DragonKnight (User)

  • Contributor
  • 8 bubbles
  • 9 in CRank
  • Score: 153230
"I don't care about bubbles. Seriously, I don't."

It Just Never Ends: An Ubisoft Tale

DragonKnight | 190d ago
User blog

I didn't want to do a blog on this. I was sitting in front of my laptop when this B.S. first came out saying to myself "this is just something that will never end, don't do a blog on it, don't, just don't. There's only been about 20 different sites talking about it and getting so much wrong, don't bother." Then after 2 days of not really hearing much, Eurogamer comes out with its contribution to "Ubisoft is sexist and is harming women" piece and I just had to say something.

I'm not gonna bother linking articles about this topic because I don't want to destroy the brain cells of the rare few who still have common sense in the world. Instead I'll just give you the gist.

Assassin's Creed Unity doesn't have a female main protagonist, and that's apparently a problem. Never mind the fact that only one AC game had a female protagonist and it sold terrible, indicating that few people deemed it a good enough game to buy. Never mind the fact that AC games try to be as reasonably close to the historical time period as possible which means that women, traditionally, wouldn't be Assassins. Never mind the fact that there have actually been female Assassins in games, and side stories like Embers.

No, the only way for this to NOT be an issue is if there is a main female protagonist in a main Assassin's Creed game. Then, and only then, will Ubisoft START being a "progressive" developer, despite having an immensely diverse staff which includes Jade Raymond who was probably the most influential person in getting Assassin's Creed, as a series, noticed in the first place.

So Ubisoft is sexist and patriarchal and misogynistic because Arno isn't Arnette and you can't make him so.

Ubisoft actually gave a really legitimate reason for this. Resources. See, people don't seem to understand that AC Unity didn't JUST start development. It's been in development for years. It's releasing in the fall so about 2/3 of the development has likely been finished already. Why would any developer scrap years of work?

Now, there were people out there that didn't buy Ubisoft's reason. A lot in fact. This prompted a FORMER animator on AC 3 to come out and say "Ubisoft could do this in 2 or 3 days" and caused an uproar. There is a huge problem with that though. What people are ignoring is that he said the only way to do it in that short a time is to just reskin the male model to look female and use androgynous movements.

Did you read that? Make a female protagonist by reskinning the male protagonist and using gender neutral movements.

Does anyone think that that would fly? OF COURSE NOT! Social Justice Warriors would pitch a fit. Remember when Anita Sarkeesian made a video about this very thing? About how it's a negative and common trope to make a woman as much like a man as possible? Welcome to that solution.

Look, this isn't an issue. I don't understand how anyone who thinks rationally can see a problem here. These are games. They aren't real life. Ubisoft have several legitimate reasons for doing this, but they only need one. They could have easily just come out and said "because we don't want a female main protagonist."

But that's B.S. I can't believe there are grown adults out there that actually think there is a concerted effort, by large development studios filled with women, to purposely not have a female protagonist in a game. As if Yves (Ubisoft's CEO) gathers everyone together and says "Don't even THINK about having a female lead in ANY of our games. As long as I live, that will NEVER happen!"

It wouldn't have mattered what reason Ubisoft gave. The fact is that someone, with a full attitude of entitlement, just had to approach Ubisoft and ask why the main protagonist wasn't female, or why you couldn't customize your character to be female. The best answer, besides the resources one, would have been to explain how mechanics from Watch Dogs were implemented into the multiplayer and that's a BIG reason why they couldn't do that, but even that wouldn't have mattered. People wanted to crucify yet another developer for something so inconsequential that it's laughable.

There are people with degrees, honest to goodness post-secondary education degrees, foaming at the mouth acting like rabid dogs attacking Ubisoft for this. It's sad, it's pathetic, and there are toddlers with more maturity than this.

A character's gender, race, orientation, hair style, favourite book, DO NOT MATTER UNLESS THE GAME WAS DESIGNED AROUND THOSE ELEMENTS! You will not have a better or worse experience with a black lesbian woman than you would with a straight white man. A good game is a good game is a good game regardless of that, and the same goes for a bad game.

