Jimquisition: Diversity? LIEversity!

[Stefan Strelnieks]

In Ubisofts' defence, women and men do move completely differently. If I recall, it's something as small as 7 MoCap points that are needed to recognise the motion of a human walking, and even with so few you can tell if the model was male or female, even if it's presented upside down. Considering how different the motion is between genders, I can imagine there is a cost involved in programming a female character to move realistically, which would make Ubisofts' statement valid.


...Except they ALREADY HAVE FEMALE CHARACTERS IN THE GAME! They have playable female characters in the older games, they've already done the lion's share of the work! Dunces.

Just one problem, the female NPCs have far fewer animations than playable characters because they don't need to sneak around or fight. So you'd still need to do a lot of work to add a playable female character.

They had a female playable character in liberation though. I think it's reasonable to expect that nearly all the needed animations could just be lifted from her. Obviously you would need to do new animations for any new weapon types between the two games but it's absurd to think the cost would be significant at that point.

 

[RJ 17]

Honestly, when this controversy became a "thing", I just kinda rolled my eyes. Yeah, I thought it was a blatantly bull-shit excuse when they said "Waaaaaah it's too hard! And I just wet my Huggies!" I knew it was a load of crap, but over-all I just figured that it was more "We want more diverse characters!" chant when my stance on that issue has always been...somewhat neutral. On the one hand, it doesn't bother me at all - and yes, I can clearly see it as a trend - when another game comes out with generic gravel-voiced white-guy. I look at all characters for what they are: characters. Gender, race, etc makes absolutely no difference to me.

On the other hand, whenever gender is an option I always go female because I've always loved the idea of strong female heroines saving the day because it's something different than the hero being "generic gravel-voiced white-guy".

So basically I really appreciate seeing diversity, but it doesn't bug me when none exists. In this case, though, I think I will go ahead and take a ticket to get on the bandwagon, specifically because I feel that if they promised female playable characters (which I didn't know about until watching this episode) then they should have made good on it. There quite literally is no excuse to not have female models. Hell, in Mass Effect the female model is literally just a re-skin of the male model, all the animations are the exact same. Did it look a bit silly at some points? Sure, but no one was complaining because regardless of how FemShep REFUSES to sit in any fashion other than full spread-eagle, they still got to play as FemShep rather than being locked-into MaleShep.

So yeah, I've been done with Ubisoft since ACIII, even so I'd still say this is a case of a company just pissing all over the faces of their fans and telling them it's raining.

Edit: On the off chance that Jim actually sees this post floating around on page six, I just wanted to say I really liked your delivery of "thank god for me" on this episode. Almost like a foppish dandy's version of a mic-drop.

 

[Thanatos2k]

I forget, did we get this whole controversy when Zelda: Four Swords Adventures came out?

4 player co-op, all white males, no controllable females. Where was the outrage?

There was not any because Nintendo did not lie to our face about why there were not female protagonists.

This whole "controversy" happened because someone asked them the question to begin with. Why did someone ask the question? I don't think anyone was asking that question about Four Swords Adventures. Why not?

As we've seen with Tomodachi, Nintendo is perfectly able to botch the response to the question, so that means no one asked them.

 

[Erttheking]

I forget, did we get this whole controversy when Zelda: Four Swords Adventures came out?

4 player co-op, all white males, no controllable females. Where was the outrage?

Because Nintendo never said that the reason they didn't do it is because it was too hard.

 

[CloudAtlas]

So you're saying that there is a person out there who would actually buy a game they otherwise wouldn't only because it has a female protagonist? If a person like that actually exists, I pity them because of the mountains of games that have no human protagonist they are missing out on. Then again the whole attitude would be one which, if it where real (siltation needed) would in all likelihood be one held by too few people to make the returns on investment worth the costs.

I doubt I'd have bought Tomb Raider (2013) or Remember Me otherwise. Maybe Dragon Age II neither.

By my account, that already makes three people just in this thread, just since you asked the question, for who it made the difference, thereby disproving your statement. You're welcome.

 

[Machine Man 1992]

When it comes to Assassin's Creed Unity they could've just said that a female protagonist wouldn't have fit with the setting and time period. Sure they could've still made a female protagonist work with that setting and time period, but it would've been a much more valid excuse than saying it's too expensive.

