Developers call out Ubisoft on their stance regarding playable female characters

Then play a different game? Buy the game with Aveline in it? When am I going to get a Tomb Raider with some diversity? I didn't know video games were a platform for social change?
I have every right to critique games so don't tell me what to do.

I like many series with male leads but wish to see better representation in a lot of them. Especially games that aren't even the same lead with each iteration.

You know the difference with Tomb Raider? It's that it's an established character who is the same in each title. That's not comparable to AC where it's a new lead.

Also my point was a female lead in a mainline title. Not a portable game.
They already did that. If this isn't representation then idk what is.
AC3-Vita-Bundle.jpg

AC has an extremely diverse cast of characters. So it's not about "not wanting to have a female lead" in anyway shape or form.
A portable game. Portable. Not a mainline game.
 
All media is a vehicle for social change. Why would video games be exempt? You don't get to decide how people react to art or commercial products, of which this video game is both. If you publish and/or sell art, it is going to be critiqued.

I disagree that video games are made as a vehicle for social change. They are an entertainment product and can be absolutely critiqued for what they offer, but most every game that has ever been produced has been for monetary gain.

I think the argument here that the Assassins Creed series has been somehow lacking diversity is laughable at best, considering the series history.

And people shouldn't get to shame an artist into creating something just because it doesn't meet with their approval.
 
Fixed.

I get that they are doing the whole Watch Dogs thing but even in watch dogs, there was at least one female character you can see. Like I've said before, they stated it as if making a women is so hard that she has to have ridiculous features, a very distinctive voice, a ridiculous sexy perfectly made face, and body from head to toe.

I mean, that's not even a character at that point. I'm not a woman, so I'll defer to whatever you guys say you want. But is it really worth a fight (in your opinion) for representation that's literally just a skin or less? We can bring up the Watch Dogs example, but no one can even name these "characters."
 
Jade in Beyond Good & Evil doesn't count, the game wasn't popular!

edit: And she was wearing pants!

edit2: And had short hair! She was pretty much a man!

Until Ubi gives me a female lead that has long flowing red hair I will pout!

edit3: Child of Light doesn't count, it's free to play or something!
 
I disagree that video games are made as a vehicle for social change. They are an entertainment product and can be absolutely critiqued for what they offer, but most every game that has ever been produced has been for monetary gain.

I think the argument here that the Assassins Creed series has been somehow lacking diversity is laughable at best, considering the series history.

And people shouldn't get to shame an artist into creating something just because it doesn't meet with their approval.

And movies aren't? Books aren't? TV shows aren't?

So are they made simply to make money, or are they art now that you can use that to help your argument?
 
I have every right to critique games so don't tell me what to do.

I like many series with male leads but wish to see better representation in a lot of them. Especially games that aren't even the same lead with each iteration.

You know the difference with Tomb Raider? It's that it's an established character who is the same in each title. That's not comparable to AC where it's a new lead.

Also my point was a female lead in a mainline title. Not a portable game.

A portable game. Portable. Not a mainline game.

The portable title did really well. So well in fact, that they made an HD port of it to other system.

Assassins-Creed-Liberation-HD.jpg


And I'm not telling you what to do, I'm suggesting that if you dislike the new game not having a female option for co-op, that there are other choices out there.

Critique all you want, and I'll feel free to point out where I think you might be wrong.
 
I disagree that video games are made as a vehicle for social change. They are an entertainment product and can be absolutely critiqued for what they offer, but most every game that has ever been produced has been for monetary gain.

I think the argument here that the Assassins Creed series has been somehow lacking diversity is laughable at best, considering the series history.

And people shouldn't get to shame an artist into creating something just because it doesn't meet with their approval.

You're welcome to disagree. It doesn't alter that you're wrong, particularly in this case. Ubisoft has trumpeted their diversity, both in their company and in their game.

I think it's because they've been good on the issue that so many people were surprised that they no longer thought a female playable character was important enough to include.

Finally, people have the right to express their opinions about both commercial works and artistic ones. People aren't responsible for what the artist feels. And, in this case, we're talking about the thousands of artists.
 