If you want to criticize Ubisoft, then criticize them for trying to create a franchise style rather than their choice of gender for their characters. They are definitely marred in their own conventions, but gender is the most inconsequential of their offences in this regard. Just read this hilarious review of Ubisoft Game to see what I mean.

http://games.on.net/2014/06...

At the end of the day, if you're unwilling to actually contribute to making changes in the industry that you want, then you have no right to complain that people who actually spend the money, and the time away from their families, to make these games make them in ways that don't cater to you. The responsibility of Ubisoft is to make a game you'll buy, and I still see women buying games with white male protagonists in them so Ubisoft must be doing something right.

Art is the expression of the artist, not the audience. Games are entertainment, not life. If you're for the freedom to express yourself the way you want to (including your incessant whining about inconsequential minutia like what's in between a fictional person's legs), then you have to be for the freedom of others (even companies) to do the same. If you just want these companies to cater to your whims, then you're actually for privilege and entitlement and YOU'RE what's wrong with gaming.

randomass171  +   190d ago
Good blog. You might as well say that every Hollywood movie requires an alternate version where the main character is played by a member of the opposite sex. Complaints like these really do baffle me. Why throw negativity toward the games that don't cater to you when you can speak positively about the games that do?
DragonKnight  +   190d ago
There are two main problems with the attitude I'm talking about.

The first is that it's disingenuous. I would say with about 80% certainty that the people who start all of this hyperbolic, hate filled, propagandist shite go home not believing a word of it and even buying the games anyway. It's all about money and/or exposure for them. If they can get their name behind a heated topic, it's a win for them and whoever pays them.

The second is that no one, absolutely no one, provides any legitimate reason for the necessity of it. Why is it necessary for there to be a female protagonist in Assassin's Creed Unity?

If you say "it's not about it being necessary, it's about representation" then you're just wrong and already defeated. Something should only be added, or removed, from a game if it is necessary to make a good game. I defy anyone to provide me with proof that a character's gender will determine if a game is a good game or not.

The whole foundation of these arguments is purely emotionally based, and there are plenty of women who aren't even bothered by this at all. Hell, I saw some well known female gamers/cosplayers with their own Twitch channels absolutely giddy over AC Unity and even gender bending Arno for cosplay. They never once mentioned anything about feeling upset that Arno wasn't Arnette or how women are under represented or anything like that nonsense.

In point of fact, on Twitter since this began, I've seen mostly neckbeard type guys who consider themselves "writers" being the most vocal about this. The only thing they're missing is a fedora to complete the stereotype.

One of them even blocked me because he couldn't refute my argument that Ubisoft gave a legitimate reason and that animating/designing female characters was in fact more work than doing the same for male characters.

And you just know that if SJWs found out that FemShep from Mass Effect was just ManShep reskinned to look like a woman and using androgynous movements they'd lose their minds and turn on the rabies foam in their mouths as they attack Bioware.

Half of them suggest moves like that, and the other half want a properly designed female character but ignore the logistics of it and seem to think that large companies would willingly place themselves, and their shareholders, in disastrous PR situations by making the statement that they don't like women and will never have a female lead in their games.

It's absurd.
#1.1 (Edited 190d ago ) | Agree(6) | Disagree(5) | Report | Reply
Darkstares  +   190d ago
"Art is the expression of the artist, not the audience."

But how true is that statement for a franchise as big as this? At the end of the day it's about money. Did Electronic Arts cave in to the ending of Mass Effect 3 because of the wishes of the artists? No, they felt pressure from the forums and felt they needed to do something because they didn't want a bad stain on the franchise because it too has become a very valuable IP for them. You bet Ubisoft is now thinking in the future because of this attention. I wouldn't be surprised if they too caved in.

