Why I personally am upset with Ubisoft about AC: Unity

[Shadowstar38]

If people clearly want something in a game, you should give it to them, if only in service of your bottom line. Even if it's purely cosmetic, you still have a lot to gain. If half the Assassin's Creed community said they wanted sombreros, Ubisoft would have a DLC lined up within the month. And yet, they see no reason to shell out to add a woman as a protagonist.

If you're going from a business standpoint, then one would have to question how much of the fanbase actually wants this and if its enough to affect the bottom line. Seems to me that most people just don't care about the sex their protagonist is or are more worried about other aspects of the game.

Ubisoft never even considered that I or anyone else would want to play as a woman.

Eh? What if they did but the creative process just happened to have settled on male?

 

[Gankytim]

It seems a fair number of people are upset that others are expressing a desire for something.

If you agree, there's no problem.

If you disagree, what harm is there in others expressing a desire for something you don't want? It would be unfair if you could express what you want and get angry at others for doing the same.

If you don't care, you ignore it.

So, with the first and last groups either nodding or shrugging, it's the middle group that causes the conflict. Let's look at the three kinds of actions I see this group take or could take.

Express your desire for not wanting the same, or for wanting something different.
-Discussion is born and the developers hear what the market wants. Both get served, either from the original target or from someone else, wanting to get in on the action.

Enter a forum and tell people to stop expressing this desire because you don't want to talk about it.
-Nothing really happens, because the person's desire doesn't change and at best you've wasted your time - at worst getting yourself angry by reading a thread you don't want to.

Ignore it.
-The group expressing their want is eventually served (no want goes forever without someone finding a way to profit off it) and nothing changes in your life. If you think it does change and for the worse, consider the first option (discussion).

Can we operate with the above in mind and see how we go?

Wait, are you really goint to attempt to silence part of the debate by saying we need discussion?

Am I being trolled?

I don't even... what?

You'll have to point out how you've come to that conclusion; what exactly has given you the idea that I don't want a discussion to take place?

Enter a forum and tell people to stop expressing this desire because you don't want to talk about it.
-Nothing really happens, because the person's desire doesn't change and at best you've wasted your time - at worst getting yourself angry by reading a thread you don't want to.

Maybe I worded my response wrong, lemme try again. I doubt shaming an entire side of the debate is going to get anyone anywhere.

 

[white_wolf]

With a ratio like 1 for every 6 games made is lead by a solo protagonist woman and ubi keeps coming up with stupid reasons why the didn't have a fem hero in core game after game yeah it starts to look like ubi is just lazy and thats a lot of reason why everyone is crying BS the excuse. Fans and potential players obviously wanted a fem hero but will settle with a co-op fem option for ACU they wanted it more for ACU then FC4 as FC4 used nearly the same excuse but instead of them saying, " its to much work" they said, " we where inches away but couldn't find a woman to voice her lines" they aren't getting the same issues fans are showing which game they want a fem option in more and thats AC series. So in one day a company said we're too lazy to do work to get women (they apparently where exited and really wanted to have in said games)into the games we made sorry folks maybe in 10 years! The issues is if they really wanted them and where really excited about their inclusion they would've done what was needed to get them in like in ACU get an A-B cup assassin cross dressing or in FC4 grab a woman in HR, art department, script writing, interning, or a family member of the crew to do the voice but they just couldn't be bothered.

Yes OP choice is great, choice is one of the best things in gaming. In Saint's Row I hate the plot, I do, but you know what I love? I'm the woman doing the insane stunts I'm dropping from helicopters into crash parties with my rocket launcher, I'm driving the tanks and blowing up downtown, I'm skydiving my way through a freaking airplane to take out one guy that's, that's amazing thats what I'm there for to see the situations I wouldn't ever had been placed in normally as a woman heroine but SR gave me that choice and the way AC crafts itself for 98% of all games they could give you that choice, especially now since in AC4 they wrote out every single excuse for it.

You can have developed characters with their own motives, likes, and agency and allow for gender choice ME does this well they wrote the game that way! You've got a few instances under fshep where its too masculine and too obvious her role was written for a man but you can fix those by having women on the writing staff who also critique the various scenes, scenarios, and dialogue in crew feedback sessions. So instead of making fshep shove around a 10,000 pound Yahg maybe we can have her kick box, redistributes his weight leveraging the situation to her advantage, and use her biotics to hurl things at it instead, the end goal is the same, we take him out and Liara dissolves him its just fshep battles him in a more believable way for her frame size Mshep just shoves him around and that fight saves the budget for fshep's more flashy style.

