Support NeoGAF

[Zoe]

And once again where does it say in there that they asked for the male character to be replaced? All they said is it's not a huge effort to include a female lead like they're saying it is.

If you actually read the context, it's clear the Ubisoft guy is talking about making another lead.

 

[APF]

But not in a game where they specifically stated that you ALWAYS play as the main character days beforehand

Oh, so there are no present-day sequences? And you're back to saying there are 4 Arnos in co-op? And you refuse to allow people to ask for features that the developers didn't say are in the game?

 

[Dice//]

You literally never see yourself playing as a female in this game. You literally never do unless there's a story reason like

Spoiler

playing as the mother of the main character

.So what's the point in putting in the days of extra work to make a female avatar work when the game doesn't even work that way in the first place?

Good grief.
Speak for yourself.

 

[Infinite]

You literally never see yourself playing as a female in this game. You literally never do unless there's a story reason like

Spoiler

playing as the mother of the main character

.So what's the point in putting in the days of extra work to make a female avatar work when the game doesn't even work that way in the first place?

This makes no sense at all and is not even what I asked. You keep saying "there's little to gain" from making a female character playable and I'm asking you what exactly do you mean by "little to gain".

Also as I said several pages ago if Ubisoft actually considered having a female character they would have found a way to do so and have it make sense to their narrative. Much like how they can put microtransactions and collectibles in it. This "because it doesn't make sense to the story" argument is garbage. They are the ones writing the story so if they wanted to make the inclusion of female characters make "sense" to its own narrative then it's completely in their power to make that happen. anyways they didn't even offer that excuse...

 

[ab.aeterno]

Not too long ago may or may not be a long time during video game development. Not too long to a developer or animator can mean months ago or a year ago.

Let me get this fucking straight: your explanation for a discrepancy between what a named developer said on record, and a nameless contract of someone on reddit that you're using to argue your points, is that the exact particular subset of people involved in this have an incredibly different definition of common English words such that not too long ago means a couple years? Give me a fucking break. You're arguing in bad faith to keep using a dubious source to backup your arguments. Sorry, but I'm going to take the commonly accepted use of a phrase by a developer on record than what a friend of a guy on reddit says.

 

[Authority]

Good. Eurogamer is on it as well.

Assassin's Creed Unity is a backward step for progressive games

So, new comments from Assassin's Creed Unity's creative director Alex Amancio at E3 help us to disentangle the situation around Ubisoft Montreal's removal of female avatars from the game, although whether it's a satisfactory response is another matter.

You can judge for yourself, but as far as I can see he's essentially saying that he misspoke; that Unity was never intended to have customisable avatars in co-op and that instead it's closer in principle to Watch Dogs. In that game, everyone playing appears to themselves, in their own world, as Aiden Pearce, but they will perceive any human invaders as random hackers, and should they invade another world then they will appear to the host player as a random hacker. Amancio is saying that it is the same in Unity: that you always appear to yourself as Arno, but your appearance in another player's game is different.

That being the case, though, it raises the question of why Amancio's team ever had female character models on the to-do list in the first place. And the answer is surely obvious: if you're going to display other random assassins to players in a co-op game, then it makes sense to present a mixture of men and women, because, you know, half of the population of the world are women. "I understand the issue, I understand the cause, and it is a noble one, but I don't think it's relevant in the case of Unity," said Amancio. But you're also saying that you did think it was relevant at one point. Why the change? It feels like a convenient excuse.

So that's the micro side of the issue: they've made a dumb decision at some point in development and now they're trying to explain it away rather than doing the astonishingly obvious thing they should do instead, which is fix it.

Pulling back a bit, though, this story is merely a symptom of a wider problem in video games to which we - and I include myself in this - generally turn a blind eye: video games are still terrible at this stuff and it is preventing them becoming all that they can be. We have more strong female characters in games than ever, but it's still a piddling minority and there are usually caveats. There's Ellie in The Last of Us (playable some of the time or in the DLC), FemShep (only acknowledged by the packaging in the third instalment when the franchise was already established) and there's, well, Lara Croft (only allowed to be a more rounded human being now that she's built an empire). And for every one of them, there are - probably literally - one hundred men in vests or space armour going through ultraviolent neck-stabbing journeys of tender self-discovery.

So what do we do about it? I was talking to a friend yesterday and he made an interesting suggestion. He pointed out that huge companies like Ubisoft all have policies governing employee behaviour. So as a starting point, why not include a clause that governs gender representation in games? It's not a difficult thing to pin down: if you are making a game where you can select an avatar, you have to be able to choose women as well as men.

Attentive readers will observe that this wouldn't resolve the Assassin's Creed Unity situation. If Ubisoft Montreal's argument is that you always appear as Arno and there are no avatars in the game, that wouldn't be covered by this. But correcting the kind of inequality that we see in games at present isn't about going after specific instances. It's about targeting fundamental attitudes and behaviour - and you do that by setting an example. And the interesting thing about seeding attitudes and behaviour like this is that it rubs off into other areas. If game publishers made it policy to offer this choice whenever you include avatars in a game, it would be front-of-mind for their developers. It would influence their work directly and their thinking indirectly.
The game developer, the CIA, and the sculpture driving them crazy 'I work at Langley. I think I can get you in.' The game developer, the CIA, and the sculpture driving them crazy

To use the Assassin's Creed Unity example, you can imagine someone standing up to the director and saying, "I know these co-op partners aren't technically avatars, but women should still be represented because it's important to represent women in our games." And perhaps the creative director would be able to empathise with that and realise that it wasn't just a nice extra to have, but a fundamentally important part of making a game.

