Charlotte Corday needs to stop being used as a historical case for this, she killed one crippled unguarded man (who in death became far more effective than in life), got caught instantly and executed within the week, all the while utterly failing to achieve her goals as her actions lead to thousands of the people she sympathised with being executed.
The Historical Case for Playable Women in Assassin's Creed: Unity
- Thread starter Robert Rath
- Start date
And such an appropriately named gentleman too.The Grim Ace said:
To the Op: Great write up! I knew some of these things(Learned in college art history class. We barely learned about American history in my high school. It'd be a nuts to learn about another country's) but there were a few names I didn't recognize. But even without what I knew I wouldn't have been surprised to find out that women did things (same with racial minorities in Western nations). There is always someone that did great things, their story just is never told.
Ah, I think I see my error here. I suppose I am just worried that the very valid point of female (and minority) representation in media could get lost in sea of oversaturation and zealotry, much like politics. ("If you don't agree, you're wrong" or "one of them"). Not so much in the articles, but in the forums and comments, where not having the the majority's view can lead to downright toxic interactions no matter which side you're on. I'm glad to see minority representation is rather fully supported here, but the volume of articles (and forum threads following each one) can make a person with even a slightly different view feel unwelcome, and that would be a shame. It's better to change someone's mind than force them away y'know? And... I made the assumption that such a person would be a man. Sorry. -.-; Not neccessarilly true.Zachary Amaranth said:
Of course, this "such a person" could always go somewhere else for gaming news if they really felt that way. But then The Escapist loses a follower, and the argument could be forever lost on them. I suppose I would rather have seen fewer, yet more thorough pieces- or an Extra Consideration-style co-contributing roundup- rather than a steady stream of similar pieces stemming from the same event. It would be one thing if it was an evolving story, but the only update was essentially a Ubisoft appology.
Then again, I can see how the structure of what comes out when on this site would lead to a week-long tangent on a hot, enticing subject like this. And CNN covered their missing airplane story to death for a reason- people watched. And this *is* a good topic that needs to be addressed. But if The Escapist isn't careful, the conversation could get drowned out by a two-sided media hype surrounding it, intentional or not. And perhaps even the people who agree would tire of hearing it?
Which is why I was weary of seeing another piece on the matter, but refreshed by the quality of the content there in. And while I wouldn't say that we have reached CNN-levels of oversaturation, I... well, worry. I do that quite well. But you are right; equality itself should not threaten anyone.
If nothing else, they could of used her skeleton and animations for female assassins. They been reusing the same animations from Altair for the last seven freaking years, for crying out loud.PirateRose said:
I wish there were more people like you on these forums and writing articles because I think you definitely illustrated well a view I very much share.She-Pudding said:
I think there is a problem that comes 2 fold with this issue, the first is absolutely what you said in your first paragraph and the second is that I think people don't like to be pushed blindly, and I think people appreciate reasoning, logic and compromise. I also think that no one in that male, or more specifically in the white male demographic is offended by the idea of diversity or inclusiveness, but I think they certainly take exception to being considered "part of the problem" based solely on their race and gender.
Also I think the Escapist is overdoing it a bit. I don't think The Escapist is extreme by any measure, but as far as Assassin's Creed goes, this is the 4th or 5th article I think I've read on this site about it. Everyone is commenting on it. And I should clarify that I don't think that it's all bad. I think Shamus Young's article was very informative, and I think this article was very interesting as well, but you could get the impression that this is the only thing that happened at E3 which has tons upon tons of game reveals and interesting things happen. The Escapist Movies and TV podcast could also be described as three feminists sometimes discussing movies and TV (and don't get me wrong I still listen to it).
I think a good example of how things can go horribly wrong is when someone like Suey Park defiantly decries that she does not want help from 'white liberals' which is certainly an extreme example, but I think its a perfect example that comes to mind where I see someone who is fighting for something I believe in but in such a way that I could never support her personally because she sees me as an enemy inherently, and there is nothing I can do or say to prove to her that I am on her side.