There are very few games I run into that make me say this had to be a guy there was no other way I'd want to experience this story. Usually I play it and go why couldn't I have picked my gender? Even when the game claims to be about masculinity why don't we challenge that view by having a woman who is masculine in her emotions and attitude? Vazquez, Tess, and Starbuck did nice jobs of this so even thats no longer an excuse. They also often sight vision well that vision from pitch day is being refined to include things the original story teller didn't want or think was necessary (like add MP) like when they write a story about a woman gangster who then must be changed to a male in order to even get the ball rolling on its development artistic vision is an excuse to keep the industry stagnant. And in the game industry thats all it is anymore excuses to not cater to players who want to be women regardless of why. They just want to keep catering to the same type of player base instead of acknowledging the fact that you can cater to both and then make the effort to do so without having to add a two different isles in game stores.

 

[Something Amyss]

I'm not sure what I can add save for this has been brought up before. It seems to be a new and baffling concept each time, but still.

But the real question is, will it impact your purchasing choice? If not, than it really doesn't matter anyway.

It's funny how it's perfectly fine for people to make problems about this subject when it's women that are being demanded, but dear gods could you imagine the shitstorm if someone went and had the balls to demand for Bayonetta or Tomb Raider to have a male character to choose from.
You would be laughed out of the internet for demanding such stupid things.

Well, except Bayonetta is already female Dante and Lara Croft was created largely as Indiana Jones with tits, so off the bat it's already an absurd claim[footnote]And as was already mentioned, Nathan Drake is basically Dudebro Lara Croft and that didn't meet any such response, but hey[/footnote]. And I mean, unless your argument is that men are woefully underrepresented and need more presence in gaming, that's false equivalence in the first place.

But I, for one, would welcome a male hero who dressed in sexy outfits he had to remove to use his superpowers. The response alone would be delicious. Preferably, he would be in heels and his ass would be shoved in the camera full-time, to get some actual equivalent effect.

I suppose the real question is, would you buy such a game?

I haven't played any Assassin's Creed games before, so I'm unsure on it, but are the protagonists fleshed out characters with back stories? The option to play a female character is fine in a game with a character creation, but for a game that has a more focused, designed protagonist it's more restrictive. For example, could you think of anyway they could allow you to play a female character in The Witcher? You can't fuck with the protagonist much because he's a detailed, focused character with history and a back story. So having the "option" isn't really viable if the protagonist is well-defined. As I said, I don't know if Assassin's Creed has very well thought-out protagonists, or if the gender would not matter whatsoever, but it's a point to think about.

When you've got four player co-op, the formula changes a little.

You'll notice this wasn't a big deal for prior AC games. Of course, from brotherhood on, the multiplayer let you play as women, to boot. I'm not sure you would have even needed a fleshed out backstory to satisfy people. I'm pretty sure they just want different co-op avatars. On a similar note, if The Witcher ever gets a multiplayer mode with selectable avatars, I imagine people will want to keep said avatars in future versions. They won't need fleshed out stories, or necessarily to be fully voiced. They may even be assets already in the game.

I mean, there's also no reason they couldn't have a story that could address both men and women, but I don't think they need to go that far to throw in a multiplayer avatar. And I think that would have satisfied most people.

I say most, because some people will clearly never be satisfied, but that's not unique here.

 

[Casual Shinji]

You don't think Ubisoft has the capability to make at least two well-defined, well-rounded characters? Because I'm pretty sure they could, and if they did, the game would be better for it.

Example: In Dead Island, you can pick from four different characters, each of which is fleshed out uniquely, and one of which is, in fact, female. (Let's not get into the gender politics of THAT series right now, we don't have all day.) Now, it was easier to do this in that game, since it's from a first person perspective, but the characterization didn't exactly suffer. Each character played a different role in the game, and each had a story. Now how, exactly, is one of the largest companies on the planet incapable of doing at least the same?

Was Dead Island all that well regarded for its story and characters though? Not that I ever played it, but I can't remember anyone ever saying 'Man, that Dead Island sure had a great story with engaging characters.' Quite the opposite.

