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

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

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.

I did actually kinda exempt you from my little jibe there. I do actually like to give people the benefit of the doubt. That's a reason why so many of these little flare ups that revolve around little more than a comment by somebody employed somewhere can really rub me the wrong way.

With that said... I really wouldn't mind hearing some examples of the kinds of things you are reading that amount to "women shouldn't be in games 'cause... no reasons". You've only said that they "come off that way", meaning you get that impression... And you could be wrong.

"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?"

See. I tend to lurk in these kinds of threads more than I take part in them. 'Cause... who needs the headache, right? In all that I've read I don't think I've ever seen anyone express those sentiments. I've seen plenty of people say that the industry might have a point about viability. I've seen people say that they don't like killing female characters, or that it's "problematic" to have violence against women in a game. I've never seen anyone say that women just... shouldn't be in games. I've seen people say "they shouldn't crowbar them into every game if it doesn't make sense". I've NEVER seen anyone say that they just shouldn't be in games... Not even "every once in a while".

I think you're misrepresenting your "opponent". Which, funnily enough, is what you were complaining about in the post I quoted you on to start our little correspondence.

Edit - Sorry about the quoting error. I don't forum much. It is fixed now.

 

[Rebel_Raven]

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.

I did actually kinda exempt you from my little jibe there. I do actually like to give people the benefit of the doubt. That's a reason why so many of these little flare ups that revolve around little more than a comment by somebody employed somewhere can really rub me the wrong way.

With that said... I really wouldn't mind hearing some examples of the kinds of things you are reading that amount to "women shouldn't be in games 'cause... no reasons". You've only said that they "come off that way", meaning you get that impression... And you could be wrong.

"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?"

See. I tend to lurk in these kinds of threads more than I take part in them. 'Cause... who needs the headache, right? In all that I've read I don't think I've ever seen anyone express those sentiments. I've seen plenty of people say that the industry might have a point about viability. I've seen people say that they don't like killing female characters, or that it's "problematic" to have violence against women in a game. I've never seen anyone say that women just... shouldn't be in games. I've seen people say "they shouldn't crowbar them into every game if it doesn't make sense". I've NEVER seen anyone say that they just shouldn't be in games... Not even "every once in a while".

I think you're misrepresenting your "opponent". Which, funnily enough, is what you were complaining about in the post I quoted you on to start our little correspondence.

Edit - Sorry about the quoting error. I don't forum much. It is fixed now.

True, I prolly went a bit on the defensive.

I could be wrong. I might not be looking at it from the right angle but as much as I try to look at things from many angles, and being open minded, I can only see from my own point of view.

I lurk in these threads, too, and not just on the Escapist. I'm not sure if we read the threads the same way, though. I can't exactly name, and shame, here as it would go against the rules. I'm just saying they do exist.

I don't have an "opponent" if you're referring to the anti-female representation folks. I have "opponents." I'm not lumping the people against female characters into one group. I generally respond case by case. Unless I specifically reply to a person, the idea of an "opponent" doesn't apply, really.
Like I said, some people do have a reason for not including women, like avoidance of stifling creativity, or avoiding creating quotas/checklists, not every game needs gender select/women/guys, etc.

Thing is, though, there's a lot of excuses that might seem good to some, but I don't see that way, like:

"Historical accuracy" as if there's no women ever taking part in the events the game's set in. People saying "historical accuracy" as an excuse for Unity being devoid of playable women.
To me, "historical accuracy" being a good reason to take women out of something because men dominate the event's historical participants just sounds like a never ending game of catch up for women. Generally women haven't dominated many historical events, but odds are good that they have taken part.
Koei pretty much ignores the excuse making characters, even bit players in history into full blown characters for their games, men or women. I frikking Love Koei, by the way.

Or "Financial reasons" which, while catering to the the usual targets might be "safe," doing that while complaining about financial woes is just absurd. If you want more money, catering to more people only makes sense. Businesses expand to make more money. They try to appeal to more people. And generally, unless there's only one gender to the playable character(s), you're still catering to one gender while allowing for the other, thus opening avenues to the people who'd normally ignore a game because it lacks their gender, being more inviting to newcomers, and well, not losing sales to people who intensely dislike the excuses as to excluding a gender.
Business have to take risks sooner or later, IMO, too.

I mean that's a small list of excuses I don't like. I could rant on.

 

[Gerardo Vazquez]

So what's the problem? Why are you disagreeing with me in this old article?

I'm disagreeing with you because you claimed, in exact quotes, "It's my understanding that games with female protagonist don't sell well." Oh wait. Nevermind. Aparently you agree with me. Good Games with sell well, and Bad Games don't sell well. Aparently gender doesn't matter. I guess we're cool.

As to the viability of a female protagonist, and for like, the 5th time, IndieForever made the claim that his company's market research indicates that games with female protagonists would be less likely to sell. Additionally, the Remember Me stories from the past indicated that companies are hesitant to use female protagonists because it might affect sales. In other words, it appears to be a risk to these companies. When you pour a lot of money in to a game, I'd assume that you don't want to take something that seems like an unnecessary risk.