Great article, Robert. Amazing ending.
And now...
*sigh*
http://www.gearboxsoftware.com/community/articles/1077/inside-the-box-inclusivity
http://www.gameranx.com/features/id/21176/article/conversations-we-should-have-bioware-s-manveer-heir-on-diversity-in-video-games/
And now...
*sigh*
Damn, the established franchises with millions of dollars in advertising behind it sell a lot of copies regardless of their content? Call the press, we got a headline for 'em.Toilet said:
We didn't forget that one. We also didn't forget that it was a Vita exclusive with barely an marketing or advertising behind it, and the PC port was even worse. There's people now who are still finding out that the game even exists for PC despite knowing of the Vita version. In short, handheld spin-off does not major release equal.Toilet said:
Except for a couple of women at the EA conference, at least one at the Microsoft one IIRC, and Aisha Tyler presenting THE ENTIRE UBISOFT PRESENTATION.Toilet said:
It is pretty frequently brought up by people who remember it. However, again, poor marketing and advertising have resulted in lower public awareness that the damn thing exists than on average.Toilet said:
The Last of Us is not under question here, and it ALREADY CONTAINS A CANONICALLY GAY CHARACTER IN THE MAIN GAME.Toilet said:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/135500-Ubisoft-CEO-Says-Company-Will-Work-to-Extend-DiversityToilet said:
http://www.gearboxsoftware.com/community/articles/1077/inside-the-box-inclusivity
http://www.gameranx.com/features/id/21176/article/conversations-we-should-have-bioware-s-manveer-heir-on-diversity-in-video-games/
Except it impacts and targets you specifically in no way, shape or form.the December King said:
Unless you're bothered by the notion of no longer being the only group considered by mainstream gaming, I fail to see why it would be a problem for you. Nobody is saying men are evil for being the target market. Nobody's saying you've done anything wrong by being the target market. And you even said that you think girl gamers should be catered to, so where is the problem? And that's not rhetorical or meant to condescend, I just literally do not get it.
I mean, I'm not black, but it's never particularly bothered me the thought of more black protagonists. I don't feel like I'm a problem party simply because they consider people who look like me to be a key demo, either.
"Slightly embellished" in the sense that CSI is "mostly accurate." They have a tendency to go pretty far off the rails.VVThoughtBox said:
I think the historical argument is pretty much a non-starter, but I don't get the claims of accuracy.
Ah. Fair enough. I think the bigger worry there is less saturation and more fanaticism. I dislike the idea that "you're with us, or you're against us." I am friends with a lot of people I disagree with rather passionately on some subjects, and I'd be shocked to ever meet someone I was in complete agreement with. And maybe concerned that they were planning to take over my life.She-Pudding said:
It just seems there's a good chunk of folk who immediately take umbrage when the subject comes up, as if bringing up women in games is somehow a personal attack on them, and that also makes it hard to have anything close to a real discussion.
It also wasn't a particularly good game. I mean, I guess we're supposed to give it marks for having a female lead, and that's great, but the game was lackluster.jurnag12 said:
Probably didn't hurt that much of its marketing came from the devs being told they couldn't have a girl character prior.
The idea of excluding women just because they weren't the majority of participants is just absurd to me.
How many historical events had women as the majority, anyhow?
In all of history, women were the minority of historical players it seems. Is an eternal game of catch up going to justify their exclusion?
I mean one has to defy the majority of players in most historical events to have a woman in media based off a historical event, then.
It's not like every game has to uproot history for the sake of giving a damn about inclusiveness, either.
How many historical events had women as the majority, anyhow?
In all of history, women were the minority of historical players it seems. Is an eternal game of catch up going to justify their exclusion?
I mean one has to defy the majority of players in most historical events to have a woman in media based off a historical event, then.
It's not like every game has to uproot history for the sake of giving a damn about inclusiveness, either.