Changing fundamental attitudes and behaviour. This is also why Amancio is horribly wrong about the relevance of this issue to Assassin's Creed Unity, because up to now Assassin's Creed has been setting a decent, if not spectacular example. It has plenty of strong female characters. It always let you play as women in multiplayer (cutting multiplayer from Unity certainly has not helped this situation). And there is even an Assassin's Creed game starring a woman. Presenting us with a game in which you cannot choose to be represented by women, and when the game chooses to represent your presence it will not even randomly decide that you might, you know, on the balance of probability, occasionally be a player who might be a woman, is a step backwards. It is part of the message your work sends. I cannot imagine anything that is more relevant.

It would be very nice if, in the time remaining to Amancio and his team, someone reached the same conclusion and did something about it.

Credits to Eurogamer

 

[stupei]

You have no idea what they considered during development. To say that they never considered it is very insulting and blatant denial of the fact that I just told you about the developer who knows people at the studio and knows about some of the things they cut during pre-production said that it was considered. They never lied. About anything. Or implied that the game would allow you to customize and make your own character. So who's fault is it that you thought that it was that kinda game despite tons of interviews saying otherwise?

Did you actually read everything I wrote or just the part you cherry picked to twist my words?

I never said it was that kind of game. Not once in this thread did I say it was a customizable game. Over and over again, I have said what they said. That they said it was a consideration. I said it in the post you responded to.

And then I said, as you did, that it was cut years ago and they have not thought about it since. Otherwise, why lie? Seriously. I want you to actually THINK about that for a moment, please. They lied to us. You yourself are admitting this. They said that it was something they were still thinking about doing until recently. That's a lie! You know it is. You even think it's a ridiculous one, because of how difficult you KEEP SAYING it would be to implement.

When asked about the inclusion of women, the immediate response was a lie, and apparently a very obvious one as, again, you yourself keep proving over and over. You keep saying how hard it would be, how it couldn't be done quickly or near the end of production. So they lied, and they lied poorly. Now either they think the question is so insignificant that nobody would notice what a bad lie it was, or they were thinking on their feet and unprepared to answer.

Which means that when they hung giant building-sized banners of four white guys up right before E3, nobody looking up at them thought, "Hey, do you think anyone's going to wonder why they're all white dudes?"

While that says a lot about how little they've thought about it in the past two years or so, it also suggests a great deal about how much time was spent contemplating ways to increase the diversity in this particular game world as well. It's almost like it's a topic that's barely ever on their mind.

It's almost like they don't care.

edit: Oh, I'm sorry, I missed the part where you claimed that one year into a three year dev cycle might be considered "not too long ago." So of course this outrageously inconsistent timeline isn't a lie, it's just a total misunderstanding about how people normally communicate time.

 

[Authority]

And.

Yes All Men: Assassin’s Creed Bro-op Controversy Escalates

...Ubisoft are now backtracking on their initial defence that this was a workload issue, and instead claim it’s a deliberate narrative-based decision – however, this only opens up more questions.

To Polygon yesterday

“It’s double the animations, it’s double the voices, all that stuff and double the visual assets. Especially because we have customizable assassins. It was really a lot of extra production work. Because of that, the common denominator was Arno. It’s not like we could cut our main character, so the only logical option, the only option we had, was to cut the female avatar.”

To Eurogamer after the storm hit

“I understand the issue, but it’s not relevant in Assassin’s Creed Unity… There was this thing that started with animations – but they have nothing to do with it. They’re one drop in the ocean, they’re one part of it. If we’re creating all these different suits that can interchange, that’s a lot. It’s not only that, but it’s nothing to do with production. Again, we’re telling the story of Arno – it’s that character’s story. The reason we’re just changing the face and keeping the bodies is we want people to show off the gear that they pick up in the game through exploration.”

So the face can change, but it doesn’t count as being a different character? Is Arno secretly the latest guise for Jaqen H’ghar? Everyone absolutely has to be Arno in co-op for important plot reasons, even though they won’t necessarily look like Arno? And the suspension of disbelief required for the character to have a different face can’t extend to them appearing to be a different gender? It still doesn’t wash, and it’s never going to, no matter how many statements or backtracks arise.

Credits to RockPaperShotgun

Get it?

They’re one drop in the ocean, they’re one part of it. If we’re creating all these different suits that can interchange, that’s a lot. It’s not only that, but it’s nothing to do with production
They’re one drop in the ocean, they’re one part of it. If we’re creating all these different suits that can interchange, that’s a lot. It’s not only that, but it’s nothing to do with production
They’re one drop in the ocean, they’re one part of it. If we’re creating all these different suits that can interchange, that’s a lot. It’s not only that, but it’s nothing to do with production

And cased is closed in terms of whether or not this was a "technical issue".

"But you know nothing about animations and how hard it is!"
"They have been working on ACU from scratch!"
"They don't have enough people!"
"They didn't have time!"

They’re one drop in the ocean, they’re one part of it. If we’re creating all these different suits that can interchange, that’s a lot. It’s not only that, but it’s nothing to do with production

 

[Mr.Wreckless]

So, as I've been saying over and over since I first posted in this thread, the issue remains that the REAL PROBLEM HERE is their mouth pieces and the fact that they felt a need to lie. The real issue is the fact that it never came up in any discussions about the game's publicity that someone might care. That a woman might want to play this game and, looking at the design and trailers, say, "Hey, why are they all guys?"

That thought never crossed anyone's mind, since they don't appear to have ever considered how they would answer that question. Either that or they thought that the topic of inclusion was so minor that they could offer clearly false lip-service and it would be taken as gospel.

Why lie? Because they don't care. Because the existence of female gamers or women in their game world hasn't crossed their mind in about the length of those two years.

As an animator, you seem really annoyed when people speak about the topic without knowing as much as you do or taking your experience into consideration, and yet we're on a game forum where people at least consider the existence and experience of animators all the time. But the idea that a woman might ever want to engage with the game? Unthinkable. Never even considered.

