Editorial: Omitting Women From Games Because "It's Too Hard" is Unacceptable

[mecegirl]

Considering that all this talk is ONLY about the new multiplayer mode for Assassins Creed Unity what's the problem then? No one is even concerned with inserting a female option in the single player mode. They are just wondering why it can't be an option for the multiplayer mode. I believe that the desire for a female chracter would exist regardless. But remember, it was the a representative from the company that said that they wanted a playable female but couldn't have one because of the amount of work it would take. Which is what is making people feel that they are lazy. I don't think most assume that the process is a piece of cake. but they have had female characters in the multiplayer mode in previous games (not just in Black Flag. But in AC III and Brotherhood as well). This will be a deviation to what they have done before. And any issues with programing surely would have encountered in the creation of previous games? Would they not now have the knowledge to make the processes smoother?

erm, so people demanding that ubisoft makes a female protagonist is only about multiplayer? i dont think you understand what the article said.

Really? Demanding? Now I have to wonder if you even read the article. This whole conversation, even the article, was sparked by statements made from a Ubisoft representative. You can't shift things over to gamers. Ubisoft is the one who said that they wanted a female player chracter. The main point of the article is that idea that female characters are too hard, or expensive, to animate is bullshit. The writer even goes out of her way to say that she doesn't think that all games have to include a female chracter just that the lame excuses need to stop.

Don't get confused, of course people would like an actual AC game with a female protagonist that wasn't a side story or made for the Vita. But in the context of the arguments you are having with people in this thread, how many are talking about more than the multiplayer mode of AC Unity? I don't even think a player will be able to have more than one player character in this game expect for the multiplayer mode, so what else would they be talking about?

 

[Gerardo Vazquez]

your FUD and non-arguments are not impressive. you keep creating strawmen and think their made of iron. People buy what they like. Since AC sells well, obviuosly there are enough people that like it.

Not entirely sure what you're getting at. I never once once suggested that people don't like Assasin's Creed, hell I like Assassin's Creed, love it even. To get right to the point, the claim that adding female character/protagonist is a process that cost too much time and money for ANY studio much less the video game giant that is Ubisoft seems pretty unbelievable , especially when you have other people in the industry going on about how the process isn't that difficult, and even Ex-Ubisoft, and Ex-AC directors saying that the process isn't very difficult, and should take "days". With all that in mind I'm having trouble taking Ubisoft's side.

 

[Something Amyss]

I agree completely. It's annoying seeing a humble request, not a call for quotas, and check marks be clubbed to death (And I don't mean the tune from Matrix) just on impulse alone, not just by people who actually believe it's wrong for some reason, but by bandwagon jumpers.
At least one good thing, IMO, comes from it. If we all just said "I agree" these threads wouldn't be as long, or as common, I guess. This needs to be talked about, and hopefully the game industry'll catch on, and get their heads out of their butts.

It's actually sort of weird responding to someone who says "I agree," because usually there isn't much to talk about. This stuff does kind of need to come up, though. And it needs to be pointed out that nobody (or virtually nobody, because there's always one) actually wants checklists or quotas. In this case, it's not even about the protagonist per se.

I'm still not sure why they thought this model of co-op was a good idea in the first place. Ignore women (like they're already doing!), this still strikes me as lazy and kind of dumb. I kind of wonder where everything went. I mean, they took out competitive MP, with all its distinct characters and animations for co-op that seems like significantly less effort, and they apparently cannot even include a "planned" female model. So much has been removed from a game with multiple teams working on it and there doesn't seem to be much added.

I kind of hope the detractors gain some self-awareness, but I doubt it'll happen any time soon.

