truth in the Quran?  On the other side of the coin, “Imagine a high-school student whose family is part of a Christian church.  She belongs to a Christian youth group, has only Christian friends, reads only Christian books and has to attend Christian chapel service, because it’s mandatory at the Christian high school she attends.”  While being SO CLOSE to good teaching, doctrine, community, and intentions she just doesn’t get Christ at all, yet she “believes”.  Will she catch salvation?  Yes because she knows Jesus is God?  Yes because she knows Jesus died on a cross?  Yes because she was baptized?  Yes because she finds truth in the Bible?

Some similar thoughts from another of my favorite authors, CS Lewis.  “There are people who do not accept the full Christian doctrine about Christ but who are so strongly attracted by Him that they are His in a much deeper sense than they themselves understand. There are people in other religions who are being led by God’s secret influence to concentrate on those parts of their religion which are in agreement with Christianity, and who thus belong to Christ without knowing it. For example, a Buddhist of good will may be led to concentrate more and more on the Buddhist teaching about mercy and to leave in the background (though he might still say he believed) the Buddhist teaching on certain other points.”(Lewis)  Can people belong to God without knowing it?

I’ll admit it, I’m an inclusivist.  I’m on board with CS Lewis.  I believe God cares more about you then what you know about Him, to an extent.  If you have ever read The Last Battle in the Chronicles of Narnia, I think it paints a beautiful picture.  Another metaphor could be like a kid observing the effects of gravity.  He notices objects fall down from higher to lower places.  He gets it, to an extent.  Maybe he doesn’t know the equations surrounding gravitational pull or that larger masses generate stronger gravitational forces.  Maybe he doesn’t even know its called gravity.  But he gets it, to an extent.  Would it be beneficial to learn more about it?  Yes.  Would he gain more insight if he knew everything about gravity?  Duh.  But he still gets it, to an extent.  Yes, it is a metaphor.  It breaks down in the same way that the story at the end of The Last Battle breaks down, because it is a metaphor.  But in some ways it is very similar.  Do I think I know how far this extent can go?  No.  Like I said before, it is quite dangerous to make presumptions about it.  But I, personally, can’t see Jesus being strictly exclusive.  If there is anything I’ve read in scripture, it is that Jesus is very much inclusive.  To an extent.

Bell revisits the parable of the lost son with a different take at the ending party scene involving the two brothers.  Bell states that the two brothers, while both at the party, represent the broken finding mercy and heaven while the proud find themselves in hell. The key point here is that they are both at the party.  You have the option to join in, to recognize that what God wants is perfection, but you don’t have to.  ”To reject God’s grace, to turn from God’s love, to resist God’s telling, will lead to misery.  It is a form of punishment, all on its own.”(176)  I don’t think Bell is suggesting that both heaven and hell are in the same location, or similar except our attitudes, but that you can be “at God’s party” without really partaking in God.  You can have done everything “right” in your life, but then not really understand who God is.  Similarly, a lost son who has squandered his dad’s wealth can return home to be a VIP at the party.  Hell is being at the party and refusing God in his face.

Two last things I really liked about the book:

• If something is wrong with your God, nothing can save you.
  • This is closely related to the idea of God being unfair.  Many people will say that they can’t believe in a God that is unfair and mean.  Now the real question in this case I think is whether their reason is truly “unfair” or not, but if it is then I would agree with them.  Why should I believe in a God who is out to get me?  Or others?  I don’t want any part in that.  I rejoice in the fact that my Jesus is the opposite, unfair and nice.  Jesus is here for you, wants to help you, and loves you.  He will actually go further than what is required of Him to try and ensure your salvation.  That is a God that I can and want to know, not someone who is waiting for others to mess up so He can punish them or send them to hell.
  • Some people will bring up the point that “we cannot say what is fair, only God can”.  To that I say, if we as humans are unable to comprehend or recognize simple things such as fairness and/or justice then we have no room to discuss or point things out about it.  I believe God didn’t create us completely out of His loop, we can grasp Him but never entirely understand Him.  Otherwise, what is the point of anything?
• God’s Kingdom isn’t about ‘getting in’
  • I love this.  I think Rock Harbor said it very well in a sermon a couple weeks ago: the reward for following Jesus isn’t heaven, riches, or a wife.  The reward for following Jesus is…following Jesus.  What you learn about Him(your creator), and a great way to go about life.  You get Jesus.
  • God’s Kingdom isn’t a lot of hard work and a reward at the end.  You don’t earn it.  And it is not “unfair” or “pointless” if other people can get in.