The fact that women exist and might have questions about their representation in a multi-million dollar game that is being touted as such a huge deal? A fact they weren't remotely prepared for.

Try to take that annoyed experience of people talking on your behalf and assuming they know everything about your experience from observing on the outside and then apply it to them forgetting most of the rest of the time that you're even there at all until you speak up, at which point you are a nag who is targeting a poor victim.

Someone else has already asked this but I think it warrants being brought up again.

The AC series has given us games with female leads and minority leads. This latest game will lack a female PC and also a minority PC. Why is there so much anger from one side about a lack of a female lead but the lack of a minority option isn't even an afterthought? From the side of an African American it seems almost silly that the lack of a female option can deter someone from playing a game when people of African decent are almost never represented in a meaningful way and often when we are it's as nothing more than brutes or gun toting thugs. In a game like this where the protagonist is going to be covered from head to toe they don't even need to create a new model for the brown people of the world (which are the majority by the way) just a color option.

Even in these professionally written pieces covering this issue they speak of inclusion only from the perspective of gender, not race. Why is that? Am I to feel included because there is a white male option?

 

[Azih]

I'm not seeing where criticism caused it to be removed; it seems the commissioner of the work removed it himself because he felt it was inappropriate.

That's the very definition of self-censorship. You stifle a creative impulse at the moment of creation to prevent the possibility of criticism before the fact. What the commissioner did was wrong. It was self-censorship. And I'd hate to see game developers go. "Well I really have this story I want to tell about a white guy (like in for example Spec Ops The Line). But damn people will get mad at me because they can't play as a female so let me just change the concept completely so I don't get jumped on".

That's art 101. You don't become a stronger writer without criticism.

Alright, but I don't see anything wrong with the concept that Ubisoft is offering for Arno as a lead for AC V at all. It's fine. It's a single player game with a male lead.

Your distinction, too, seems without purpose. The problem is just as much with what's being made, as it with what isn't. If what was being made wasn't a problem, this issue wouldn't exist. This issue exists because of what's always being made.

No. There's nothing wrong with AC:V in and of itself being a game featuring a male lead in the single player campaign. This wouldn't even be an issue if there were eight other AAA games coming out with say, 5 of them featuring female leads. The work in and of itself is perfectly ok. The lack of diversity OVERALL is the issue and that comes from creating a situation where more games can be made. Not pointing fingers and the people who ARE making games and demanding they change what they do. This goes for GTA V and SP:SOT as well.

You're doing the exact thing I was describing: using a design decision they made to justify their inability make a subsequent design decision. They wouldn't have this problem if they'd designed it in a different way

But then it would be a different game. Are you saying that only certain decision decisions should ever be made? That there should be a template on how games should be designed? That's stifling creativity.

 

[Crossing Eden]

Oh, so there are no present-day sequences? And you're back to saying there are 4 Arnos in co-op? And you refuse to allow people to ask for features that the developers didn't say are in the game?

If a game doesn't have a certain feature because the devs are working on tons of other features then it's quite self entitled to push for one feature that may or may not affect the game in a positive way and may hinder the development and refinement of other features. And there's no sexism in the notion that working on a female playable character in a game with a male lead may hinder development. Just it's not sexist to say that games like Tomb Raider don't have playable men during development. What if during production they planned to let you play as Lara's dad but decided to drop it to get a more focused product and spend resources elsewhere. That's not sexist or done with malicious intent. It's just something that happens.

This makes no sense at all and is not even what I asked. You keep saying "there's little to gain" from making a female character playable and I'm asking you what exactly do you mean by "little to gain".
Also as I said several pages ago if Ubisoft actually considered having a female character they would have found a way to do so and have it make sense to their narrative. Much like how they can put microtransactions and collectibles in it. This "because it doesn't make sense to the story" argument is garbage. They are the ones writing the story so if they wanted to make the inclusion of female characters make "sense" to its own narrative then it's completely in their power to make that happen. anyways they didn't even offer that excuse...

They'd have this high quality bar they want to reach. To reach that they have to polish and refine many aspects of this new game that was built from the ground up. Crowd tech, buildings, etc. And yes, sometimes developing a different character model can hinder that. And it would be the same if it was vice versa. The "little gain" comes from the fact that the player never sees themselves as anyone other than the MC. And none of his movements seem feminine or like somethings a female assassin would do in a grounded setting like the one for this game.

Did you actually read everything I wrote or just the part you cherry picked to twist my words?

I never said it was that kind of game. Not once in this thread did I say it was a customizable game. Over and over again, I have said what they said. That they said it was a consideration. I said it in the post you responded to.

And then I said, as you did, that it was cut years ago and they have not thought about it since. Otherwise, why lie? Seriously. I want you to actually THINK about that for a moment, please. They lied to us. You yourself are admitting this. They said that it was something they were still thinking about doing until recently. That's a lie! You know it is. You even think it's a ridiculous one, because of how difficult you KEEP SAYING it would be to implement.

When asked about the inclusion of women, the immediate response was a lie, and apparently a very obvious one as, again, you yourself keep proving over and over. You keep saying how hard it would be, how it couldn't be done quickly or near the end of production. So they lied, and they lied poorly. Now either they think the question is so insignificant that nobody would notice what a bad lie it was, or they were thinking on their feet and unprepared to answer.

Which means that when they hung giant building-sized banners of four white guys up right before E3, nobody looking up at them thought, "Hey, do you think anyone's going to wonder why they're all white dudes?"

While that says a lot about how little they've thought about it in the past two years or so, it also suggests a great deal about how much time was spent contemplating ways to increase the diversity in this particular game world as well. It's almost like it's a topic that's barely ever on their mind.

It's almost like they don't care.

