Assassin's Creed: Unity isn't sexist, just lazy.

[AJ_Lethal]

I'm going to agree with this. Lazy implies that they totally could have done it but they just didn't feel like it so they didn't. What seems to have happened is they thought about it, decided that the idea of women being playable didn't warrant the resources, and then didn't do it. They certainly deserve the grief they get for their dumb decisions, but it's not really laziness so much as a mix of they didn't care and they suck at planning. Granted, that might actually be worse than being lazy, but there it is. And that's just on top of deciding that yeah, it's a good idea to take a setting where a female assassin would fit really well and throw another male assassin at the series.

What I'm most surprised about, though, is that Assassin's Creed is still getting all the ire. Yeah, they did something stupid there, but at least Assassin's Creed has a few excuses like complex parkour animations and their stupid idea for multiplayer. Far Cry 4, on the other hand, has neither, and yet they gave the same shitty excuse of it being too hard to make female avatars for their multiplayer mode.

The problem is that Ubi fucked up in PR and tried to cop out with a "complex" answer. Sometimes a simple answer is the best solution ("we didn't planned women in Unity and at this point we can't add them since we're working in a real tight schedule" would have been a way better answer)

 

[Lilani]

Topic discussed in great detail elsewhere buuuut here we go.
The simple reason there's no female characters in Unity's co-op is because you're playing the same guy from singleplayer. It's designed to be semi-seamless. Asking why the co-op characters aren't female is like asking why they didn't make the protag a female which is inherently a dumb question as they can make their protagonists however the hell Ubi wants.

Yes, you're playing the same guy, but there's no reason why the avatar of one of your cohorts couldn't be female. Or black. Or Asian. Or just not a carbon copy of the main protagonist.

The co-op partners are ALSO playing the same guy. The reason they look like carbon copies of the protag is because they ARE to protag.

You don't understand. From the perspective of every player, they are playing the same guy, yes. However, the cohorts are supposed to be other random people from the brotherhood. For every individual. It isn't like L4D where what everybody sees is consistent.

Or to put it another way, the 4 co-op player characters are A, B, C, and D. A is the main protagonist from the game, B, C, and D are other random guys from the brotherhood. The revs have stated that is supposed to be the setup. When I'm playing, from my perspective I will be A and the other three people playing will appear to be B, C, and D. If you are playing the same game, from your perspective you will be A and myself and the other two players will be B, C, and D.

Again, there is no reason for B, C, and D to appear to be the same person because they aren't intended to be.

No...they're not supposed to be others from the Brotherhood. They're all supposed to be Arno. What part of this do people still seem to not understand?

No they're not. [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/video-games/columns/experienced-points/11750-Ubisoft-Straighter-Whiter-Duder.2] You're always Arno, and everyone else is other generic members of the brotherhood. Why would they make EVERYONE Arno? That makes no sense.

 

[bug_of_war]

You seem to be in the wrong thread. Look at my other thread, which gets into gender politics, because I have no intention of doing so in this one.

Nnnnnaaah...I feel as though my comment still stands, or at least the first paragraph does at least.

They're not lazy, they had a deadline and they chose to stick to it and cut features that could have been implemented.

 

[Asita]

"But do you have any idea how important it is to have a four player coop game have four characters?"

Spoiler: Obligatory response

Or to be less derisive: It isn't important for a co-op game to have four distinct characters. Four Swords, Portal 2, Castle Crashers, Killing Floor, Terraria, Mass Effect 3 the Borderlands franchise[footnote]Granted, this last one does flesh out its playable characters somewhat, though in the games they're actually played in this is only in the form of recordings you can find and the difference in character interaction is nonexistent[/footnote]? These are all games that pulled made a good show of cooperative multiplayer and none of them required interaction between the player characters. Make no mistake, cooperative multiplayer with strong character interaction between PCs can be certainly be done well, but that's the exception, not the rule.

Four Swords is in Zelda, a series with basically no characterization in its main character in any installment. Assassin's Creed is not. Portal 2 only has two playable characters, and even they display some level of interpersonal interaction. Castle Crashers is deliberately retro and thus never really even attempts to have any characterization. Terraria is a sandbox first and has literally no story, and is not built around co-op at all. The latter also holds true for Mass Effect 3, and the Borderlands franchise has not four, but eight characters - rather one dimensional, I'll give you that, but at least it's better than ONE. And even if there's no character interactions, there are still multiple characters that developers put hard work into designing, something that Ubisoft seems to have deliberately tried to ignore.

Try to explain away the examples all you want, fact remains that your statement about co-op needing unique characters like in Left 4 Dead remains patently false. You are proposing a very specific model of game development and irrationally trying to take Ubisoft to task for not holding to it.

 

[Random Argument Man]

How about both? To me the whole situation sounds like this

Guy A: Hey dude! You left that gas tank near an open flame.
Guy B: I can't be hassled with this. It's too hard for me to close the flame or move the gas tank.

