A little defense for Ubisoft for the female assassin discussion.

[MeChaNiZ3D]

Yep, that's about the size of it. Implementing any character well means that character is going to be difficult to swap out, and the better you do it, the harder it'll be, because they'll have interactions and viewpoints and NPCs will interact differently with them. For this reason and the testimonies of some other people who have actually helped make games, I still maintain that it's a lot of work and to an extent it's fair enough that they don't want to make another character. And the reason this is still an issue with 4 characters is that as far as I know they're all the same one, just customised differently, so it really is just one character, and the game has been made with that character being a white male in mind.

 

[Nimzabaat]

There might actually be a partial answer for this one at least, from what it looks like from previews and interviews, Ubisoft is changing up the parkour system, and implementing a new system for scaling down buildings rather than just hitting the drop button or jumping off and hoping for the best.

If this is true, then they've likely revamped a lot of the animations for climbing, to the point that pulling the female animations from previous games may not be a viable option.

Same with other assets, from what it looks like, this is Ubisoft's first attempt at a PS4, Xbox 1 only game, so it's possible they threw out all their old assets and started from scratch on this one.

It was still a rather dumb thing to say, and it shouldn't have cleared PR, but it's kind of like the tomb raider controversy, people are madder over the dumb thing the developer said rather than the actual game itself.

It's true, that might be the case. But if I see the game (I'm probably not buying it) and you have to chase a female character going through the same parkour type moves as in previous Assassins Creed games... i'll be calling bullshit. Just saying.

 

[RedDeadFred]

Can you really blame them for mishandling the backlash the way they did? How could they possibly have seen it coming? There are plenty of games that don't feature playable female characters and suddenly theirs is the game that everyone targets? I'm not saying that targeting them is wrong, but them being expected to handle the situation the way everyone wants just doesn't seem realistic.

Here's what most likely happened:
They probably didn't think about it. I doubt it even crossed their minds. When they were confronted about it, saying that they honestly didn't think about adding female characters sounds a lot worse than trying to vaguely justify it behind money excuses. At least that way they don't seem ignorant. Yes it was dumb of them but the fact that this is happening speaks to a more systemic issue in the industry as a whole rather than just Ubisoft having a blunder.

 

[Rebel_Raven]

Yeah, no. They're professional game designers for one. This isn't a hobby to them, they do this for a living. They get paid.
Of all the things they cut in the game, it's the female gender as playable characters? Is that where the women lay in priority in this game? Really? behind all the minigames, and behind who knows what else?
I mean, they INTENDED to have them, but gave up? A massive company with a lot of resources?
No, it's just not acceptable. There's not an excuse that makes up for it I've heard yet. Not historical "accuracy," not the dudebro target demographic, not financial, not time, not a thing. See, THEY HAD A PLAN!!! And they screwed it up! They're a massive, rich company with massive resources, and glob knows how much assets to cannibalize! It's not like they were working from scratch with no time, no money, and no manpower!

If it weren't for Liberation, and Child of Light, I'd be intensely furious with Ubisoft since I'm looking at companies representing women as a "what have you done for me lately?!" way coz I'm sick of people pulling out lists of games decades old, and expecting to win their argument that women are "represented" when it's a minuscule fraction over all that time.

Where's all the frikking "NO! STOP TRYING TO TRAMPLE THE DEV'S VISION!!" crowd when it's the dev's vision to have female playable characters, and that vision gets trampled?

All of the "nope nope nope" here. It' inexcusable, IMO.

Honestly, if it's -that- much trouble to make a female playable character, then I'd appreciate it all the more when they come!

 

[Rebel_Raven]

Can you really blame them for mishandling the backlash the way they did? How could they possibly have seen it coming? There are plenty of games that don't feature playable female characters and suddenly theirs is the game that everyone targets? I'm not saying that targeting them is wrong, but them being expected to handle the situation the way everyone wants just doesn't seem realistic.

Here's what most likely happened:
They probably didn't think about it. I doubt it even crossed their minds. When they were confronted about it, saying that they honestly didn't think about adding female characters sounds a lot worse than trying to vaguely justify it behind money excuses. At least that way they don't seem ignorant. Yes it was dumb of them but the fact that this is happening speaks to a more systemic issue in the industry as a whole rather than just Ubisoft having a blunder.