This is a multi-billion dollar industry. It's a business first and foremost. People have issues with this because of the responses they gave. The fact is I don't think they need to answer because I agree with you, it's their game. But again it's about public perception and when games become this mainstream they don't want any wrinkles to hurt the value of the franchise.
Concertoine  +   190d ago
@Darkstares

He's saying he doesn't care either way whether it has an optional female protagonist, but the fact that it lacks one doesn't mean that Ubisoft is "sexist" by any means.

Words like sexism and misogyny are tossed around like nothing when they literally mean HATRED of women and desire to repress them, and their exclusion isn't inherentally such like some sites try to make it out to be.
#1.1.2 (Edited 190d ago ) | Agree(4) | Disagree(2) | Report
DragonKnight  +   190d ago
@Darkstares: Well then we can't classify games as art then. Games have to be classified as a product first and foremost if pressure from the rabid internet causes them to change their vision. But the truth is, all this whining wouldn't have made a dent in AC Unity's sales at all. Ubisoft could ignore this completely and AC will still sell well so long as the games are good. This means that the opinions of the rabid are drowned out by those who don't care, or the rabid themselves are disingenuous and hypocritical and they still buy the games despite whining about them.

If we want games to be classified as art, then we have to accept what the artists want the game to be. If we want to complain about the games and have these companies cater to us, then we lose the right to have the games classified as art and then we open up games to all of the problems associated with having to be a politically correct consumer product.

These people are trying to have their cake and eat it too, but it will never work that way.
HonestDragon  +   190d ago
Great blog and well said indeed. I especially liked the concluding paragraph, too.

"If you say "it's not about it being necessary, it's about representation" then you're just wrong and already defeated."

Just like with Tomodachi Life and homosexuals wanting same sex relationships in the game, it's the same here. Again, while it IS possible to add programs and content post-release, it is up to the company of whether or not to do so. As it is, the games are either completed already or still in development. Which equates to money that does not have to be spent whatsoever.

Then it's the common notion of understanding that a developer has a certain vision for the game. This is the artists' perspective in this case. You mentioned this, too.

"Art is the expression of the artist, not the audience."

A final product be it a soundtrack, movie, painting, or video game is what the person(s) behind the product did to create something from their own creative vision that can be marketable to the public. It is up to future audiences to determine if the product has any value for them. I always say that there's an audience for everything...unfortunately. In this case if Tomodachi Life or Assassin's Creed Unity don't appeal to someone then they don't have to play it. However, if they bring in their social agendas to try to stir up some problem that was nonexistent in the first place, then they only make themselves look like self-centered, entitled brats.
#1.1.4 (Edited 190d ago ) | Agree(5) | Disagree(3) | Report
NewMonday  +   189d ago
"the people who start all of this hyperbolic, hate filled, propagandist shite go home not believing a word of it and even buying the games anyway. It's all about money and/or exposure for them. If they can get their name behind a heated topic, it's a win for them and whoever pays them"

^^^this

Ubisoft made an AC with female lead and also Child of Light
#1.1.5 (Edited 189d ago ) | Agree(5) | Disagree(1) | Report
christian hour  +   186d ago
@darkstares

personally I think what EA did with the mass effect 3 ending was extremely detrimental to the industrys image and what gaming is trying to become. I'd hate for their example to become common place, and since it happened I've noticed it's given a lot of gamers an extremely entitled view when it comes to the games they play.

EA's behaviour in the past should not excuse future behaviour like that, if anything we should point at what EA did with retconning mass effects ending as something we never want to see repeated.

For the sake of the passionate artists behind these games, fighting for their vision and trying to tell us a story, we can't allow the vocal butt hurt residents of the internet and the uptight politcally correct gone made gamers to bully for change.
starchild  +   188d ago
Good blog, indeed. I agree with you on this one, DragonKnight.
Concertoine  +   190d ago
Nice blog. I have to say Ubisoft is only inching closer to the likes of EA and Capcom in the ranks of consumer distrust and unfavorability... to be swayed by the western psuedo-politics of gaming is only a sign of increasing weakness :l

Side note: wouldn't the gramatically correct title be "A Ubisoft Tale" since Ubisoft has a consonant sound? Like "a unilateral decision" or "a university" as opposed to "an uptown area" or "an unofficial person"?