Check out my other thoughts on Love Wins

• Love Wins: What I Didn’t Like
• Love Wins: Other Thoughts

So I have a monster blog post cooking right now.  A small set up is that I decided to check out Rob Bell’s new book Love Wins a little bit ago.  Wow.  So much to say about that.  But reading it has prompted me to dig a little deeper into traditional Christian beliefs, theology, and what do we really know about it all.  Just talking with others about it has stirred something that I find to be quite alarming and I want to look into it.  So be on the look out for that…

In other news:

• I am graduating college in about a month
• I have secured my first full time job for after I graduate
• I am getting better at Starcraft

I’m not sure if you knew, but I am an introvert.  For example: today I woke up, read a book for 2 hours, emptied the dish washer, cooked an omelet, watched some TV with two of my roommates, took a nap, did some homework, watched some more TV, did some more homework, played some Starcraft by myself, and now I am watching a /r/starcraft KotH while I write this blog.  All day, with maybe an hour of human interaction(if you can call watching TV with people human interaction).  It was a good day.  A friend over facebook shared an article today entitled 10 Myths About Introverts, and that is what prompted this post.  Whenever the topic of introvert vs extrovert comes up, I’ve always seen introverts treated as a kind of broken person.  You know, introverts are shy, awkward, and people hating who should strive to become extroverts–the perfection of humanity.  I was always perfectly fine with being an introvert, I thought it fit my habits: computers, video games, reading, hiking, and building things.

Anyway, the article talks about several myths associated with the introvert persona.  I think most of them make sense so I’m going to put them here.  I’d suggest that you read them if you have friends that are introverts or even if you yourself are an introvert.  A couple of them taught me something new(like #9).

Myth #1 – Introverts don’t like to talk.
This is not true.  Introverts just don’t talk unless they have something to say.  They hate small talk.  Get an introvert talking about something they are interested in, and they won’t shut up for days.

Myth #2 – Introverts are shy.
Shyness has nothing to do with being an Introvert.  Introverts are not necessarily afraid of people.  What they need is a reason to interact.  They don’t interact for the sake of interacting.  If you want to talk to an Introvert, just start talking.  Don’t worry about being polite.

Myth #3 – Introverts are rude.
Introverts often don’t see a reason for beating around the bush with social pleasantries.  They want everyone to just be real and honest.  Unfortunately, this is not acceptable in most settings, so Introverts can feel a lot of pressure to fit in, which they find exhausting.

Myth #4 – Introverts don’t like people.
On the contrary, Introverts intensely value the few friends they have.  They can count their close friends on one hand.  If you are lucky enough for an introvert to consider you a friend, you probably have a loyal ally for life.  Once you have earned their respect as being a person of substance, you’re in.

Myth #5 – Introverts don’t like to go out in public.
Nonsense.  Introverts just don’t like to go out in public FOR AS LONG.  They also like to avoid the complications that are involved in public activities. They take in data and experiences very quickly, and as a result, don’t need to be there for long to “get it.” They’re ready to go home, recharge, and process it all. In fact, recharging is absolutely crucial for Introverts.

Myth #6 – Introverts always want to be alone.
Introverts are perfectly comfortable with their own thoughts.  They think a lot.  They daydream.  They like to have problems to work on, puzzles to solve.  But they can also get incredibly lonely if they don’t have anyone to share their discoveries with.  They [just] crave authentic and sincere connection[s] with [fewer people] at a time.

Myth #7 – Introverts are weird.
Introverts are often individualists.  They don’t follow the crowd.  They’d prefer to be valued for their novel ways of living.  They think for themselves and because of that, they often challenge the norm.  They don’t make most decisions based on what is popular or trendy.