Actually, yes, I can blame them. Yes, they could've seen this coming. This isn't the first incident where this sort of backlash happened, and certainly not the one to get this level of internet notoriety. I'd like to think anyone with their fingers on the pulse of the industry would know that this backlash is going to happen.

They thought about adding women. Not just to ACU, but to FC4, and they didn't coz "it was too hard" which is not the first time this excuse has been used, and hated.

 

[EternallyBored]

Can you really blame them for mishandling the backlash the way they did? How could they possibly have seen it coming? There are plenty of games that don't feature playable female characters and suddenly theirs is the game that everyone targets? I'm not saying that targeting them is wrong, but them being expected to handle the situation the way everyone wants just doesn't seem realistic.

Here's what most likely happened:
They probably didn't think about it. I doubt it even crossed their minds. When they were confronted about it, saying that they honestly didn't think about adding female characters sounds a lot worse than trying to vaguely justify it behind money excuses. At least that way they don't seem ignorant. Yes it was dumb of them but the fact that this is happening speaks to a more systemic issue in the industry as a whole rather than just Ubisoft having a blunder.

That would mean they are lying even more since they flatout admitted that they had plans to add female assassins but it was too complex and too expensive as per the excuse they gave. It's more likely that they did have plans and it was cut out of their budget (both time and money wise), by someone higher up the chain than the modellers and art directors. It might have also been in the plans, but dropped down the priority list when the gameplay was finalized to the point where it was finally decided that the co-op would be modeled around the main protagonist with a Watch Dogs style system that has everyone playing as the single-player protagonist but they see the other players as other models.

However, you're right that it's still indicative of a wider systemic issue in the over-bloated budgets in the AAA industry that lead to marketing budgets in the tens or hundreds of millions of dollars, but features getting cut out entirely or left as DLC.

 

[Aaron Sylvester]

The question you have to ask yourself is this:
When working with a finite budget, would you rather have developers spend some of it on creating a gender option for the player, or would you rather that budget go toward theoretical additional content for the game (such as additional polish, an additional level, increased environmental graphical fidelity, etc.)? That's the question you are going to be faced with, and you will have to determine where your priorities lie.

That's not even a valid question because gender options should NEVER be arbitrary. We don't question why Harry Potter or Frodo weren't females or why Isabella (Twilight) wasn't a lesbian, so what makes people question what gender protagonists of videogames are? Just because it's a videogame? That's not enough justification to question a developers' decision with story and characters.

But we all know that people WILL ask such questions, in which case it's always up to the developer to point out the stupidity of such questions or politely say "it's how we made the game, next question please" or "we'll think about it". No apologetic tone, no excuses, no unnecessary details required.

I fully understand how much work goes into making games and Ubisoft were trying to be honest.

But in this industry one needs to know when to be honest and when to avoid/divert the question in order to avoid a massive backlash and controversy. Ubisoft could have easily avoided this fiasco if they had half a brain and understood the basics of PR/marketing.

Can you really blame them for mishandling the backlash the way they did? How could they possibly have seen it coming? There are plenty of games that don't feature playable female characters and suddenly theirs is the game that everyone targets? I'm not saying that targeting them is wrong, but them being expected to handle the situation the way everyone wants just doesn't seem realistic.

Here's what most likely happened:
They probably didn't think about it. I doubt it even crossed their minds. When they were confronted about it, saying that they honestly didn't think about adding female characters sounds a lot worse than trying to vaguely justify it behind money excuses. At least that way they don't seem ignorant. Yes it was dumb of them but the fact that this is happening speaks to a more systemic issue in the industry as a whole rather than just Ubisoft having a blunder.

Mishandling the backlash? There should have been NO backlash if Ubisoft were semi-smart.
"Sure, lets tell everyone how we had a female in the works but ditched the idea because it was costing too much. That will go down well."
*facepalm*
Why even reveal that shit to consumers? How could consumers possibly take it well? Were people supposed to be happy and content that a female was at least CONSIDERED or something?

It's like Ubisoft had their heads stuck in the sand and are completely unaware of the controversy hot-topics that have risen over the last 2 years.

Any questions/concerns about gender, race, sexual orientation and religion - a developer needs to either steer clear of that shit OR give a simple generic answer that can't be turned into a big fat shitstorm by media.