I could be wrong, and I'd be interested to see the reason I am :)
#2 (Edited 190d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(7) | Report | Reply
Concertoine  +   190d ago
Edit:

...Oh wow, im embarassed xD.

Lol i thought about what i said and felt confused and re-read... Wow my first paragraph is mistyped... My apologies haha. Havent been sleeping much and my mind wandered and my fingers were but vessels to spew insomniac flubs!

What i meant to say is while Ubisoft is inching further in that direction, i cant help but feel the idiocy of psuedo western politics affects a lot of these companies negatively.

They just released Child of Light, a game revolving around a female protagonist, too. There's no bias even under a journalist's misogynistic/homophobic/racist /sensationalist microscope.

Edit: Hell even that AC on vita had a female protagonist.
#2.1 (Edited 190d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(2) | Report | Reply
DragonKnight  +   190d ago
I always write "an" for any word beginning with a vowel with few exceptions because it sounds better to me than "a."

A Ubisoft Tale sounds very wrong to me.
darkpower  +   189d ago
I wouldn't say Ubisoft has been completely bad. They were one of the firsts to come out and publicly condemn the new YouTube rules on MCNs and monetizing game play videos. And I'm having a good time with Watch Dogs despite some of its flaws, so it's not all bad. Just need to have them stop thinking that their DRM is the shiznits and that anyone who complains about it is automatically a pirate, and they might be golden.
PhantomTommy  +   190d ago
I don't believe that the lack of a female protagonist in Unity is a major problem, but I do think it's pretty idiotic.

We're talking about a game that was built around getting your pals together for some four player co-op, and yet it never occurred to Ubisoft that maybe not everyone wants to play as a six foot, muscular assassin man who's only distinguishable feature is the colored icon hovering over his head. It's just bad design, and really, Ubisoft should have seen this coming from the start.
DragonKnight  +   190d ago
That's where the Watch Dogs mechanic comes in. In Watch Dogs, and now in Unity, when you are playing multiplayer you only see yourself as the main protagonist. In Watch Dogs' case you always see yourself as Aiden, while your opponent (who also sees only themselves as Aiden) sees some randomly generated character.

In AC Unity, you'll only see yourself as Arno as will anyone else playing in their own game because that's how the co-op is framed. The drop in, drop out style of it necessitates that kind of system.

How logical would it be that you're playing your game and want to co-op, then suddenly you go from being Arno to a woman or vice versa? It doesn't make sense unless you completely change the protagonist (thereby changing the game entirely) or create a separate co-op mode that ISN'T drop in/out.
TekoIie  +   189d ago
You can only play as Arno? Thats sucks a bit. I wanted to play as the guy with the green robes... Because they're green. As you can see I thought that decision through extensively ;)

Good blog. I am probably more sympathetic than most towards having more female protagonists however the idea of just making a characters sex/gender interchangeable is kind of boring to me.

I get as bored as everyone else with the generic love interests but there are some games where I feel the sex of a character had a small but significant role. If Lara Croft had been male in the new Tomb Raider the scene with Alex on the ship would not nearly have been as good as it was.

Same for if they had changed Master Chief to female, the ending to Halo 4 would've been far less powerful.

I know Im giving examples where the sex of the character has a role but I gave examples where there were small details that made it relevant.

Even then I dont understand how with all the attention this subject gets that (if we were to believe most articles) we're apparantly not making any progress.

I mean surely one of the poeple complaining is a game developer right? And has the power to implement some of their ideas?

Classic saying with too much truth: If you want something done right do it yourself.
#3.1.1 (Edited 189d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(2) | Report
Blacklash93  +   189d ago
It's totally fine for people to be disappointed that there isn't a playable female character, but Ubisoft doesn't even remotely deserve to be accused of anything like sexism.