You're welcome to disagree. It doesn't alter that you're wrong, particularly in this case. Ubisoft has trumpeted their diversity, both in their company and in their game.

I think it's because they've been good on the issue that so many people were surprised that they no longer thought a female playable character was important enough to include.

Finally, people have the right to express their opinions about both commercial works and artistic ones. People aren't responsible for what the artist feels. And, in this case, we're talking about the thousands of artists.

But this is one game, on an almost yearly release cycle. I doubt highly that this is the last time for a chance to include a female character or even a lead.
 
Good art is made to be sold. I don't think I said anything that invalidates that.

Lots of people make objectively bad art that they wish to sell. However, the point is media (be it books, movies, or video games) are in fact vehicles for social change, whether you plan them to be or not.
 
[QUOTE="D";116276942]Im so sick and tired of this "political correct" bullshit.

Ubisoft: Just say "you changed you mind" and move on. Maybe keep a more open mind for preparedness and such for the next few games in terms of making a female lead assassin.

Everybody else: Its a goddamn VIDJA GAIME. It's not the end of the world, nor the end of Assassin's Creed. There's plenty of time to put female characters, green and polkadot characters, indian characters, quasi-homosexual deaf mute WHATEVER characters in games PERIOD. Just enjoy the shit for what it is. THEY made the game so that's what THEY wanted to do. Hell, i'm BLACK/INDIAN/OTHER and yeah maybe I could say we don't have enough leads or legit representation for my race but for Christ's sake I don't turn it into a freakin' witch hunt everytime some dev opens up their mouth about why they chose race and sex in their games.

It's a "mostly" caucasian/asian industry that makes these games, painfully blunt and simple. Not justifying their excuse but if I were them, I would ALSO make games that I can easily identify with, without stepping on stereotypes too hard or offending someone's culture or affiliation....aka games with people like myself in them, while AT THE SAME TIME try to put other characters of mixed decent/origin/sex/sexuality in my games too, with good representation.

We need to chill out. Sure it was a weak excuse but at the end of the day these same people are gonna buy the game, so all that other spewed-out nonsense needs to quit. After all, gamers aren't identified by sex or race. We're identified by our awesomely expensive hobby that we live, breathe and die for. So enjoy that shit and move on chums/ladies.[/QUOTE]

You can never please everyone. It is up to the rational, who are a select few, to recognize unreasonable disillusionists in the form of zealots and heretics. These people will never respond to clear and coherent thought processes.
 
Lots to say about this.

Everyone saying Ubisoft's excuses are bullshit have no idea what they are talking about. Unless you have been intimately involved in the project you have no reason to speak. They also have zero incentive to lie here, and every time someone gets burned like this for telling the truth it makes them more hesitant to communicate.

You want more communication from devs? Then quit telling them that they're lying to their face when you've never animated a male or female character in your life.

About the game industry. Making a game is hard, and there are real challenges involved. No one ships a game they're perfectly happy with. No game solves all challenges. Everyone punts on stuff, everyone takes short cuts. It's the only way things will ever get finished.

But shouldn't game animators from other studios know what they're talking about? No. Why? Because they're not on the project. They don't know the original design, the current progress, what's still left to do, how the tech works, the workflow, or anything else. They have no idea what challenges are involved on that particular project. They can make generalizations based on their experience, but that's it... and those generalizations are often not worth much removed from their context and put into another situation.

Honestly this makes me super fucking angry. A developer with more than a few titles of experience should know better than to call out another studio publicly when they aren't privy to the details. We all make trade offs, and sometimes it hurts to do it. But no one wants some asshole on twitter throwing salt on their wounds. It's all the more annoying when their employer's good name is used to back up their random bullshit.

So what about Ubisoft? They seem pretty open and honest here. It's something both teams wanted to do but it didn't work out. They're going try it again and it will eventually happen. No need to burn them at the stake. If you want female characters they're already on your side... you just have to wait a bit.
 
[QUOTE="D";116276942]Im so sick and tired of this "political correct" bullshit.[/QUOTE]
I'm so tried of seeing this bullshit get said every time this discussion comes up.

