Excuses for inconsiderate things in video games

[Ryallen]

So, I was watching the Loading, Ready, Run video for the first time, satirizing any sort of awkward and unbelievable excuse that game developers might have for not implementing some sort of politically correct or equal opportunity feature into their game, and it got me thinking: what would happen if the companies just flat out said why they didn't implement certain things into their games? Would people be upset at their reasons? Would people acknowledge that they at least told the truth about their reasons as to why? Would people not believe them because it's so ridiculous or unexpected that it can't possibly be the truth? I want to know what people would do in this case.

 

[AmberSword]

"You can please some people all of the time, you can please everyone some of the time, but you can't please everyone all of the time."

At the way the industry and all factions connected to it are behaving right now, No. Explaining things will still create backlash, no matter how reasonable the explanation. Besides, the only bad press is no press, they are getting publicity this way, which works for them.

Of course I as a gamer wish it weren't this way, but this is reality.

 

[Vegosiux]

Remember the one about the chain-smoker who read that smoking causes cancer and got so upset he gave up reading?

As a chain-gamer this is how I feel about game journalism lately.

 

[Smooth Operator]

Well there are some topics you just don't go into at the moment, anything revolving around the dirty "gender" word will get hung drawn and quartered... maybe worse.

But I always maintained that dev logs are an awesome idea because you get to understand the process of their creation much better. And no I don't expect the spazoids to keep their shit together, nor do I expect companies to be completely honest about why things turned out as they did, at the end of the day everyone has their own agenda they will play on no matter what the situation.

 

[IceForce]

Any time a dev tries to explain their way out of something (day 1 dlc, for example), it always ends badly.

So no, I don't think it will make a difference.

Because people will whine about anything these days. Just look at the whole AC Unity bullshit.

Ubisoft says that to animate and put a female assassin into the game would double the workload (which is true, some people just won't accept it)

Butthurt Feminists: "I don't care! Please us!"

Ubisoft then says that all players are Arno so you can experience his story, but with friends.

Butthurt Feminists: "Why wasn't Arno a woman in the first place? Sexist pigs! Ubisoft just hates women!"

Level headed people: But, There is an Assassins Creed game in which you play as a female, you can choose 3 different female Mercenaries in Far Cry 2 and you've always been able to play as a female Rainbow Six operative in that series too?"

Butthurt Feminists: "Assassins Creed Liberation doesn't count! and who cares about those games?"

Then you've got the whole Patriots Hostage thing.

Ubisoft says that they wanted people more inclined to protect a hostage so in the demo it was a woman.

Butthurt Feminists: "Fucking sexists pigs, of course the white knights will want to protect a woman, we're all helpless right?"

Level headed people: It's...true? People instinctively act to preserve the life and safe females over males. It's literally human nature.

Butthurt Feminists: "Don't you tell us actual facts, we need something to complain about here!"

You literally can't win with these people. You provide logic and facts and they'll find something else to complain about anyway.

All I see in this post is a huge big stockpile of strawmen.

 

[Zhukov]

I for one would certainly respect a blunt answer over a stage-managed PR answer.

 

[Z of the Na'vi]

Isn't that Rockstar's entire developmental strategy for their games? They specifically create their games for adults to enjoy, or so I remember reading somewhere. Everybody remembers the

Spoiler

torture

scene from GTAV, right? Rockstar didn't come around later and patch that portion of the game away. They left it there.

I don't know if what I'm talking about here applies in the same way to the topic in the OP, but it follows similar lines I suppose. I wish more companies had the balls to stick to their guns like Rockstar does.

 

[Something Amyss]

Honestly? I'm sure some people would be upset no matter what. But when you make a stupid excuse, a lot of people who wouldn't otherwise care or be insulted start to care or get insulted.

No wimminz in AC: Unisex bothered me about as much as no wimminz in Uncharted 18: A Thief's Mancave. I don't much care about either series these days.

But when you start saying things like "wimminz r hard 2 do?"

That's stupid and should be criticised.

When people start making excuses like "wimminz aren't appropriate for the time period?"

That's stupid and should be criticised.

That doesn't mean that being open and honest won't also be stupid, because there are a lot of stupid people and stupid reasons in the world and the gaming industry is full of them. Remember, someone actually thought up "always online" and Uplay at some point.

 

[Lieju]

Well, when it comes to stuff like female presentation, I can at the very least appreciate honesty.
I'm not upset with something like DOA volleyball.
It is what it is, it doesn't pretend to be anything else, and it has it's target audience.

 

[DrOswald]

Honestly? I'm sure some people would be upset no matter what. But when you make a stupid excuse, a lot of people who wouldn't otherwise care or be insulted start to care or get insulted.

No wimminz in AC: Unisex bothered me about as much as no wimminz in Uncharted 18: A Thief's Mancave. I don't much care about either series these days.

But when you start saying things like "wimminz r hard 2 do?"

That's stupid and should be criticised.

When people start making excuses like "wimminz aren't appropriate for the time period?"

That's stupid and should be criticised.

That doesn't mean that being open and honest won't also be stupid, because there are a lot of stupid people and stupid reasons in the world and the gaming industry is full of them. Remember, someone actually thought up "always online" and Uplay at some point.

Ubisoft never said it is to hard to make women, nor did they use the historical accuracy excuse.

 

[Elijin]

Isn't that Rockstar's entire developmental strategy for their games? They specifically create their games for adults to enjoy, or so I remember reading somewhere. Everybody remembers the

Spoiler

torture

scene from GTAV, right? Rockstar didn't come around later and patch that portion of the game away. They left it there.