Honestly, I don't see why this should bother anyone. There are many all-female or female-centered games out there: Skullgirls, Bayonetta, Tomb Raider, Metroid, etc. They're good games, too. Different titles can do different things and we should all be happy in that big picture.
kingdip90  +   187d ago
I agree it is fine to be disappointed in something like this.

To call it sexism is something else entirely and that's the point I think.
Conzul  +   189d ago
Great blog post; totally baffled at the disagrees on your replies beneath :/ which themselves are as good as the blog material.
memots  +   187d ago
he is the disagree guy,

Just look at any of his comments. he gets hit with disagree all the time lol

when he writes a blog they all come out from under their bridge to hit disagree on whatever he says. I have noticed this a while back and its not changing,

Makes me laugh really.
thorstein  +   189d ago
I made a comment on this the other day. It was directed at yet another article about Ubisoft's "Sexism." I'll quote it here:

"When my car got a flat tire, I fixed it. I didn't sit around and gripe about it.

If you want women to be protagonists in games, make games with women protagonists. Stop griping about what someone else should do with their game.

Thanks for ignoring the plethora of games with female protagonists at this E3."

I think that sums it up well.
SeraphimBlade  +   189d ago
Yeah, but what if the tire is busted through no fault of your own? You should fix it, if you know how, obviously, but shouldn't you inform people that manufacturer is making a lousy tire? Or tell people who DO know how to make tires what they can do to avoid the mistake?

Just saying.
DragonKnight  +   189d ago
So what if the tire is manufactured by a quality tire company, and it busts because of a nail or some other sharp object? Are you going to yell at the manufacturer because their tire couldn't stand up to being punctured, or are you going to change your tire?

Just saying.
SeraphimBlade  +   189d ago
What do you think I meant by "no fault of your own?" As in you didn't drive it over anything bad, it just has an in-built flaw that the manufacturer should have spotted. And now they're giving you a bull-crap reason like rear tires are... um... hard to animate? This metaphor is falling apart.
thorstein  +   189d ago
That is not what I said.

I repair or replace the tire.

If the tire company is at fault, then I don't buy another tire from them. I buy tires from a company that makes the tires I want.

See how that works. And, video games aren't tied to safety the way tires are.
Raf1k1  +   188d ago
If it's a built in flaw in the design of the tyre then that's a problem the manufacturer should fix.

A game that's designed with co-op in mind and is also designed to have four male playable characters isn't flawed because of the lack of a female option. Notice that it's "designed" meaning it's intentional and completely up to the devs to create the game the way they want.

This whole thing has been blown way out of proportion IMO. Nobody ever made a fuss about Battlefield only ever having males in it's lineup of classes you can play as.
#6.1.4 (Edited 188d ago ) | Agree(2) | Disagree(1) | Report
LoveOfTheGame  +   187d ago
I'm having a little trouble trying to express how idiotic the statements you have made are.

You're taking his quote out of context and adding secondary parts to the metaphor. Hell, even in your example, the person should still fix the tire before complaining to the company.

You have basically agreed with him, that people should stop complaining until after they, themselves, have created a game with a female lead.
Subject_16  +   189d ago
Also remember the fact that way back when, women weren't considered as an equal to males. I don't see sexism, I see realistics.
SeraphimBlade  +   189d ago
Yeah, especially black women in Colonial America. Could you imagine an AC game about that?!
SeraphimBlade  +   189d ago
"Did you read that? Make a female protagonist by reskinning the male protagonist and using gender neutral movements.

Does anyone think that that would fly?"

Me.

Blacklight: Retribution (I think that was it, all these shooters blend together) did something very similar, essentially copy-pasting the male animations to give a female option. The women are BIT disproportionate to the real thing, especially in height, but nobody had an issue. Aveline in AC: Liberation re-used a lot of Connor from AC3's animations. Again, no one cared. Hell, they can just re-use Aveline's now! Yeah maybe the super-duper crazy people, with a keen eye for female physiology, and no understanding of game design will have an issue. So what? They shouldn't make any change at all for the other 99.999% of people who do care but understand it won't be perfect at this point? In my experience, when it comes to women in games, nobody gives a damn about the realism of the animation, (unless it involves gratuitous jiggle physics) they just care about the writing.

