Support NeoGAF

[Azih]

You're not actually addressing my argument. Do you agree or disagree that you can use "There's nothing wrong with ________ in and of itself being a game featuring a make lead in a single player campaign" to dismiss criticism of any game not having representation? If so, then if no single work is at issue, how can the totality of all works being fine be anything other than fine?

I did. I agree. And unlike you I think that's perfectly fine.There's nothing wrong with the creative works out there currently and I would never want the authours of those works to feel they can't do what they want to do. There SHOULD be far more of these creative works out there from different authours. That's the issue with the overall culture and context. There's not enough different authours. You don't fix that by bashing the existing ones.

Because you're arguing that future games should be inclusive, but if they're not, hire can be problem when they can justify it? They can certainly justify it by pointing to their story or modes.

I'm not saying that future games should be 'inclusive'. I'm saying there should be a lot more games from a lot more authours and THAT will fix the problem with the overall context and culture of gaming not being exclusive.

You're saying "Get what's being made currently changed to fix the context and overall culture".

I'm saying "No. Current authours shouldn't feel obligated to self censor to satisfy some undefined checklist of what's inclusive or not. Instead get a whole lot more being made to fix the context and overall culture."

Put another way, the current reality is kinda like:

"MMMFMM"

For male vs female leads in single player AAA games.

You're saying that some of these should step in and change their original vision to

"FMMFMF"

I'm saying no. That's bad for other reasons. Instead what we need is:

"MMMFMMFFFMFF"

I really don't appreciate being told what I'm contending.

So you're *not* saying that some designs (such as single player campaigns with seamless drop in co-op in which the character the player controls never changes) are bad and should be changed?

 

[figadapaura]

So what you're literally asking for right now is that not only do they have to make all these outfits and customization outfits look good for Arno. But now they have to also create varied character models of varying genders and body types that also have their own rigging and animation issues to figure out. Do you realize that you're just asking for them to do more and more work that would heavily take away from other resources?

I do, yeah.

 

[Azih]

I agree, they literally did the bare minimum to half-ass this co-op, and now they're realizing that they bit off more than they could chew, because making half-assed decisions sometimes opens you up to larger criticisms than you were ever intending.

This is pure nonsense. Seamless drop in co-op is a fine thing. Single player campaigns with well defined leads are also a fine thing. The combination of both is a fine thing. The 'lazy developers' meme is such pure shit.

 

[stupei]

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.

You continue to not address anything I'm actually saying, except when you can pick out one single line to respond to. I care that yet another video game forgets that women and poc exist more than I care about the possibility that it might be less "polished." I think that a product that doesn't even attempt to find ways to be more inclusive is less refined and not very well designed. You don't.

You feel like diversity is less important than fluid animation. You care more that a fictional white boy in a video game look good than the actual feelings of the real people who play games and feel marginalized. I get it. That's your perspective. You think making people feel included and represented instead of consistently ignored isn't a priority, you keep saying that it would be pointless, because it might take away from the almighty creative vision, but you also really insist that people acknowledge the limitations deadlines and budget constantly place on creative vision.

You're really excited about this game, presumably because you work -- or aspire to -- in animation and the animation in this game does look really impressive, and you wish people were talking more about the thing you care about than the thing they care about. But I don't think that coming up with game concepts that would have allowed for greater diversity is unimportant or the equivalent of adding in boats.

Someone said the other day, how could they have possibly come up with co-op ideas that would have allowed for diversity and keep the seamless story that they have now? Well, first of all, the story is most likely not as seamless as keeps being implied. Just like in Watch Dogs, when you are the one joining someone else's game, you presumably warp there -- which is when the game loads up the male reskin -- and the in world excuse is probably something to do with booting up something in the Animus or synching with another user's memory, etc. There's no reason, given the fiction of the Animus, that they couldn't have easily allowed for the idea that multiple users -- be they templars, assassins, or QA devs, depending on whose side you're on this time -- logging into the Animus means you have the option to load into a different figure from history's memory when helping a coworker/fellow assassin/whatever. Just allow the option when loading into someone else's co-op game to appear as another character.