If Ubi made two well-rounded and well-defined unique characters as an optional protagonist, they'd have to make two versions of the game that would react accordingly to each personality. That is, if they want it to be the protagonist's story and not just some story with interchangeable hero person á la Mass Effect. Sure they could do it, but it would take either double the developement time or double the developement team to pull it off

Maybe if they made two seperate scenarios with its own protagonist that cross eachother's path on several occasions. But then they'd have that make each scenario half the playthrough length it would be otherwise.

 

[Seraj33]

I liked the gaming industry better when gameplay and graphics and general enjoyability mattered over the amount of one gender it had in it.

Seriously. You wont give women higher wages or equal rights by making every game have the mandatory "nopenisplz option".
If a game has a male main character, then let it have a male main character.
If a game has a female main character, then let it have a fucking female maincharacter.

Now go reproduce and teach your children that women and men should always be treated with equal respect.

In this case. Either you play the game and enjoy it instead of hating it for something that in all honesty, isnt as much as an issue we make it out to be. Or you just go play another game. Or you go outside. The choice, is, yours.

That was definitively not my point. I specifically said the gender politics are not what got me upset. Please, debate with me, not the strawman standing next to me.

Okay this then.
The point I tried to make is, it makes no sense to make the main character be able to be female if the main character is supposed to be male. That is how Assassins creed is. The main character is male, has always been and will be now.
The other assassins are all male because in co op every player sees themselves as the main character. So there is no point in having a female character option.

And I agree that Ubisoft handeled it poorly and I understand that it is nice to play as a female character sometimes, I choose it myself at times. But is it impossible for you to enjoy the game just because you can't be female in it?
Personally I can enjoy Gothic even though the character is ONLY male. And I can enjoy Payday 1 and 2 even though all four of the playable characters as well as Bain are men.
It just really doesn't matter to me.

Genders shouldn't matter in my opinion.
How about you? Why exactly is it so important to play as a female character besides because its fun from time to time?

 

[Zhukov]

What happened to people who wanted to play fun games?

I don't care who the character is, could be Bayonetta, could be Spyro, could be Dante, doesn't fucking matter as long as the game is fucking good. Fuck narrative, fuck story, fuck that cancerous "cinematic experience" attitude. GAMEPLAY should be the top priority, shit like avatars and characters should take a back seat.

And I already know what's gonna follow, that tired and smug "Oh so you don't want games to grow and mature?" or "Games aren't your cis, het, white, ablest, gender binary, restroom inequality, [insert every other SJW "I WIN THIS ARGUMENT" buzzword here] toys anymore" argument.

Oh, I don't have to use arguments about maturing the medium or gender issues on this on.

I am going to be rather smug though.

See, some of us find narrative and characters and perhaps even a "cinematic experience" to be fun and/or engaging.

Crazy, I know. Goddamn human beings with their differences in preference.

 

[Matthew Jabour]

When have Ubi ever given you a choice what gender to choose?

I mean, you really want every game to have gender options? That would completely take away the uniqueness of a predetermined character. Character customisation is fun and all, but it lacks the quality of a well rounded and well written character with their own personality. It's no coincidence that the most memorable and iconic game characters aren't customizable.

It's always good to have choice, which is why there's games with gender/character customisation and games where they're predetermined.

You don't think Ubisoft has the capability to make at least two well-defined, well-rounded characters? Because I'm pretty sure they could, and if they did, the game would be better for it.

Example: In Dead Island, you can pick from four different characters, each of which is fleshed out uniquely, and one of which is, in fact, female. (Let's not get into the gender politics of THAT series right now, we don't have all day.) Now, it was easier to do this in that game, since it's from a first person perspective, but the characterization didn't exactly suffer. Each character played a different role in the game, and each had a story. Now how, exactly, is one of the largest companies on the planet incapable of doing at least the same?

No, because of cutscenes and voice acting and how much work goes into the creation and back story of a Assassins Creed protagonist Ubisoft giving a gender option would be stupid. It would cost a shit ton and weaken the character that they are trying to create. I thought people were upset that the nameless multiplayer companions the main story were not female. But having two different character models of different genders in each cutscene, with different dialogue and mannerisms and an altered story to boot? Hard to wonder why Ubisoft and EA treats their customers like shit when you complain about the stupidest shit. Dead Island was not the most story centric game. The first person perspective meant that character models for the PC did not matter as much but what people are suggesting here is that Ubisoft have two parallel and fully produced stories for no reason at all. Why did people not complain about this in any other Assassins Creed? Or what about The Last of Us? Naughty Dog saying only a big strong man can protect a little girl in the post-apocalypse? Why did they not mo-cap and script and render double the cutscenes for that game so I can play as a woman? See how stupid this argument is?