Considering the most famous assassin of the era was a woman that bullshit is so far gone I don't know where to start.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlotte_Corday

She stabbed one dude and was executed by having her head lopped off by an oversized cigar cutter.

Meanwhile you have there blank slates, these cyphers, wiping out entire guard regiments like they've bee free basing methamphetamines and rhino semen. Reality has been dropped on it's head, is what I'm saying.

 

[Harry Mason]

Can we hire Volition to run into their offices and smack them with huge dildo-baseball-bats while screaming "Devote some time to diversifying your protagonists and the fans will love you for it"?

 

[Stefan Strelnieks]

I forget, did we get this whole controversy when Zelda: Four Swords Adventures came out?

4 player co-op, all white males, no controllable females. Where was the outrage?

There was not any because Nintendo did not lie to our face about why there were not female protagonists.

This whole "controversy" happened because someone asked them the question to begin with. Why did someone ask the question? I don't think anyone was asking that question about Four Swords Adventures. Why not?

Gaming has become significantly less niche in the last 10 years and access to information from both developers and consumers has become significantly easier. People have a legitimate interest in being represented in their hobby and give feed back when they feel like they are not. Giving this feedback or having the gaming media know that significant parts of the population were interested in giving this feedback 10 years ago was significantly less likely.

My point however is that the issue is that Ubi used an excuse that is very likely a total lie. Which is why people are (and should be) upset. If the given reason was that they just wanted to have a bunch of white dudes for the sake of the story and not some bullshit anyone with any knowledge on the subject can see though it wouldn't be an issue for nearly as many people.

 

[DrOswald]

snip

except no one argues that there should be a female protagonist. Only that multiplayer on either this or Far cry 4 should include a selection of female avatars.


How's the weather over there in strawmanland?

I know, it sounds ridiculous and stupid. So bad that you are already assuming that I am just starawmanning this. You might even have a point if I wasn't currently arguing this exact point with someone else in this very thread.

 

[DrOswald]

But it does have a fixed linear narrative. The game has a main character, the main character has a name and a personality, specific events happen, specific words are said by the player character. They player does not change these things in any way. Just because the exact method of how you get from cutscene A to cutscene B isn't set in stone does not mean the narrative is not set in stone. It is a fixed narrative.

You do realise that there is quirks of the medium that can't be escaped? No matter how much a developer try to.

What quirks? What are you talking about? Are you saying that every video game protagonist should be gender swapable? because that is what we were talking about. I was maintaining the position that because Assassins Creed 5 has a fixed narrative that it doesn't make any sense for them to make a redundant gender swapped version of the protagonist and it is unreasonable to demand they do so. Do you disagree?

 

[DonTsetsi]

Isn't the main problem with Ubisoft the fact that they rush games out so quickly? And they had to work on implementing the new gen. They didn't even do vs multiplayer. All they managed is coop. And yes, if you want to have a female co-op protagonist you have to not only give her the animations for moving and fighting but for all interaction during the various cutscenes. You may even have to adjust some NPC animations. You have to record alternate lines for a bunch of NPC, in addition to recording all of the protagonist's lines a second time.
There is a possible quick fix- not being able to play as a woman, but being seen as one.

 

[Thanatos2k]

I forget, did we get this whole controversy when Zelda: Four Swords Adventures came out?

4 player co-op, all white males, no controllable females. Where was the outrage?

There was not any because Nintendo did not lie to our face about why there were not female protagonists.

This whole "controversy" happened because someone asked them the question to begin with. Why did someone ask the question? I don't think anyone was asking that question about Four Swords Adventures. Why not?

Gaming has become significantly less niche in the last 10 years and access to information from both developers and consumers has become significantly easier. People have a legitimate interest in being represented in their hobby and give feed back when they feel like they are not. Giving this feedback or having the gaming media know that significant parts of the population were interested in giving this feedback 10 years ago was significantly less likely.

My point however is that the issue is that Ubi used an excuse that is very likely a total lie. Which is why people are (and should be) upset. If the given reason was that they just wanted to have a bunch of white dudes for the sake of the story and not some bullshit anyone with any knowledge on the subject can see though it wouldn't be an issue for nearly as many people.

But that's not why many are upset. Many are actually just upset (again) JUST because there's no controllable female character.