[QUOTE="D";116276942]Everybody else: Its a goddamn VIDJA GAIME.[/QUOTE]
So? What's this supposed to mean, exactly? That this doesn't matter because games don't matter? That games shouldn't be taken seriously?
 
Lots of people make objectively bad art that they wish to sell. However, the point is media (be it books, movies, or video games) are in fact vehicles for social change, whether you plan them to be or not.

Agreed on that first point. I agree that they *can* be vehicles for social change, however there is no reason why they *should*. Some people make games to invoke social change, and that's great. But not every game developer should have to make sure that their game does.
 
Agreed on that first point. I agree that they *can* be vehicles for social change, however there is no reason why they *should*. Some people make games to invoke social change, and that's great. But not every game developer should have to make sure that their game is.

I'm not saying any developer has to do anything, but when all they're doing is maintaining the status quo, they should know they're going to get criticised. And this isn't directed at any dev in particular, just in general. People aren't wrong for expecting more from the media they consume.


LOL it's pretty fucking telling that the only game the men whining in this thread can think of is Tomb Raider.
 
You're welcome to disagree. It doesn't alter that you're wrong, particularly in this case. Ubisoft has trumpeted their diversity, both in their company and in their game.

I think it's because they've been good on the issue that so many people were surprised that they no longer thought a female playable character was important enough to include.

Finally, people have the right to express their opinions about both commercial works and artistic ones. People aren't responsible for what the artist feels. And, in this case, we're talking about the thousands of artists.

One of my biggest issues is the cherry-picking going on in so many articles. I have seen a lot of personal friends point out that they wish they would have been more positive in their response a la the Nintendo Miiquality apology #2.

....except they totally did.

"I cannot speak for the future of the brand, but it was dear to the production team, so you can expect that it will happen eventually in the brand."

Still think the entire response from Ubisoft is idiotic, but I also think the level of hate is out of control. Especially for one of the publishers who have a history of taking chances when it comes to diversity in their lead characters.
 
Regardless, they'll be judged by consumers who might care about things like inclusion or other social issues.

Yep, and 1000 other things that fans thought they did wrong. It's one of the worst parts of being a game developer.
 
It's something you're gonna have to learn to deal with if you're making products for mass consumption.

Oh I deal with it fine, it's been 10 years.

Still doesn't mean that the customer is always right...

*edit* I'm getting worried about my level of involvement in this touchy thread, I'm going to step back for a while and let others speak. I think I'm half of the responses on this page. Enjoy the debate!
 
Also the fact that Polygon is willing to post multiple articles about this subject, and completely ignore a JAPANESE company making an awesome decision to add same-sex marriage to their game just illustrates a systemic issue with games media.

They won't talk about it unless it is negative click-bait.

And they wonder why companies never change. The reality of the situation is stuff like black female leads and inclusion of same-sex marriage are not status quo at this point. So it is important to bring attention to those good decisions. The whole "well why should we thank them when it should be like that from the beginning!" attitude I see when I bring this off is just ignorant.

edit: Feel free to link me to an article on Polygon about the FFXIV news. I have looked and cannot find anything. Not. A. Single. Sentence.
 
At which point we're back at the fact that they're not the same dude, and you have to represent something different to other players.
I have asked this question two times but nobody has answered. Honesy question: is there any point in that? Sure, other players would see your character as female but you would still see your own avatar as Arno. Do you feel represented by that?

Edit:
I'm assuming by "you have to represent something different to other players" you're getting to "why not make one of them female?" line of thinking.
 
Oh I deal with it fine, it's been 10 years.

Still doesn't mean that the customer is always right...

*edit* I'm getting worried about my level of involvement in this touchy thread, I'm going to step back for a while and let others speak. I think I'm half of the responses on this page. Enjoy the debate!

Actually, this might be the first time in a long while I've seen that term used correctly. If the customers want/expect a certain thing from your game and you don't deliver, which results in a loss of sales, then yes the customer was right. You can't force people to buy, only give them incentives. If your artistic vision was all that mattered, this wouldn't be a problem, but you want to make money.