Agreed. As I was reading, I felt it in my gut. Then that last line was a sucker punch.Jupiter065 said:
"Ooo, Ubisoft got burned," is an understatement; that last line was Ubisoft getting a red-hot fire-poker jammed in its eye.
Is this an argument for why it would make sense if they did include a female PC? Or is this an argument for why they are compelled to include a female PC? And is it about including an entire female PC storyline (i.e. the single-player campaign), or about including playable female characters in multiplayer?
If the former, it's really an argument about the historical accuracy/PC-ness versus "the story they want to tell" and "the difficulty of including entirely separate storylines (and voice acting, and motion capture)." I'm no game dev, but I'm willing to (a) let storytellers tell the stories they want, and (b) give them the benefit of the doubt on the difficulty of adding a second iteration of the same complexity.
If it's the latter, it's just silly. At most you're asking for a reskin, some base and meaningless pandering which will affect the storyline not a whit.
And why do we feel like we're in a position to gainsay the story that the creators want to tell? This would be like saying that J.K Rowling should have made a separate line of books where we follow Hermione as the main character because otherwise there's too much focus on Harry, and in the real world women make up around half of the population.
And for all of the "OMG they should come up with/tell a story with a female protagonist" I have only this to say:
If you have a story with a female protagonist you want to tell tell it. Write that book, write that screenplay, write that script for a game (or even program that game). Stop demanding that other people tell the story you want to see told.
If the former, it's really an argument about the historical accuracy/PC-ness versus "the story they want to tell" and "the difficulty of including entirely separate storylines (and voice acting, and motion capture)." I'm no game dev, but I'm willing to (a) let storytellers tell the stories they want, and (b) give them the benefit of the doubt on the difficulty of adding a second iteration of the same complexity.
If it's the latter, it's just silly. At most you're asking for a reskin, some base and meaningless pandering which will affect the storyline not a whit.
And why do we feel like we're in a position to gainsay the story that the creators want to tell? This would be like saying that J.K Rowling should have made a separate line of books where we follow Hermione as the main character because otherwise there's too much focus on Harry, and in the real world women make up around half of the population.
And for all of the "OMG they should come up with/tell a story with a female protagonist" I have only this to say:
If you have a story with a female protagonist you want to tell tell it. Write that book, write that screenplay, write that script for a game (or even program that game). Stop demanding that other people tell the story you want to see told.
The problem with this notion is that doing something for yourself can kill all sense of wonder, mystery, and excitement.Seldon2639 said:
You'll know when something's going to happen, why it happens, and working on it so long, you may come to hate your own project no matter why you started it.
Someone else doing it means you don't necessarily know the story they'll tell. It can preserve some of the most important points of entertainment.
That's not even thinking about the other flaws like having the time to do it, the resources to do it, the creativity to do it, and so forth. Not everyone's cut out to be an artist/writer/game developer, so does that mean their voices automatically get silenced?
May as well say that to everyone that disagrees with what the government is doing, or how cars are built, or how food is cooked, or how someone argues a point, etc. etc.
I can understand the notion of encouraging people to try it, but it's not a magical cure-all.
Honestly it's because Ubisoft is an easy target and we need to end the Generic Grizzled White Guy spam in gaming. Not just because it's boring, but because it's actually a sign and perpetrator of institutional bias, which has a lot of indirect ill effects. Point being, Ubi is pretty much going with the "default" person in all their games.Seldon2639 said:
It doesn't help that Ubi put themselves on thin ice constantly. First, constantly holding for hostage the sequel to the game that uses a strong female lead that actually embraces aspects that would be considered traditionally feminine. Then, we get the fact that all the AC games begin giant signs that say they love diversity, then... well here we are talking about Unity. Finally, and I made a thread about this, there is the aberration of the female characters from the recent Watch_Dogs.
So the industry constantly pandering trying to be as dudebro as possible needs to end. The only way to do this, their users need to apply pressure where they can see cracks. Target: Ubisoft
So, 4 years ago, when Unity started to become a thing, nobody at Ubisoft, a French company, noticed their own history that that women played that significant of a role? Nobody in the hundreds of employees looked at this and thought "Hey, maybe it is time" (maybe they did but regulated it to a Vita game)? Did they noticed Assassin's Creed was becoming an annual thing with those Ezio games?