Myth #8 – Introverts are aloof nerds.
Introverts are people who primarily look inward, paying close attention to their thoughts and emotions.  It’s not that they are incapable of paying attention to what is going on around them, it’s just that their inner world is much more stimulating and rewarding to them.

Myth #9 – Introverts don’t know how to relax and have fun.
Introverts typically relax at home or in nature, not in busy public places.  Introverts are not thrill seekers and adrenaline junkies.  If there is too much talking and noise going on, they shut down.  Their brains are too sensitive to the neurotransmitter called Dopamine.  Introverts and Extroverts have different dominant neuro-pathways.  Just look it up.  [This is factual and kinda tripped me out a little]

Myth #10 – Introverts can fix themselves and become Extroverts.
A world without Introverts would be a world with few scientists, musicians, artists, poets, filmmakers, doctors, mathematicians, writers, and philosophers.  That being said, there are still plenty of techniques an Extrovert can learn in order to interact with Introverts.  Introverts cannot “fix themselves” and deserve respect for their natural temperament and contributions to the human race.  In fact, one study (Silverman, 1986) showed that the percentage of Introverts increases with IQ.

Well I thought this was a good way to break my zombie status.  Amidst my last quarter at UCI, searching for a full time job, and setting up and posting on my professional website I have neglected this a bit.  I hope to not as my life gets a little less complicated soon enough.

I saw this on the Colbert show a couple days ago.  I thought the Havard professor’s ideas were very thought provoking.  I also thought it was interesting seeing Colbert talk about his faith briefly.  If you didn’t know he is a Sunday school teacher.  Oh man, how much would I pay to sit in on a Bible lesson from Colbert…

Sean Dorrance Kelly-Sean Dorrance Kelly believes that we’ve lost the notion of what’s sacred in our existence (06:48)

So what do you think?  I don’t think that it means you can’t literally EVER laugh at something or it looses the sacredness(?). But laughing as in ridiculing it for being what it is. Laughing at something funny/ironic is different than ridiculing something to destroy its image.  So I think there is a middle ground we should tread here.  I mean after all, satire is a genius way of getting a point across.  And I love to laugh at satire.

I’ve reached a new point in my life, looking for a full-time job. I’m going to be graduating in June and I am now putting out resume’s, receiving interview requests, and networking for referrals. I have been wondering about the proper use of this blog/website. If you haven’t noticed, I now have a Code Examples page and an About Me page up on the sidebar alongside my blog(which is semi-personal). Is this unprofessional?

Should I make a separate page for these work related things and keep the personal blog somewhere else? Another thing, is the actual address(www.padfoot240.com) unprofessional to be on a resume telling people to check out what I am working on?

Tell me people in the workforce, because I don’t know. I haven’t been there before.

There are currently a few payment models used for online gaming.