 

[carnex]

Problem is not, or at least should not be that there is no female assassin. Who gives a damn what gender that caped thing is. It's a killing machine. At least I look at it that way. Story is really distant second place. And characters, at least historical ones, are just a pain to look at how they butcher them.

Problem however is that they promised female playable characters yet failed to deliver and then actually stated real reason why they didn't do it. If they said f**k you people would react differently, but this way they are jumped upon by people when the really didn't lie. Yes they could have implemented them but consider this.

Assassin creed id yearly franchise that is more diverse than other yearly franchises on the market (COD, Battlefield, sport games etc...). In every game you can see, here and there, where they cut corners to actually ship the game on time. Implementation of female player character would mean adding a lot of workload, not just for graphical design and animation, but also for multiple iteration of cutscenes, different dialogues, not to mention that writers would have to write different plot points per gender or give us genderless structure. All of this adds to the workload and I can see why they gave up on it. It would mean ditching some other aspects of game or cutting corners in some other aspect of development (which usually end up in QA department)

So, would it be worth it? It's up to every person individually. But it would not be free, that's for sure.

P.S. For those who say this is somehow of a big importance. It's not. It's a hot topic brought on from the real world clash between established feminist movements and new but fast growing men rights movements. It just trickled down to games and gamers. We are a side show to the real problem, nothing more. Like a bearded lady or mermaid skeleton at circus.

 

[Terminal Blue]

Women have very different priorities, wants, needs, concerns and means of dealing with problems than male characters and bringing these details out strengthens a character's design.

Nope.

I agree it's sometimes cool if they have these things, but there's also something to be said for the Femshep approach. The idea that women are and have always been irreconcilably different from men reeks of bad essentialism. Often, for everyday purposes, there's really nothing particularly mysterious or complex or difficult to understand about human beings having slightly different genital configurations.

So really, much of the expected difference between male and female characters depends on the priorities of the audience, since the audience are ultimately the ones who decide what is and isn't a good character. If the audience expects all female characters to be snivelling, squealing ultrafemmes obsessed with shoes and babies then fine, but I think there's a good deal of evidence that isn't the case here.

Deciding in advance what the audience wants is a self-fulfilling prophecy, and like most such prophecies is not particularly clever.

 

[carnex]

Women have very different priorities, wants, needs, concerns and means of dealing with problems than male characters and bringing these details out strengthens a character's design.

Nope.

I agree it's sometimes cool if they have these things, but there's also something to be said for the Femshep approach. The idea that women are and have always been irreconcilably different from men reeks of bad essentialism. Often, for everyday purposes, there's really nothing particularly mysterious or complex or difficult to understand about human beings having slightly different genital configurations.

So really, much of the expected difference between male and female characters depends on the priorities of the audience, since the audience are ultimately the ones who decide what is and isn't a good character. If the audience expects all female characters to be snivelling, squealing ultrafemmes obsessed with shoes and babies then fine, but I think there's a good deal of evidence that isn't the case here.

Deciding in advance what the audience wants is a self-fulfilling prophecy, and like most such prophecies is not particularly clever.

Mass effect is strictly gender neutral in anything outside romance subplots. And even then some of them is gender neutral. That's how Bioware got away with it. What you are saying is that we demand sniveling upper class crybabies but that is a horrible projection and rather low blow attempt at discrediting opposition. Shame on you sir/mam.

 

[Vault101]

P.S. For those who say this is somehow of a big importance. It's not. It's a hot topic brought on from the real world clash between established feminist movements and new but fast growing men rights movements. It just trickled down to games and gamers. We are a side show to the real problem, nothing more. Like a bearded lady or mermaid skeleton at circus.

funny how nobody mentions "girls who play games" like they don't exist or anything

its not some kind of false dychotomy where "normal" people don't care and those that do sit on eather far end of a spectrum...this isn't even a feminism issue...this is "basic effing respect" issue,

also MRA's are more preocupied with the false rape epidemics than they are videogames

 

[Ranorak]

Ok so a lot of people are upset none of the characters in the new Assassin's Creed are female. I don't really get into any big research on this but I kinda see justification in them saying it'd be difficult to make a character female because to me it could make sense. Their stupid budget excuse doesn't but the idea could possibly.

I am designing a game in Rpgmaker in my spare time. Nothing special, just a small project I do when I can and have the interest to work on it versus spend my time doing something elss. However it does make me realistically glimps into the work involved to make another optional main character. The main character in my game is female and while it would be simple enough to make a choice at the beginning of the game to replace her name, sprite ect with a male version it would be quite a taxing chore to change dialog and ect.