 

[Grahav]

There was an interesting post on Reddit about this that TotalBiscuit Tweeted about recently: http://www.reddit.com/r/assassinscreed/comments/27ut97/distinct_lack_of_female_characters_due_to/ci5z8i7

Spoiler

"Sorry for the hijack/piggyback. Most of this post isn't directed at you, but is more general ranting I need to say.
Producer/Project Manager with more than a dozen shipped titles across every major platform chiming in, including more than a couple with 8-digit budgets.
Different words get used with different context within the game industry that have a different flavor internally than it might to the general public. Words like "cost", "expensive", and "feature" can mean ENTIRELY different things depending on who you're talking to.
Something "costly" could mean it takes up a lot of bandwidth cycles within a game engine. Something "expensive" could mean that the project manager feels it's going to take a lot of work/effort/complexity during a particular release cycle. Something that's a feature could simply be a particular requested item from a designer (could also be called a story, an epic, an ask, an item, or whatever terminology that team is using at the time, often depending on the methodology the team is using for production).
On my current team, EVERYTHING that is requested by the EP, CD, or designers is a "feature" - regardless of what it is. Want a new animation? That's a feature. Want a new weapon type? Feature. New character archetype? Feature. Anything new that does not already exist within the game is a feature. Anything that is involved in the work necessary to create the feature is a task or subtask. A collection of features is either a theme or an epic (depending on the flavor of the collection).
This shorthand exists for teams of developers to work efficiently together. My production staff does all the wrangling so that the designers, engineers, artists, animators, and QA can do more work and still get home to their families while their kids are still awake.
Features all have costs. To the project. To the company. To my team members. If I have to make a call as to whether or not this product of entertainment includes a feature that leaves someone somewhere feeling a bit left out OR whether or not my development staff has to put in some weekends (a staff that includes significant numbers of women - many of whom are mothers or even grandmothers, mind you), then I'm going to want to weigh those costs against their work/life balance...and your personal feelings on the subject aren't nearly as important to me as the well-being of my team. Sorry if that offends. Actually, no I'm not.
Building out a new female character is just as difficult as creating a new character. It means new concepts, models, rigging, storyline changes/additions, script changes, VO, and cut scene changes/additions. All of these additions now live in the game code alongside everything else, which might already be getting pretty crowded depending on what platforms you're delivering to. All of these additions make the code base larger and even more complex. All of these additions create bugs and technical debt that needs to first be found through additional QA (sorry guys, you're in this weekend because of the new character cut scenes) which then result in more work from the engineers (sorry guys, you're in next week till 10 PM mandatory because of the expected bugs from the new cut scene that QA will find over the weekend).
Because it's a console title that has a firm ship date (release date for AC5 is October 28th), you want to be submitted at least 8 weeks in advance to first party approvals (Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo have to approve the code you want to put on their systems before they allow you to go to manufacturing - the RTM, or Release to Manufacturer is required before you can put your disk in a box). Once you have your approval, you have a scheduled and contracted run at one of the THREE approved manufacturers allowed to take your production run within the U.S. Miss your RTM date and too fucking bad - EA or Activision or Majesco or whoever has the time scheduled immediately after yours and they're not in a mood to negotiate with you for Q3/4 sales numbers. Once you DO get through your manufacture period, you have to get the units on the shelves at Target, BestBuy, Fry's, GameStop and anyone else you've contracted shelf space with. What? You think those end caps and front facing shelf spaces are just free and randomly put together by the store staffs? That's cute.
Bottom line to the above? AC5 is already well into alpha (feature complete) and possibly already into beta (asset complete) if they want to hit that late August/early Sept submission date they have looming ahead of them.
Best estimates I've heard from people I know at Ubi are that the additional female character was prototyped out very early but sidelined as the game itself is massive and requires an inordinate amount of work just to get the co-op working in the first place. They wanted to get back to the female character, but after costing her out, discovered it would take between 25-50 days of work to get her added in properly (that's the important word, by the way - will get back to it in a bit).
That 25-50 days isn't something you can just throw money and people at by the way. Character pipelines don't work that way. You can't start rescripting or animating new cut-scenes before you have the new rigged model. You can't rig the model till have the model. You can't build the model till have the concept art. You can't record the VO for the cut scenes and in-game play till have the script written. You have to then find the actress who will record the voice, and another actress to record the mocap.
All of this takes time. Time from someone already working late into the day/night and possibly on weekends. Because they're working on OTHER parts of the game. Because the game isn't done just because you saw a trailer at E3. Chances are the trailer wasn't done by ANYONE on the team and likely was outsourced out to a cinematics house.
The game date was likely set a year or more in advance by people setting up the contracts I mentioned above, so you may as well consider that date damn near sacred. That means to get the new character in, something had to give...or rather several somethings. Because unlike many other things in life, game development really can be zero-sum. To gain X cost of features, you have to give up X. But some execs don't think that way - they want X and don't want to give up shit. So they'll grind your team into the dirt to get there (if they're not all that worried about tech debt piling up or in keeping the team together after shipping). Other execs get it - at least to a point. They might ask for lower quality on this or that or may only "suggest" that you extend your team's hours.
However, most teams on AAA don't want to give up quality for anything. Why? Because that means lower Metacritic scores for one thing...a thing that most studio bonuses are inextricably intertwined with. Busted your ass for 2 years on a project and it's expected to bring in a 90 Metacritic so you can get your 20% IC bonus? Wait, you only got an 88% because some jackass kid who gets paid in pagecounts and free games decided you did a half-assed job on the animations for the female character compared to the male and the side-quests weren't involved enough (because your team threw those out to work on the female characters)...no bonus for you, sucker!
This whole subject makes my stomach turn to shit. I know a LOT of people on those teams. Good people. They WANT to bring in more features - female characters definitely is part of that. They hate being called sexist. They hate upper management telling them estimates for their work that they KNOW is wrong ("only a couple of days worth of animations" might as well read "fuck you every other animator who can't do as well as I think I can as fast as I can on new tech").
I know very few devs who are true asshats (yeah, lots of brilliant jerks, a handful of outright assholes, most are just great people who do this for love, not money - they could stop making games and go build tax software tomorrow and double their paychecks in some cases). It's personal when I see people I know and respect called liars or sexist.
I hope the post helped you see a bit into our lives as much as it helped me to get some of this off my chest."