• Totally Free
  • This is always the more preferred model from a customer’s point of view.  I mean hey, its free!  After buying a game, any online functionality is free of charge.  You can play, chat, friend request to your heart’s desire.
  • The most recognizable company that usually always uses this model is Valve and their multiplayer games(Left4Dead, Counterstrike, Team Fortress 2).  Valve has a key difference here when facilitating online play for its games, the servers are for the most part owned by the users.  When a user wants to play a game he can either join a server already hosting one or create his own.  This functionality drops Valve’s cost to host all the multiplayer games almost down to $0.  Valve doesn’t have to keep up the maintenance to ensure no lag or keep all the servers patched up, the users do.  Valve merely hands them the tools along with the game and says, “Go have fun!”  I think this is genius.  Not only does it keep the product’s cost down, it makes the users happy because they don’t have to pay to play, AND gives the users the tools to create and modify the game’s mechanics on their own servers.  If you want to have zero gravity when fighting zombies, you can do that.  If you only want your friends to play on your server, you can do that.  As long as the users want to play this game online, they will find ways to do it because they have to.  Meanwhile Valve can focus time and energy on making new games.  Starcraft also uses this model, one of the most popular games of all time.  I think it is important to mention that the fact that these games are targeted for the Computer platform instead of a console is important here.  You can’t host your own console game server as easily, but maybe that problem should be looked into…
• Pay to Play
  • Conversely, this is the model that a big majority of online gamers hate.  ”Why should we be charged continuously for a game we just bought?” they ask.  World of Warcraft is an excellent example of this model, racking in millions of dollars every month from its monthly subscription costs alone.  Most MMORPGs use this model because of the HUGE upkeep it takes for the environment to always be online so all the users can play together.
  • The biggest company that uses this model is Microsoft with Xbox Live.  Now, technically someone can argue that XBL falls in the next category, but since you can’t really play games online with XBL Silver(Microsoft’s free service) I am just going to talk about XBL Gold as the standard here.  XBL costs about $60 for 12 months of service($5 per month).  The features included are online multiplayer gaming(guests playing on your Xbox with you can also play), free and exclusive betas/game demos/premium downloadable content/Microsoft Game Store items, Netflix integration(if you have netflix streaming), friend list, movie rental service, and they also just added free ESPN3 through your Xbox.  Since Xbox is a console system the game servers can’t be hosted anywhere so Microsoft has to do some upkeep with their servers for most of these services; I don’t think Microsoft themselves hosts the multiplayer game servers since the actual companies who produce the games do that.
• Pay for Premium Features
  • I see a lot of online systems use this model since it has the best of both words from the other two.  The consumer gets the free functionality to a point, but if they want some better features or items then they have to pay for a premium service.  This premium service may very well be the same functionality and price as the Pay to Play model.
  • Playstation Network uses this model.  The PSN is the free service; features include online game play(no guests allowed), access to the Playstation store, Netflix integration(if you have netflix streaming), friend list, and movie download service.  PSN+ offers these features plus some more for $50 for 12 months of service($4.17 per month); free/exclusive betas/game demos/premium downloadable content/PlayStation Store items, and a free subscription to Qore(online gaming magazine).

If quality games produced by Valve can make them free to play online then why aren’t all the other companies doing that?  ”Well duh, they are greedy” you might say.  I’m not entirely convinced of that argument.  I won’t say that turning a profit doesn’t have anything to do with it, but I think that fact that console game servers are propriety(at least for now) means that we will have to pay to have other people(mainly the game companies) maintain them.  PSN isn’t some magic where the multiplayer servers don’t cost anything, Playstation probably covers that cost.  Playstation knew that Xbox already had a hold over the console multiplayer gaming with XBL so it decided to offer its service for free in order to appear as a better alternative.  Unfortunately, PSN still couldn’t offer everything for free that XBL could for a price and that is where PSN+ came into the picture.  A more concrete idea is that even for a cross platform popular game like Modern Warfare 2, the Xbox sales were almost double that of the PS3 sales.  This translates to bigger server upkeep, more cost, for the Xbox multiplayer servers.

So, why should I have to pay for an online gaming service?  Well, because gaming online takes work to upkeep the servers you play on and update the game if needed.  And that work costs money.  And if you aren’t going to do the work(or can’t), then you are going to have to pay someone else to do it for you.  Personally I don’t mind paying $5 a month for XBL.  Heck, I usually find 12 months for XBL on sale for $40 and buy one or two in advance(only $3.34 per month).  Yes I am glad that gaming on the PC is free, but I don’t see anything wrong or complain worthy with paying Microsoft to ensure I have a good online gaming experience to play Halo, Perfect Dark, or NBA Jam.

Wow, since my last post too many things have happened. Well we broke the record for Blue Like Jazz. Yay!  I have a couple of posts coming up. One about projects I want to work, another about the merits of online gaming, and of course my thoughts on the new Harry Potter movie; Deathly Hallows part 1.  I am also slowly putting up some code snippets up on the top bar under Code.  Checkers is finally there, hopefully some other games/apps will join it soon.

But right now, something needs to be shared.

