Me, Myself, and Asskicker

As an aside in one of the early topics I did for this blog, I mentioned how there was usually "one best class" for me in any RPG that I have played.  There was usually one setup that suited my play-style, and thanks to Gamefly I can now add the Crusader from Oblivion to the list of "one best classes" that I have played.  How does this work in a non-class-based RPG like, for example, Fallout 3.

Well, I had a very interesting experience with Fallout 3, and it's about time that I got around to sharing it.  For the first run, I made a character named after me, and shaped him after my own personality.  Brennan was the amiable vault chaplain who was skilled in science and first aid.  This made hacking my way out of the vault a cinch, but it also meant that I got spanked royally by every mutated abomination I encountered out in the wasteland.  Fitting, because it's probably how I would really do in an environment filled with armed-to-the-teeth bandits and mole rats the size of St. Bernards gnawing at my legs.  Only my elevated capacity to put myself back together kept me from constant death.

I tried again, this time going a totally different route with a character called Asskicker.  Asskicker was a morally-bankrupt sociopath struggling to keep a job as a fry cook in the vault kitchen.  He solved all his problems as a child by shooting BB's at them and/or beating them up, even if it meant putting tiny pieces of metal in his own father.  He had trouble figuring out how to get out of the vault, but once he was out in the wasteland, he made everyone his bitch.  He rigged the nuke at Megaton, and watched all its citizens die with a look of sadistic glee.  He went on to amass all the weapons and all the caps in all the world, and the only thing that ever gave him trouble was that damn Megaton security robot.

I know now why there are so many fantasy RPGs with magic systems and all of that: to give the nice, smart people a fighting chance in a world where super-powered monstrosities are plotting your death.  If Brennan were in a fantasy RPG, he could be a shaman or a druid and lay down some ass-kickings with thunderbolts summoned out of thin air, or shape-shift into a tiger and make dinner out of his enemies.  In Fallout, however, he's left to run like a bitch and hide from a pissed-off Super Mutant and stitch together what's left of his legs while praying that he's not dragged out and gang-raped by bandits.

Asskicker can live up to his namesake in both worlds, though.  Whether it's the Dark Lord of Something-something-something or just the friendly neighborhood mole rat, he'll kick their asses for the sake of having an ass to kick.  As the "one best class" goes, Asskicker would definitely be it for Fallout 3.  Even though he doesn't act the way I do in real life, he acts the way I do in games.  So I'll keep on rolling with Asskicker in the Capital Wasteland, and I might even visit Brennan while I'm there, though all that's left of him now is a bloodstain on the side of Tenpenny Tower.

Nothing is True, Everything is Permitted

Two years ago this month, I found a game in the bargain bin at GameStop that changed my gaming experience forever.  I was on a quest at that point to expand my gaming horizons, for the online FPS's that I had played so much before had gone stale and boring on me.  I had heard about it, mostly bad things, but it was only ten dollars and it was worth a try.

This was "Assassin's Creed," and I fell in love with it.  I still criticized it for being a repetitive, drawn-out affair punctuated by poorly-designed sword-fighting marathons, but I was hooked.  I loved the parkour, I loved digging up clues on my target throughout the three main cities, and I loved planning my assassinations and routes of escape.  Along with that, it had surprisingly believable characters and very interesting story threads involving them, as well as the future intrigue involving some guy voiced by Nolan North being held up in Aperture ... I mean Abstergo Industries and learning the truth behind their intentions.

This was not long before the release of "Assassin's Creed 2," which I made sure to pick up new as soon as it came out and loved it even more.  I loved the new variety in missions, I loved the new setting and the new layers of intrigue that surround it, I loved the character of Ezio Auditore da Firenze and the entire ensemble surrounding him, and I loved the new tweaks to the gameplay that kept you much more on your toes during sword-fights.  Everything that could have been better was made better, and I was now a dedicated fan of the series, even going so far as to buy the DLC expansions when they came out.

Even though the series had never let me down, I was still skeptical about "Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood."  Why was it being released only a year after AC2?  Why did they add multiplayer?  Why do I get the impression that this is just going to be a bullshit side-story?  Turns out I was wrong to doubt this game, because it was even better than the last time.  The gameplay had gone through further improvements, the side missions had a focus around the main story that the last game lacked and the first game had, the god-awful facial animations from AC2 had been improved, and the overarching future story had made bigger leaps and bounds than ever.  The multiplayer was even pretty fun, though it got boring quite quick as I could not escape the sense that I was doing the same thing over and over again.

I was eagerly anticipating "Assassin's Creed 3" to be released this year, but Ubisoft is giving me blue balls and instead is coming out with another "Brotherhood"-esque installment entitled "Assassin's Creed: Revelations."  Revelations?!  Finally, they might explain some shit to us this time!  Confusing cliffhangers and other unsolved mysteries have been a staple of the series, and now that three games have come out they may hopefully be ready to tell us more of what's going on.