This is the problem with this "discussion." Everybody takes the most absolute bats*** people who disagree with them, and assumes that's what their entire opposition is comprised of. There ARE people who are never going to be pleased and always find something to complain about. But what about everyone else? It's the same logic people use when they say stuff like "all straight, white men are monsters."

And maybe, like I argue about GTA V, there really is a decent narrative reason for an all-male player cast. If Ubisoft said that was the case, I might have believed them. That might still be the case, but now they've gone and put their foot in their mouths. Personally, in this instance, I have less beef with the lack of female characters than I do with the increasingly bull-crap excuses by major companies for their exclusion.

And, this is coming from a fan, I just laugh, and laugh, and laugh at the idea of Ubisoft being above recycling content for an Assassin's Creed game.
DragonKnight  +   189d ago
Then you're part of another problem.

The "inclusion for its own sake" problem. You don't care that the character is properly, and well, designed, you just want it to be a female. You have no legitimate reason for it other than "it's what I want" and yet you're contributing to the demonization, if even on the periphery of the discussion, of developers who won't half-a$$ the design of their protagonist by reskinning a male model to look female.

You're also implying that Ubisoft and other devs are actively TRYING to not have a female protagonist in their game.

Offer one, just ONE, reason the protagonist should be a female that can translate to being good for the actual game itself and/or good for sales. If all you've got is an emotional response, you've already failed and your reasoning can't be considered at all. Bear in mind that women are still going to be buying Assassin's Creed Unity even with a male protagonist, and trying to say that MORE women would buy it if there's a female protagonist is unprovable at best.

This isn't about Ubisoft recycling content. I've already established that they are trying to develop a style more than games. This is about false accusations of sexism, and having Ubisoft and many many other devs labelled as actively preventing female lead roles in gaming. No one has been able to provide one shred of evidence to support this argument on a factual level and it always boils down to "it's what I want" and yet these games still sell millions of copies, are still vastly successful, and NOT having a black lesbian protagonist has never shown signs of making the franchise falter in any way.

Wanting something different is all well and good. Trying to force it on people by bullying them with accusations of sexism is akin to fascism.

When you, or anyone like you, can provide factual evidence that a characters gender is important to the success of a game, then developers will take it into consideration. Until then, they are trying to tell a specific story and trying to express their vision as they see fit and it's not up to you to tell them they are wrong and bully them into seeing your point of view as being the right one.

And if you want to take the stance that Ubisoft should have the option of having a reskinned male character as a female protagonist option in game that's been in development for years and has mechanics which make such a move nearly impossible, then you're choosing to side with the worst of the group of people that feel the same way and are more militant about it.
#8.1 (Edited 189d ago ) | Agree(4) | Disagree(6) | Report | Reply
SeraphimBlade  +   189d ago
I want "inclusion for its own sake?" Did you not read my bit about that I defend GTA V for not having a female player character? And I'm willing to defend Unity for the same thing if it proves that there is a narrative reason for it?

I don't they're trying to exclude women. My problem is that AAA games are terrified to leave their comfort zone, and the straight, white male protagonist is an element of that comfort zone. I think we'll advance as an art form once we step outside it, even if I realize having black lesbian for a protagonist doesn't automatically make your game good. Games will permanently be trapped in adolescence as long as we're afraid to explore different stories and characters because of our precious sales.

Speaking of sales, we can't criticize publishers for trying to nickel and dime at every turn and then look at this kind of thing and say "oh, they're just doing what makes them money." They have plenty of money. They can take a risk here and there.

I'm not forcing anything on anyone, I'm just pointing out that change isn't as tough as they make it sound.