As I said, Ubisoft's only actual mistake was botching the response. But some people are actually criticizing the game itself! Shame on Ubisoft for lying, but also shame on anyone demanding them to change their game.

Some people are actually going so far as to claim that Ubisoft "removed" the feature to be female! When in fact it sounds like it never got beyond a planning phase, like countless ideas that never make it to a final product after design teams iterate on the vision. And yet, some people have the nerve to claim that Ubisoft should have "left it in." It wasn't a feature, and it was never a feature. Ubisoft never promised you a female character, and didn't even necessarily cut it because of cost. It's the same nonsense misrepresentation people did with Tomodachi Life, claiming Nintendo "removed the feature."

 

[Childe]

While I agree with what is being said, Ubisoft and other game developers have every right to make any game they want, because we are in a capitalist society. If they want to only make games with generic white males that is their right, just as it is the consumer right to not buy the product being sold. That being said, the developers have no right or excuse to lie to the consumer, they would be better off just owning up and saying "we made them all white males because we wanted too.

 

[Dire Sloth]

I haven't had s chance to skim this thread, but thought I would see if anyone saw the very long post on reddit regarding the details of game development. It had me convinced that I WAS overreacting and that there really was nothing they could do to keep the female character. Then I watched this Jimquisition. I'm so confused.

 

[hermes]

Except there is not four main characters. There is one. The rest are other people's variations of that character. Think GTA where everyone can choose their clothes to wear or their hair or tattoos. Its the same with ACU just also with weapons. Hence why everyone looks similar. It is because they are the same. You aren't going to a screen to pick a new avatar. You are using the same one you have in SP in CooP

True, true ... it is mainly about that one assassin during the French Revolution.

If they added co-op with 4 people however, I do wish that they made the assassins different instead of having just a color to tell them apart. Despite that i'm a white male, I would of preferred a character to play as that stood out. Otherwise, it's not... thrilling to say the least. Imagine if Borderlands 2 had focused on making the characters look the same but having different colors.

Say you picked the Siren. Instead of having the option to change her hairstyle, style of the suit, the weapons... all that, she looked the same except you could change her color only. Now if someone else picked a siren and had everything but the same color... it'd be boring to look at. This is how I feel about the new Assassins Creed co-op. Least give us options to change the clothing, the colors, and whatever. Least make them somewhat different. But Ubisoft didn't so it's a real shame in the end.

Except the level of storytelling in the average Assassins Creed is a lot more coherent than in Borderlands. In all the Borderland games, no character reacts to you whether you are a dwarf with guns akimbo, a teenager with a robotic bodyguard, a cyborg ninja, or a mutant woman with mysterious powers. No matter how you customized your character, the most you will get is a single audio-log at the very beginning.
Like it or not, Altair, Ezio, Desmond, Aveline, etc... are all defined characters; not only in their actions, but the interactions the world has with them. Its not like someone could say: "I will change Aveline for a naked purple man with mustaches, and no one in the setting will be the wiser"

 

[lacktheknack]

I was going to make a thought out, clear explanation for my position, then I saw this part of your post.

Good day to you sir or madam, I have no interest in continuing our discourse.

Ah, that old chestnut. "I have a perfectly logical and well-thought out response that would totally blow everything you said out of the water and alter your entire perspective on this entire issue. I'm just not going to show it to you because reasons. So there."

Add together the misuse of terms like "strawman" due to not knowing what they mean, the angry use of "sir or madam" and the classic flounce-out, and I think you have hit all the clichés of bad internet debating. Fare you well, stranger, wherever you have flounced off to.

I'm about 100% sure he "flounced" because you were being extremely condescending (another cliche of bad internet debate, may I add).

 

[PainInTheAssInternet]

Just one problem, the female NPCs have far fewer animations than playable characters because they don't need to sneak around or fight. So you'd still need to do a lot of work to add a playable female character.

Have you played Uncharted 1 or 2? There's an option where you can cycle amongst the characters and use them as your skin. Women are amongst those choices, but most notable for me is an obese version of the main character. Minor clipping issues aside, it fits perfectly.

I also feel that I should note that all characters, including a man in his 50s or 60s, move the exact same way. This is because they all access the same movement codes. Coding separate movements for each character when they will move the same way would be phenomenally wasteful.