The first round of teasers have already come out, as well as a Game Informer cover featuring the game.  The Game Informer cover offers the most clues as to what the game will be about.  The cover features two protagonists from past games: Ezio from the last two installments, looking like age has finally caught up with him, and Altair from the first game.  It has been confirmed that both Ezio and Altair will feature prominently in this next installment.  Behind Ezio's head, you will see a building that might look familiar, for this is the Hagia Sophia in Istanbul (Constantinople in Ezio's time), confirming that this will be the main setting of the next game. 

I was a little peeved that Ezio is featured again, for I did not think there was any reason that we needed to see more of his story, but his continuing presense is redeemed by the fact that he's in a completely different setting, and a very interesting one at that.  Istanbul is a very interesting place culture-wise, a clashing point between the cultures of Europe and the Middle East.  Plus, it's in Greece, one of the places I've been wanting to have featured in an Assassin's Creed game, and it will allow for much more ancient intrigue in the vein of the Romulus missions in "Brotherhood."

One question, though?  Ezio's looking pretty old this time around.  When does he, you know, procreate?  Isn't the whole point of the Animus to relive the memories of an ancestor.  You know, a direct descendant!  So when does Ezio have kids so one of them can become Desmonds great-great-great-however many times-grandparent.  This game better end with Ezio as a baby daddy or I'm gonna be pissed!

Overall, I'm excited about this game.  It should bring a lot to the table with the new setting, and it will be interesting how it will handle the body hopping via the Animus Black Room between Altair's and Ezio's memories.  Hopefully, though, this will eventually lead us to "Assassin's Creed 3."  I will have been waiting for long enough by the time this comes out.

Autism Speaks ... Now

Well, for the first post in a long time, it's serious issue time.  The topic of the day/week/month/whenever I decide to post again is mental disorders and PSA sites dedicated to increasing awareness about specific mental disorders.

You might have seen the ads on TV that are trying to increase awareness about autism.  There was one a little bit ago comparing the statistics for autism diagnoses versus other somewhat-more-serious ailments such as cancer, diabetes, and AIDS.  These are all put out by an organization known as Autism Speaks, an advocacy group trying to increase awareness about autism to help parents identify it earlier, opening the door to more treatment options.  According to them, 1 out of every 110 children has autism, up from 1 in 160 in an earlier ad, and for something so common to be so misunderstood is an injustice.

They've gotten a little more interesting with their advertising since then, with one coming out rolling back the degrees of separation from "I heard of some kid with autism" to "My son has autism"  AUTISM!!!!  Seems like they're making an unusually big deal out of it.  How should I know?  Well, according to the criteria they base their statistics on, I have autism.

When I was 15, I was diagnosed with PDD-NOS, atypical autism is you're not good with remembering acronyms.  My parents had always dismissed my shortcomings with social interaction as a "phase" that would pass over time.  However, with the combined pressure of the extended family and the school system, they finally thought around the time I was in middle school "Hey, this might not be a phase, let's get him tested for this 'Asperger's Syndrome' we keep hearing about!"  Autism Speaks and many other people and groups speaking out about autism would agree that my parents did all the wrong things, but I cannot blame them.  They were just victims of the same misunderstanding that Autism Speaks is working to correct.

Well, OHSU concluded that I did not have Asperger's, but that I was still on the autistic spectrum.  This was a relief for my parents, but it didn't help me all that much.  I still had issues, only now I had a name for them and knew that at my age there was not really much that could be done about them.  It doesn't exactly bode well for the 15-year-old psyche to be told, in a long roundabout way, that I would have problems for the rest of my life.

Back to Autism Speaks!  Their intentions are noble, and for the most part their reasoning is sound, but some of their methodology seems questionable.  Comparing autism to cancer or AIDS is quite bold considering that they are completely different in cause and severity.  As an autistic speaking here, I don't feel like I have an incurable disease.  I indeed have problems because of it, but I don't have the risk of dying an extremely slow, painful death.

One of the ethical issues regarding autism concerns what treatment is necessary.  There are many parents out there who boast that they have found "cures" for autism, and many others with autistic children are perking an ear to it.  On the other end, there are people who equate cures and treatments for autism with cures and treatments for homosexuality.  I would have loved to have treatment options, but as I don't feel that I have a disease, I don't feel like I have anything that needs to be cured.

Autism gives people a unique perspective on the world, but it also deprives us of many of the tools to effectively share this experience to the world.  If groups like Autism Speaks can encourage more parents to give their children these tools, then the world could have a lot to learn from us, all of us, not just the Bill Gateses and the Beethovens (allegedly).  Just as misunderstanding leads to prejudice and fear, understanding leads to respect and cooperation, and if that's really what Autism Speaks is about, then I support them in their endeavor.