This precedent was already set by Assassin's Creed IV, and the implication that multiple people were all experiencing Edward's life at once. If the game world has already acknowledge many other people are already participating as the game's hero, there's no reason to not have you join in co-op as someone else. You are never actually Arno. You are always someone else inside the Animus. There is no reason you couldn't sometimes appear as a fellow assassin observing Arno's story from the outside. That could have easily been a part of the game design, if diversity and inclusion was ever actually a priority or consideration.

It took me like five minutes to come up with that. I'm sure a team of 9 studios could have maybe worked something out. Again: if they had cared to.

But that would have gotten in the way of time spent on how to better animate swinging around a pole, so I don't know what I'm thinking.

 

[tranciful]

I'll never understand why some people feel the need to put so much energy into making sure gaming remains a sausage fest. Really does feel like some of you are building pillow forts with a 'no girls allowed' sign.

 

[MYeager]

Since you are Arno, they need all his animations thus there would still be a good deal of work to be done.

Yeah, but if there are computer female AI assassins then they're probably using his animations. So if they're in the game they're saying it's fine if the computer controlled female assassins share the same animations as Arno but not the player controlled characters, which seems odd to me.

 

[Kuldar]

Now that I think about it, wasn't there supposed to be another game for the last-gen consoles? No chance for another female assassin in that game?

Would be funny after all of this if the main character of AC Comet is a woman.

 

[Azih]

It took me like five minutes to come up with that. I'm sure a team of 9 studios could have maybe worked something out. Again: if they had cared to.

But that would have gotten in the way of time spent on how to better animate swinging around a pole, so I don't know what I'm thinking.

I think you are underestimating how much work goes into making a game. And how tight timelines are.

 

[Azih]

I'll never understand why some people feel the need to put so much energy into making sure gaming remains a sausage fest. Really does feel like some of you are building pillow forts with a 'no girls allowed' sign.

Am I included in this? If so can you please tell me where you got this impression about me?

 

[AyaisMUsikWhore]

I think you are underestimating how much work goes into making a game. And how tight timelines are.

So you pick that of all things to acknowledge in that post? Where's the rebuttal on the rest of it, because THAT is what we have been trying to discuss.

 

[Toa TAK]

Would be funny if after all of this the main character of AC Comet is a woman.

I'd laugh.

I think you are underestimating how much work goes into making a game. And how tight timelines are.

You've seen the credits of a Ubisoft game, right?

I think they can manage. Really, really, think they can manage with all those people.

 

[APF]

This is pure nonsense.

You just admitted they did "the bare minimum." I'm just following-up and explaining that sometimes half-assing something by doing the bare minimum can lead to larger criticisms. This is not "nonsense," this is literally what happened and is happening.

 

[Azih]

So you pick that of all things to acknowledge in that post? Where's the rebuttal on the rest of it, because THAT is what we have been trying to discuss.

Well you seem to be making assumptions about what Crossing Eden does or does not care about there and I have no reason to get into your attempt at reading his or her mind.

The fact that they are working to incredibly tight deadline does colour the whole conversation as does the fact that (unlike for example TF2) we are talking about a projection of an avatar into a seamless single player campaign with a defined lead that never changes for each person playing the game.

 

[Azih]

You just admitted they did "the bare minimum." I'm just following-up and explaining that sometimes half-assing something by doing the bare minimum can lead to larger criticisms. This is not "nonsense," this is literally what happened and is happening.

Point 1. Bare minimum and half assed aren't the same thing. I don't think they're half-assing anything at this point.
Point 2. Accusations of lazy developers as an argument should cease to exist.

 

[Crossing Eden]

You continue to not address anything I'm actually saying, except when you can pick out one single line to respond to. I care that yet another video game forgets that women and poc exist more than I care about the possibility that it might be less "polished." I think that a product that doesn't even attempt to find ways to be more inclusive is less refined and not very well designed. You don't.

You feel like diversity is less important than fluid animation. You care more that a fictional white boy in a video game look good than the actual feelings of the real people who play games and feel marginalized. I get it. That's your perspective. You think making people feel included and represented instead of consistently ignored isn't a priority, you keep saying that it would be pointless, because it might take away from the almighty creative vision, but you also really insist that people acknowledge the limitations deadlines and budget constantly place on creative vision.

You're really excited about this game, presumably because you work -- or aspire to -- in animation and the animation in this game does look really impressive, and you wish people were talking more about the thing you care about than the thing they care about. But I don't think that coming up with game concepts that would have allowed for greater diversity is unimportant or the equivalent of adding in boats.