 

[Something Amyss]

The problem is that Ubi fucked up in PR and tried to cop out with a "complex" answer. Sometimes a simple answer is the best solution ("we didn't planned women in Unity and at this point we can't add them since we're working in a real tight schedule" would have been a way better answer)

It would also be a lie, since we knew women were part of the plan.

 

[Matthew Jabour]

Topic discussed in great detail elsewhere buuuut here we go.
The simple reason there's no female characters in Unity's co-op is because you're playing the same guy from singleplayer. It's designed to be semi-seamless. Asking why the co-op characters aren't female is like asking why they didn't make the protag a female which is inherently a dumb question as they can make their protagonists however the hell Ubi wants.

THAT IS NOT THE TOPIC OF THIS THREAD.

I want debates, not copy-pasted 'I'm so sick of everyone making the same argument' responses, especially in cases where they do not apply. If you have something worthwhile to add to this discussion, by all means, do so.

The problem is this discussion is nothing worthwhile. It's been argue, explained and talked to death on this forum. The complaints about laziness and sexism are bullshit. You can clamour all you want, end of the day you're still grasping for straws for a bullshit arguement because a company didn't cater to your specific need, and they have no right nor obligation to.

Please, only debate what's here. I specifically said it wasn't sexist, just like in the title. There's another perfectly good thread on this forum for just such a debate. I suggest you go there, so as to actually have someone to argue with. This thread is about Ubisoft failing to make four characters in their four player game, and nothing more.

 

[Matthew Jabour]

You seem to be in the wrong thread. Look at my other thread, which gets into gender politics, because I have no intention of doing so in this one.

Nnnnnaaah...I feel as though my comment still stands, or at least the first paragraph does at least.

They're not lazy, they had a deadline and they chose to stick to it and cut features that could have been implemented.

That is the epitome of laziness! Let me out it this way: if you had an essay due, and you cut out your thesis statement due to 'time constraints', then that's lazy. It doesn't matter how good the rest of your paper flows, you should have asked for an extension. Lord knows we aren't sticklers for a deadline.

 

[Matthew Jabour]

Topic discussed in great detail elsewhere buuuut here we go.
The simple reason there's no female characters in Unity's co-op is because you're playing the same guy from singleplayer. It's designed to be semi-seamless. Asking why the co-op characters aren't female is like asking why they didn't make the protag a female which is inherently a dumb question as they can make their protagonists however the hell Ubi wants.

Yes, you're playing the same guy, but there's no reason why the avatar of one of your cohorts couldn't be female. Or black. Or Asian. Or just not a carbon copy of the main protagonist.

The co-op partners are ALSO playing the same guy. The reason they look like carbon copies of the protag is because they ARE to protag.

You don't understand. From the perspective of every player, they are playing the same guy, yes. However, the cohorts are supposed to be other random people from the brotherhood. For every individual. It isn't like L4D where what everybody sees is consistent.

Or to put it another way, the 4 co-op player characters are A, B, C, and D. A is the main protagonist from the game, B, C, and D are other random guys from the brotherhood. The revs have stated that is supposed to be the setup. When I'm playing, from my perspective I will be A and the other three people playing will appear to be B, C, and D. If you are playing the same game, from your perspective you will be A and myself and the other two players will be B, C, and D.

Again, there is no reason for B, C, and D to appear to be the same person because they aren't intended to be.

No...they're not supposed to be others from the Brotherhood. They're all supposed to be Arno. What part of this do people still seem to not understand?

You're wrong on this one. Please, do the required reading first, then talk to us.

 

[nomotog_v1legacy]

The problem is that Ubi fucked up in PR and tried to cop out with a "complex" answer. Sometimes a simple answer is the best solution ("we didn't planned women in Unity and at this point we can't add them since we're working in a real tight schedule" would have been a way better answer)

If they tried to claim the tight schedule excuse you would bubble up arguments on why they come out with a new game every year and how that is lowering the quality. I think that is kind of why this issue has some of the legs it has. It gives people an excuse to beat on ubisoft for being a heartless,soulless,emotionless, Ectlesss money making machine rather then the artistic idea we kind of want out of our games. I can't really see a way they could have PR this to were they wouldn't get some flack. Really there isn't really an excuse. Ubisoft dose have the ability to make female characters heck they even have female characters laying around. The AC MP was up to it's gills in women to steal a phrase.

 

[agent9]

As a great philosopher of our time once said in a taco commercial... Why not both?

One can absolutely be sexist whilst being lazy if women characters are just too hard for you to put the effort in. Especially when it makes things obvious how not-so-great that challenge would be when one's entire industry turns around to point and laugh at one's stupid excuses for making things suddenly no girls allowed.

I somewhat disagree. it is possible to be lazy and be sexist (technically) but I think we throw the word around far too frequently (it's rivalling the race card). Part of what we have to look at is intent. Why are there no women, ubi is being a lazy bastard that's why. is it sexist though? I don't think so. By that logic castle crashers and a lot of other games would also be sexist for copy paste characters that didn't include a female option. A better response from UBI would have been "we did not consider a female option and currently have no plans to". at least that would have been less BS and more up front about it.