Creating female playable characters is a lot of work, and when you're on a very tight schedule you have to consider what to prioritise. When only a small segment of your target audience is going to care about not being able to play as a female character, it makes more sense to focus on something else.

INB4 "muh 45%". That falls under the latter category of "lies, damned lies, and statistics."

Thank you for this post. It is cool to see the perspective of the workers slaving away from behind the scenes of CEOs, critics and entitled brats.

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

I agree completely. It's annoying seeing a humble request, not a call for quotas, and check marks be clubbed to death (And I don't mean the tune from Matrix) just on impulse alone, not just by people who actually believe it's wrong for some reason, but by bandwagon jumpers.
At least one good thing, IMO, comes from it. If we all just said "I agree" these threads wouldn't be as long, or as common, I guess. This needs to be talked about, and hopefully the game industry'll catch on, and get their heads out of their butts.

It's actually sort of weird responding to someone who says "I agree," because usually there isn't much to talk about. This stuff does kind of need to come up, though. And it needs to be pointed out that nobody (or virtually nobody, because there's always one) actually wants checklists or quotas. In this case, it's not even about the protagonist per se.

I'm still not sure why they thought this model of co-op was a good idea in the first place. Ignore women (like they're already doing!), this still strikes me as lazy and kind of dumb. I kind of wonder where everything went. I mean, they took out competitive MP, with all its distinct characters and animations for co-op that seems like significantly less effort, and they apparently cannot even include a "planned" female model. So much has been removed from a game with multiple teams working on it and there doesn't seem to be much added.

I kind of hope the detractors gain some self-awareness, but I doubt it'll happen any time soon.

Is creating co-op specific missions actually less effort than re-hashing a basic deathmatch-with-a-twist mode that got old a few incarnations ago though?

Not trying to be contrarian or play devils advocate here, but I think this looks like the best Assassin's Creed of the lot. I would definitely love more robust customisation options, but I'm still looking forward to this game. I'll take executing missions with my friends over the MP that was in past games any day of the week.