Gamer shows his mom a reflection of Starcraft from Day[9], and she posts her impressions in her blog.  This blog is a must read.  A truly remarkable summary of so much that the gaming community strives for.  I am so glad that someone who gets it speaks out and posts it in a public place.  We need more of this and less of the “gaming is for losers bro” posts.

If you haven’t figured out by now, I am a huge fan of Don Miller.  He is a fantastic author.  His writing has changed my life in multiple ways.  But that’s all old news if you read my blog.  What is new with Donald Miller these days?  Well other than keeping a phenomenal blog alive with daily writings, he has been making Blue Like Jazz into a movie.  Not some huge action packed hollywood blockbuster, but a smaller movie that really sticks to the book’s theme: nonreligious thoughts on Christianity.  If you haven’t read Blue Like Jazz, go read it now, and then watch the movie when it comes out.  It’s a great book, especially for someone without much faith in God in my opinion.  A series of essays and thoughts that go into detail about the core of Christianity.  This book is just not promoted enough.

Anyway, so on September 16th 2010 Don announced that even though the movie was written, crewed, and casted, it was going to be canceled because of a lack of funding.  What?  I had been too excited about this project to see it crash and burn due to something as trivial as funding.  You know what my reaction was to this?  “Where can I donate?” I wanted to see this masterpiece of a book in its movie form even if I had to fund it myself.  And it looks like a lot of other people did too.

A kickstarter was made with the idea that we the fans could come up with the $125,000 needed to fund the Blue Like Jazz movie.  Fun fact, if you watch the video on the kickstarter page, you can actually see my comment I left is featured about 1 minute in.  Cool!  There are even some incentives if you donate towards the movie.  After my donation, I am now an official Associate Producer of the Blue Like Jazz movie.  My name is even in the credits!

Well we had just under a month to complete the funding, and today we did it.  We are actually at $127,866 funded so maybe the movie will be just a little bit better.  Don can add in a car chase scene, CGI sexy carrot in, or something.

What a good story it would be.  Investors back out.  The movie is put on hold.  But the fans say, “No!  We will fund this movie.”

Well we did it.  So look out for Blue Like Jazz the movie coming soon.

Twelve years. Twelve years I have waited to get my hands on a sequel to Starcraft. Let me tell you how big Starcraft II is, if you don’t understand.  Let me put it this way, the original Starcraft changed the way games were made and accepted. The original build of Starcraft shown at E3 had such bad reception, often called Orcs in Space for the similarity it had to Warcraft, that Blizzard said it would rebuild the engine and game in two months. That is insane. But they did it. And it worked. Starcraft shipped with an intense three campaign long story mode as well as an online competitive multiplayer mode. While single-player certainly was mind-blowing(ZOMG multiple points of view, twists, and cinematics!!), the real was/is multiplayer games. Not only was it immediately a great success with friends, nothing like battling in space for Koprulu sector dominance, it bred a whole new type of competitive video game. The title “Professional Video Game Player” became more common and tournaments were held for thousands of dollars with thousands of spectators watching whose strategy would stick through it all. That is how big Starcraft is/was, it is still played competitively today.

Starcraft II was always a hope/dream of all the players, but it wasn’t officially announced until 2007.  People got way excited and the South Koreans went crazy.  The sequel to one of the best games of all time(undeniable fact) was coming to us.  We would finally find out what happened after the Zerg swarm finished off three HUGE fleets Terran+Protoss forces.  What changes have been made to our beloved fighting units?  What time has passed?  How are our characters doing since we last left them off?  Well, the game came, and it is awesome.  Oh is it awesome.  The multiplayer is great.  They found their strengths in the original and weeded out the weaknesses.  There are a bit of people clinging to the original Starcraft for their competitive game scene, but I think they are just afraid of change.  Yes, Starcraft II gameplay is different.  But it isn’t bad.  I love the new engine, the new abilities, how the game is a bit more ‘forgiving’ with your actions, and it just looks so nice.  Nothing is nicer seeing my Hydralisks shoot spines at Cory’s charging Zealots, psi-blades fully extended, just waiting to start breaking out their scythe like claws.  Who wins that battle?  Who cares, it looks freaking beautiful.  It plays smoother as well.  No more sense of jerky unit movement or stale scenery.  The game is great.  The game lives up to the hype it caused.  There are large parts that are disappointing to me though.