Acutually, the centuries old version of "feminism" wouldn't be anything close to the modern sense and some might even find it offensive. Trying to say that because there were women involved in French revolutionary mob culture doesn't by association mean they were anything like the modern version of the liberated woman, or that they were even all that independent. Indeed one of the big issues with feminism has always been that a lot of women tend to approve of, or gravitate towards, traditional, subservient roles, and indeed a lot of women actually worked against social reforms
in order to avoid responsibility. Indeed this is one of the big reasons why you see so much conflict within the feminist movement with some elements seeking to pretty much strike down or erase anything traditionally feminine, or deny the existence of certain instincts. At this time period in particular you wouldn't exactly be seeing a push for anything equivalent to full blown sufferage, which got attention when it happened, because it was unprecedented.
Now, another point to consider when you look back at women who are remembered for being active during various historical periods it's important to note that they are famous for being an extreme exception, not an example of what everyone was doing. Because there was Joan Of Arc did not mean you had scads of women riding around as knights for example. The limited nature of the exceptions is a big part of WHY female player characters don't make sense in these periods because after all, if there were more it would have been really noteworthy. It would be difficult to
acknowledge in a work claiming that history is viewed as it is in the real world because nobody knows all off this stuff happened, that there were incredibly lethal women getting involved in the midst of these events. "Assassin's Creed: Liberation" gets around this problem to an extent by making it clear that this never really happened, at least not as presented, as your basically experiencing what is a Templar propaganda piece about Assassins. As a result "Liberation" doesn't have to worry too much about where it fits into things and why we never heard of this person doing all of this stuff. "Unity" on the other hand is part of the main continuity and progressing the main storyline in a way "Liberation" given it's rather roundabout justification arguably did not, as a result they have to be a little more careful.
The thing to understand is that Assassin's Creed is trying to be a hidden alternate history, as opposed to a flat steampunk or historically based pure fantasy setting where the alternative history is obvious to everyone in the world. That somewhat limits their options, though they can get creative with the spin offs like they did with "Liberation". As crazy as they get, in the end you generally have to leave things so the real world history would still be what people believe.
What's more I think people underestimate the investment in resources in creating alternate player models and whole new dialogues (both ways) in a game like Assassin's Creed. It's not a matter of just re-skinning if they want to do it right for full on game protagonist status. If they decide to make the female model move in a feminine fashion that requires whole new animation sets for every interaction in the game. What's more if she's say a head shorter than the male model, that means every single jump, climbing area, and parkour possibility has to be re-designed entirely so it will line up properly with the models. In some games where there isn't a lot of spoken dialogue and the world interactions are limited it's no big deal. In a lot of MMOs you don't generally climb around on things or whatever, your lucky if the game has a double jump, and most MMOs don't even create sitting animations for chairs because it's too much work. As a result a dozen different sized races with male and female options is no big thing. When it comes to voicework, it's important to note that Bioware, the guys who everyone is generally thinking of when it comes to how a game "should be" stands out because they put a huge amount of effort into it. As early EA exposes on "The Old Republic Online" pointed out, Bioware's sound design is incredible, on the other hand it came at the expense of the rest of the game, and apparently was a big part of why they were so late and so over budget in the end.
That said, people are overreacting, which is why I offer some balance by presenting another possible side to this, while not really giving two shakes of a rat's tail. Ubisoft has been one of the more diverse developers out there and all the flak thrown at them is "social justice warriors" biting the hand that feeds them, rather literally. I mean Ubisoft already did a whole spin off game, carefully written to allow a female character in this kind of game play, specifically for the people who demanded it. What's more the game sold to their satisfaction apparently so they will probably eventually do more in a similar vein. It's not like Ubisoft is slighting anyone here, as nobody is entitled to representation, the creators had a vision, and they have gone with it. There is no reason why they should have to justify themselves because they had a female lead in another game to begin with.