Whether you think the criticisms of Ubisoft have been overblown here (or even unwarranted) is irrelevant because it has already damaged their reputation and will make them have to rethink how they deal with things like this in future. Sure, they are one of the better developers in the industry, but there's always room for improvement.
 
Actually, this might be the first time in a long while I've seen that term used correctly. If the customers want/expect a certain thing from your game and you don't deliver, which results in a loss of sales, then yes the customer was right. You can't force people to buy, only give them incentives. If your artistic vision was all that mattered, this wouldn't be a problem, but you want to make money.

Whether you think the criticisms of Ubisoft have been overblown here (or even unwarranted) is irrelevant because it has already damaged their reputation and will make them have to rethink how they deal with things like this in future. Sure, they are one of the better developers in the industry, but there's always room for improvement.
I very much doubt that something like this will have any adverse effect on sales whatsoever.
 
edit: Feel free to link me to an article on Polygon about the FFXIV news. I have looked and cannot find anything. Not. A. Single. Sentence.
http://www.polygon.com/ps4/2014/6/11/5800432/final-fantasy-14-same-sex-marriage-mmo-pc-ps4

I have asked this question two times but nobody has answered. Honesy question: is there any point in that? Sure, other players would see your character as female but you would still see your own avatar as Arno. Do you feel represented by that?

I personally wouldn't find it completely fulfilling but I can understand that in lieu of any other multiplayer component where more full customization / choices were present it would be nice to see.
 
Also the fact that Polygon is willing to post multiple articles about this subject, and completely ignore a JAPANESE company making an awesome decision to add same-sex marriage to their game just illustrates a systemic issue with games media.

They won't talk about it unless it is negative click-bait.

And they wonder why companies never change. The reality of the situation is stuff like black female leads and inclusion of same-sex marriage are not status quo at this point. So it is important to bring attention to those good decisions. The whole "well why should we thank them when it should be like that from the beginning!" attitude I see when I bring this off is just ignorant.

edit: Feel free to link me to an article on Polygon about the FFXIV news. I have looked and cannot find anything. Not. A. Single. Sentence.
This took one minute to find, on mobile.
 
As a male, I'm incredibly annoyed and offended that I couldn't play as a male character in Tomb Raider. What a lazy studio.

Sarcasm I'm assuming?

Angel of Darkness- I mean, it was shit, but you were given a couple segments!

Edit: And in Guardian of Light! And soon, Temple of Osiris!
 
I never said that it would, but enough negative press could.
I'm pretty sure the press like gamers will forget about this very quickly one another journalist decides to create a click bait misinformed and misleading article in the name of "controversy."
 
Read a great post regarding this subject over on reddit:

Producer/Project Manager said:
Sorry for the hijack/piggyback. Most of this post isn't directed at you, but is more general ranting I need to say.

Producer/Project Manager with more than a dozen shipped titles across every major platform chiming in, including more than a couple with 8-digit budgets.

Different words get used with different context within the game industry that have a different flavor internally than it might to the general public. Words like "cost", "expensive", and "feature" can mean ENTIRELY different things depending on who you're talking to.

Something "costly" could mean it takes up a lot of bandwidth cycles within a game engine. Something "expensive" could mean that the project manager feels it's going to take a lot of work/effort/complexity during a particular release cycle. Something that's a feature could simply be a particular requested item from a designer (could also be called a story, an epic, an ask, an item, or whatever terminology that team is using at the time, often depending on the methodology the team is using for production).

On my current team, EVERYTHING that is requested by the EP, CD, or designers is a "feature" - regardless of what it is. Want a new animation? That's a feature. Want a new weapon type? Feature. New character archetype? Feature. Anything new that does not already exist within the game is a feature. Anything that is involved in the work necessary to create the feature is a task or subtask. A collection of features is either a theme or an epic (depending on the flavor of the collection).

This shorthand exists for teams of developers to work efficiently together. My production staff does all the wrangling so that the designers, engineers, artists, animators, and QA can do more work and still get home to their families while their kids are still awake.