They care about making a polished next gen game. First and foremost. That's their and pretty much every team's priority. And guess what. Making a playable female character=a less polished version of AC:Unity. Sorry. That's just the way it works in this specific context with this specific next gen game.

Replace the phrase "female playable character" with the word "second playable character with unique animation sets that are just as refined as the MC." Working on that tech would result in a less polished version of AC:Unity.

Now replace the previous phrase with "boat." Working on a boat would result in a less polished version of AC:Unity. The pattern is that things that are unnecessary hinders the development and vision of the game the team wants to create. Period. That happens with any game, or any project.

 

[besada]

I was "fun" debating with Ubisoft's PR representatives in this thread.

We can do without this level of snark in the thread, thanks.

 

[Azih]

Just like the example where people roundly criticized Bioware for creating a 'gay ghetto' when in fact Bioware was doing everything it reasonably could to introduce same sex relationships in The Old Republic there seems to be no appreciation here about how hard games are to create and the crazy strict deadlines even well resourced teams work under.

 

[Crossing Eden]

Just like the example where people roundly criticized Bioware for creating a 'gay ghetto' when in fact Bioware was doing everything it reasonably could to introduce same sex relationships in The Old Republic there seems to be no appreciation here about how hard games are to create.

Or how hard just the animation of these games. That's what especially stings to me. I've seen my fair share of crunch time to get a project done.

 

[besada]

Why is there so much anger from one side about a lack of a female lead but the lack of a minority option isn't even an afterthought?

Because one side bothered to make a fuss about it and the other didn't? There is literally nothing stopping you from A) starting a thread about it B) starting a twitter campaign C) demanding better representation regarding minority characters. I will gladly join any campaign you start.

But, this isn't the thread for it. This thread's topic is specifically about one game and one issue. You're welcome to start a thread, and I will gladly punt those folks that insist it's not worthy of a thread.

On a personal level, I agree that there should be better representation of minorities and better coverage over the fact that there's not. And, without getting into a contest of who's historically been more screwed over, I think it's reasonable to note that women comprise slightly more than fifty percent of the human population, so it shouldn't be entirely surprising that women's issues get more coverage than other minority issues. There are simply more of them to complain.

As I said, I think it's a very valid complaint, and would gladly ride shotgun on any thread you made about it, but this isn't the thread for it.

 

[Authority]

We can do without this level of snark in the thread, thanks.

Re-edited.

 

[APF]

In a game like this where the protagonist is going to be covered from head to toe they don't even need to create a new model for the brown people of the world (which are the majority by the way) just a color option.

Agreed. They literally open every game saying how diverse and multi-ethnic they are, so clearly they want us to believe this is a priority for them.

to push for one feature that may or may not affect the game in a positive way

Uh, beg questions much?

 

[ExFalsoQuodlibet]

Haven't you learned anything? The needs of the few are much more important than the needs the many.

The needs of males+females can be considered more important than the needs of males only, right?

That's most likely because you don't know how time consuming it is to make something like a character model that's as complex as the main character and are misinterpreting production with some form of non-existent sexism.

Oh my god, do you actually read the other posts? The problem is not remaking the main character female after they created a male one, the problem is dropping the possibility of a female one in the first place, and then afterward considering a female lead as an afterthought and justifying their decision (of a male lead) with something like "it would be expensive to remake it as woman". Do you know what an afterthought is? Have you even considered the point of view of women in this matter, who in videgames are 99% of the time treated as an accessory and and afterthought? Do you know what "male gaze" means? Have you any idea of the gender issues in AAA videogames?

Also, making a decision or passing a judgement exclusively based on gender reasons is sexist, that's the very definition of the word.

And they completely admitted that the point was not about animations (OBVIOUSLY, if they wanted to make a female lead they would have found a way to do so), they specifically choose a man as the lead, they specifically choose to put 4 men on the cover, and they did this at the very beginning of the game's production, they completely didn't care about what female gamers would think about that, and when pressed on the matter (that is absolutely relevant in the videogames space) they lied, they contradicted themselves.

Also, please stop saying that there's little gain in including the possibility of a female lead: do you understand what the fuck it means? It means that women count almost nothing, there's little gain in thinking about them as potential players of your game.

And again, the period represented in the game could perfectly work with a female lead, the entire assassin's creed series is perfectly compatible with female assassins, and if you're a mail developer team @ Ubisoft you can absolutely choose to create also female leads, there is gain in that, and it is a better way of writing games, period.

 

[Pimpwerx]

I hate to bring this up again, but again I feel that there's a two-faced issue going on with civil rights issues. Again with what Ubisoft has done with excluding women, people have no problem all gathering to call them out, if it has to do with homosexuality like with Tomodachi Life and Nintendo people are okay fighting. If it has to do with ethnicity representation? Everybody jokes. It feels very immoral to me and gives me the impression that we are not making progress with racism and that it is not that its getting better but that its swept aside like a skeleton in the closet that will eventually burst out as a revived demon.

Here we have two cases where people show they have a sense of justice yet they mostly choose to reserve it for only a specific situation and withhold it from others. How is that truly a just heart? Why does this continue to happen?

This post won't be ignored. I agree with the sentiment.

Honestly, I liken this to the movie and music industries. Minorities will have to get the ball rolling themselves. Probably by making more minority focused studios churning out minority centric titles kinda like Spike Lee and John Singleton did for black films. PEACE.

 

[ab.aeterno]

No. There's nothing wrong with AC:V in and of itself being a game featuring a male lead in the single player campaign. This wouldn't even be an issue if there were eight other AAA games coming out with say, 5 of them featuring female leads. The work in and of itself is perfectly ok.