Someone said the other day, how could they have possibly come up with co-op ideas that would have allowed for diversity and keep the seamless story that they have now? Well, first of all, the story is most likely not as seamless as keeps being implied. Just like in Watch Dogs, when you are the one joining someone else's game, you presumably warp there -- which is when the game loads up the male reskin -- and the in world excuse is probably something to do with booting up something in the Animus or synching with another user's memory, etc. There's no reason, given the fiction of the Animus, that they couldn't have easily allowed for the idea that multiple users -- be they templars, assassins, or QA devs, depending on whose side you're on this time -- logging into the Animus means you have the option to load into a different figure from history's memory when helping a coworker/fellow assassin/whatever. Just allow the option when loading into someone else's co-op game to appear as another character.

This precedent was already set by Assassin's Creed IV, and the implication that multiple people were all experiencing Edward's life at once. If the game world has already acknowledge many other people are already participating as the game's hero, there's no reason to not have you join in co-op as someone else. You are never actually Arno. You are always someone else inside the Animus. There is no reason you couldn't sometimes appear as a fellow assassin observing Arno's story from the outside. That could have easily been a part of the game design, if diversity and inclusion was ever actually a priority or consideration.

It took me like five minutes to come up with that. I'm sure a team of 9 studios could have maybe worked something out. Again: if they had cared to.

But that would have gotten in the way of time spent on how to better animate swinging around a pole, so I don't know what I'm thinking.

You're acting like they didn't consider or didn't care to, you have no idea the sheer amount of things that are considered during a project's production. Which is very insulting to everyone who has worked on this game. And no, obviously diversity and inclusion was not a priority because they wanted to focus on the main character, but that's not an issue. A company shouldn't be pressed or belittled because they decided to do something other than what a vocal minority and relatively small part of their fanbase want. Especially not for a series known for it's diversity. On this specific project we get a better game for it because they decided to follow a focused pipeline for their very first true next gen offering. And no it's not at all about people not talking about what I like.

 

[Karkador]

I'm not talking about s. I'm talking in the specific context of this game and it's development, the workload involved in making these changes, and the ridiculous implications that sexism is part of the reason why they weren't included, not to mention that i'm not talking about female characters. I'm talking about the main character. Btw, I'll say it once again,you the player. never And I mean NEVER see yourself as a female. So what people are asking all amounts to a projection that other players see.

That's by their design, not something that HAD to be this way. Some people think it's odd and are questioning it.


But it's also odd that you defend their design decisions and the value of this Arno character while presumably knowing only as much as any of us about the game.

 

[Ascenion]

I'll never understand why some people feel the need to put so much energy into making sure gaming remains a sausage fest. Really does feel like some of you are building pillow forts with a 'no girls allowed' sign.

It's not that. I believe most if not all of us agree women need a larger role in games. I do not believe however that a woman has to be playable or the protagonist for them to be represented. Should they? Yes. Do they have to be? No, if the story is worth a damn. There is a reason you can win an Oscar for best supporting actress/actor because supporting the main character is just as important. To go with a previously used example look at Halo Reach. Kat did more to represent women accurately and Inna fairer light in that game than the option to have a female spartan did imo.

 

[Azih]

You've seen the credits of a Ubisoft game, right?

Yeah, and? I also know they want to pump out an AC every year and they're so cramped for time that they didn't even put in competitive multiplay. "LOOK AT THE CREDITS" is an argument with no substance.

 

[Toa TAK]

Yeah, and? I also know they want to pump out an AC every year and they're so cramped for time that they didn't even put in competitive multiplay. "LOOK AT THE CREDITS" is an argument with no substance.

They have more people involved then necessary, and that's a topic discussed on its own here on GAF.

I don't buy their initial excuse of lacking resources and time. It's what the thread is about. It's bull and we know it.

 

[Azih]

They have more people involved then necessary

How... do you come to THAT conclusion?

I don't buy their initial excuse of lacking resources and time.

Why the heck not? They don't even have competitive multiplay which is a staple of the AC series.

 

[MYeager]

I think you are underestimating how much work goes into making a game. And how tight timelines are.

Part of the reason I like the AC games is there's obviously a lot of work that go into them. The art books for the games are a fascinating look just into how hard they work to put little details into everything and the amount of dedication they have to the games.