Except we've already agreed that good games(with men or women) sell well, bad games(with men or women), no risk involved right? If you put a female protagonist on your game and it fails it's either because it's a crappy games, or because you didn't generate a big enough ad campaign to raise aware. Did I also mention that games with female protagonist have half the advertising of games with males on average? Oops.

I'd also assume that you'd avoid putting a lot of time and effort in to something that will not affect sales, like a female protagonist for multiplayer. Considering that AC is a series based more on looking good than doing much else very well, a new protagonist is not something that they could slap together in a couple of days. Those flowing robes take time to craft.

I agree completely. Oh wait except tons of game developers/studios have gone on record saying things like "No it's really not that hard." or "There's actually tons of work-arounds to the process, and making female characters is only as hard as the developers want to make it.", or "The growing amount of women in the industry makes any cost worth it.". Not to mention this debacle has already gained tons of traction, so Ubisoft would have tons of good PR to gain from adding females now. Oh but how would you know this? I've only mentioned it 5 times.

and you have no more authority to say how games will sell. You may say that my claims are bold, but do you not see how you are making the same kinds of claims, based on the same data? You're right. Good games tend to sell well and bad games don't. Way to go!

Thanks for agreeing with my bold claims stranger. <3

 

[Strazdas]

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.

number of people are irrelevant. majority isnt always right. id bet that majority of people here have never participated in AAA game design or know its finances.

 

[Gerardo Vazquez]

number of people are irrelevant. majority isnt always right. id bet that majority of people here have never participated in AAA game design or know its finances.

Indeed. The majority of people who here have not participated in triple A game development, or know it's finances. Do you know who has participated in AAA Game development? The numerous game developers, directors, and studios publicly contradicting, dismissing, or outright disproving Ubisoft's claims. Oops.

 

[Gerardo Vazquez]

And all they have to do to prove it, is make a series, released on a yearly basis, with a selection of male and female characters, that lives up to the quality and calibur of the AC franchise, with the same level of polish, achieving similar levels of sales, and do so without going over the budget.

Care to point me to a game series that reaches all these qualities?

"However, Jonathan Cooper, the animation director of Assassin's Creed III, publicly contradicted Amancio's statements on Twitter, claiming that additional animation for females would merely require "a day or two's work."

Ubisoft then backtracked and explained that it made more narrative sense for both players in co-op mode to play as Unity's main character, Arno."
According to Ubisoft Assassins Creed could reach all the qualities, but their excuse is "narrative sense", instead "too expensive" which is fine. I'm not going to argue against that. After all I haven't played the game. When I do I'll try to determine how much narrative sense this decision makes.

 

[Gerardo Vazquez]

Additional Animations however, are not additional characters implemented. Here I can go make a character and create animation for female characters quite easily. This doesn't mean I've created an entire narrative, been able to get the character to work in the game world properly at all times, and everything else necessary for my fan base to say, yes this game totally didn't have huge first day bugs.

To be fair a lot of Ubisoft's work has huge first day bugs, girls or no girls.

Also I do love that the words of one guy, who made no efforts to back his claim, because anyone can claim something would take one or two days. I say similar things about a program at my work all the time that should be altered so it can accept Canadian Credit cards more easily. That isn't the truth, nor is it reality.

Yes. Anyone can make a claim that that something can take two days. Jonathan Copper is not "anyone". He's the animation director of Assassin's Creed 3. As the main man behind the animation in that huge, polished AAA Ubisoft project, but no, you're right he's just one guy who totally doesn't know what he's talking about.

Now let's dissect Jonathan Cooper's claim

"However, Jonathan Cooper, the animation director of Assassin's Creed III, publicly contradicted Amancio's statements on Twitter, claiming that additional animation for females would merely require "a day or two's work."

Additional "animation" for females would merely require a day or two's work.

I believe him, making a character have additional possible movements, especially an already existing character would be easy to do. This is not the entire process needed in creating and implementing a video game character though.

Seeing as he did not say, it only take a day or two's work to create and implement a whole character into the game and make it useable, I can believe him when he says additional animations take only a day or two.

You seems pretty convinced that Johnathan Cooper, The ~Animation Director~ of Assassin's Creed 3 did not indeed consider these points before making his comments. Of course, whether or not Cooper's claim is actually true isn't really the big issue here, what is important is Ubisoft's response to the whole debacle . If Jonathan Copper WAS overlooking some element of the game's development, if he WAS mispeaking, if people WERE taking him out of context Ubisoft would have simply.... ya know, said so, defended their claim, just like you're doing so now, but instead they took back what they said about female characters being too hard to animate, and instead made the claim that it would just make more sense to play as males from a narrative perspective, with no mention of difficulty with animation, end of discussion as far as I'm concerned, especially since I have no real quarrel with this latest statement, after all I haven't played Assassin's Creed Unity, I don't whether it would make more narrative sense to have one of the CO-OP characters be female or not. When I get the game I'll probably make my own assessment, but until then I'm more than willing to shut up and wait.

 

[Amir Kondori]

Ubisoft shows their contempt for their customers over and over again. The "double the work" line is such an obvious lie, designed to give them an acceptable out because their marketing department thinks a game with a female lead won't sell.

It's cute to see someone who has no idea how game development works talk as if they're an expert.

You must think it is cute, since you are doing so, but honey it ain't as cute as you think.