Because they're making a game with four player characters. Having them all be the same guy isn't just stupid, it's lazy. They want the gameplay of four player co-op, but aren't willing to commit to having the story for it. Even if it was just four different men, that would at least require effort.

This is like being given four slices of toast, but only enough butter for one. Then, when you ask for more, other people jump on you. "Why can't you enjoy the butter that you have?" they shout. "Do you know how hard it is to put butter on toast?" Regardless of how hard it might be to butter toast, when you serve toast, you've created the expectation that their will be butter. Either just serve one slice of toast, or give us some more goddamn butter!

 

[Matthew Jabour]

Huh?

Wouldn't that be like me getting upset with Bethesda because they keep making open world games, but I prefer more linear games with better pacing?

Damn it Bethesda, I'm a customer expressing a desire for a product and you're failing to provide!

That's completely different. One's a cosmetic change that requires a moderate amount of effort, and one's a complete overhaul that would make no sense.

Also, I was arguing that I like MORE choice, not less. That may not be the point you were going for, but you ended up making it nonetheless.

Not different at all.

I am asking for an open world game that focuses on exploration to be a linear game that focuses on pacing. Silly, right?

You are asking for a game with a single, set protagonist to be a game with a player-created customizable protagonist. Also silly. It'd be like me demanding that The Last of Us feature multiple customizable protagonists, despite it being made to fit with one particular protagonist of set attributes.

Look, I'm not against female protagonists. Or customizable ones (although I wouldn't want customizable protagonists in all games). I would be happy to see an Assassin's Creed game with a chick doing all the real estate management and item collection (and stabbing, if they remember to include that). But pointing to one game with a male protagonist and saying, "I demand that you make this game different, because I want it so", is a bit goofy. Also, much too late considering how far along development has proceeded.

Saying you'd like to see a chick at the helm of Assassin's Creed 2015 or AC2016 would be a much more reasonable statement.

Besides, your "customer is always right" point rings hollow here. Last I checked, AC games sell rather well. So if this one sells well despite having the incredibly generic leading man then wouldn't that signify that The Customer was satisfied with their white bread?

I never said I wanted a customizable protagonist, just a female one. The two are not mutually inclusive.

And as for people being satisfied with the same thing, I have just one thing to say: There is no perfect tomato sauce, but there are perfect tomato sauces.

That means that if you ask people what they want, the average of that data will settle on the same thing: male, white protagonist. But if you instead consider people on a more individual basis, you will find that some actually want female protagonists, and some want black protagonists - you get what I mean. Just because people are happy with a white bread lad doesn't mean they wouldn't enjoy a female protagonist more.

 

[Matthew Jabour]

P.S. No, I'm not being entitled for demanding something from a product I want. Ubisoft's making millions off us with this franchise, the least they could do is include multiple character options.

No, you are entitled, you can make the same argument on pretty much every succsessful company, if you don't like it don't buy it. Just don't ***** about that they have some obligations to make things the way you like it.

It's like saying that JK rowling should rewrite the entire Harry potter franchise with him as a girl and release it for free because you enjoy female protagonists in books.

Firstly, Harry Potter already has multiple strong female characters. That may be a minor point, but I hate it when people use bad examples.

Secondly, don't ever discredit 'bitching' about undesirable things to try and change them. It was because of all the complaints he got from the Star Wars prequels that George Lucas finally stepped out of the director's chair. Consumers have the power to change things; why not use it?

So does AC series (Mary Read for example), and I doubt "power of consumers" really caused George Lucas to step out of the director's chair.

Your post is saying that because your'e offended by something NOT appearing, Ubisoft has the obligation to waste hundread of man hours and a lots of money for something that will not actually effect the experience, giving people who actually want to play the game less content.

That's the definition of entitlement.

1. Lucas specifically said that he was leaving because of his criticisms. I wouldn't say something like that if there hadn't been articles on this very website.