You're missing my point again. You can literally say "There's nothing wrong with ________ in and of itself being a game featuring a make lead in a single payer campaign," about any existing or future game, and excuse every one of them from not being inclusive because the logic underlying your argument applies to every game. Think about it, why can't you justify exclusion on every game using that argument? You can, and that's why it's a poor argument to use if you support inclusiveness.

Because these games don't exist in a vacuum. If we treated them as though they did, then every game gets a pass it's own merits, and all future games cab get a pass too, on their own merits. But these games exist in a broader medium where they exist in s larger pattern of exclusion, and a culture that rejecting that status quo.

But then it would be a different game. Are you saying that only certain decision decisions should ever be made? That there should be a template on how games should be designed? That's stifling creativity.

What? No, you can only draw that conclusion if you ignore the context of what I wrote. I'm specifically calling out the argument that they can't do it because of how it's designed, as though that dismisses criticism. That misses that their initial design is the problem. They can still make it, they can make whatever design they want, but they designed themselves into a corner, and you can't use that to adequately dismiss criticism that they can't do it.

It would be like if I designed a walkway with only stairs, then said I couldn't change the walkway to accommodate wheelchairs because of how the walkway was designed. Maybe I should have designed it to accommodate wheelchairs from the beginning, if it was something I cared about.

Spoiler

It's not a perfect analogy, but it's the best I have right now.

 

[APF]

Hey guys, it's really self-entitled to ask for features in games when the developers are working so hard on other features. Whaat?

 

[AyaisMUsikWhore]

I hate to bring this up again, but again I feel that there's a two-faced issue going on with civil rights issues. Again with what Ubisoft has done with excluding women, people have no problem all gathering to call them out, if it has to do with homosexuality like with Tomodachi Life and Nintendo people are okay fighting. If it has to do with ethnicity representation? Everybody jokes. It feels very immoral to me and gives me the impression that we are not making progress with racism and that it is not that its getting better but that its swept aside like a skeleton in the closet that will eventually burst out as a revived demon.

Here we have two cases where people show they have a sense of justice yet they mostly choose to reserve it for only a specific situation and withhold it from others. How is that truly a just heart? Why does this continue to happen?

Don't do this. Many people have also argued about how race is also misrepresented in video games. Especially when it comes to black people. The issue is right now, this game specifically isn't about that issue, even though it shouldn't be out ruled.

 

[Crossing Eden]

The needs of males+females can be considered more important than the needs of males only, right?

Oh my god, do you actually read the other posts? The problem is not remaking the main character female after they created a male one, the problem is dropping the possibility of a female one in the first place, and then afterward considering a female lead as an afterthought and justifying their decision (of a male lead) with something like "it would be expensive to remake it as woman". Do you know what an afterthought is? Have you even considered the point of view of women in this matter, who in videgames are 99% of the time treated as an accessory and and afterthought? Do you know what "male gaze" means? Have you any idea of the gender issues in AAA videogames?

Also, making a decision or passing a judgement exclusively based on gender reasons is sexist, that's the very definition of the word.

And they completely admitted that the point was not about animations (OBVIOUSLY, if they wanted to make a female lead they would have found a way to do so), they specifically choose a man as the lead, they specifically choose to put 4 men on the cover, and they did this at the very beginning of the game's production, they completely didn't care about what female gamers would think about that, and when pressed on the matter (that is absolutely relevant in the videogames space) they lied, they contradicted themselves.

Every project starts out with whether or not you wanna tell a story that features a male or female lead. What's the problem with choosing a male lead for this project? Because of the prominent women? Well what about the prominent men? We don't know what story they're trying to tell. It could be a revenge story. Or it could be a coming of age story. This game was revealed to have a male lead months ago so I have no idea why it's considered a social issue now when we know for a fact that they considered a female lead but chose not to.

 

[ExFalsoQuodlibet]

They care about making a polished next gen game. First and foremost. That's their and pretty much every team's priority. And guess what. Making a playable female character=a less polished version of AC:Unity. Sorry. That's just the way it works in this specific context with this specific next gen game.

Replace the phrase "female playable character" with the word "second playable character with unique animation sets that are just as refined as the MC." Working on that tech would result in a less polished version of AC:Unity.

Now replace the previous phrase with "boat." Working on a boat would result in a less polished version of AC:Unity. The pattern is that things that are unnecessary hinders the development and vision of the game the team wants to create. Period. That happens with any game, or any project.

I really don't understand how this would lead to a less polished version of the game, seriously. They can choose to redirect some part of the budget to working on a female playable character, that's it, it's a choice like any other. Also, are you saying that including a female playable character is an unnecessary thing, like including a boat in a game with no sea?

Every project starts out with whether or not you wanna tell a story that features a male or female lead. What's the problem with choosing a male lead for this project? Because of the prominent women? Well what about the prominent men? We don't know what story they're trying to tell. It could be a revenge story. Or it could be a coming of age story. This game was revealed to have a male lead months ago so I have no idea why it's considered a social issue now when we know for a fact that they considered a female lead but chose not to.

Simple, the problem to me is the fact that it would have been more interesting to have a mainline AC game with a female lead, especially in that period of time, and they chose not to, and not for technical reasons, I have already explained myself very clearly about this.

Their lies and stupid behavior to cover their asses is another thing, of course.

 

[R0ckman]

Because one side bothered to make a fuss about it and the other didn't? There is literally nothing stopping you from A) starting a thread about it B) starting a twitter campaign C) demanding better representation regarding minority characters. I will gladly join any campaign you start.

But, this isn't the thread for it. This thread's topic is specifically about one game and one issue. You're welcome to start a thread, and I will gladly punt those folks that insist it's not worthy of a thread.

On a personal level, I agree that there should be better representation of minorities and better coverage over the fact that there's not. And, without getting into a contest of who's historically been more screwed over, I think it's reasonable to note that women comprise slightly more than fifty percent of the human population, so it shouldn't be entirely surprising that women's issues get more coverage than other minority issues. There are simply more of them to complain.