Features all have costs. To the project. To the company. To my team members. If I have to make a call as to whether or not this product of entertainment includes a feature that leaves someone somewhere feeling a bit left out OR whether or not my development staff has to put in some weekends (a staff that includes significant numbers of women - many of whom are mothers or even grandmothers, mind you), then I'm going to want to weigh those costs against their work/life balance...and your personal feelings on the subject aren't nearly as important to me as the well-being of my team. Sorry if that offends. Actually, no I'm not.

Building out a new female character is just as difficult as creating a new <insert ANY adjective here> character. It means new concepts, models, rigging, storyline changes/additions, script changes, VO, and cut scene changes/additions. All of these additions now live in the game code alongside everything else, which might already be getting pretty crowded depending on what platforms you're delivering to. All of these additions make the code base larger and even more complex. All of these additions create bugs and technical debt that needs to first be found through additional QA (sorry guys, you're in this weekend because of the new character cut scenes) which then result in more work from the engineers (sorry guys, you're in next week till 10 PM mandatory because of the expected bugs from the new cut scene that QA will find over the weekend).

Because it's a console title that has a firm ship date (release date for AC5 is October 28th), you want to be submitted at least 8 weeks in advance to first party approvals (Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo have to approve the code you want to put on their systems before they allow you to go to manufacturing - the RTM, or Release to Manufacturer is required before you can put your disk in a box). Once you have your approval, you have a scheduled and contracted run at one of the THREE approved manufacturers allowed to take your production run within the U.S. Miss your RTM date and too fucking bad - EA or Activision or Majesco or whoever has the time scheduled immediately after yours and they're not in a mood to negotiate with you for Q3/4 sales numbers. Once you DO get through your manufacture period, you have to get the units on the shelves at Target, BestBuy, Fry's, GameStop and anyone else you've contracted shelf space with. What? You think those end caps and front facing shelf spaces are just free and randomly put together by the store staffs? That's cute.

Bottom line to the above? AC5 is already well into alpha (feature complete) and possibly already into beta (asset complete) if they want to hit that late August/early Sept submission date they have looming ahead of them.

Best estimates I've heard from people I know at Ubi are that the additional female character was prototyped out very early but sidelined as the game itself is massive and requires an inordinate amount of work just to get the co-op working in the first place. They wanted to get back to the female character, but after costing her out, discovered it would take between 25-50 days of work to get her added in properly (that's the important word, by the way - will get back to it in a bit).

That 25-50 days isn't something you can just throw money and people at by the way. Character pipelines don't work that way. You can't start rescripting or animating new cut-scenes before you have the new rigged model. You can't rig the model till have the model. You can't build the model till have the concept art. You can't record the VO for the cut scenes and in-game play till have the script written. You have to then find the actress who will record the voice, and another actress to record the mocap.

All of this takes time. Time from someone already working late into the day/night and possibly on weekends. Because they're working on OTHER parts of the game. Because the game isn't done just because you saw a trailer at E3. Chances are the trailer wasn't done by ANYONE on the team and likely was outsourced out to a cinematics house.

The game date was likely set a year or more in advance by people setting up the contracts I mentioned above, so you may as well consider that date damn near sacred. That means to get the new character in, something had to give...or rather several somethings. Because unlike many other things in life, game development really can be zero-sum. To gain X cost of features, you have to give up X. But some execs don't think that way - they want X and don't want to give up shit. So they'll grind your team into the dirt to get there (if they're not all that worried about tech debt piling up or in keeping the team together after shipping). Other execs get it - at least to a point. They might ask for lower quality on this or that or may only "suggest" that you extend your team's hours.

However, most teams on AAA don't want to give up quality for anything. Why? Because that means lower Metacritic scores for one thing...a thing that most studio bonuses are inextricably intertwined with. Busted your ass for 2 years on a project and it's expected to bring in a 90 Metacritic so you can get your 20% IC bonus? Wait, you only got an 88% because some jackass kid who gets paid in pagecounts and free games decided you did a half-assed job on the animations for the female character compared to the male and the side-quests weren't involved enough (because your team threw those out to work on the female characters)...no bonus for you, sucker!