 

[goliath6711]

Seriously? Are overblown controversies just going to become a "thing" at E3 now? Because the response to this is starting to remind me of last year's "Xbox One has to be online all day, every day to play games. Don't like it? Stick with the 360" and the year before's "You'll want to protect Lara". All of which ultimately results in "blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-grrrr-anger-rage-forum rants-everybody hates them-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-pr groveling-everybody likes them again-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-you couldn't force me to remotely give a shit even if you held a loaded gun to my head!"

So until a game company and/or corporation decides to directly insult me by name, I think I'm gonna sit these things out.

 

[Rebel_Raven]

I agree completely. It's annoying seeing a humble request, not a call for quotas, and check marks be clubbed to death (And I don't mean the tune from Matrix) just on impulse alone, not just by people who actually believe it's wrong for some reason, but by bandwagon jumpers.
At least one good thing, IMO, comes from it. If we all just said "I agree" these threads wouldn't be as long, or as common, I guess. This needs to be talked about, and hopefully the game industry'll catch on, and get their heads out of their butts.

It's actually sort of weird responding to someone who says "I agree," because usually there isn't much to talk about. This stuff does kind of need to come up, though. And it needs to be pointed out that nobody (or virtually nobody, because there's always one) actually wants checklists or quotas. In this case, it's not even about the protagonist per se.

I'm still not sure why they thought this model of co-op was a good idea in the first place. Ignore women (like they're already doing!), this still strikes me as lazy and kind of dumb. I kind of wonder where everything went. I mean, they took out competitive MP, with all its distinct characters and animations for co-op that seems like significantly less effort, and they apparently cannot even include a "planned" female model. So much has been removed from a game with multiple teams working on it and there doesn't seem to be much added.

I kind of hope the detractors gain some self-awareness, but I doubt it'll happen any time soon.

I can't help but agree, again, as it is weird to respond to someone who agrees.
I also agree that it needs to be talked about, and that it is true that most people wanting equal rep don't want checklists, quotas, etc. Frankly if it gets bad enough for that, then they must think there's a problem, too.

You raise a good point. They have removed a ton, which likely significantly lightened their work load. heck, a co-op focus makes the game appealing to me as I generally shy away from PVP. why they couldn't allow women in is pretty hard to reasonably understand in any positive way.

Yeah, I don't always get why people are against women's representation. Their mysterious ways of thinking make me doubt they can be convinced, too. They just don't seem reasonable to me most times.

 

[Darwinism]

What's funny is that if you look at a dude parkouring and a lady parkouring they do it essentially identically because regardless of effectively minor differences in skeletal and muscular builds there's only so many ways the human body can do athletic activities and it's not a matter of MEN PARKOUR LIKE THIS AND WOMEN PARKOUR LIKE /THIS/ because that's stupid. Models are the only reason, the animations are easily shared, and saying that your AAA group of ten plus studios can't work up female models because ~effort~ is a dumb excuse and they deserve to be called on it rather than them just coming out and saying, "Well, we really don't want to put any effort at all into this feature."

 

[Strazdas]

Really? Demanding? Now I have to wonder if you even read the article. This whole conversation, even the article, was sparked by statements made from a Ubisoft representative. You can't shift things over to gamers. Ubisoft is the one who said that they wanted a female player chracter. The main point of the article is that idea that female characters are too hard, or expensive, to animate is bullshit. The writer even goes out of her way to say that she doesn't think that all games have to include a female chracter just that the lame excuses need to stop.

Don't get confused, of course people would like an actual AC game with a female protagonist that wasn't a side story or made for the Vita. But in the context of the arguments you are having with people in this thread, how many are talking about more than the multiplayer mode of AC Unity? I don't even think a player will be able to have more than one player character in this game expect for the multiplayer mode, so what else would they be talking about?

read comments here and then say they are not demanding. go on, ill wait.

Ubisoft said its too expensive for them to add a female character at this point in developement. then a bunch of people misinterpreted that as ubisoft claiming females developing is mroe expensive than male developing and started a riot. you right here confirm this misinterpretation.

Well i dont know, everyone throwing around phrases like "Female protagonist" is talking more than a multiplayer mode. and thats quite a lot of people. Yes, you will only have 1 main protagonist, yet people have the audacity to think they can demand 2 main protagonists just because the 1st one isnt female.