I'll also say that while many people might not see it, this kind of garbage is how video gaming gets ruined. It leads to the whole "design by committee" mentality where creators become slaves to what they are told a game has to be and what changes need to be made to it to avoid attacks and "appeal to the broadest possible audience" as opposed to following a vision and being good in their own right. To me these complaints smack of someone attacking say "The Three Musketeers" because it involved four white dudes as the heroes. Nowadays if someone brought that story up, these kinds of incidents would mean that the publisher wound demand they insert a woman and an ethnic minority for the sake of inclusion and to avoid upsetting anyone... which is fundamentally what people seem to be demanding here (albeit this particular article didn't bring up the race issue which some others have).
in order to avoid responsibility. Indeed this is one of the big reasons why you see so much conflict within the feminist movement with some elements seeking to pretty much strike down or erase anything traditionally feminine, or deny the existence of certain instincts. At this time period in particular you wouldn't exactly be seeing a push for anything equivalent to full blown sufferage, which got attention when it happened, because it was unprecedented.
Now, another point to consider when you look back at women who are remembered for being active during various historical periods it's important to note that they are famous for being an extreme exception, not an example of what everyone was doing. Because there was Joan Of Arc did not mean you had scads of women riding around as knights for example. The limited nature of the exceptions is a big part of WHY female player characters don't make sense in these periods because after all, if there were more it would have been really noteworthy. It would be difficult to
acknowledge in a work claiming that history is viewed as it is in the real world because nobody knows all off this stuff happened, that there were incredibly lethal women getting involved in the midst of these events. "Assassin's Creed: Liberation" gets around this problem to an extent by making it clear that this never really happened, at least not as presented, as your basically experiencing what is a Templar propaganda piece about Assassins. As a result "Liberation" doesn't have to worry too much about where it fits into things and why we never heard of this person doing all of this stuff. "Unity" on the other hand is part of the main continuity and progressing the main storyline in a way "Liberation" given it's rather roundabout justification arguably did not, as a result they have to be a little more careful.
The thing to understand is that Assassin's Creed is trying to be a hidden alternate history, as opposed to a flat steampunk or historically based pure fantasy setting where the alternative history is obvious to everyone in the world. That somewhat limits their options, though they can get creative with the spin offs like they did with "Liberation". As crazy as they get, in the end you generally have to leave things so the real world history would still be what people believe.
What's more I think people underestimate the investment in resources in creating alternate player models and whole new dialogues (both ways) in a game like Assassin's Creed. It's not a matter of just re-skinning if they want to do it right for full on game protagonist status. If they decide to make the female model move in a feminine fashion that requires whole new animation sets for every interaction in the game. What's more if she's say a head shorter than the male model, that means every single jump, climbing area, and parkour possibility has to be re-designed entirely so it will line up properly with the models. In some games where there isn't a lot of spoken dialogue and the world interactions are limited it's no big deal. In a lot of MMOs you don't generally climb around on things or whatever, your lucky if the game has a double jump, and most MMOs don't even create sitting animations for chairs because it's too much work. As a result a dozen different sized races with male and female options is no big thing. When it comes to voicework, it's important to note that Bioware, the guys who everyone is generally thinking of when it comes to how a game "should be" stands out because they put a huge amount of effort into it. As early EA exposes on "The Old Republic Online" pointed out, Bioware's sound design is incredible, on the other hand it came at the expense of the rest of the game, and apparently was a big part of why they were so late and so over budget in the end.
That said, people are overreacting, which is why I offer some balance by presenting another possible side to this, while not really giving two shakes of a rat's tail. Ubisoft has been one of the more diverse developers out there and all the flak thrown at them is "social justice warriors" biting the hand that feeds them, rather literally. I mean Ubisoft already did a whole spin off game, carefully written to allow a female character in this kind of game play, specifically for the people who demanded it. What's more the game sold to their satisfaction apparently so they will probably eventually do more in a similar vein. It's not like Ubisoft is slighting anyone here, as nobody is entitled to representation, the creators had a vision, and they have gone with it. There is no reason why they should have to justify themselves because they had a female lead in another game to begin with.