2. Am I entitled to ask for more than one player character? Because Ubisoft is opening its doors to four-player co-op, but still only wants to give enough characterization for one personality. Is it entitlement to call out a multimillion dollar company for being lazy?

 

[Matthew Jabour]

You don't think Ubisoft has the capability to make at least two well-defined, well-rounded characters? Because I'm pretty sure they could, and if they did, the game would be better for it.

Example: In Dead Island, you can pick from four different characters, each of which is fleshed out uniquely, and one of which is, in fact, female. (Let's not get into the gender politics of THAT series right now, we don't have all day.) Now, it was easier to do this in that game, since it's from a first person perspective, but the characterization didn't exactly suffer. Each character played a different role in the game, and each had a story. Now how, exactly, is one of the largest companies on the planet incapable of doing at least the same?

Was Dead Island all that well regarded for its story and characters though? Not that I ever played it, but I can't remember anyone ever saying 'Man, that Dead Island sure had a great story with engaging characters.' Quite the opposite.

If Ubi made two well-rounded and well-defined unique characters as an optional protagonist, they'd have to make two versions of the game that would react accordingly to each personality. That is, if they want it to be the protagonist's story and not just some story with interchangeable hero person á la Mass Effect. Sure they could do it, but it would take either double the developement time or double the developement team to pull it off

Maybe if they made two seperate scenarios with its own protagonist that cross eachother's path on several occasions. But then they'd have that make each scenario half the playthrough length it would be otherwise.

Resident Evil pulled it off, and that was ten years ago. I refuse to believe that this billion-dollar corporation can't shill out enough for a female character. When Mitt Romney walks down the street and a hobo asks him for change, does he try to convince the hobo that he doesn't have anything on him?

 

[Zhukov]

I never said I wanted a customizable protagonist, just a female one. The two are not mutually inclusive.

Oh? My mistake.

My argument still works though.

You seem to expect a game that is late into development to change into something that it is not. That is unrealistic.

Like I said, saying that you'd like to see one in the next AC, or the one after that depending on how their development cycles work, would be much more reasonable.

And as for people being satisfied with the same thing, I have just one thing to say: There is no perfect tomato sauce, but there are perfect tomato sauces.

That means that if you ask people what they want, the average of that data will settle on the same thing: male, white protagonist. But if you instead consider people on a more individual basis, you will find that some actually want female protagonists, and some want black protagonists - you get what I mean. Just because people are happy with a white bread lad doesn't mean they wouldn't enjoy a female protagonist more.

Thing is, when it comes to the customer being satisfied, from Ubisoft's perspective they only have to be satisfied enough. Enough to buy the game. Which they probably will. In large numbers. Unless it ends up sucking.

Allow me to rephrase.

How many people, do you think, who would have bought AC:U if it let them play as a female will decline to buy the game because it does not?

Do you think anyone who would buy the game with a dude would decline to do so if it was a chick?

Does the former group outnumber the latter?

 

[nomotog_v1legacy]

What happened to people who wanted to play fun games?

I don't care who the character is, could be Bayonetta, could be Spyro, could be Dante, doesn't fucking matter as long as the game is fucking good. Fuck narrative, fuck story, fuck that cancerous "cinematic experience" attitude. GAMEPLAY should be the top priority, shit like avatars and characters should take a back seat.

And I already know what's gonna follow, that tired and smug "Oh so you don't want games to grow and mature?" or "Games aren't your cis, het, white, ablest, gender binary, restroom inequality, [insert every other SJW "I WIN THIS ARGUMENT" buzzword here] toys anymore" argument.

Setting and narrative can really affect your fun. Shooting demons is fun, but shooting gray cubes is less fun. Context, setting and narrative really do matter. This goes x2 for AC. The series is more or less an game that lets you play historical tourist well stabbing people.

I also find at least 3/4 of people prefer to play a character of their own race, sex or general group when given the option. I see this in MMOs (I've played and play a fair few) where most people will create or choose a character that looks like them in some way: women play women, men play men, dark skinned people play with dark skin, white with white, etc. Most people also go for a race or species that looks human, even when given a wide choice. In fact, if you look at the most popular species and races in fantasy settings, you will notice almost all of them are very human in appearance.

Also, you don't stab people while on vacation?

Of coarse I don't. I'm on vacation. The numbers I have see on cross play suggest women tend to play women well men tend to play men and sometimes women. In my experience, there is practically no way to tell who is what, so ya.