I'd rather them take the time to get it right then feel the need to pump the games out on such a consistent basis that the deadlines negatively affect the game. Understandably they've got shareholders to keep happy but the long term consequences might outweigh the short term sales boost.

 

[APF]

Point 1. Bare minimum and half assed aren't the same thing. I don't think they're half-assing anything at this point.

So you claim every feature and system in the game is 10/10 best-in-class, without actually having played the game, or I guess experiencing other AC games which all have made some compromises. The series half-asses *a lot* of stuff, which is to be expected when you're making a huge open-world game. Even your constant appeal that they don't have time b/c of annual releases points to this reality.

Point 2. Accusations of lazy developers as an argument should
cease to exist.

You just called them lazy, because they did the "bare minimum." Your arguments ab absurdo need to stop.

 

[figadapaura]

They have more people involved then necessary, and that's a topic discussed on its own here on GAF.

I don't buy their initial excuse of lacking resources and time. It's what the thread is about. It's bull and we know it.

They've actually admitted now that time and resources wasn't even the reason.

Here.

 

[Luka024]

Are we really still talking about this? So now the internet is trying to dictate how a team of artists operates and the final outcome of the art? Thank god the internet didn't exist for most of our time on this planet. Nothing great would have ever happened in our history. All religious artwork would be too offensive, Mona Lisa's hair wouldn't have been short enough, dark enough, blonde enough, etc. and so forth.

For those of you upset about this, you really need to get over it. If you are truly offended that there isn't a playable female, then don't buy the game. Insulting the developers, calling into question their character and motivations for building this game is utterly ridiculous. Trust me, if you create an environment where artists feel that they can't create art without boundaries, you will get no art at all.

 

[ab.aeterno]

Look, we're obviously talking in circles. Let me clear up what my meaning or arguments are.

I did. I agree. And unlike you I think that's perfectly fine.There's nothing wrong with the creative works out there currently and I would never want the authours of those works to feel they can't do what they want to do. There SHOULD be far more of these creative works out there from different authours. That's the issue with the overall culture and context. There's not enough different authours. You don't fix that by bashing the existing ones.

So ultimately this is an issue that wraps back around to what criticism is, what it's place is, and what it's intent is. Because what I'm arguing about isn't to change anything, but to criticize it on whatever choices they make. You do not agree, based on past conversations, and view criticism as an attack; specifically it seems to force someone to change an existing work or censor themselves. This is a disagreement of definition that is probably irreconcilable for this discussion.

You're saying "Get what's being made currently changed to fix the context and overall culture".

I'm really not, at least, not intentionally. I'm saying an overarching problem doesn't exist without a history of games perpetuating the issue. That doesn't mean they need to change GTA V or shouldn't have designed it that way, it means they didn't include a female character, and thus exist as another game in a pattern.

Put another way, the current reality is kinda like:

"MMMFMM"

For male vs female leads in single player AAA games.

You're saying that some of these should step in and change their original vision to

"FMMFMF"

I'm saying no. That's bad for other reasons. Instead what we need is:

"MMMFMMFFFMFF"

The problem as I see it is that, without criticism, why would there suddenly be more inclusive content made? Progress has been slow even as the amount of games created has exploded in quantity over the last decade. Unless you're arguing a modified version of the "minorities should make their own games if they want to represented," I'm not sure how or why games being made would be likely to solve this issue when it hasn't yet.

So you're *not* saying that some designs (such as single player campaigns with seamless drop in co-op in which the character the player controls never changes) are bad and should be changed?

No, I'm really not. I'm not even saying this game has to change. That doesn't mean I'm happy that there's little minority representation so far. Just because I'm unhappy at something doesn't mean I'm saying it has to change, or that it's core designs are flawed. I'm just saying, "this thing could be better." That goes for more than just minority representation, but any criticism.

 

[Toa TAK]

How... do you come to THAT conclusion?

Credits. Plus, as of ACIII, ACIV, it explains why these games feel glitchy, unfocused and the feeling of coming off an assembly line.

Why the heck not? They don't even have competitive multiplay which is a staple of the AC series.

They don't?

They've actually admitted now that time and resources wasn't even the reason.

Yeah, it was the narrative they had planned, right?

I wonder how different this whole thing would've been if they said that at first.