Not entirely sure what you're getting at. I never once once suggested that people don't like Assasin's Creed, hell I like Assassin's Creed, love it even. To get right to the point, the claim that adding female character/protagonist is a process that cost too much time and money for ANY studio much less the video game giant that is Ubisoft seems pretty unbelievable , especially when you have other people in the industry going on about how the process isn't that difficult, and even Ex-Ubisoft, and Ex-AC directors saying that the process isn't very difficult, and should take "days". With all that in mind I'm having trouble taking Ubisoft's side.

Its only unbelievable if you know aboslutely nothing about designing games, as you have proven to be. people that ARE game designers have already pointed here that your talking bullshit (and by you i mean everyone claiming that developing chracters are cheap).

Oh yes, a disgruntled fired employee is saying stuff that makes former employer bad. hes being very honest of course! why would he lie!.

You dont need to take ubisoft side, their PR is pants on head retarded when it comes to these things. does not autmatically mean you need to take the side of false claims and lies.

Seriously? Are overblown controversies just going to become a "thing" at E3 now?

wait, you mean they E3 at some point wasnt overblown contraversies? when was this gloriuos time you speak of?

 

[mecegirl]

Really? Demanding? Now I have to wonder if you even read the article. This whole conversation, even the article, was sparked by statements made from a Ubisoft representative. You can't shift things over to gamers. Ubisoft is the one who said that they wanted a female player chracter. The main point of the article is that idea that female characters are too hard, or expensive, to animate is bullshit. The writer even goes out of her way to say that she doesn't think that all games have to include a female chracter just that the lame excuses need to stop.

Don't get confused, of course people would like an actual AC game with a female protagonist that wasn't a side story or made for the Vita. But in the context of the arguments you are having with people in this thread, how many are talking about more than the multiplayer mode of AC Unity? I don't even think a player will be able to have more than one player character in this game expect for the multiplayer mode, so what else would they be talking about?

read comments here and then say they are not demanding. go on, ill wait.

Ubisoft said its too expensive for them to add a female character at this point in developement. then a bunch of people misinterpreted that as ubisoft claiming females developing is mroe expensive than male developing and started a riot. you right here confirm this misinterpretation.

Well i dont know, everyone throwing around phrases like "Female protagonist" is talking more than a multiplayer mode. and thats quite a lot of people. Yes, you will only have 1 main protagonist, yet people have the audacity to think they can demand 2 main protagonists just because the 1st one isnt female.

Why the fuck should I read the thread again? I've already read what everyone has had to say because I've been keeping up with the conversation since the thread started. You are the one saying that people are demanding something. Show some proof and quote someone.

They never said anything to suggest that they couldn't add a female character "at this point in development". This isn't about them dropping everything and adding a female chracter right now. It's about them not planning well enough to add one at all while creating the game, even though they said they wanted one. It looks like they just pushed it back, and pushed it back, until it was too late to do at all because it was low on their priority list. I'm gonna quote from the original article. http://www.videogamer.com/pc/assass...te_but_a_reality_of_game_development_ubi.html

"It was on our feature list until not too long ago, but it's a question of focus and production," Therien explained. "So we wanted to make sure we had the best experience for the character. A female character means that you have to redo a lot of animation, a lot of costumes [inaudible]. It would have doubled the work on those things. And I mean it's something the team really wanted, but we had to make a decision... It's unfortunate, but it's a reality of game development."

When pressed on the issue, specifically that we didn't think his excuse would wash with the community given the amount of resources at the studio's disposal, Therien continued:

"Again, it's not a question of philosophy or choice in this case at all I don't really [inaudible] it was a question of focus and a question of production. Yes, we have tonnes of resources, but we're putting them into this game, and we have huge teams, nine studios working on this game and we need all of these people to make what we are doing here."

Nine whole teams for one game eh? Somewhere an independent developer died a little inside...