As I said, I think it's a very valid complaint, and would gladly ride shotgun on any thread you made about it, but this isn't the thread for it.

You bring a point I want to address, and please correct me if this is NOT the case, but in topics that address ethnicity minority issues in the gaming world, from the few I looked through there seemed to be a higher tolerance from the mods in allowing dive bys, shit posting, jokes and games. Maybe this is coincidental and different mods are on the clock at those times. I don't know. It kind of bothers me when I see threads like this which are managed a lot better from my observations.

 

[Crossing Eden]

Hey guys, it's really self-entitled to ask for features in games when the developers are working so hard on other features. Whaat?

No, it's really self entitled to crucify, belittle, and sometimes blatantly insult a creative team for a game they're working harder on than any other game they've ever made for something that doesn't really add to the overall player experience besides something that is subjectively aesthetically pleasing. Especially not when there would be no uproar if they decided to do the opposite and the situation was reversed.

 

[Figboy79]

I'm still reading through the thread, but that's a terrible excuse from Ubisoft. I don't even know what else to add. Personally, I like playing as a female in games where I can. Just this morning, I fired up the Destiny alpha, and the first thing I did was change my gender to female.

Female companions are also pretty cool to have; see any RPG like Mass Effect, Fallout, etc. Prine of Persia 08. The Last of Us. Nothing is stopping developers from creating female characters, or minority characters in more prominent or starring roles besides their unwillingness to think outside of themselves and their biases.

I'm currently playing through Remember Me for the first time, and the game is surprisingly enjoyable, and it's refreshing that the lead is a mixed, black and white female. I'd like to see more of this.

 

[APF]

So in games that do allow for diversity in co-op partners, we criticize those games' budgeting priorities, correct? Because that is a choice "that may or may not affect the game in a positive way," correct?

Especially not when there would be no uproar if they decided to do the opposite and the situation was reversed.

Huh?

 

[Authority]

Haven't you learned anything? The needs of the few are much more important than the needs the many.

Outside of Polygon/Verge/topic specific blogs, I really doubt most people care what their character looks like when they stab people in the face.

How about you stop right there because you don't know because this and the post below is one of the most ridiculous, uneducated opinions in modern gaming.

If a game doesn't have a certain feature because the devs are working on tons of other features then it's quite self entitled to push for one feature that may or may not affect the game in a positive way and may hinder the development and refinement of other features.

How about both of you stop posting things you are clearly ignorant about?

The only logical explanation on why any decent gamer would think that having the option to play as a female is not important or there is not enough evidence to support that as something positive, is that you think that all of this is a social justice warrior tag.

And head over here and do your self a favor - Gender Swapping

 

[Seeds]

Huh?

Do you think we would have a 30+ page thread about not being able to play as a man if the main character was a woman?

 

[ExFalsoQuodlibet]

I hate to bring this up again, but again I feel that there's a two-faced issue going on with civil rights issues. Again with what Ubisoft has done with excluding women, people have no problem all gathering to call them out, if it has to do with homosexuality like with Tomodachi Life and Nintendo people are okay fighting. If it has to do with ethnicity representation? Everybody jokes. It feels very immoral to me and gives me the impression that we are not making progress with racism and that it is not that its getting better but that its swept aside like a skeleton in the closet that will eventually burst out as a revived demon.

Here we have two cases where people show they have a sense of justice yet they mostly choose to reserve it for only a specific situation and withhold it from others. How is that truly a just heart? Why does this continue to happen?

Please provide an example of a user here that is trying do defend gender equality in videogames and then did the opposite in a thread about race representation.

Also, this thread is about this, another thread is about something else, derailing a thread is the best way do not confront any issue at all.

And actually, there's plenty of people in this thread that consider this Ubisoft thing as a non-issue, so there's a lot of discussion ground here, it's not like everyone agrees but in the other threads nobody cares.

 

[APF]

Do you think we would have a 30+ page thread about not being able to play as a man if the main character was a woman?

Like here, it depends on how nasty the people wanting to play as a man got. See GTA:SA.

 

[Crossing Eden]

I really don't understand how this would lead to a less polished version of the game, seriously. They can choose to redirect some part of the budget to working on a female playable character, that's it, it's a choice like any other. Also, are you saying that including a female playable character is an unnecessary thing, like including a boat in a game with no sea?

When you redirect the budget, you're taking something budget away from other parts of the game. Period. And you're not just redirecting the budget. You're redirecting the time that someone could have spent on something more important. A female playable character in a game with an established male playable character does not take precedence over literally every other aspect of the game. That results in a less polished game. "Oh sorry there aren't as many side missions in the game, we could've polished that but we had our guys working on "x." And that's where the problem lies in requesting something that I reiterate, doesn't add anything to the game besides something that's aesthetically pleasing.

 

[Mars477]

Do you think we would have a 30+ page thread about not being able to play as a man if the main character was a woman?

Do the vast majority of games feature only women?

 

[Ascenion]

Also, please stop saying that there's little gain in including the possibility of a female lead: do you understand what the fuck it means? It means that women count almost nothing, there's little gain in thinking about them as potential players of your game.

I agree with most of your post. Ubisoft was wrong for what they did and females are an important demographic as is everyone, but I've said it a lot in this thread in relation to this game there is little gain. This game is 5 months out from release, there is little to no point in going back to create or considering a female lead. To maintain the level of polish they want, the game would have to be delayed. Costume redesigns, new animations, script rewrites, box art changes, music, etc. They'd honestly probably be loosing by doing all that for Unity. Should they for the next AC? Absolutely, however Unity at this point is a lost cause. The most I believe we can hope for is female skins to be added for the male models and even then probably not due to it more than likely being halfassed.