I haven't "sided" with anyone either. I'm thinking for myself, and while I disagree with you, I respect that you seem to do the same.

Oh, and don't bother PM'ing me this time. I don't read it, because we can't convince each other of anything. I post this for everyone else reading.
SeraphimBlade  +   189d ago
Also, what's wrong with an emotional response?

The "emotional response" got us the brilliant XCOM reboot. The "emotional response" got us the Mass Effect 3 Extended Cut. The "emotional response" cemented a Borderlands 2 character as a bisexual, when they could have just said it was a glitch in the original game. The "emotional response" has snuffed out a lot of DRM. The "emotional response" gets us improvements in sequels all the damn time that would have just "sold anyway."

If it's not good enough for you, fine; but don't say it doesn't get stuff done.
coolbeans  +   189d ago
"And if you want to take the stance that Ubisoft should have the option of having a reskinned male character as a female protagonist option in game that's been in development for years and has mechanics which make such a move nearly impossible, then you're choosing to side with the worst of the group of people that feel the same way and are more militant about it."

That seems to be a limited choice fallacy. He already presented different circumstances of what's contributed to his opinion. Using fallacious arguments like that just drive away real discussion.

Edit:

As for the topic in blog, I'm a bit disheartened to see the more hasty, unfair claims against Ubi over this. One of the coolest things about AC is the various backgrounds so many of these colorful protagonists have and the different points of view that have been shown. There's probably some interesting meaning to find in all of that too.
#8.1.3 (Edited 189d ago ) | Agree(2) | Disagree(1) | Report
randomass171  +   186d ago
Not gonna lie DK, your last paragraph really came off as fallacious as coolbeans stated. SeraphimBlade is not among the same crazy group of people asking for a female playable character for the sake of it just because he too would like a playable female assassin. Being of an opinion and being outlandish and having a hatefully knee-jerk reaction to something are not mutually exclusive.

I personally have a preference for playing as females in video games: it's something I just enjoy. I generally don't get upset when the option is not given to me but I always encourage it.

In this instance, I don't see much reason to sling mud at Ubisoft. If the game's story revolves around four males then it's no big deal. That being said, previous AC assets have indeed had female characters utilizing assassin moves as part of the multiplayer mode. I don't believe a studio as huge as Ubisoft is incapable of making this change if they really had the desire to do it. I guess I'm piggy-backing off of Jim Sterling's Jimquisition on this topic, but I think he was right when he said that Ubisoft is either not being honest about that or their way of doing things is just much more expensive in comparison to other developers who succeeded to provide playable female characters.

It's not a social issue to point this out. If anything, it's just showing that Ubisoft is doing something wrong here in spite of not doing anything actually within the mildest premise of sexism. They're not sexist, but it begs the question what exactly is preventing them from doing it when they and other developers have done it before.

"Offer one, just ONE, reason the protagonist should be a female that can translate to being good for the actual game itself and/or good for sales."

It would satisfy the audience that's currently complaining that the protagonist cannot be female and it would lead to praise for Ubisoft applying more options to the player in the game. I mean, why fight it? It's not like adding playable female assassins would HURT the game in any way either. So if it is possible then why not do it? Like I said, I'm fairly indifferent on the matter so I will play the game either way without a second thought, but I don't think we can adequately and objectively make the claim that Ubisoft is incapable of making this request/demand a reality. If the four coop assassins and their genders and personalities are integral to the plot then I certainly won't address the issue further, but we can't say and of that for sure.
#8.1.4 (Edited 186d ago ) | Agree(2) | Disagree(0) | Report
Ashriel  +   188d ago
If I recall correctly, most people were mad at ubi's reasons rather than the fact that there's not a female main char. If there's one company that's all about diversity is ubisoft (aisha tyler presenting e3 anyone?) and specially so in ac games.