I'll also say that while many people might not see it, this kind of garbage is how video gaming gets ruined. It leads to the whole "design by committee" mentality where creators become slaves to what they are told a game has to be and what changes need to be made to it to avoid attacks and "appeal to the broadest possible audience" as opposed to following a vision and being good in their own right. To me these complaints smack of someone attacking say "The Three Musketeers" because it involved four white dudes as the heroes. Nowadays if someone brought that story up, these kinds of incidents would mean that the publisher wound demand they insert a woman and an ethnic minority for the sake of inclusion and to avoid upsetting anyone... which is fundamentally what people seem to be demanding here (albeit this particular article didn't bring up the race issue which some others have).
Yes, it's a lot more fun to be on the receiving end of entertainment properties than to be on the creative end. It's a lot easier to consume a product than to make one, and especially easy to critique products when you don't have to wrestle with issues like "time" or "resources." But that's not a good argument for trying to exercise editorial control over someone else's product. If the fun of buying someone else's product (rather than your own) is being able to be entertained by it, that's what your buying with letting that other person tell their own story.Rebel_Raven said:
Not silenced. They can certainly say "I don't like this." But at the end of the day their choices are "buy it, or don't." Trying to make a justification for why someone else's art should conform to what you think "good" art would be is kind of counter to everything we know about art.Rebel_Raven said:
"I don't like it" is fine. "I don't like it, and you'll lose my business" is fine. "I don't like it and you are obliged to change it to meet some nebulous standard for what is right" is not fine.Rebel_Raven said:
Except that "default" person is also getting his own character development and storyline. Are you really saying that characterizations, development, and story arcs are interchangeable? Or that the fact that you'd like to see female leads mean that someone else should have to meet that market for you, rather than telling their story? If you have a story about a non-"default" person, shouldn't you write it?MCerberus said:
Holding hostage? You mean by giving it broad release and re-release, and then repeated in-game mention? Or is there another game I'm forgetting. Or is your argument that the only way a strong female lead is valid is if she rejects all things traditionally feminine?
And there's the other part that bugs me. The fact that a main character is male is not "pandering" to a male audience (much less a "dudebro") unless by that logic Okami "pandered" to furries, and Persona 3 Portable "pandered" to women.
Likewise. More than anything else I've read on the subject, this article is the one that best articulates the need for female PCs in the game, and why it's terrible that they weren't considered important enough to include. To my mind, Critical Intel is one of the best things on the Escapist, and this piece does nothing to make me think otherwise.Jupiter065 said:
I think the article makes and excellent point on why there should have been a female protagonist option but not for the obvious reasons. Take a marginalized woman who has joined with one of the political groups could be an assassin for the group and from there she could be moved on into the AC assassin portrayal to fit the story. Precedence was set for a female assassin but she failed, there is no reason there couldn't have been successful ones who never got caught or even known. Once the story is set then it could be the reason there is a female assassin choice for the COOP mode maybe a 10 second cameo during the single player campaign where the PC can witness her offing someone and they acknowledge each other with a nod or she could curtsy or whatever French woman did back then. Player would think well that was random seeing another assassin killing someone then it saluted me and ran off... Oh look there she is in the character selection screen for COOP. But that ofcourse is a scenario that they would have had to of done much earlier in the development process and even planned for.
I like the guy above who doesn't know how games are made and how little real work it takes to make 1 character model and animate it. Like the hundreds of individual NPC's that are soo expensive to make that have all the assets for a playable character. Maybe just maybe make 1 less NPC and make a PC instead.
I like the guy above who doesn't know how games are made and how little real work it takes to make 1 character model and animate it. Like the hundreds of individual NPC's that are soo expensive to make that have all the assets for a playable character. Maybe just maybe make 1 less NPC and make a PC instead.