 

[Crossing Eden]

How about you stop right there because you don't know because this and the post below is one of the most ridiculous, uneducated opinions in modern gaming.



How about both of you stop posting things you are clearly ignorant about?

The only logical explanation on why any decent gamer would think that having the option to play as a female is not important or there is not enough evidence to support that as something positive, is that you think that all of this is a social justice warrior tag.

And head over here and do your self a favor - Gender Swapping

Please don't call me ignorant. I'm very much aware of social issues in our society and issues concerning minorities. I myself am a minority. I consider myself a feminist considering that I get called one by many of my peers. But i'm also an animation major. I know the work required. I've seen the repercussions of an unfocused team. I've seen the repercussions of a team focusing on something that didn't necessarily add anything to a project. So out of anyone, i'm definitely not ignorant on any of these subjects at all.

 

[APF]

You're redirecting the time that someone could have spent on something more important.

What you're continually missing is the idea that the above is reprehensible to a lot of people, as is your continuing assertion that adding female characters is just "aesthetically pleasing," a phrase that says a lot about your perspective.

Not that the AC series doesn't spend literally millions of dollars to make the game more "aesthetically pleasing," so even on that level your point is meaningless.

 

[Galactic Fork]

No, it's really self entitled to crucify, belittle, and sometimes blatantly insult a creative team for a game they're working harder on than any other game they've ever made for something that doesn't really add to the overall player experience besides something that is subjectively aesthetically pleasing. Especially not when there would be no uproar if they decided to do the opposite and the situation was reversed.

Actually, I don't know, I'd be similarly bothered if there were a woman Main character and when you start co-op, the only assassins that come help you are other women. That'd also seem lazy and weird. Just like only men coming to your aid in co-op is weird.

What'd be a good solution to the co-op partner issue, rather than dropping the woman assassin co-op teammates, drop seeing the co-op partners in the other players' clothes. Make a bunch of pre-designed assassins that you see in place of the other players. Men, women, other races. Then it'd only be the noticeable animations that'd need to change. I doubt falling, or being stabby will need new animations.

 

[MYeager]

After hearing that this one will not have multiplayer and seeing the demo which showed what looked like four clones of the main character with different colored cloaks makes me think that Unity is being rushed out to have a next gen Assassin's Creed game available this fall. If the decision had to be made to meet required milestones and there was concern over the amount of time to deliver a polished final product I can respect that as a creative team there was likely many things they wanted to do but could not with this game. Many yearly franchises, like sports games, when making the next generation transition typically have to cut features that are typically within the game due to the same issue.

However it doesn't fill me with confidence about how the end product will turn out if these are the limitations they're working under to produce a yearly AC game. I'd rather they take the time and think that they might be doing damage at this point to an IP that they've managed to successfully grow into a big franchise. Considering how much of a mess the main plot is I as a fan no longer feel compelled to buy the yearly games and friends I have that are fans started feeling burnt out on the series back at AC3. I'd imagine if they don't start handling the IP with more care they're going to milk it dry, like Activision did with Tony Hawk (and Guitar Hero, and pretty much every franchise they could do this with).

I can see how people are upset, however I think without knowing exactly what's going on in the studio it's a little too simple to say it would be an easy fix or that it would take X amount of hours. What gets me is the message Ubisoft is sending out. On the eve of the big reveal and demonstration of the game talking about new features while stating you didn't have enough time to flesh them out better doesn't exactly sell me on the game. I'm not going to condemn them for making that decision, I'm just not going to buy the game.

 

[ExFalsoQuodlibet]

No, it's really self entitled to crucify, belittle, and sometimes blatantly insult a creative team for a game they're working harder on than any other game they've ever made for something that doesn't really add to the overall player experience besides something that is subjectively aesthetically pleasing. Especially not when there would be no uproar if they decided to do the opposite and the situation was reversed.

That's not the point, that's not the effect we're searching for.....

You have no idea what people like or don't like, care or don't care when they play a game, and then when some women come here and say that for them being underrepresented is an issue, you diminish that feeling and consider it less relevant than basically any other thing in game design.

Also, you like many others don't show any understanding, or don't care, about the main problem in AAA gaming nowadays, that is gender equality. Congratulations, I'm seriously feeling sick at this point.

 

[Carcetti]

Do you think we would have a 30+ page thread about not being able to play as a man if the main character was a woman?

Remember when GTA got a black main character?

Or maybe think how about 3% of games feature a woman main character with no chance to play as a man.

 

[Crossing Eden]

Actually, I don't know, I'd be similarly bothered if there were a woman Main character and when you start co-op, the only assassins that come help you are other women. That'd also seem lazy and weird. Just like only men coming to your aid in co-op is weird.

What'd be a good solution to the co-op partner issue, rather than dropping the woman assassin co-op teammates, drop seeing the co-op partners in the other players' clothes. Make a bunch of pre-designed assassins that you see in place of the other players. Men, women, other races. Then it'd only be the noticeable animations that'd need to change. I doubt falling, or being stabby will need new animations.

Then you would be changing a completely important aspect/selling point of the game...they shouldn't have to do that. At all. They have a clear vision for the game and the way it is now falls into that vision and there's no problem with that. In my honest opinion. If the situation was reversed. I wouldn't be bothered in anyway shape or form. But I definitely wouldn't be seeing an outrage from my fellow male AC fans saying that we're being forgotten.

 

[ExFalsoQuodlibet]

I agree with most of your post. Ubisoft was wrong for what they did and females are an important demographic as is everyone, but I've said it a lot in this thread in relation to this game there is little gain. This game is 5 months out from release, there is little to no point in going back to create or considering a female lead. To maintain the level of polish they want, the game would have to be delayed. Costume redesigns, new animations, script rewrites, box art changes, music, etc. They'd honestly probably be loosing by doing all that for Unity. Should they for the next AC? Absolutely, however Unity at this point is a lost cause. The most I believe we can hope for is female skins to be added for the male models and even then probably not due to it more than likely being halfassed.