People are using the term female protagonist. And? That still doesn't change the context of the conversation. They are still talking about more than one protagonist for the multiplayer mode. How audacious! Wanting player characters with differences in design other than the color of their cloak!

Right now, clones or not, there are four dudes in the multiplayer mode doing shit that effects the outcome of the game. Four dudes that will be controlled by four separate individuals in the real world. That makes them all protagonists.

 

[Strazdas]

snippity snip

if you want to represent and sum up the public opinion, its a good idea to first know that opinion, hence, read the comments.
as you can see from the quotes, the response from Ubi was quite level headed stating that female character would mean extra time and resources they did not have because they already blew everything on what they had.meanwhile everyone was raging about them being a lier and demanding a female protagonist. the problem is, they werent lieing, you do need extra time and work for female protagonist.

Ninte teams does not say much. you would need to know team size. for example CCP has close to 20 years working on a single game, yet the teams themselves are rather small. On the other hand Wargaming has only few, but large teams. Its all about the inner structure of the company and not the size od developement.

Protagonist means the main person in the storyline. there are no protagonists in multiplayer. saying female protagonist you mean a singleplayer main character. granted, some people may be using the term wrong (like you just did), however i am not a midn reader and i can only see the term they used and not the term they meant.

Protagonist will be you, and they will be in thier own game. the 3 other "dudes" will be supporting characters, the difference is that each person will think himself the main character.

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

I agree completely. It's annoying seeing a humble request, not a call for quotas, and check marks be clubbed to death (And I don't mean the tune from Matrix) just on impulse alone, not just by people who actually believe it's wrong for some reason, but by bandwagon jumpers.
At least one good thing, IMO, comes from it. If we all just said "I agree" these threads wouldn't be as long, or as common, I guess. This needs to be talked about, and hopefully the game industry'll catch on, and get their heads out of their butts.

It's actually sort of weird responding to someone who says "I agree," because usually there isn't much to talk about. This stuff does kind of need to come up, though. And it needs to be pointed out that nobody (or virtually nobody, because there's always one) actually wants checklists or quotas. In this case, it's not even about the protagonist per se.

I'm still not sure why they thought this model of co-op was a good idea in the first place. Ignore women (like they're already doing!), this still strikes me as lazy and kind of dumb. I kind of wonder where everything went. I mean, they took out competitive MP, with all its distinct characters and animations for co-op that seems like significantly less effort, and they apparently cannot even include a "planned" female model. So much has been removed from a game with multiple teams working on it and there doesn't seem to be much added.

I kind of hope the detractors gain some self-awareness, but I doubt it'll happen any time soon.

I can't help but agree, again, as it is weird to respond to someone who agrees.
I also agree that it needs to be talked about, and that it is true that most people wanting equal rep don't want checklists, quotas, etc. Frankly if it gets bad enough for that, then they must think there's a problem, too.

You raise a good point. They have removed a ton, which likely significantly lightened their work load. heck, a co-op focus makes the game appealing to me as I generally shy away from PVP. why they couldn't allow women in is pretty hard to reasonably understand in any positive way.

Yeah, I don't always get why people are against women's representation. Their mysterious ways of thinking make me doubt they can be convinced, too. They just don't seem reasonable to me most times.

They nerfed a very insubstantial and tired multiplayer component. Your assumptions about their work load are just that... Assumptions. They've built something big, with far more explorable interiors than ever before... And we don't yet know how much content they've actually crammed into the thing. They might have phoned it in, that's yet to be confirmed. From what I've seen... It doesn't really look like they did.

"I don't always get why people are against women's representation". Are you saying that people are saying that women shouldn't be in games? 'Cause... I don't think people are saying that.

"Their mysterious ways of thinking make me doubt they can be convinced, too. They just don't seem reasonable to me most times."

I see a lot of people write sentiments like that. You might be being playful, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. That kind of talk does smack of self-involved, angsty teenage bullshit though... Is what I will say. Honestly, if you're reading this and you're going through life constantly unable to fathom other people's opinions and reasoning... You might have a problem. You might BE the problem, if we're working from this modern perspective that seems to think we should all agree and that it's a big "problem" if we don't.