I don't know if what I'm talking about here applies in the same way to the topic in the OP, but it follows similar lines I suppose. I wish more companies had the balls to stick to their guns like Rockstar does.

You know, until you brang it up, I honestly didnt remember it. Because aside from the controversy surrounding it, it wasnt actually all that memorable within the context of the game. Just a white noise story moment which wasnt all that engaging.

Hell, if it has been a straight cut scene I probably would have remembered it better, but being a QTE, my mind shuffled it away as useless info.

 

[Something Amyss]

Ubisoft never said it is to hard to make women, nor did they use the historical accuracy excuse.

Point to the part where I said Ubisoft claimed historicity.

As for hard, unless you want to play word games the specific diction is accurate enough for a 20th century American musical genre.

 

[DrOswald]

Ubisoft never said it is to hard to make women, nor did they use the historical accuracy excuse.

Point to the part where I said Ubisoft claimed historicity.

As for hard, unless you want to play word games the specific diction is accurate enough for a 20th century American musical genre.

It is not a word game. I don't care if you criticize but if you are going to criticize at least criticize what they said the actual problem was.

They didn't say women were to hard to create. They said creating redundant protagonist avatars was not worth the production resources. They never said creating women was hard. They said creating redundant protagonist avatars was too hard.

If you think that is a bull shit excuse and inadequate, then go right ahead and criticize. But don't make something up to criticize. Don't claim Ubisoft said "wimminz r hard 2 do." They did not.

As for the historical accuracy argument, why did you bring it up then? Has some other major studio claimed that one lately?

 

[Something Amyss]

It is not a word game. I don't care if you criticize but if you are going to criticize at least criticize what they said the actual problem was.

I did. In a deliberately glib fashion, but I did.

As for the historical accuracy argument, why did you bring it up then? Has some other major studio claimed that one lately?

To my knowledge, no other studio, major or otherwise, has claimed a historicity issue with Assassin's Creed: Unisex. You're assuming too much. Which is weird, because you go from an excessively literal (and selective) interpretation to chastise me one way, and then go and assume an extra step when chastising me in another direction.

 

[DrOswald]

It is not a word game. I don't care if you criticize but if you are going to criticize at least criticize what they said the actual problem was.

I did. In a deliberately glib fashion, but I did.

Then you are knowingly misrepresenting Ubisoft's excuse to make them seem as bad as possible to push your criticism. You completely failed to address the actual issue, choosing to go for the emotional gut punch instead of the reasoned argument. I am annoyed by this.

As for the historical accuracy argument, why did you bring it up then? Has some other major studio claimed that one lately?

To my knowledge, no other studio, major or otherwise, has claimed a historicity issue with Assassin's Creed: Unisex. You're assuming too much. Which is weird, because you go from an excessively literal (and selective) interpretation to chastise me one way, and then go and assume an extra step when chastising me in another direction.

Which is why I asked you why you brought up the historical accuracy excuse in a thread about major companies giving inadequate excuses about inclusiveness instead of strait up admitting they didn't want to make a game with X in it. I asked you to clarify.

I have seen the historical accuracy excuse thrown around a lot in relation to Assassin's Creed 5, and the first half your post was a misrepresentation of Ubisoft's response to the Assassins Creed 5 controversy. I am sorry I didn't pick up that only half of your post was deliberately misquoting Ubisoft. But I hope that you can see how I might get confused when you have, within the very same post, already claimed Ubisoft said something they did not.

 

[Redd the Sock]

Why do you think the excuses get made. Simply not implementing something is immediately followed by asking "why", and they're trying to politely explain that they don't want to take on extra development costs for a market that can at best seem disingenuous about their desire (quick to make excuses about why they don't support it when they get it) and at worst, dismissive and destructive of current female leads for not being less than ideal.

I am waiting for some developer to lose it over this. Maybe someone at Capcom blowing up "we gave you what you wanted with remember me and we lost our shirts on it so you don't get to criticize what we make anymore."

 

[SilverLion]

Because people will whine about anything these days. Just look at the whole AC Unity bullshit.

Ubisoft says that to animate and put a female assassin into the game would double the workload (which is true, some people just won't accept it)

Butthurt Feminists: "I don't care! Please us!"

Ubisoft then says that all players are Arno so you can experience his story, but with friends.

Butthurt Feminists: "Why wasn't Arno a woman in the first place? Sexist pigs! Ubisoft just hates women!"

Level headed people: But, There is an Assassins Creed game in which you play as a female, you can choose 3 different female Mercenaries in Far Cry 2 and you've always been able to play as a female Rainbow Six operative in that series too?"

Butthurt Feminists: "Assassins Creed Liberation doesn't count! and who cares about those games?"

Then you've got the whole Patriots Hostage thing.

Ubisoft says that they wanted people more inclined to protect a hostage so in the demo it was a woman.

Butthurt Feminists: "Fucking sexists pigs, of course the white knights will want to protect a woman, we're all helpless right?"

Level headed people: It's...true? People instinctively act to preserve the life and safe females over males. It's literally human nature.

Butthurt Feminists: "Don't you tell us actual facts, we need something to complain about here!"

You literally can't win with these people. You provide logic and facts and they'll find something else to complain about anyway.

Except you couldn't play as the female mercenaries in Far Cry 2. I have NO idea why, but you couldn't. I always found that a little discouraging and a teensy bit sexist myself. I mean, you could play as an ex-millionaire Arabic oil baron, why couldn't you play as a girl? It just seemed like they thought women couldn't POSSIBLY want to play a shooter game, I mean, who ever heard of a GIRL GAMER?!!
Sorry, losing track here. The point is, Far Cry 2 is sexist, and Far Cry 3 has you play as a dead guy after the bad ending. Also, bananas.