My gripes on the game are mostly on core design decisions for the game that take away more than they add I believe.  I really wish they would be changed, but I doubt they will be.  Now, i’m not talking balance changes for different army units, those are coming later this month actually, but bigger changes that would take a re-release of the game probably.

My Gripes…

• Split Game Campaign
  • Now, the first Starcraft had three campaigns included in it, one for each race.  Starcraft II originally had that planned but they scrapped that idea to make each campaign longer but split up across three separate games.  So Wings of Liberty is the Terran campaign, Heart of the Swarm as the Zerg campaign will come out later, and Legacy of the Void being the Protoss campaign will be released even later to complete the storyline for Starcraft II.  This enables them to get each campaign out one at a time giving us an episodic game rather than waiting longer for the entire thing, or so they say…  Now, this isn’t a huge deal in itself in my opinion.  But paired with these other gripes of mine, it becomes a much bigger problem.
• Tutorialish Singleplayer
  • We cried foul over the release of separate games at first because we’d be paying for less singleplayer, but Blizzard assured us that Starcraft II Wings of Liberty would have a Terran campaign that spanned just as long as all three campaigns in the original Starcraft.  Ooooh, now this was sweet music to our ears.  A longer and more in depth Terran campaign means more story, more character development, more twists, and more cinematics!  And the same will go for the Zerg and Protoss campaigns coming to us later!  Well, this longer Terran campaign wasn’t all it was cracked up to be…Let me explain.  One thing I wasn’t expecting is that singleplayer has A LOT MORE units than multiplayer.  They kept a lot of the old units from Starcraft in singleplayer.  That is cool I think.  Firebats, wraiths, medics, and even vultures get to make an appearance.  Then there are new units that aren’t in multiplayer that show up singleplayer, predators, diamondbacks, automated refineries, and even ghostesque spectres.  So, a plethora of units in singleplayer is GOOD.  It makes singleplayer that more exciting since you can make even MORE strategies and combos.  But here is where that bonus ends.  A majority of the campaign’s levels are ‘tutorial levels’.  Tutorial levels are specially designed for the player to produce and learn how to use one specific unit.  That one specific unit will be the most effective way of beating that level, so you are a little bit forced to beat that level by building that unit and using strategies with that unit.  It makes the player feel a little tied down.  The player can’t decide what strategy they want to use since they almost HAVE to use the tutorial unit.  Tutorial levels aren’t bad, they are actually a little bit helpful, but when you boast about a campaign being just as long as the original game’s entire set of campaigns, the majority shouldn’t be tutorial levels(in any game’s campaign).  Since the majority is tutorial levels, it makes the entire storyline feel like a giant tutorial.  I was waiting for the tutorial release when I was free to use whatever units/strategies I wanted to and act like a real army commander.  But that feeling came much too late in the game, around 4 or 5 levels left, when it should come quite early or even in the middle at the latest.
• The Total Cost vs Don’t Mess With My Multiplayer!
  • Starcraft II: Wings of Liberty is a full priced game.  A full single-player, even if too tutorialish, and a solid multiplayer, which is arguably the reason to buy Starcraft, is worth a full price.  Some games don’t even have a multiplayer and charge a full price, so Starcraft II, one of the BEST games of this year, is definitely worth $60.  Now, the next two games…will they be worth full price and do I we want them to be?  For them to be full price they each will have their own single-player, hopefully a little less tutorialish, AND their own multiplayer.  Their own multiplayer.  I don’t want them to have their own multiplayer.  I don’t want ANOTHER multiplayer when we are still playing and Blizzard is still balancing this one.  I’d much rather pay less for the next couple games and just receive a single-player addition, or even pay full price to keep this multiplayer the sole Starcraft II multiplayer.  I was never a big fan of the two multiplayers in the original Starcraft along with Broodwar.  Everyone just played the BW multiplayer almost and the old one got left in the dust.  I don’t want to keep paying for a new multiplayer and switch to different units and play styles when each game comes out.  But, we will see what the price scheme is for the next two games.  Blizzard says they won’t over charge us, so that makes me think it will actually be lower.  Still not to crazy about the different multiplayers though…