 

[mecegirl]

snippity snip

if you want to represent and sum up the public opinion, its a good idea to first know that opinion, hence, read the comments.

Try taking your own advice. Because you are just going on and on about stuff that no one is even talking about.

 

[McMarbles]

Snip

No you aren't. When you order a burger, you are entitled to the burger. No ifs ands or buts. What you're trying to say is that people have a misplaced sense of entitlement.

What an odd analogy.

When you go to Burger King, you're entitled to order one of the burgers they offer. However, you're not entitled to get a burger made specifically for your liking. If you aggressively complain about it, you'll be thrown out for obvious reasons.

Speaking of odd analogies... isn't Burger King the one that DOES allow you to order burgers to your specification? I seem to remember that "Have it your way" was their slogan, and how they specifically distinguished themselves from McDonalds. Do they not do that anymore?

 

[Gerardo Vazquez]

Is it more unfounded to reference something that has happened in the past, like I did, and that lines up with the market studies, or to say that adding a female protagonist will not affect sales at all?

Except you didn't reference something that happened in the past. What you did was cite a common misconception about videogame sales, that games staring female characters don't sell, which, as I explained, there's no real proof of.

Further, if it won't affect sales at all, why put the effort in to it?

This is assuming that each every single element of a game is a complex bid to increase sales, instead of improving the overall quality of a game in order to give it broader appeal (Game companies LOVE to talk about "expanding their audience"), which is exactly what adding playable females would do. I'm also sorry to say that I mispoke when i said adding females would "not affect sales". It would be more correct to say that there is no substantial proof that adding female characters will negatively affect sales. That being said Ubisoft seems to have much to gain from adding female characters, as it would garner good publicity, and approval from the people participating in this rather large conversation in the first place, and increased approval is important for a gaming company in the long run, on top of (here we go) increasing sales. Get what I'm saying?

 

[Gerardo Vazquez]

Its only unbelievable if you know aboslutely nothing about designing games, as you have proven to be. people that ARE game designers have already pointed here that your talking bullshit (and by you i mean everyone claiming that developing chracters are cheap).

The only person accusing me of talking bullshit is you, as opposed to the plenty of people in the industry accusing Ubisoft of BS.

Oh yes, a disgruntled fired employee is saying stuff that makes former employer bad. hes being very honest of course! why would he lie!.

Or his job's no longer on the line, and he's free to call out a gaming company out on their BS, but no it's MUCH more plausible that this is all part of some grand scheme of revenge against the fools that DARED fire him. Gimme a break.

You dont need to take ubisoft side, their PR is pants on head retarded when it comes to these things. does not autmatically mean you need to take the side of false claims and lies.

My apprehension towards false claims and lies is exactly why I'm against Ubisoft in this situation.

 

[Gerardo Vazquez]

Whatever. Keep whining about how some group isn't represented in games.

Ouch guess I touched a nerve. BTW It's not whining to point out that the "Games with girl's don't sell." isn't actually true, and that people are just misinterpreting the data. If you have a different interpretation of the data then make a thought-out explanation, instead of getting mad and accusing people of "whining when they have the audacity to point out that the big numbers you keep referencing don't actually mean what you think they mean.

Nobody, including Ubisoft, cares, and nothing is going to change unless it affects their bottom line, which it won't because most gamers don't care what the protagonist looks like, or prefer white males, for whatever reason.

Doubtful, as Ubisoft's response to this whole debacle has been feeble excuses. They obviously care, otherwise they wouldn't be trying so hard to cover their behinds. "Oh we were totally GONNA have female characters, but ummmm it's HARD. Please don't hate us!"

So it's not a common misconception, it's how things are.

Yeah, you keep saying that, but you don't back it up. Our entire argument has been predicated on you saying games with women don't sell, and me pointing out there's no actual proof, that plenty of games with female protagonist sell, and that games with female protagonist that don't sell do so because of lapses in marketing, lack of hype, and lack support from developers, or generally just not being quality games.