 

[Zoe]

They've actually admitted now that time and resources wasn't even the reason.

I think the situation is being twisted. The first interview answered the question why they didn't make a female lead. The follow-up explained why it would be necessary to have a female lead to be able to play as one in co-op.

 

[APF]

For those of you upset about this, you really need to get over it.

Not constructive.

 

[Azih]

So you claim every feature and system in the game is 10/10 best-in-class, without actually having played the game, or I guess experiencing other AC games which all have made some compromises.

Until I play the game sure. And certainly not over a projection of an avatar into a seamless single player campaign with a defined lead character that never changes for the player not having options.

You just called them lazy, because they did the "bare minimum." Your arguments ab absurdo need to stop.

What the hell? Doing the bare minimum is not the same as half-assing, and it's not the same as being lazy. What language are you speaking?

 

[Crossing Eden]

That's by their design, not something that HAD to be this way. Some people think it's odd and are questioning it. But it's also odd that you defend their design decisions and the value of this Arno character while presumably knowing only as much as any of us about the game.

According to them it had to be this way in order to get a polished product. There's nothing wrong with that. And i'm defending it because seamless co-op on this scale is not only rare new to AC, but it's also something that rarely happens in video-games, at least not on this scale. We're talking a potential GOTY nominee in the making. Just the potential of the features they're talking about in interviews is enough to get anyone excited. Even just from a technical perspective. And I've never been disappointed with a narrative in an AC game at least concerning the "ancestors" that we play as. They're are subjectively a step above most of what gaming has to offer from a storytelling perspective. So yes, I have confidence in the story and this character from what little we've seen of him.

 

[snoopeasystreet]

If the story is written with a male character in mind and it's the story that the developers want to tell then they shouldn't fall to pressure of gender equality, in the same way that if you're making the game you want with a female character, you shouldn't change the character to a dude because of focus groups or outrage or whatever. I could easily see people getting upset if the game included a female skin that used the animation set for a male character, it's a tough position to be in as a developer. No matter what the budget for the game is, it's not unlimited and concessions have to be made.

I don't think the outrage is unfounded, yeah, there should be more female protagonists in games and it should be a point of discussion in a lot of major releases. With that said, it's almost always better off waiting until the game is fully playable before jumping in on either end of the argument. It's not like there's any shortage of discussion about video games on the internet.

 

[APF]

What language are you speaking?

The same language where you implied I said they were lazy when I never used that word. How is doing the bare minimum (your words) to address an issue not half-assing something? Could they have done a lot more? Did they do the bare minimum instead? Then it's half-assed.

 

[Azih]

The same language where you implied I said they were lazy when I never used that word.

Fine, claiming the developers are half-assing anything because of this issue is absurd.

 

[Kuldar]

They don't?

Yeah, no competitive multiplayer in AC Unity.

 

[Toa TAK]

Yeah, no competitive multiplayer in AC Unity.

Yes! Makes me so happy. No more of those achievements.

 

[APF]

Fine, claiming the developers are half-assing anything because of this issue is absurd.

Could they have done a lot more? Did they do the bare minimum (your words) instead? Then it's half-assed.

This post: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=116360993&postcount=1704 shows how it could have been elaborated on for example.

 

[figadapaura]

Yes! Makes me so happy. No more of those achievements.

There will be co-op ones, I'm sure.

 

[weemadarthur]

.

 

[Karkador]

To me, if you create an environment where artists feel that they can't create art without boundaries, you will get no art at all.

Do you think a big, public multinational corp with an imperative to get these games out on a yearly basis feels like a free creative environment?

 

[Toa TAK]

There will be co-op ones, I'm sure.

I can live with this, I've got at least one friend who still plays AC.

 

[twobear]

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.

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.

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.

Okay that's cool and all, but according to the animation lead on Assassins Creed III, in a tweet that is posted in the OP, adding a female character would be about a day's worth of work:

You're really telling me that a day's worth of work is gonna substantially alter the quality of a game that is being worked on by like 900 people?

 

[MYeager]

Are we really still talking about this? So now the internet is trying to dictate how a team of artists operates and the final outcome of the art? Thank god the internet didn't exist for most of our time on this planet. Nothing great would have ever happened in our history. All religious artwork would be too offensive, Mona Lisa's hair wouldn't have been short enough, dark enough, blonde enough, etc. and so forth.