Not only that but other characters treat her like a woman, and she has woman mannerisms. She isn't a silent protagonist blank slate. I would have to change entirely dialog and entire cut scenes to place a male main character and re-invent relationships he has with other characters around him.

I've been hearing a lot of grief over Cia in Hyrule Warriors but I really like her and think she'll probably be a cool character. It's obvious Hyrule Warriors is going for a darker, more mature story in this game and Cia's appearance is simply 1 step in that direction which is fine. If all the females looked similar in design or they put a lot of advertisement or unnecessary emphasis on her appearance, then yeah it'd be a problem but both Zelda and Impa have quite nice designs as well, and what I like about all these characters. They all have nice designs that I would believe to be a strong, self respecting warriors without shunning their gender.

I think a character can still be a male or a female character without making them absolutely devoid of gender. Women have very different priorities, wants, needs, concerns and means of dealing with problems than male characters and bringing these details out strengthens a character's design. I don't want the main character in my game to be male, I am telling a story in my game and I chose the genders of each character for specific reasons among everything else about their appearance and personalities.

So I mean, yes I myself would like a female assassin in the upcoming Assassin Creed game but I really wouldn't join a big uproar if there isn't 1 and really if they just make an emotionless genderless female assassin that acts no different and is treated no different by the people around her then who cares what her or any of the other assassin's gender is in the game. Historically I'm sure there were much more male assassins anyway. If Ubisoft doesn't actually care what gender their main characters are then it might make more sense to make them all male.

And maybe they may have wanted to tell a story with all male assassins and a female assassin would change the tone or affect the story in other ways... maybe, personally I actually don't think this will be the case at all. I'm pretty sure they have very little love for the details in their story after 4+ squeals and are more going through the motions at this point.

I'm not saying the game wont be good. I'm sure the game will be fine and the story will be fine, maybe even fantastic, what I'm saying is I also bet it was written very quickly and if something came up where they had to cut an entire character or entire scene in the game they would cut it without a 2nd thought which if you've ever tried to write a story yourself that you care a lot about, would weigh heavily on you because it wouldn't be the story you wanted to tell.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but this debate isn't about the main character, per see.
The story is set for a male and that is fine.
The problem is that when going multiplayer, the additional options for player two three and four are pallet swaps of the main character, but there is no option to switch to a female model.
This player Two character has no unique personality they have to come up with. It's just a avatar for player Two.

People want to be able to pick a female when they play multiplayer, the option should be there, it's not that hard.
(again, please correct me if I am wrong)

Personally, I always found it odd that Call of Duty and Battlefield didn't let me pick a female either.

 

[carnex]

P.S. For those who say this is somehow of a big importance. It's not. It's a hot topic brought on from the real world clash between established feminist movements and new but fast growing men rights movements. It just trickled down to games and gamers. We are a side show to the real problem, nothing more. Like a bearded lady or mermaid skeleton at circus.

funny how nobody mentions "girls who play games" like they don't exist or anything

its not some kind of false dychotomy where "normal" people don't care and those that do sit on eather far end of a spectrum...this isn't even a feminism issue...this is "basic effing respect" issue,

also MRA's are more preocupied with the false rape epidemics than they are videogames

Why are you implying that term gamer is somehow tied to males? Term itself is gender neutral and refers to all genders who play any games, video or not.

Now they are certainty not preoccupied with false rape accusations only. Number of topics they are active in is numerous and while games are very low on that list, it is there. After all many of active and recognized MRA are gamers themselves.

Some feminists however made video games their topic of choice and then at least one made it really profitable for themselves. But thing is, many of tactics that feminists we hear of the most use are on her repertoire and those are not really full proof to say the least and pure maleficent BS to say the most.

P.S. I follow both fronts somewhat loosely, just to be able to have some semblance of perspective of this world.

 

[spartandude]

The main reason for the controversy was the bull shit excuse they gave. Ok there were some people annoyed before and i do think rightly so, they should have had atleast coop avatars have one female assassin, and yes i know how the coop works and its just 4 of the main character. However most of the rage that exists now didnt come about until Ubisoft claimed it was "too hard" to put in female characters. This was such a stupid thing to say.