They already wanted to have female character before anyone asked for it but sadly they didn't have time. I'm sure they are planning things better for next time since they know there's a demand for more female playable characters :)
#9 (Edited 188d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
Juste_Belmont  +   188d ago
I'm not a fan of the Assassin's Creed games, so I really don't care about the gender of the main character in the new one, but if people want to play a game that has the things that they want in it (and this includes another petition regarding a female character in the new Zelda game), then they should make that game themselves.
madpuppy  +   186d ago
If it bothers someone that the're group is not represented in a game....don't buy it. If you buy it and enjoy the game anyway you have no right to complain.
madpuppy  +   185d ago
three troll disagrees and no counter to my statement, must mean I upset someone.
Obz  +   186d ago
AHHH!!!! I've been trying to find a way to post my own blog but I can't. What an awful website UI!
AidenPearce  +   186d ago
Great blog, this sums up my reaction to this whole fiasco. This happens every time a new AC game is released.

For people to be disappointed by lack of a female character isn't the issue, the issue is that they go on to call them sexist. Ubi has made games with female characters (Child of light, Beyond good and evil, AC Liberation,) and they'll do it again when they come up with another good female character.
rsnotz  +   185d ago
Great blog DK.

"Art is the expression of the artist, not the audience"

This one line summed up everything I believe in. Devs should just stay true to their vision and if its a good game it will sell. I couldn't help but laugh about the whole ME3 ending issue. They might as well have asked the internet to write the story and then create the entire game based on the inputs. Its just ridiculous.
coolbeans  +   185d ago
Author actually believes the Retake Mass Effect campaign was valid action by the community.
#14.1 (Edited 185d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
noah364  +   185d ago
Wow. I thought that this was a little...intense. I didn't feel at all like the gaming community had the type of extreme reaction to the fact that there wasn't going to be a female assassin in Unity. Instead, it seemed more to me like they reacted with an "Awwww" to that news. What really sparked a flame was when Ubisoft claimed that it couldn't add a female character in because of resources.

Frankly, that's BS. It's Ubisoft. They're not exactly poor or starved for labor. Yes, we are nearing release, but nearly half a year is plenty of time to add in some extra character models/ animations, without "scrapping" anything.

Had they said "because we don't want to," it would have been a perfectly legitimate excuse. They don't want to, they don't want to. It's their game. But when a company says that they don't have enough resources just a short time after they put on one of the biggest gaming press conferences in the world, it's not unreasonable for people to feel lied to, and react as such.
ShiranaiJittai  +   185d ago
The irony here is that Ubisoft is probably one of the most female friendly gaming companies in the world.

You would say Crystal Dynamics or Eidos because of Tomb Raider? Sexualized

Ubisoft on the other hand has published Beyond Good & Evil Which was a great game that didn't sell well because others NOT Ubisoft didn't want to play as a girl. Then you have Aveline getting her own game in Assassin's Creed Liberation for Vita which recently got a re-release. You have Child of Light.

I mean seriously? Where is the logic here?
destroyer11687  +   182d ago
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought people were unhappy with Ubisoft not because the main protagonist wasn't a female, but because the new focus on co-op didn't include any female playable characters. To complain about the main protagonist being male or female seems a little too much like a child arguing with their parents about bedtime, but I can understand the complaints about there not being any playable female characters included in the co-op aspect of it...or am I wrong about that. I thought this whole issue arose because there wouldn't be a single playable female character in the game, not because the main protagonist isn't female. Or is every co-op character each gamer's own Arno and that's why every playable character is male...cause they're all the same?

Also, as a side note to comment on Mass Effect 3 because I can :), I don't think people were mad at the lame ending as much as they were mad at the fact that Bioware claimed that your choices were going to really "matter" and then we get stuck with a cookie-cutter ending that was basically the same ending no matter what your choice, just with different colors. So maybe, just like with Mass Effect, people are mad about this because they are feeling lied to instead of just entitled. Maybe I'm wrong, but I can understand people's frustration when a publisher says something that is just plain wrong when they should just come out with the truth.
#17 (Edited 182d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply

Add comment

You need to be registered to add comments. Register here or login
Remember