This whole subject makes my stomach turn to shit. I know a LOT of people on those teams. Good people. They WANT to bring in more features - female characters definitely is part of that. They hate being called sexist. They hate upper management telling them estimates for their work that they KNOW is wrong ("only a couple of days worth of animations" might as well read "fuck you every other animator who can't do as well as I think I can as fast as I can on new tech").

I know very few devs who are true asshats (yeah, lots of brilliant jerks, a handful of outright assholes, most are just great people who do this for love, not money - they could stop making games and go build tax software tomorrow and double their paychecks in some cases). It's personal when I see people I know and respect called liars or sexist.

I hope the post helped you see a bit into our lives as much as it helped me to get some of this off my chest.
 
This is something that I'm surprised hasn't happened along with something like the PS4 DRM twitter campaign, this is clearly an issue in gaming but its really unfocused and only ever seems to come up at certain times (like for example, when this Ubisoft story happened), yes there has been various threads on this when stories break or a dev misspeaks, yet i don't recall a centralized thread actively trying to change things for the better.

When the DRM issue came about last year it was quite surprising to see so many people on here (and other places) band together to try and fight it, yet this IMO is a much bigger issue and i don't recall in all my time being on here (and reading here before becoming a member) anyone/any thread getting together in an effort to try and change something like this using similar means (trying to get much more diversity in games).

Wouldn't it be a good idea to have something like this so when any game gets announced/leaked that looks set to be able to have a choice put it, that all the people on this site/campaign started to contact the companies/devs requesting more choice?.

It only shows that DRM is a much bigger issue to gamers than diversity in video games.

In the end, money talks. Developpers should be free to make their game as they want, and consumers should have the right to complain and boycott their products if they're not happy with their "vision".

Read a great post regarding this subject over on reddit:

Very informative, thanks.
 
Read a great post regarding this subject over on reddit:
Most important part of this entire thing is right here:

"Building out a new female character is just as difficult as creating a new <insert ANY adjective here> character. It means new concepts, models, rigging, storyline changes/additions, script changes, VO, and cut scene changes/additions. All of these additions now live in the game code alongside everything else, which might already be getting pretty crowded depending on what platforms you're delivering to. All of these additions make the code base larger and even more complex. All of these additions create bugs and technical debt that needs to first be found through additional QA (sorry guys, you're in this weekend because of the new character cut scenes) which then result in more work from the engineers (sorry guys, you're in next week till 10 PM mandatory because of the expected bugs from the new cut scene that QA will find over the weekend).
Because it's a console title that has a firm ship date (release date for AC5 is October 28th), you want to be submitted at least 8 weeks in advance to first party approvals (Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo have to approve the code you want to put on their systems before they allow you to go to manufacturing - the RTM, or Release to Manufacturer is required before you can put your disk in a box). Once you have your approval, you have a scheduled and contracted run at one of the THREE approved manufacturers allowed to take your production run within the U.S. Miss your RTM date and too fucking bad - EA or Activision or Majesco or whoever has the time scheduled immediately after yours and they're not in a mood to negotiate with you for Q3/4 sales numbers. Once you DO get through your manufacture period, you have to get the units on the shelves at Target, BestBuy, Fry's, GameStop and anyone else you've contracted shelf space with. What? You think those end caps and front facing shelf spaces are just free and randomly put together by the store staffs? That's cute.
Bottom line to the above? AC5 is already well into alpha (feature complete) and possibly already into beta (asset complete) if they want to hit that late August/early Sept submission date they have looming ahead of them.
Best estimates I've heard from people I know at Ubi are that the additional female character was prototyped out very early but sidelined as the game itself is massive and requires an inordinate amount of work just to get the co-op working in the first place. They wanted to get back to the female character, but after costing her out, discovered it would take between 25-50 days of work to get her added in properly (that's the important word, by the way - will get back to it in a bit).
That 25-50 days isn't something you can just throw money and people at by the way. Character pipelines don't work that way. You can't start rescripting or animating new cut-scenes before you have the new rigged model. You can't rig the model till have the model. You can't build the model till have the concept art. You can't record the VO for the cut scenes and in-game play till have the script written. You have to then find the actress who will record the voice, and another actress to record the mocap. All of this takes time. Time from someone already working late into the day/night and possibly on weekends. Because they're working on OTHER parts of the game. Because the game isn't done just because you saw a trailer at E3."
^ I've been trying to explain this all day.
 