For those of you upset about this, you really need to get over it. If you are truly offended that there isn't a playable female, then don't buy the game. Insulting the developers, calling into question their character and motivations for building this game is utterly ridiculous. Trust me, if you create an environment where artists feel that they can't create art without boundaries, you will get no art at all.

There's a difference between dictating what an artist does versus expressing disappointment. It's entirely possible to express disappointment and frustration that a product which has typically had female characters as assassins (as lead characters, major plot characters and as multiplayer avatars) chose not to provide this option in co-operative play while not demanding that the creator change this.

They have every right to make the game they want to make and the final product might help justify this need. As a consumer I can also choose to say that the direction they've described sounds like something I would not want to pay for. I agree that insulting the developers or calling into question their motivations (especially when it's unlikely that most of those working on the game get to choose the direction of the game anyway) is ridiculous but telling people that they need to 'get over it' is also just as unreasonable.

 

[Azih]

Could they have done a lot more?

Based on the tight timeline and the fact that they dropped competitive multiplay in order to get the game done? Considering those two facts I don't think so.

 

[APF]

I have to say this in literally all of these threads, but realize where you're posting. You're posting to a message board where there are thousands of criticisms being thrown at games and developers and publishers every minute, where they very core of discussion is based on our hopes, loves, and disappointments in how games are or will turn out to be. If you attack people for expressing displeasure in how they feel something is progressing, it's possible this isn't the place for you. Art is not infallible; art gets criticized at least as much as it gets unquestionably-praised. And art survives nonetheless.

Based on the tight timeline and the fact that they dropped competitive multiplay in order to get the game done? Based on those two facts I don't think so.

Right, so your point is the timeline forces them to half-ass some features if they don't want to drop them entirely. Understood and agree.

 

[Azih]

Right, so your point is the timeline forces them to half-ass some features

I don't think they've half assed the drop in co-op based on this issue. I think they did the bare minimum in order to get the feature done and some form of multiplay achieved by their deadline.

 

[Zoe]

Okay that's cool and all, but according to the animation lead on Assassins Creed III, in a tweet that is posted in the OP, adding a female character would be about a day's worth of work:

You're really telling me that a day's worth of work is gonna substantially alter the quality of a game that is being worked on by like 900 people?

But did he understand the guy was talking about the hardship of making another lead character?

 

[DragonGirl]

I think I understand what the "rigging issue" Ubisoft has is. Apparently, properly done female characters have to have their own custom physics engine attached to them. One that perfectly mimics a pair of spring loaded sacks of half set gelatin wobbling around at three fifths the Earth's gravity. Surely that explains it.

 

[Crossing Eden]

Okay that's cool and all, but according to the animation lead on Assassins Creed III, in a tweet that is posted in the OP, adding a female character would be about a day's worth of work:

You're really telling me that a day's worth of work is gonna substantially alter the quality of a game that is being worked on by like 900 people?

And are you really gonna tell me that modeling, rigging, creating new animation cycles, motion capturing, recording audio, casting all takes one day? Also, he also specifically stated that it would result in lower quality. And by lower quality. He means this
https://imgflip.com/gif/9jjgr
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ye0Rl16elKo
Yea ok. I definitely want lower quality. Yea that's what I wanna spend money on. Ծ_Ծ

 

[stupei]

Bahahaha.

So, you're suggesting that female gamers want female playable characters only because they lack empathy for the game developers?!

I know you're going to ask me, so I'll come out and say it. I do not care how much work it takes, or how much money it costs. I want developers to prioritize playable female characters. If they don't, I am much less likely to buy their games.

And dismissing a pervasive issue as "non existent sexism" is simply ignoring the wider culture. It is very plausible that Ubi hasn't put a female MC on consoles due to pressure that is based in sexism. I am not privy to their meetings, so I have no idea whether it is or not. But it is definitely plausible.

Apathy rooted in subconscious sexism (and racism), as displayed many times in this very thread, is probably even more damaging to representation than anything overt because it is so pervasive and it's very hard to compete with total disinterest.

 

[Azih]

And that's not even considering that the amount of testing that needs to be done at least doubles to make sure the new model and animations interact with everything else correctly.

Edit: Who's being subconsciously sexist and racist in this thread? An accusation like that should have some backup yeah?