Now I understand that it seems fairly easy to implement women, and given the historical relevance of the time period They probably should have invested in updating the assets of liberation maiden to throw in the game, but I'm not going to burn them at the stake for keeping things simple. it's ok to ask and petition for these things, but at the end of the day they haven't actually done anything wrong. if they want a sausage fest and they think it's going to sell like that then fine, the game isn't being willfully offensive(from what we know so far). The scenario is plausible enough anyway(for the AC universe). The thing is that inasmuch as someone can say "why no women" or "why not all women", someone can turn around and say what's wrong with 4 guys. is there something wrong with 4 copy paste characters? The answer would be no. if done right the game will play well regardless and that is what matters the most.

if you're really bummed about the lack of female options you can start a petition, write a letter, and/or vote with your wallet/purse/sock (whatever you use, mattress even). I will personally hold off till a Goty version comes out. hopefully by then Gender options will be included.

Cheers.

 

[bug_of_war]

That is the epitome of laziness! Let me out it this way: if you had an essay due, and you cut out your thesis statement due to 'time constraints', then that's lazy. It doesn't matter how good the rest of your paper flows, you should have asked for an extension. Lord knows we aren't sticklers for a deadline.

Your comparing something as necessary as a thesis statement in essays to the gender of a character model that may not even be seen by a portion of the players in an added feature to a single player story driven game.

It's not lazy, it's called weighing your options and calculating the risk versus reward. Do you spend more time and money redesigning the locomotion and body proportions so as that when playing with your friends, one of them may be the female avatar that, just like the other male counter parts, will probably be shrugged off and not really noticed as the players are more focused on either the game play/and or story. OR, do you opt to re-use the assets made for the main game already in order to be able to stick to your original deadline, thus showing that after 3 years of development, the game known for it's attention to the single player story and historical events did not make the people whom are excited for the next iteration of the game series wait for a multi-player character.

This was a business decision, made for a game series that focuses heavily on setting, story and the protagonist (as evident buy the multiple Ezio games), delaying the game for a multi-player tack on in a single player game has been ridiculed before so in theory it'd be better to stick to the deadline and give the fans what they want.

They're not lazy, EA taking pools out of Sims 4 is lazy, but this isn't.

 

[AJ_Lethal]

The problem is that Ubi fucked up in PR and tried to cop out with a "complex" answer. Sometimes a simple answer is the best solution ("we didn't planned women in Unity and at this point we can't add them since we're working in a real tight schedule" would have been a way better answer)

If they tried to claim the tight schedule excuse you would bubble up arguments on why they come out with a new game every year and how that is lowering the quality. I think that is kind of why this issue has some of the legs it has. It gives people an excuse to beat on ubisoft for being a heartless,soulless,emotionless, Ectlesss money making machine rather then the artistic idea we kind of want out of our games. I can't really see a way they could have PR this to were they wouldn't get some flack. Really there isn't really an excuse. Ubisoft dose have the ability to make female characters heck they even have female characters laying around. The AC MP was up to it's gills in women to steal a phrase.

Would have been less flack than this current clusterfuck.

The problem is that Ubi fucked up in PR and tried to cop out with a "complex" answer. Sometimes a simple answer is the best solution ("we didn't planned women in Unity and at this point we can't add them since we're working in a real tight schedule" would have been a way better answer)

It would also be a lie, since we knew women were part of the plan.

Hindsight is 20/20, IKR

 

[Adam3s]

Correct me if I'm wrong but don't the Saints Row games have it, where in coop, both players play as the main character? And the other player is magically ignored for cut scenes?


Admittedly Saints Row has far more customisation for said main character, including voice, race and gender, but if AC:U's main character has a more specific character possibly with a family e.g. Like Ezio then it would explain why the characters not as customisable.

Don't get me wrong still lazy when compared to say Commander Shepard.

 

[Mike Richards]

The problem is that it assumes all sexism comes from malicious intent. I don't think that was the case here, I think very few people do. But on a whole I think lazy sexism is a lot more common then intentional sexism. That may actually count as some kind of progress, but it'll also be a lot harder to improve further.

Or, to borrow a quote from our good Yahtzee, Ubisoft aren't bad people, they're just idiots.

 

[Something Amyss]

If they tried to claim the tight schedule excuse you would bubble up arguments on why they come out with a new game every year and how that is lowering the quality.

I don't think it's universal, but it's pretty well-understood that the development cycle is 3-4 years per game, so annual iterations aren't particularly an issue. In that light, however, it becomes particularly baffling how low the bar seems to be on Ass Creed games. In theory, multiple dev teams working for multiple years on a single game should facilitate mind-blowing games.

The idea that this schedule is too tight is practically obscene.

Hindsight is 20/20, IKR

Not sure where you're going with that. Especially since it's not entirely true that it's an issue of hindsight.