 

[ERaptor]

It's not the lack itself, it's the reason they offered. I really dont get how they did not see this coming, it would've been so much easier to just ignore or dismiss the complaint like most companies do. Instead basically trying to drive the old "look at how hard our life is"-card is just lazy and stupid. Either include them or at least be honest about it instead of making excuses.

Artists dont have to justify stuff like this if they dont want to. Or at least they dont if they can life with the consequences. And considering the fact that Ass-Creed will sell amazing either way, Ubisoft could've done that easily.

 

[DoubleU12]

Women have very different priorities, wants, needs, concerns and means of dealing with problems than male characters and bringing these details out strengthens a character's design.

Nope.

I agree it's sometimes cool if they have these things, but there's also something to be said for the Femshep approach. The idea that women are and have always been irreconcilably different from men reeks of bad essentialism. Often, for everyday purposes, there's really nothing particularly mysterious or complex or difficult to understand about human beings having slightly different genital configurations.

So really, much of the expected difference between male and female characters depends on the priorities of the audience, since the audience are ultimately the ones who decide what is and isn't a good character. If the audience expects all female characters to be snivelling, squealing ultrafemmes obsessed with shoes and babies then fine, but I think there's a good deal of evidence that isn't the case here.

Deciding in advance what the audience wants is a self-fulfilling prophecy, and like most such prophecies is not particularly clever.

: ) Maybe, I'm not saying making a character gender neutral is bad. There is definitely something to be be said for gender neutral characters, but there are plenty of behaviors that both men and women can relate with that a large majority of the other gender cannot and it is ok to explore these.

I like Zelda's design in Hyrule Warriors because she looks strong, confident and sensible on a battle field but she also gave it quite a girly side. It still has a long pink skirt and tight wearing leggings. She clearly didn't dress to be mistaken for 1 of the many male soldiers around her, she dressed to stand out and be identified as a woman.

I think it is important when writing a character, even a character with a very small part to consider the tiny details and emotions that they are feeling.

As a simple example, a female characters that want to feel beautiful and noticed by men around them but get very self conscious around women who are confident with their bodies which discourages them. Making a male character who messes around and does a lot of gross jokes all day to the point where you are genuinely surprised when he suddenly steps up and proves himself quite admirably. This is behavior that a lot of real world men would understand and can relate with, likewise with the female character. A lot of real world women would be able to relate with this despite it being something that men in a real world sense can't really relate with.

Even if your goal is to make a character that is gender neutral and simply all business all the time. It's good to see a small hint that they have human emotions.

A tough girl who obviously isn't the delicate little flower like the other girls around her able to keep up with all the tough male characters she interacts with. She always puts on a strong front, always ready to kick ass, always 100% about buisness. Then it is nice to see her hide, break down for just a small moment to cry over something simple that the tough male characters wouldn't really understand. She's still a woman, maybe on occasion she wants to be pretty delicate flower like the other girls around her but that just isn't how she is and every time she's tried she winds up just looking foolish and wondering why she ever thought she wanted this to begin with.

Same with male characters, this applies to all characters you are writing your story for.

A very shy boy who is dragged along by his very aggressive female friend to places he doesn't want to go and do things he doesn't want to do, but then when the time comes where it's time for him to step up he is hesitant but he doesn't disappoint those around him.

What I'm basically saying is I think when you are able to capture those tiny details that real women and real men can relate with you put more human in the characters you are telling your story about and hopefully allow the audience to connect with them better.

 

[COMaestro]

Have we actually been given any information about exactly how multiplayer works in AC:Unity? I'm beginning to think it's done more like Borderlands or Dead Island and similar games, where you are just going through, playing the game, but can have someone else help out. You choose to do missions as a group or you can turn off that functionality and play solo. So it's not really a multiplayer mode as in the previous games so much as single player with friends. Everyone is playing the protagonist, Arno, so everyone looks like him.

In the same way, if you play Borderlands and everyone chooses to play a Soldier, then everyone is Roland. There were no female soldier options, if you wanted to play a female you had to be a Siren. To me, Borderlands and Unity suffer from the exact same issue, it's just that no one made a big deal out of it for Borderlands.

I WILL agree that the "cost too much" excuse is poor, though if they want to keep the story focused having a gender option would involve a LOT more programming in order to compensate, so the excuse carries some truth with it.