None of those gripes on their own is anything major, but I think they affect each other too much and it adds to a bigger problem when all are present.  Now we are having to deal with, and purchase, three different games each with their own multiplayer, that will split players, and, by the looks of it, each have a really tutorialish single-player campaign.  Starcraft II is a great game, but this problem just wasn’t a good design in my opinion.  It isn’t a deterrent from buying any Starcraft II game but it does cause some disappointment afterwards, and that is almost just as bad.

I originally started writing this a while ago, but now the first balance patch has been announced by Blizzard so I thought I’d throw in my thoughts here too.

• First Announced Balances
  • Adding destructible rocks to the Desert Oasis map
  • Protoss
    • Zealot: build time is being increased from 33 to 38 seconds
    • Warpgate: cooldown is being increased from 23 to 28 seconds
  • Terran
    • Reaper: build time is being increased from 40 to 45 seconds
    • Bunker: build time is being increased from 30 to 35 seconds
    • Siege Tanks(siege mode): damage is being decreased from 50 to 35, +15 vs. armored
    • Battle Cruiser: damage is being decreased against ground units from 10 to 8.
  • Zerg
    • Ultralisk: damage is being decreased from 15, +25 vs. armored to 15, +20 vs. armored
    • Ultralisk: building attack (Ram) is being removed because the damage rate is too similar to its normal attack, which will be used against buildings instead

Hmmm, interesting first patch ideas.  Terran gets the biggest nerf, as they should, but not to, arguably, their most over powered unit, the Marauder.  The Marauder is such a powerful early game unit since it is SUPER EFFECTIVE against all tier 1 units from Protoss AND Zerg.  The Reapers are a big problem for anybody besides a pro gamer.  Siege Tanks are a nice nerf to the Terran wall they always seem to put up.  Maybe we can actually get some ground units to attack the wall without being blasted to smithereens.  The Battle Cruiser nerf is probably the most random thing on here I think, you rarely get to see them in game so I’m not sure if I think they are overpowered.  Early Battle Cruisers are REALLY effective in almost any game.  The Zealot nerf, not sure how I feel about that.  You can get an obscene amount of zealots out early and if you aren’t watching them coming while trying to get a good economy going, it isn’t too forgiving.  I guess I like it since now zealot rush is more of an all in instead of just an easy opening build.  The ultralisk change isn’t really a nerf at all, more of a buff I think.  Now the ultralisk does splash damage against buildings.  This is very useful when attacking a wall, a building being repaired, or even a grouping of supply depots/gateways.  Very helpful I think.

So the balance plans are good, but I don’t think they are enough.  Terran’s bio ball, especially the marauder need a nerf.  Zerg need some sort of help.  Not sure what it is, but something.  Maybe even have spawn larva on autocast…And just the heck of it, because I hate them so much, Void Rays need a freaking nerf!  I cannot express how much I hate void rays.  Mass Void Rays are almost unstoppable since their attack gets higher and they essentially have more then they really do so you can’t even counter them with an army of similar size!  And I don’t care what anyone says, not letting them get mass void rays isn’t a counter to mass void rays…I just need to learn to attack faster and more often…

Anyway, that’s my thoughts on the great game that is Starcraft II

WHOA that was fast!  I really did NOT intend on grabbing a new TV literally the day after I posted that last blog.  I like to do research, plan out things, and figure out what problems I will encounter for a while before I make a move.  But in the end, a good deal is sometimes better then waiting around to possibly get a slightly better TV.  A local store out here by Irvine called Modern Electronic Fixtures, dunno why they sell TVs, apparently overstocked and needed to sell this TV asap.  So I went and got it.

Check it out ladies and gents!

All in all the price came out to just under $700, TV+tax+2 year manu warranty, which was just what I was looking for!  Amazing how these things work out sometimes.

It looks glorious and we broke in some 1080p Halo last night.