I completely agree with everything you said, and if Ubisoft just said "we wanted male leads from the very beginning and didn't consider female assassins" it would have felt just right, because it's the same over and over again in AAA space.

 

[Azih]

You're missing my point again. You can literally say "There's nothing wrong with ________ in and of itself being a game featuring a make lead in a single payer campaign," about any existing or future game, and excuse every one of them from not being inclusive because the logic underlying your argument applies to every game. Think about it, why can't you justify exclusion on every game using that argument? You can, and that's why it's a poor argument to use if you support inclusiveness.

It's not exclusion. It's a story. A story can be about one lead character. And that person can be male. It's like saying Pride and Prejudice is exclusionary because Elizabeth Bennet is the main character and is a woman. It's nonsense.

Because these games don't exist in a vacuum. If we treated them as though they did, then every game gets a pass it's own merits, and all future games cab get a pass too, on their own merits. But these games exist in a broader medium where they exist in s larger pattern of exclusion, and a culture that rejecting that status quo.

I agree with you. We're on the same page. The problem is with the CONTEXT and the OVERALL CULTURE and that is where the issue lies. The game itself is fine. If there were 3 other games coming out around the same time with female leads there would be no issue. The problem is that those 3 other games aren't coming out. That is the problem to be solved. Not AC:V.

That misses that their initial design is the problem.

No it isn't. There should be all kinds of designs, there should be all kinds of different kinds of designs, there should be diversity of all kinds of styles and approaches. There should NOT be the case where only certain designs are deemed kosher and others are never considered. There should be designs that are linear and only have one lead. There should be desings that are completely systems based with no linearity at all. There should be designs at all points in the middle. There should be multi-play concets that are seamless drop in that don't change the way the character looks. There should be multi-play concepts that are sepearte and offer a whole bunch of models. There should be games with no charcter creation options. There should be games with incredibly elaborate character creation options. There should be games at all points between those two (like for example Kingdom Come).

Your contention that a single player campaign with seamless drop in co-op (which doesn't allow you to choose the model your character is in your own game) is a 'wrong' design decision frankly disgusts me.

It would be like if I designed a walkway with only stairs, then said I couldn't change the walkway to accommodate wheelchairs because of how the walkway was designed.

This isn't a walkway. It's a story. And there should be all kinds of stories and the number of restrictions on authours should be limited to things like hate speech and slander and the stuff that we have laws for. You're right that you're drawing a horrible analogy.

 

[Galactic Fork]

Then you would be changing a completely important aspect/selling point of the game...they shouldn't have to do that. At all. They have a clear vision for the game and the way it is now falls into that vision and there's no problem with that. In my honest opinion.

Didn't you say it was unimportant and silly to want other people to see you as a woman in co-op, but now other people seeing your clothes is "completely important".

Women less important than clothing accessories?

If the situation was reversed. I wouldn't be bothered in anyway shape or form. But I definitely wouldn't be seeing an outrage from my fellow male AC fans saying that we're being forgotten.

Well, male gamers aren't often "forgotten" yet women often are, and in this case sent to the cutting room floor.

 

[Crossing Eden]

What you're continually missing is the idea that the above is reprehensible to a lot of people, as is your continuing assertion that adding female characters is just "aesthetically pleasing," a phrase that says a lot about your perspective.

Not that the AC series doesn't spend literally millions of dollars to make the game more "aesthetically pleasing," so even on that level your point is meaningless.

In the context of AC:Unity and the seamless co-op what does a female character add besides something aesthetically pleasing? If they were to say reskin all of Arno's animations to a female skin yet still the gameplay exactly the same as it is now then what it add to the game? How does it affect it? You always see yourself as Arno so what does other players seeing you as a female add to the game overall? Genuinely curious. It's not like the narrative changes. Or anything like that. But what does it add?

 

[SaggyMonkey]

Wow this is really getting out of hand... Ubisoft made a conscious design decision to go the way they did!! Why isn't this OK?

Yeah the poutrage culture that's come to gaming in the past year or so is getting a bit silly. Kinda like that review with that guy noticing there wasn't enough diversity in Mario Kart or people arguing over the gender of Kirby. I guess a "good" game right now has to have women (but not too sexy) and it has to be 1080p or higher.

I saw it as a non-issue. Sounds like they're kinda just doing like the co-op in early halo. Copy the model, change the color a little. Get some co-op gameplay. This isn't some great social injustice that will unravel society.

 

[Seeds]

Like here, it depends on how nasty the people wanting to play as a man got. See GTA:SA.

I don't think that's a good comparison seeing as from what I remember, those people were seen as racist.

Do the vast majority of games feature only women?

Do people want to change the gender in the games that do?

 

[APF]

It's not like the narrative changes. Or anything like that. But what does it add?

What does it add to change the faces?

I don't think that's a good comparison seeing as from what I remember, those people were seen as racist.

I see, I see.

 

[Ascenion]

In the context of AC:Unity and the seamless co-op what does a female character add besides something aesthetically pleasing? If they were to say reskin all of Arno's animations to a female skin yet still the gameplay exactly the same as it is now then what it add to the game? How does it affect it? You always see yourself as Arno so what does other players seeing you as a female add to the game overall? Genuinely curious. It's not like the narrative changes. Or anything like that. But what does it add?

It adds nothing and it's like people don't understand. If they did add a skin it would be random like watch dogs. You would never know if you were a female nor would you ever see it. Arno is the only thing we see ourselves as. Period.