 

[Rebel_Raven]

I agree completely. It's annoying seeing a humble request, not a call for quotas, and check marks be clubbed to death (And I don't mean the tune from Matrix) just on impulse alone, not just by people who actually believe it's wrong for some reason, but by bandwagon jumpers.
At least one good thing, IMO, comes from it. If we all just said "I agree" these threads wouldn't be as long, or as common, I guess. This needs to be talked about, and hopefully the game industry'll catch on, and get their heads out of their butts.

It's actually sort of weird responding to someone who says "I agree," because usually there isn't much to talk about. This stuff does kind of need to come up, though. And it needs to be pointed out that nobody (or virtually nobody, because there's always one) actually wants checklists or quotas. In this case, it's not even about the protagonist per se.

I'm still not sure why they thought this model of co-op was a good idea in the first place. Ignore women (like they're already doing!), this still strikes me as lazy and kind of dumb. I kind of wonder where everything went. I mean, they took out competitive MP, with all its distinct characters and animations for co-op that seems like significantly less effort, and they apparently cannot even include a "planned" female model. So much has been removed from a game with multiple teams working on it and there doesn't seem to be much added.

I kind of hope the detractors gain some self-awareness, but I doubt it'll happen any time soon.

I can't help but agree, again, as it is weird to respond to someone who agrees.
I also agree that it needs to be talked about, and that it is true that most people wanting equal rep don't want checklists, quotas, etc. Frankly if it gets bad enough for that, then they must think there's a problem, too.

You raise a good point. They have removed a ton, which likely significantly lightened their work load. heck, a co-op focus makes the game appealing to me as I generally shy away from PVP. why they couldn't allow women in is pretty hard to reasonably understand in any positive way.

Yeah, I don't always get why people are against women's representation. Their mysterious ways of thinking make me doubt they can be convinced, too. They just don't seem reasonable to me most times.

They nerfed a very insubstantial and tired multiplayer component. Your assumptions about their work load are just that... Assumptions. They've built something big, with far more explorable interiors than ever before... And we don't yet know how much content they've actually crammed into the thing. They might have phoned it in, that's yet to be confirmed. From what I've seen... It doesn't really look like they did.

"I don't always get why people are against women's representation". Are you saying that people are saying that women shouldn't be in games? 'Cause... I don't think people are saying that.

"Their mysterious ways of thinking make me doubt they can be convinced, too. They just don't seem reasonable to me most times."

I see a lot of people write sentiments like that. You might be being playful, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. That kind of talk does smack of self-involved, angsty teenage bullshit though... Is what I will say. Honestly, if you're reading this and you're going through life constantly unable to fathom other people's opinions and reasoning... You might have a problem. You might BE the problem, if we're working from this modern perspective that seems to think we should all agree and that it's a big "problem" if we don't.

Honestly, it doesn't matter what capacity the playable women were in at this point. That's the long and short of it for me.
They wanted them in, then the Developer's vision got trampled by something, likely producers telling them no. For all the complaining that adding women, or forcing them in that people claim would hamper the developer's vision, I don't see many people that blurt out the excuse giving a crap when it's taking women out that does the same thing.

Some people certainly come off as not wanting to allow women into games. Believe me, I've traded posts with a lot of people on this subject. Not just here, either. I also browse posts people make, now and then, which reinforces this sort of notion.
Not saying all of them, but there are those out there.

I'm not constantly going through life unable to fathom reasonings, I'm wondering what -some- of these people are thinking when they are against women being added to gaming. You're taking one little facet of that, and expanding it across my life.

Look, some people give some rational reasons behind their dislike of women being involved in games. Not wanting to play as them, and so forth.
Some simply don't seem to have those reasons, though.

Some people -are- stubborn. I'm stubborn, too. They aren't going to change no matter how well I, or any other try to reason with them.

I'm not saying, to any degree, that everyone has to agree with me, but sometimes I gotta wonder why the people that don't agree with me, well, don't agree with me. What makes them so very much against the idea of adding a woman into a game as a playable character every once in a while?
Isn't it fair to be a little curious?

I'll grant you, I could've probably worded the post a bit better.