It's interesting how they seem to pass the problem off as one of bureaucratic inefficiency. They would like to create a female player character but any work on a female character has to be signed off on by a committee of senior female employees and it was too much work to assemble that committee.
Thought it was more interesting that it didn't occur for them to put the models in throughout the Dev cycle. Like the far cry guys imply they thought of it too late which is why the "future games" part came in
 
Thought it was more interesting that it didn't occur for them to put the models in throughout the Dev cycle. Like the far cry guys imply they thought of it too late which is why the "future games" part came in

If you had read any of the interviews, you'd know that they considered female characters, but had to cut them due to the extra effort.
 
Dat shitty controversy, people still didn't understand you wouldn't be able to play as a woman anyway (i.e. even they created female Assassins, since you always see you as Arno)
 
I personally wouldn't find it completely fulfilling but I can understand that in lieu of any other multiplayer component where more full customization / choices were present it would be nice to see.
I see. If people see it that way, then it would be nice, yes, if they had included a preset female among the other random three assassins.

I won't claim to know anything about game development, but their explanation actually makes sense to me. I work in the film industry and what I learned is that in a collaborative, creative effort, many things that would sound really trivial and easy to accomplish could actually require momentous effort and time,depending on all sorts of circumstances. Compromises are always made, resulting in some disappointment, even among the crew.

Maybe I'm just too optimistic, but I'll give Ubisoft the benefit of a doubt here; I think they've earned that much.
 
I never said that it would, but enough negative press could.

Eh these things can always go either way sexist "controversy" actually greatly helped Dragon crowns sales. You never really know. Which is part of the reason devs don't give a shit because I'm not entirely sure their playerbase actually cares. Sure they're missing out on a heck of a lot of potential sales if these games were more inclusive. But catering to that fanbase hasn't hit a wall yet,
 
Cool, if it's only 1-2 days work to implement, I can't wait to play as Natalie Drake in Uncharted 4, teaming up once more with her long time partner Sally.
Yes, because that's totally the same thing as implementing female leads into a series that changes it's protagonist with each game.
 

Ah, crap I think it was because I was searching Final Fantasy XIV and not 14. Because that is the official title but whatever. Thanks for the link guys.

Point still stands that we have one article that is mostly direct quotes and probably has never been featured on the front page.

Meanwhile, for this whole fiasco there are probably half a dozen articles and videos front and center that are at least somewhat related.

They are in no way giving as much attention to the good news that came out.
 
Yes, because that's totally the same thing as implementing female leads into a series that changes it's protagonist with each game.
The fact that this game wasn't designed with a female lead in mind isn't an issue. Not every developer is obligated to do that especially not Ubisoft considering that they've already done it and have many different female characters in their games. You're asking them to change the entire game for your needs. Which is ridiculous.
 
Yes, because that's totally the same thing as implementing female leads into a series that changes it's protagonist with each game.

The point is they've already designed the game around a male protagonist.

The tweet from the ND artist is ridiculous. It makes out changing the main character in a AAA story led game, that's months away from release, is as simple as doing a palette swap. When that's clearly not the case, hence my UC4 example.
 
Regardless, they'll be judged by consumers who might care about things like inclusion or other social issues.

Yes. But complaing there's no female lead in a game is like criticizing GTAV for not being science-fiction, or than Uncharted 4 isn't open world or complaing there is no RTS mode in Tomb Raider.
At this point it's not really criticism of the actual game anymore.
 
The fact that this game wasn't designed with a female lead in mind isn't an issue. Not every developer is obligated to do that especially not Ubisoft considering that they've already done it and have many different female characters in their games. You're asking them to change the entire game for your needs. Which is ridiculous.
You do realize that this whole response has nothing to do with what I was responding to, right?

I'm calling out a post trying to compare an established character being changed to one that already changed with each iteration.

But to respond to your post: I do have a problem with there not being a female lead considered since this time period is a great time to bring one in.

They're not obligated but that doesn't mean they shouldn't.
 
Top Bottom